Table 1.  Summit County Occupancy Status, 2000
Occupancy Status	Number Total Housing Units	Occupied Housing Units	Percent Occupied	Vacant Housing Units	Percent Vacant
Summit County	24,201	9,120	37.7	15,081	62.3
Town of Breckenridge	4,270	1,081	25.3	3,180	74.7
Town of Blue River	563	268	47.6	295	52.4
Town of Dillon	1,280	369	28.8	911	71.2
Town of Frisco	2,727	1,053	38.6	1,674	61.4
Town of Montezuma	35	20	57.1	15	42.9
Town of Silverthorne	1,582	1,103	69.7	479	30.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

Housing stock increased at an annual rate of close to 5 percent between 1995 and 2001.  The majority of the County’s housing stock is located in unincorporated areas (55.7 %).  The Town of Breckenridge has the most housing stock of the towns (19.2 % of total County stock). 

 

The majority of Summit County households are comprised of families.  Couples, couples with children, and single parents with children make up about 55% of all households. Adults living alone (21%) or with unrelated roommates (20%) each constitute about one-fifth of county households (source: Housing Collaborative Residential Survey, 2000). 

Housing Costs

Summit County’s many amenities have made it an attractive location to live or own a second home.  That attraction has resulted in a rapid escalation in housing prices.  This makes it difficult for many permanent residents to afford the purchase of a home in the County.  Housing costs have increased at a faster rate than median household incomes.  The average sales price of all housing types in Summit County grew at an annual rate of nearly 18 % from 1990 though 2000.  However, during the same time period the County’s median household income only grew at an annual rate of 7 %.  Thus, there is an increasing gap between salary earnings of permanent residents and the cost of housing.

The table below demonstrates the rising cost of all types of housing units in Summit County.  The median sales price of a single family home in 1990 was $115,800.  By 2000 the median sales price of a single family home had escalated to $379,500.  The median sales of all housing units jumped from $84,500 in 1990 to $254,000 in 2000, a 200% increase.  The highest median sales price for single family homes in 2000 was $683,950 in the Town of Breckenridge (compared to $154,000 in 1990—a 344 % increase). 

Table 3.  Change In Summit County Median Housing Sales Price 1990-1995-2000

Table 4.  Summit County Year 2000 Median Sales Price By Unit Type In Different County Areas
Area	Single Family Units	Duplex Units	Multi-Family Original Sales	Multi-Family Resales	Total Sales
Incorporated Areas
Breckenridge	$683,950	$512.500	$425,000	$235,000	$279,900
Blue River	378,500	--	--	108,150	356,450
Dillon	400,500	545,000	240,500	215,000	226,100
Frisco	457,500	329,250	262,000	220,000	255,000
Montezuma	--1	--	--	--	--1
Silverthorne	315,000	261,150	328,700	184,500	299,500
Unincorporated Areas
Upper Blue	375,000	567,500	197,300	176,250	216,400
Ten Mile/Frisco Area	382,000	107,250	344,900	242,500	329,950
Snake River/Keystone	393,000	239,000	357,900	236,900	275,000
Dillon/Silverthorne	340,000	248,000	220,550	130,750	182,500
Lower Blue	137,250	--	--	--	137,250
Summit County Total	$379,500	$283,500	$283,900	$190,900	$254,000

¹ Insufficient data to compute median sales price.
Source:  Summit County Planning Department.

National standards consider housing to be affordable provided that the rent or mortgage payment is less than 30% of the household’s gross income.  On average, Summit County’s households spend 22.6% of their income on their rent or mortgage payment.  Renters spend more on average than owners for their housing, 24.4% compared to 21.1%.  Survey results show that just over 27% of renters and 17% of owners are cost burdened (pay more than 30% of gross monthly income on their housing payment).  However, research shows that wages among employees covered by unemployment insurance have increased steadily through the last decade, e.g., 6.14% from 1996 to 97, 7.42% from 1997 to 1998, and 6.39% from 1998 to 1999 (source: Summit Housing Needs Assessment).  For approximately the same time period the annual rate of increase for the cost of for-sale housing almost doubled these wage increases.  The average annual increase in cost of for sale housing was 13.6% each year from 1998 through 2000. 

There is a direct correlation between income levels and the percentage of income that is spent on housing payments.  The lower the income, the higher the percentage of income that goes toward monthly rent or mortgage payments.  Households with incomes below $20,000 per year spend an average of 43.1% of their income on housing.  This compares with 12.7% for those with annual incomes of $150,000 or more. Nearly 80% of the households with annual incomes of less than $20,000 are cost burdened.

While costs of goods and services in Summit County are comparable to national averages, the cost of housing far exceeds average housing prices in the nation.  The tables below compare housing and other costs of Summit County residents to the “Standard City” U.S.A. (based on mean costs in 160 metro areas nationwide).

¹ Based on mean costs in 160 metro areas nationwide.
Source: NWCCOG 2001 Cost of Living Study.

Summit Housing Authority

The Summit Housing Authority is a non-profit organization dedicated to the provision of affordable housing to workers and residents of Summit County.  The Authority both advocates for new affordable housing projects and builds affordable housing projects.  Examples of the Authority’s projects includes the Ophir Mountain townhomes near the County Commons in Frisco and the Gibson Heights project off Reilling/French Creek Road in Breckenridge.  The Authority is also involved in a number of programs that assist County residents in acquiring homes, including first-time homeowner education and downpayment assistance programs.

Commuters and Employment

The cost burden of housing in Summit County has been great enough that some employees in Summit County live in an adjacent county and commute to work.  Every day hundreds of commuters travel from their homes in areas such as Kremmling, Alma/Fairplay, and Leadville to work in Summit County.  It is estimated that 15 percent of the employees (approximately 2,700 workers) in Summit County commute from homes outside of the County (Source: Summit County Housing Needs Assessment, 2001).  Of this number it is estimated that between 25% and 50% would move to the County if affordable housing was available.

There were approximately 1,200 unfilled jobs in the county in 2000 (Source: Summit County Housing Needs Assessment, 2001).  A primary reason for this labor shortage was lack of affordable housing.  In a survey of employers, the primary reason estimated for employees leaving a job or declining a job offer was due to housing (935 jobs affected), followed by transportation (408 jobs) and day care (288 jobs) issues.

Inventory of Affordable Housing

A number of housing projects have been built in recent years with the billing of being “affordable projects”.  These projects have typically provided affordable rates to the first generation of home purchasers.  However, without limitations on resale the resale value of the units quickly escalate beyond that which is affordable to many County residents.  A technique used more frequently today is to deed restrict a unit so that there are caps on the resale price of the unit, ensuring that the housing continues to meet affordability guidelines. 

The Summit Housing Authority, in collaboration with the towns and the County have established parameters for 'affordability.'  For example, deed-restricted ‘affordable’ housing units are allowed as free density in many areas of the County.  The County typically requires the following:

“Development of housing where the average sale price or rental rate of the units does not exceed affordability limits (as most recently determined by the Summit Housing Authority) for families and individuals at or below 100% of area median income, provided that the Summit Housing Authority or similar agency has an interest.  The sales price or rental rate of some of the units may be set as high as 120 % of area median income as long as an equal number of the units are priced at 80% and the projects, as a whole, maintains an average at or below 100%.  There shall be no income test for persons desiring to buy or rent an exempt affordable housing unit, however the occupancy of the units are restricted to persons who reside and are employed within Summit County.  Persons who buy an exempt affordable housing unit may rent the unit as long as it is rented in accordance with the provisions of this section of the code.  Restrictions on the sale, resale, rental and occupancy of exempt affordable housing units must be guaranteed through a deed restriction, or other mechanism acceptable to the County, for a minimum term of 99 years.” (Summit County Land Use and Development Code, Section 3202.02 C.2.d.i.)

The following table identifies housing projects in the County with some type of associated deed restriction.

Table 7.   Restricted Housing Projects in Summit County
Project	Number of Units	Comments
Upper Blue Basin	449	Projects include Farmers Grove, Monarch Townhomes, Wellington Neighborhood, Gibson Heights, Vista Point, Breckenridge Terrace, Kennington, Pinewood Village, Beaver Run employee housing, Powder Downs, Swan’s Nest, Tiger Run RV resort,  and other miscellaneous dispersend units.  Restrictions vary, with some having construction/resale caps and employment and occupancy requirements, while others have more limited restrictions (e.g., no short-term rentals).
Ten Mile Basin	162	Projects include Ophir Mountain, Copper Mountain employee housing units, Lakepoint Towers, Drake Landing, Town of Frisco subsidized projects, and other miscellaneous units.  Restrictions vary per project.
Lower Blue Basin	143	Projects include Blue River, Villa Sierra Madre, Retreat on the Blue, and other projects.   Restrictions vary per project.
Snake River Basin	845	Projects include Mountain Creek, Key West Farms (Buck Ridge), Keystone PUD employee housing, and numerous other units.  Restrictions vary per project.
Total local units	1599	Note: Data for all restricted housing projects is not available.  Therefore, this table provides only an estimated number of existing restricted units.

Source: Summit County Planning Department, Breckenridge Community Development Department, and Summit Housing Needs Assessment 2001.

Some of the major businesses in the County provide housing for some of their employees.  Both Keystone and Copper Mountain resorts are required to provide housing for employees in their Planned Unit Development approvals.  Both Copper Mountain and Keystone are required to provide for housing for 40 percent of their full-time employees and 60 percent of their seasonal workers during “peak” season.  Seventy-five percent of the housing must be provided within the resort, with the remaining 25 percent allowed to be provided in other locations (e.g., Leadville, Wildernest, and Dillon).  The units provided are required to be deed restricted or otherwise encumbered so that the units are only available to employees. 

Another opportunity for typically affordable living is found in accessory apartments (sometimes also called accessory housing units or “mother-in-law apartments”).  The apartments are relatively small in size and contain a separate kitchen area from that found in the main single family structure.  The apartments provide a long-term rental option to local residents and provide a source of revenues to the landowner.

Summit County allows for accessory apartments in single family neighborhoods with approval of a conditional use permit.  The maximum size allowed for an accessory apartment is 900 square feet, or 45 percent of the principal single family structure, whichever is less. There is currently a restriction that no more than ten percent of the lots in a subdivision may have accessory apartments and that accessory apartments must be spaced at least 500 feet apart unless trees or other buffering provide a visual screen between apartments.  Accessory apartments in the County are required to be attached to the principal single family structure or located above a detached garage (on lots greater than 20,000 square feet).  The property owner is required to live either in the principal structure or the accessory apartment.  The accessory apartments are available only for long-term rental (i.e., minimum of six months). 

The use of accessory apartments varies by location.  Older subdivisions with a high percentage of locals (e.g., Dillon Valley, Silver Shekel) appear to be the most popular area for accessory apartments as they help supplement local family incomes.  Newer subdivisions that cater primarily to second homeowners rarely incorporate accessory apartments because extra income generation is typically not a primary motivation of the property holder.  There are currently 98 accessory apartments that are approved in unincorporated Summit County.  This inventory does not include numerous illegal apartments created without County approval.

Most of the towns in Summit County also allow accessory apartments.  There is typically a size limitation (maximum from 850 square feet in Frisco to 1,200 square feet in Breckenridge) and the apartments are either allowed outright or through a conditional use permit.  One interesting distinction is that the towns do not cap the percentage of properties in a subdivision that can have accessory apartments.

Projected Needs

The Summit County Housing Needs Assessment, a report prepared in 2001 to identify housing needs in the County, identifies that there is a need for between 1,067 and 1,547 housing units for permanent residents in the County (2001 numbers).  The report identifies that need for affordable housing is most critical in terms of home ownership.  The report indicates that there is currently an adequate stock of renting units to meet various income bracket needs in Summit County, with the exception of the very lowest income bracket.  However, the needs for home ownership are not being met. 

 Source: 2001 Summit Housing Needs Assessment.

Table 9.  Comparison of Available “For-Sale” Properties to Households, by Income Level
Income Level	Purchase Price	% of All Properties Available	% of All Ownership Households
Less than $29,051 (50 % or less Area Median Income (AMI))	$81,000	0.50 %	1.80 %
$29,051 to $45,200 (51-80 % AMI)	$122,000	2.70 %	12.10 %
$45,201 to $58,101 (81 – 100 % AMI)	$173,000	6.50 %	10.60 %
$58,101 to $69,720 (101- 120 % AMI)	$215,000	7.50 %	11.00 %
More than $69,720	$215,000 +	82.80 %	64.50 %

Source:  2001 Summit Housing Needs Assessment.

About 12% of all households in the County earn between 51 and 80 percent of the area’s median income, but only 3.2 % of the for-sale housing inventory is priced affordably for that group (30 % or less of total monthly income towards housing).  About 10.6 percent of the households in the County earn between 81 and 100% of the area’s median income, but only 9.7 percent of the for-sale inventory is considered affordable for that group.  Finally, 11 percent of County households earn between 100 and 120 percent of the area’s median income, but only 17.2 percent of the total for-sale inventory is affordable to that group. 

The Housing Needs Assessment recommends that the Housing Authority and local jurisdictions should direct their resources for sale affordable housing in the following ways: 1) 50 % of the resources should go towards housing for household incomes of between 51 and 80 % of Area Median Income (AMI); 2) 25 % of the resources should be targeted towards household incomes of between 81 and 100 % of AMI; and 3) 25 % of the resources should be targeted towards households between 101 and 120 % AMI.

Goals, Policies/Actions

Countywide Principles

Goal A.              Provide for the diverse housing needs of seasonal employees and permanent residents.

Policy/Action 1.    Basin plans should identify appropriate locations for a diversity of affordable, employee and permanent resident housing types.

Policy/Action 2.    Design employee and affordable housing that is compatible with the surrounding  neighborhood, complements community character, and is of good quality.

Affordable Housing

Goal B.              Develop strategies and implement programs to address affordable and local housing needs.

Policy/Action 1.   Affordable housing should be defined as housing targeted to low and moderate income groups based on affordability limits on average at or below 100 percent of the median income for the County.

Policy/Action 2.   Work with the Summit County Housing Authority, towns, and other entities to provide for affordable and employee housing.

Policy/Action 3.   Pursue creative partnerships between public and private organizations to provide for affordable housing.

Policy/Action 4.   In cooperation with the County Planning Department, the Summit County Housing Authority should establish standard criteria and procedures for reviewing and endorsing affordable housing projects, and reporting to the basin planning commissions.

Policy/Action 5.   Encourage the provision of deed-restricted affordable housing units in negotiations for discretionary land use decisions, such as PUDs.

Policy/Action 6.   Pursue the establishment of an ongoing funding mechanism for affordable housing projects to ensure that affordable housing can be provided in the future.

Policy/Action 7.   To the extent practicable, affordable housing should be integrated into free-market housing and not segregated from it.

Policy/Action 8.   Special incentives, which assist in promoting development of affordable housing, should be identified and incorporated as part of the County's overall housing program.

Policy/Action 9.   Where incentives for affordable housing units are provided, require deed restrictions or other mechanisms to insure that the housing remains accessible as long term housing for local residents in low and moderate-income categories.

Policy/Action 10. Consider providing relief from tap fees, infrastructure requirements, and other incentives that are in the community's interest to increase the supply of affordable housing.

Policy/Action 11. Subsidize or fund affordable housing projects to accommodate housing needs of employee, moderate, and low income residents.

Policy/Action 12. Exclude affordable housing units that are deed restricted from being counted towards density of a parcel.

Policy/Action 13. When a deed-restricted affordable housing project is proposed, allow a certain amount of free-market units as a means to make the project economically viable.

Policy/Action 14. Encourage accessory apartments throughout the County as a means of providing for  local housing.

Policy/Action 15. Amend the Land Use and Development Code to increase the percentage of homes in a subdivision that can have accessory apartments as a means of increasing local housing stock.

Policy/Action 16. Revise development standards, procedures or fee structures which are unnecessary inhibitors to the free market development of affordable housing.

Employee Housing

Goal C.             Develop strategies and implement programs to address employee housing.

Policy/Action 1.   Explore mechanisms and opportunities to provide new employee units as development generates additional employees.

Policy/Action 2.   Requirements in existing PUDs to provide employee housing should be retained.

Policy/Action 3.   Housing for seasonal employees is encouraged to be provided:

Policy/Action  4.  Work with the Summit Housing Authority to monitor the use of deed-restricted employee housing units.

Sustainability Measures

New Affordable For-Sale Housing Available
As earlier text indicates, Summit County’s greatest housing need is expected to be providing available for-sale units at affordable housing rates.  A target has been identified of focusing future resources in the following proportions: 1) 50 % on for-sale units in the affordability limits of households earning 51-80% of area median income; 2) 25% on for-sale units in the affordability limits of households earning 81-100% of area median income; and 3) 25% on for-sale units in the affordability limits of households earning 100-120% of area median income.  Given expected population growth between 2003 and 2008 of 4,216 divided by 2.55 persons per household results in a need for 1,653 new housing units.  Given the current percentage of 56 % of occupied houses being owned, a total of 926 additional units would need to be provided.   

The following performance target is intended to ensure that adequate affordable housing is supplied to meet future population growth demands, given existing trends.  The target does not consider current deficiencies in affordable housing.

Commuter Work Force

As estimated earlier, about 2,700 persons work in Summit County but live outside of the County.  Although some of those commuters prefer to live in their existing communities, between 25 and 50 % would, if provided the right housing opportunity, move to Summit County.  To have a more sustainable community those people should be adequately housed in Summit County.  Thus, the following measure should be monitored to see if progress is being made in this area.

Table 11. Percent of Summit County Workers Commuting from Homes Outside County
Year	Total Employees	Estimated Number of Commuters from Outside County	Percent of Commuters From Outside County
2001	18,3041	2,746	15%
2006
2008
2010

¹ Based on estimates from the 2001 Summit County Housing Assessment
Source: Housing Collaborative Employer Survey, 2001.

Accessory Apartments

This Plan recommends that revisions occur to the accessory apartment provisions in the Summit County Land Use and Development Code.  The following should be monitored to determine how much new housing stock is created through the construction of accessory apartments.

Table 12.  Summit County Permits for Accessory Apartments
Year	Total Number of Conditional Use Permits for  Accessory Apartments Approved	Cumulative Total in Unincorporated County
2001	0	98
2002
2003
2004

Implementation Measures

Many of the policies and actions identified in this element require some future work in order to see their successful implementation.  The table below identifies specific strategies needed to fully implement the element.  Priorities are identified to give an indication of the current relative importance of a particular implementation strategy.  These priorities are provided as guidelines only. 

Table 13.  Housing Element Implementation Strategies
Goal, Policy/Action	Project/Description	Timeframe	Priority
Affordable Housing
B.2., B.3, B.11	Work with the Summit County Housing Authority, towns, resorts,  and other entities to provide continued support(financial subsidies and otherwise) for affordable and employee housing.  Explore creative public and private partnerships.	Ongoing	Medium
B.4, B.13	The Summit County Planning Department and the Summit Housing Authority should establish a standard list of criteria that projects must meet in order to be endorsed as affordable housing projects.	6 months	Low
B.6	Pursue the establishment of an ongoing funding mechanism for affordable housing projects to ensure that affordable housing can be provided in the future.  Involve the Summit Leadership Forum, the Summit Housing Authority, the towns, and Summit County.    Identify and prioritize different methods of funding affordable housing projects.	6 months – 1 year	High
B.8., B.10	Develop incentive programs to promote the development of affordable housing. As part of incentives, explore providing relief from tap fees and infrastructure requirements with the towns and utility providers.	6 months	Medium
B.15	Amend the Land Use and Development Code to increase the percentage of homes in a subdivision that can have accessory apartments.	3-4 months	Medium
B.16	Review the development standards in the Land Use and Development Code, and fee structures to determine if there are any unnecessary inhibitors to developing affordable housing.  Where appropriate, initiate changes to eliminate unnecessary inhibitors.	4-6 months	Low
Employee Housing
C.4.	The Summit Housing Authority should monitor the use of deed-restricted employee housing units to ensure that employees are using them as intended.	Ongoing	Medium

Click here to download this file in PDF format