Sunday, May 10, 2015

New Housing Project may ease pressure for Workforce

Despite deed-restricted workforce housing available in Breckenridge neighborhoods like Valley Brook, the area is still experiencing a shortage in affordable long-term rental and ownership units that town officials have said is approaching a housing crisis.
Housing in Breckenridge might be slightly easier to find by the end of 2016.  A workforce housing project estimated to cost roughly $7 million could start construction just north of town as soon as this autumn.
The Summit Board of County Commissioners approved plans Tuesday, March 3, to build a project with 25 to 30 two-bedroom rentals.
Final resident income targets haven’t been decided, but officials are currently looking at targeting people earning 60 to 80 percent of the area’s median income, or between $38,000 and $50,000 a year for one person and $43,000 and $58,000 combined annual income for two people.
The joint project between Breckenridge and Summit County government will be on county land at 143 Huron Road, or County Road 450, at the current recycling drop-off site near the 7-Eleven.
The recycling facility will be relocated in the spring to a town parcel on Coyne Valley Road.
County and town officials expect the roughly 1.7-acre parcel to be annexed by Breckenridge before the development is completed by either the Summit Housing Development Corp. or the Breckenridge Housing Authority.
County community development director Jim Curnutte said county employees plan to choose a design team for the project later this week.
The town and county have yet to determine the housing’s pricing structure or rental rates, but the development will be “green” in its design and operation. It will be built to meet a LEED or equivalent standard, though officials won’t pursue the designation due to the costs of certification.
Curnutte said the two government entities agreed to split the costs of the first phase of the project, estimated at about $70,000.
The project was developed after the 2013 Summit County Housing Needs Assessment evaluated the current and five-year needs for workforce housing in the county by river basin.
In the Upper Blue River Basin, the study suggests that between 200 and 370 rental units, and 175 to 280 ownership units, will be needed by 2017.
Since the 2013 study, Breckenridge has worked on developing rental housing, including Pinewood II (45 units by the end of 2016) and Denison Placer (60 units by the end of 2017). Wellington II will add 69 new ownership units between 2016 and 2020, and Maggie Placer has added nine new ownership units.
Including those new developments, officials estimate the housing need in the Upper Blue is between 95 and 220 rental units, plus 100 to 200 ownership units.
County and town planners also point to another factor to consider in the housing shortage.
Several nonrestricted units historically used for long-term rentals were sold as second homes or are being short-term rented through websites such as VRBO and Airbnb.

Alli Langley           Summit Daily        alangley@summitdaily.com

Housing Recovery and Deed Restricted Homes

A home in Breckenridge's Valley Brook neighborhood, one of nearly 20 deed-resticted properties across Summit County. Due to a recent change in the area median income index, homes in these neighborhoods saw no value increase for the first time in nearly a decade.
The Summit County real estate market is enjoying a sort of a renaissance — unless you own a deed-restricted home.
In early March, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development released a new area median income, or AMI, for Summit County. This AMI benchmark is revised annually to help local property owners and organizations like the Summit Combined Housing Authority determine who qualifies for affordable housing.
Yet when Carina Fisher decided to sell her home in Summit Cove’s Soda Creek neighborhood, one of nearly 20 sought-after deed-restricted properties in the county, she was hit with an unexpected bombshell.
The HUD recently revamped its formula for calculating AMI, and when it did so, the local AMI was slashed by roughly 4.6 percent. It dropped from $90,800 in 2014 to $86,600 in 2015 — the steepest decline since before the Great Recession of 2008.
In general, deed-restricted homes tend to increase in value every year when based on the AMI, and local values were no exception until this year. Income levels don’t wax or wane as wildly as the real estate market, so when homeowners like Fisher and two Soda Creek neighbors approached the housing authority advisory board last week for an explanation, they assumed their homes were earning equity, or at least remaining static.
But because deed-restricted properties are separate from the free market — home prices in Soda Creek are based on a percentage of Summit’s current AMI — they don’t play by the rules of economic recovery. Instead, they play by the rules of a federal HUD algorithm.
“Homeowners and brokers, the people on the street, prefer to have the system work in our neck of the woods here in Summit County,” said Kathy Christina, a local broker and member of the housing authority advisory board. “We’d prefer that the AMI pertain directly to us, but the government isn’t necessarily concerned about that. They’re more concerned about the bigger picture across the U.S.”
And now, seven years after the housing bubble burst, the AMI is finally catching up. If a Summit resident has only owned a deed-restricted property for a year or two, the property didn’t accrue enough equity to overcome the 4.6-percent income decline. The housing authority has rules in place to make sure homeowners will never lose money on a property — deed-restricted homes will always be listed at or above the purchase price — but if an owner expects a return on their real estate investment, much like the Soda Creek residents, it’s not a guarantee.
“Unfortunately, because we don’t have control of the methodology we have to live with this happening,” said Jennifer Kermode, the housing authority executive director. “And it’s likely we’ll see a similar drop in 2016. It might not be as drastic, but I believe it will happen. Our hope is that this is the one year when the Recession really catches up to us.”
FAR FROM SIMPLE
In a small, mountain community like Summit County, calculating AMI is anything but straightforward. HUD actually changed its calculating methods at the end of 2013, but as Kermode explains, two additional indexes are responsible for the long-delayed local impacts.
The first index is an American Community Survey, or ACS, a sort of mini-Census conducted annually in large metro areas. Yet in Summit, the ACS is only compiled once every five years. The 2015 AMI was calculated in part with data from the latest ACS, which covered 2008 to 2012 — a woefully lean span for the local economy.
The second index is equally remote: the Consumer Price Index, or CPI, taken from the closest metro area of Denver, Boulder and Greeley. The HUD took CPI data from the first half of 2012 and paired it with the most recent ACS to “trend forward” the AMI, Kermode says.
“We all know that 2008 to 2012 was a very bad time in Summit County for real estate and just about everything, really,” Kermode said. “They (the HUD) are looking at the worst time for the economy in the past 15 years, and by taking that data and trending it forward with a lousy CPI, you get figures that don’t represent real time or real money for Summit County.”
The new AMI calculation hit Colorado resort towns and hit them hard. Pitkin County and the Aspen area fared the worst with a 5.26-percent drop, followed by Summit County at 4.6 percent and San Miguel County (home to Telluride) with a 3.78-percent decrease.
Oddly enough, the Eagle County AMI only dipped by about 0.81 percent — a larger population with annual ACS data could influence the small drop, Kermode says — while Grand and Routt counties both increased. Clear Creek County’s AMI jumped by 4.17 percent.
And this isn’t the first time a new AMI algorithm has impacted prices. In 2006, shortly before the Recession, HUD again changed its methodology to help more people qualify for national programs. In Summit, home values stayed static after the revision, even though the AMI rose at a steady clip of 5 percent annually before then. The HUD agreed to give current homeowners a value adjustment, but this caveat went largely unnoticed and Summit homeowners were forced to eat their loses, often because there was a disconnect between the federal program and local governments.
HOMEOWNERS, SIT TIGHT
While the AMI drop took Summit residents by surprise, brokers warn prospective homebuyers that deed-restricted houses should always be treated like any other property. Christina says buyers should think of a deed restriction — including rules like residency and income limits — as any other home loan.
“If you want a loan from an entity, they give you the rules and ask you to fulfill the requirements,” Christina said. “That’s what you signed up to do with a deed-restricted property, and for AMI, those metrics aren’t set locally. Those numbers are coming from a federal agency and we have to follow the rules, just like Bank of the West has rules for their mortgages, or First Bank has rules for their mortgages.”
For the moment, Christina and Kermode urge homeowners in deed-restricted neighborhoods to wait until the next AMI is released in 2016. This wasn't quite an option for Fisher — she’s selling her Soda Creek property to support a move to the Front Range — but again, Kermode says owners should take care of their properties. In terms of renovations and general upkeep, affordable homes are still real estate, and any improvements will bolster values.
Before 2016, Kermode and the housing authority want to prevent future AMI drops. This could mean a major shift for the local deed-restricted market.
“As we were digging around, we got an idea of what to look for with other indexes,” Kermode said. “The affordable housing program needs to be sustainable for the long run. Any index we use needs to be relevant to Summit County and relevant on a real-time basis. There just isn't a simple answer.”

written by Phil Lindeman        Summit Daily     plindeman@summitdaily.com                    May 7, 2015


Monday, July 7, 2014

Cost to Build ~ Edging Up!



Scarcity! Where are the skilled craftsmen and professional subcontractors? Perhaps the recession combined with our long winters contributed to their relocation or new job prospects in warmer climes were too tempting to pass up.
The Rider Levett Bucknall report shows that construction costs in Denver increased overall by 2.2 percent in the first quarter of 2014 from the same quarter a year earlier. It states that despite the optimism, some firms are becoming concerned.  RLB is a project management and construction consulting firm with offices all over the world, including 19 in the U.S., and one in Denver.
Stable construction-material prices and the number of construction firms available modulated the costs, but the firm said that “prices may continue to jump if subcontractor resources diminish, profit expectations increase or competition is reduced.”
In Summit County, scarcity is normal thanks to our fantastic ski season. However, it also creates a brief window of opportunity to complete a project. Contractors who prefer to remodel and most of the handymen pulled out in 2008 and have been slow to return. It goes without saying that the builders who remained have established businesses – predominately custom home builders with craftsmen level woodworkers and long standing relationships with plumbers, electricians and other subcontractors. Finding qualified contractors who are willing to take on the challenge of a remodel is the current dilemma. The large number of condo complexes that require updating offer many opportunities for contractors who remodel.  Demand is here… Come on back!


 Kathy Christina; Broker / Owner; Breckenridge Real Estate Kompany; Breckenridge, CO
Contributor: Caitlin Hendee, Digital Producer / Social Engagement Manager – Denver Business Journal