The Dillon Town Council is considering a policy that would require developers proposing projects in town to have a certain portion of the development be workforce housing.

During a work session Tuesday, June 11, most Town Council members appeared to be in favor of some kind of “inclusionary housing” requirement in town. But one member said he doesn’t believe Dillon necessarily needs workforce housing within the town itself.

“Workforce housing has long been a goal of the town, but we have no requirements,” Dillon Town Attorney Kathleen Kelly said during the meeting. “Some of the developments that have occurred in town have voluntarily added some workforce housing components, just knowing how important that is.”

Kendra Carberry, an attorney from another firm advising the town, said that there are a number of different “inclusionary housing” ordinances that the town could pass. Generally, these ordinances require developers to set aside a percentage of the total units in a development as workforce or affordable housing, Carberry said. 

Exactly what kind of deed restrictions, income caps, Area Median Income requirements or other requirements would be applied would be up to the Town Council to decide in a policy, she added.

“There a lot of different ways to sort of frame this,” Carberry said. “But that is what the inclusionary housing ordinances typically do is, they require any development coming in to (meet housing requirements) as a condition of development.”

Town Council member Dana Christiansen said that he would be concerned with an inclusionary housing ordinance that required developers to build workforce housing on high-value properties. Christiansen pointed to the recently-approved lakefront development known as the “branded residence” project as an example.

“Everybody wants workforce housing,” Christiansen said. “However, the Best Western project is a great example. If you mandate 10% of a million-dollar-a-unit property as workforce housing, it’s cost prohibitive. It doesn’t make sense financially.”

Carberry noted, however, that if the town does move forward with an inclusionary housing ordinance that there are lots of resources like grants and loans that developers can tap into for help.

“With the amount of grants that are available, we can also partner with developers to get grants and loans and those things that would incentivize this, where the developer doesn’t have to do it all on their own,” Carberry said.

Town Council member Oliver Luck noted that, “it’s gotten extraordinarily expensive to live in the county” and said he is supportive of an ordinance aimed at making housing more affordable. Luck said he would also be interested in public entities like schools and police being first in line for affordable or workforce units. He also added that he agrees with Christiansen that developers shouldn’t be required to put the workforce housing on expensive properties like the town’s lakefront.

Council member John Woods said he prefers the words “subsidized housing” or “low-income housing” to “workforce housing” and doesn’t necessarily think that workforce housing needs to be within the town limits.

The “workforce housing” for Copper Mountain is in Leadville, while for Breckenridge the “workforce housing” is in Alma and Fairplay, Woods said. For Dillon, the “workforce housing” could be in Kremmling, he said.

“To meet the workforce housing needs, do we really have to have it in the (Dillon town) core so that they can cross the street? The answer is ‘I don’t know,’ ” Woods said. “That’s a tough question and I don’t know that the answer is ‘yes.’ You ask people, ‘Do you want to have low-income people living next to you?’ A lot of people would say ‘no.'”

Woods argued that it could be cheaper for Dillon to pay for a bus service to and from housing in Kremmling rather than to try to subsidize workforce housing within the town core. But Council member Kyle Hendricks pushed back on the comments from Woods.

“John, did you say you don’t think people would want long-term residents living next door?” Hendrick said.

“I didn’t say that,” Woods replied. “Low-income.” 

Woods continued, “I think workforce is a euphemism for low-income housing. If you’re going to have to have income ratings and only the poor people can move in there, let’s call it what it is.”

Woods went on to suggest that the county government buy a piece of land near Interstate 70 for workforce housing that would support the town. He said he believes, “It is Summit County’s responsibility to answer the workforce housing question more than the small town of Dillon.”

Hendricks disagreed.

“I think it is our duty to provide workforce housing anywhere we can, so within Dillon,” Hendricks said. “I can fully understand that it might not be needed on the lakefront, but we need workforce housing, absolutely, and I think we should require that to be part of certain projects.”

Council member Rachel Tuyn also pushed back against Woods, noting that Breckenridge has a “robust” workforce housing program in town. Tuyn suggested that Dillon consult with other towns like Breckenridge about what methods of workforce and affordable housing are or are not working.

Mayor Pro Tem Renee Imamura said that she would also like to have more information about what other towns are doing so that Dillon has better guidance on how to craft its own inclusionary housing policy.

Carberry warned the Town Council that an inclusionary housing ordinance would have to be fair, “so comments about implementing it in certain areas of town are concerning.” 

Carberry suggested that the Dillon Town Council continue to discuss the topic at another meeting to come to a better consensus on a possible policy.

“It seems like there is a lot of policy discussion to occur before we move on to drafting something,” she said.