Aspen City Council hears housing-needs assessment; consultants present Aspen’s 10-year net gap at about 1,246 units

The Aspen City Council received a presentation on Dec. 8 on a regional housing needs assessment and a planned income-limit petition tied to Proposition 123 funding, city staff and consultants said.

The presentation, led by Rachel Shinman of Economic & Planning Systems and framed by Liz Axberg, housing policy analyst in the city manager’s office, explained the assessment is the first of two phases required by Senate Bill 174 and is intended both to document current shortages and to support a petition asking the state to allow funding for higher-area–median–income households in Aspen’s market. "This housing needs assessment really needs to prove that we have housing needs at higher income levels," Axberg said.

Shinman summarized regional trends and affordability pressures that drive the petition. She described an aging population and a shift of jobs and families downvalley, a high share of in-commuters and a tourism-heavy job mix with lower wages. "Over the next 10 years, we have a total need of about 2,850 housing units," Shinman said during the briefing. After subtracting units already in the pipeline, she presented a regional "net need" figure she said was about 7,200 units and reported a net 10‑year need for the city of Aspen of roughly 1,246 units; presenters said the final report will document assumptions used to allocate need by place and income.

The presentation included inventory and market data: consultants said the region contains nearly 4,500 programmatic (deed-restricted) affordable units, with over 90% located in Pitkin County and about 65% of the region’s programmatic affordable stock in Aspen. Shinman gave local price points: "The median sale price of a single family residence in Aspen in 2024 was $7,300,000," she said. She noted townhome and condominium markets are also increasingly out of reach for many workers, and that rental data are harder to obtain and interpret than sales data.

Councilors raised constraints and operational concerns. One councilor emphasized utilities and water capacity as hard limits on growth; Shinman confirmed that water and infrastructure capacity are being incorporated into Phase 2 of the SB 174 assessment. Another councilor said the city has struggled to fill Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) units and argued the federal LIHTC rules are "too inflexible," adding, "We're never gonna use low income tax credits again." Shinman said the team is tracking vacancy data for LIHTC projects and discussing flexibility concerns with state partners.

Presenters also discussed next steps: finalizing the initial document, submitting the income‑limit petition for Proposition 123 eligibility, completing the remaining SB 174 components (including the housing problems and market-constraint sections), and moving into an action-planning phase with a longer deadline for completion (roughly two years, presenters said). Axberg noted the study team will brief Snowmass Village and the Board of County Commissioners in follow-up meetings and is available for one-on-one briefings with councilors.

Councilors and presenters repeatedly cautioned that the assessment is an informational and planning tool rather than a binding development mandate. Shinman and Axberg said the figures will be refined in the final report, which will document data sources, assumptions and the pipeline projects subtracted from gross need.

The work session ended with appreciation for staff and consultants and with plans for continued regional coordination on the petition and the action plan.