HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2026-09-08Informal discussion among Trustees and staff concerning agenda items or other Town
matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.
Town Board of Trustees Study Session
Tuesday, September 8, 2026, from 4:45 p.m. – 6:45 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park
Accessibility Statement
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services.
Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or
townclerk@estes.org.
Meeting Participation
This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page. Click on
the following link for more information on Digital Accessibility.
Public Comment
Public comments are not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the
Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board.
Agenda
4:45 p.m. Group Town Board Photograph and Dinner
5:00 p.m. Administrative Regulations Enforcement Process
Presented by Town Attorney Kramer and Director Bergsten
5:20 p.m. Housing Definitions and Density Bonuses in the
Development Code
Presented by Director Careccia
5:50 p.m. Housing Issues – Seasonal Workforce and Seniors
Presented by Manager Speedlin
and Scott Moulton, EPHA Director
6:35 p.m. Trustee and Administrator Comments and Questions
6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for the Town Board Meeting
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jason Fredricks, Water Superintendent
Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Department: Utilities Department, Water Division
Date: September 8, 2026
Subject: Administrative Regulations Enforcement Process
Purpose of Study Session Item:
The Utilities Department seeks authorization to implement an administrative process to
levy fines as a method to incentivize and expedite compliance with State Standards,
Municipal Code Requirements, or Administrative Regulations.
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff requests the Board's feedback and direction on giving staff the authority to levy
administrative penalties (fines).
Present Situation:
Current enforcement options present operational barriers:
• Discontinue Service (Shut-offs): This requires operating private "curb stop"
valves that are often old. Breaking and fixing a valve carries a risk of costing
$3,000 to $4,000, and shutting off the water does not cure the violation.
• General Penalty, municipal code: This approach requires spending time in court.
(Chapter 1.20 - General Penalty, "...violation of this Code shall be fined an
amount not to exceed two thousand six hundred fifty dollars ($2,650.00)."
• Property Liens: This approach demands a high administrative workload. Liens
must be tracked and renewed every 6 years
Additionally, these violations impose expenses on the Town that would be inequitable to
pass on to all utility customers.
Proposal:
The Utilities Department proposes a stepped enforcement process that gives staff the
authority to levy administrative penalties (fines). This is an efficient "middle ground"
between simple warnings and the difficult options of court citations or service
termination. The process includes:
1. Identifying the violation and providing verbal and written notice.
2. Allowing a defined and reasonable cure period to fix issues.
3. Imposing administrative fines with written notice of escalating future fines if the
property remains non-compliant.
4. Using service termination as a last resort until the property is compliant and fines
are paid.
Advantages:
• Economical: The process reduces equipment costs and staff time.
• Prompt: An administrative fine acts as an immediate attention-getter for the
customer.
• Supportive: It focuses on compliance and helps staff achieve it, rather than
focusing on punishment.
• Consistent: The process protects customer rights with checks and balances,
including clear notification, defined cure periods, and consistent administrative
reviews.
• Cost Recovery: It recovers costs incurred from extended periods of time for
responding to, or correcting violations.
Disadvantages:
• The municipal code must be modified to create a new enforcement structure.
• Customers who fail to correct unresolved violations will be subject to progressive
administrative penalties; however, this is mitigated by a clear notification
schedule and reasonable hardship accommodations.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Implementing this process is designed to reduce administrative workloads, avoid staff
time in court, and avoid the $3,000 to $4,000 financial risk of breaking private valves.
It will also allow the Town to recover documented costs incurred from third-party
contractor charges, staff labor, materials, and administrative expenses/overhead.
Level of Public Interest:
Staff anticipates the interest will be case by case.
We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org.
Administrative Regulations
Enforcement Process
Authorizing Administrative Penalties (Fines)
We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org.
Our Mission:
•Act as good stewards of public resources
•Provide high-quality, reliable services
•Protect our natural setting
Presentation Provided at Meeting 2026-09-08
To insert a background image, right-click on the slide –select FORMAT BACKGROUND > Picture or texture fill > Insert picture from File…
Compliance
The Utilities Department seeks authorization to implement
an administrative (not court) process to incentivize and
expedite compliance with State Standards, Municipal Code
Requirements, or Administrative Regulations.
Town Board Direction Requested:
•Feedback on giving staff authority to
levy administrative penalties (fines)
3
Why
The Utilities Department seeks a process to resolve violations
involving:
•Public health or safety
•Unauthorized or unmetered utility uses
•Meter tampering
•Waste of treated water
The resolution of non-compliance can create costs that should
not be borne by all utility customers.
4
How we got here
Current enforcement options present operational barriers.
•Discontinue Service (Shut-offs)
•Requires operating private valves (often old)
•Risk: Breaking and fixing a valve costs $3,000 - $4,000
•Gap: Shutting off water does not cure the violation
•Citation, aka the General Penalty (Chapter 1.20 - General Penalty)
•time in court
•Property Liens
•Administrative workload to track and renew every six years
5
Proposal, Administrative Penalties (fines)
This approach provides an efficient "middle ground" between
simple warnings and difficult options of service termination or
court citation.
Key Benefits
•Economical - Reduces staff time and equipment costs.
•Prompt - Immediate attention-getter for the customer.
•Supportive - Helps staff achieve compliance.
6
Focus on Compliance – Not Punishment
New municipal code authorization
•The Town Board would be granting staff authority currently
processed as legal claims.
•Penalties levied administratively by Staff
7
Process
A stepped approach, ensuring fairness and an opportunity to cure.
•Identify & Notify
Violation identified. Verbal and written notice provided.
•Cure Period
Compliance timeline defined.
•Penalty
If non-compliant: Written notice of continued violation, assess fines with
notification of escalating future fines.
•Termination of Service
A Last Resort: Service termination until compliant and fines paid.
8
Checks and Balances
Ensure consistency and protect customer rights
1.Clear Notification: Written warnings required before
escalating penalties.
2.Defined Cure Periods: Reasonable time allowed for
customers to fix issues.
3.Administrative Review: Decisions are documented and
consistent.
9
Direction Requested:
•Thoughts on giving staff authority to
levy administrative penalties (fines)
10
To insert a background image, right-click on the slide –select FORMAT BACKGROUND > Picture or texture fill
Thank You
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Steve Careccia, Community Development Director
Carlie Speedlin, Housing and Childcare Manager
Scott Moulton, Executive Director of Estes Park Housing Authority
Department: Community Development
Date: September 8, 2026
Subject: Housing Definitions and Density Bonuses in the Development Code
Purpose of Study Session Item:
Seek further Town Board direction on housing definitions, base densities, density and
height bonuses, and other incentives proposed for inclusion within the updated Estes
Park Development Code.
Town Board Direction Requested:
This report presents the Town Board with proposed housing-related provisions for
inclusion in the updated Development Code. Staff is seeking Board direction whether to:
1. proceed with the provisions as proposed;
2. proceed with modifications identified by the Board; or
3. remove some or all of the provisions from further consideration.
Present Situation:
This item came before the Town Board at the study session held on July 14, 2026. The
Board directed staff to proceed with several housing-related provisions (Minutes). As
the background, context, and merits of this issue, and potential opportunities to support
attainable and workforce housing were discussed in detail at the July 14 study session,
this report specifically focuses on the housing-related provisions proposed for inclusion
in the updated Development Code.
Proposal:
In response to Town Board direction provided at the July 14, 2026, study session, staff
proposes the following provisions for Board consideration:
Definitions
Staff proposes the following two definitions for inclusion within the updated
Development Code, as currently established within Estes Park Administration Policy
227 (Workforce and Attainable Housing Guidelines):
Attainable Housing or Attainable Housing Units shall mean the following:
a. Renter-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. Housing units that are attainable to
households earning 175% of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below,
adjusted for household size. To qualify as attainable rental units, housing costs
(i.e. rent and utility expenses) must not exceed 30% of the maximum income for
an imputed household size based on 175% of the Larimer County Area Median
Income. The imputed household size is equal to 1.5 times the number of
bedrooms in the unit. For example, rent on a two-bedroom unit would be equal to
30% of the monthly income of a three-person family; for a three-bedroom unit the
rent should not exceed 30% of the monthly income of a 4.5-person family – the
midpoint of the range of a four- and five-person family. If the property owner does
not pay all utility expenses, then a utility allowance, computed by the Estes Park
Housing Authority, must be subtracted from the housing cost to determine the
maximum rent.
b. Owner-Occupied Attainable Housing Units. Housing units that are attainable to
households earning 175% of the Larimer County Area Median Income or below,
adjusted for household size. To qualify as attainable units, housing costs must
not exceed 40% of the 175% Larimer County Area Median Income, adjusted for
household size.
Workforce Housing shall mean a housing unit in which at least one household
member is employed within the Estes Park School District R-3 Boundaries.
Increase Base Density
At the July 14 study session, the Town Board expressed support for potentially higher
base densities for certain zoning districts to support attainable and workforce housing.
As such, staff proposes increasing the current base density in the RM (Residential
Multi-Family) zoning district from eight to 16 dwelling units per acre. This increase aligns
with the base densities allowed in other communities, as reviewed at the July 14 study
session.
The 50% Draft Development Code currently under review also proposes several density
and/or lot size modifications to the residential zoning districts along with a new MU
(Mixed Use) zoning district. These modifications include:
1. E (Estate) lot size reduction from ½ acre to ¼ acre;
2. R (Residential) lot size reduction from ¼ acre to 7,200 square feet;
3. R-2 (Two-Family Residential) area reduction from 18,000 square feet and 27,000
square feet to 4,000 square feet and 8,000 square for single-family and
duplexes, respectively;
4. RM (Mutli-Family Residential) reduction from 5,400 square feet (8 du/a) per unit
to 3,600 square feet (12 du/a) per unit (noting this report proposes 16 du/a, an
increase over what is proposed in the 50% draft); and
5. MU (Mixed-Use) designates 1,500 square feet minimum land area per residential
unit (some units allowed 1st floor but most typically 2nd floor and above).
Density Bonus
The existing Development Code allows qualifying attainable or workforce housing
projects in the RM zoning district a density bonus of up to two times the base density.
Staff proposes carrying this provision forward into the updated Development Code and
extending it to qualifying projects in the proposed MU zoning district. Planned Unit
Developments (PUDs) would also remain eligible for the density bonus. It should be
noted that in the updated code, PUDs would be permitted in the RM, R-2, R-1, R, and E
residential zoning districts, expanding their use beyond the nonresidential zoning
districts where they are currently permitted.
Staff could also consider allowing the density bonus in the A (Accommodations/Highway
Corridor) zoning district. The updated Development Code will allow some residential
uses in this district, including townhomes, cottage courts, and multi-family housing. As
such, a density bonus could encourage attainable or workforce housing in these areas.
However, if the Town wants to preserve land primarily for accommodations uses, then
encouraging more residential development in this district may conflict with that goal.
It should be noted that increasing the base density would also increase the maximum
density available to a qualifying project receiving a density bonus. For example, if the
RM base density increases to 16 du/a, then a qualifying attainable/workforce project
could potentially reach up to 32 du/a.
Building Height Bonus
The existing Development Code allows qualifying attainable and workforce housing
projects in the RM zoning district a building height bonus up to 38 feet. Staff proposes
carrying over this provision into the updated Development Code and extending it to
qualifying projects in the proposed MU zoning district and PUDs. The requirement that
100% of the units in the building be designated as attainable or workforce units to be
eligible for the height bonus will also be carried over into the updated code.
Development review
The updated Development Code will include provisions to expedite development review
processes for qualifying attainable and workforce housing projects in conformance with
Proposition 123 and the Colorado Housing Opportunities Made Easier (HOME) Act.
Parking
The updated Development Code proposes to allow qualifying attainable and workforce
housing projects the ability to reduce parking requirements. Currently, multi-family
projects provide parking based on bedroom count (efficiencies/one-bedroom units
require 1.5 spaces, two-bedroom and larger units require two spaces) plus guest
spaces while townhomes and single- and two-family dwellings provide two spaces per
unit. The updated Development Code proposes establishing a minimum requirement of
one parking space per attainable/workforce unit, regardless of bedroom count or
dwelling type. Though, parking may not be reduced below 50% of the total required
number of parking spaces.
New Residential Uses
The updated Development Code includes the introduction of several new residential
uses, such as triplexes, cottage courts, and dormitories and expands the use of
duplexes beyond the RM and R-2 zoning districts. Some of these uses are proposed to
be permitted by-right while others will require approval from the Planning Commission
(Conditional Use Permit) or Town Board (Special Review Permit).
Advantages:
• Including these housing provisions in the updated Development Code will create
additional opportunities for attainable and workforce housing
Disadvantages:
• Density and height can impact surrounding areas, so ensure that any such
adverse impacts are mitigated through the development review process
Finance/Resource Impact:
There is no financial or resource impact at this time.
Level of Public Interest:
Public Interest is anticipated to be moderate to high.
Attachments:
None (all relevant documents are linked to this report)
Housing Definitions and
Density Bonuses
Town Board
September 8, 2026
Presentation Provided at Meeting 2026-09-08
Purpose & Direction Requested
•Seek further Town Board direction on proposed housing provisions
•Focus areas include housing definitions, base densities, density and height
bonuses, review processes, parking, and new residential uses
•Consider provisions that should move forward in the updated Development
Code
•Proceed as is, with modifications, or remove from consideration
2
Present Situation
•The Board reviewed housing-related code concepts - July 14, 2026, study session
•Directed staff to explore provisions promoting attainable and workforce housing
•Report narrows the discussion to specific provisions proposed for the updated
Development Code
3
Proposal – Housing Definitions
•Policy 227 Workforce and Attainable Housing Guidelines (2023)
•Attainable Housing: Housing attainable to households earning 175% of Larimer County Area
Median Income or below, adjusted for household size
•Rental units: Housing costs, including rent and utilities, may not exceed 30% of qualifying
income
•Owner-occupied units: Housing costs may not exceed 40% of qualifying income
•Workforce Housing: Housing where at least one household member is employed within Estes
Park School District R-3 boundaries
4
Proposal – Increase Base Density
•Potential increase for RM base density from 8 dwelling units per acre to 16
dwelling units per acre
•The 50% draft Development Code also includes lot size and density
adjustments in several residential districts (RM 12 du/a)
•Proposed changes are intended to support additional attainable and
workforce housing opportunities
5
Proposal – Density Bonus
•Existing code allows qualifying attainable or workforce housing projects in RM to
receive up to two times the base density
•Staff proposes carrying this provision forward and extending it to the proposed MU
district
•PUDs would also remain eligible for the density bonus
•A (Accommodations) – allow density bonus or reserve for accommodations?
•Example: if RM base density increases to 16 du/a, qualifying projects could
potentially reach up to 32 du/a
6
Proposal – Building Height Bonus
•Existing code allows qualifying attainable and workforce housing projects in
RM a height bonus up to 38 feet
•Staff proposes carrying this forward into the updated Code
•The bonus would also extend to qualifying projects in the proposed MU
district and PUDs
•Eligibility would continue to require that 100% of units in the building be
attainable or workforce units
7
Proposal – Development Review &
Parking
•Updated Code will include expedited review provisions for qualifying
attainable and workforce housing projects
•Proposition 123 and the Colorado HOME Act
•Parking may be reduced to one space per attainable/workforce unit,
regardless of bedroom count or dwelling type
•Parking may not be reduced below 50% of the total required number of
spaces
8
Proposal – New Residential Uses
•The updated Code introduces new residential use types, including triplexes,
cottage courts, and dormitories
•Duplexes would be expanded beyond RM and R-2 zoning districts
•Some uses would be permitted by right (triplex in RM, R-1, R-2)
•Other uses would require Planning Commission or Town Board approval
(triplex in E & R)
9
Advantages & Disadvantages
Advantages
•Creates additional opportunities for attainable and workforce housing in updated
Development Code
Disadvantages
•Density and height can impact surrounding areas, so ensure that any potential
adverse impacts are mitigated through the development review process
10
Direction Requested
11
•Does the Board support the proposed attainable and workforce housing definitions?
•Should RM base density be increased to 16 du/a?
•Should the density bonus carry forward in RM & PUDs, added to MU, and/or the A district?
•Should the 38-foot height bonus carry forward in RM & PUDs, and added to MU?
•Are the proposed parking reductions appropriate?
•Proceed as proposed, with modifications, or remove from consideration?
Housing Definitions & Density Bonuses in the Code
Town Board Study Session
July 14, 2026
CARLIE SPEEDLIN
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE MANAGER
Presentation Provided at Meeting 2026-09-08
Purpose
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Consider updates to the housing definitions in
Section 11.4 of the Development Code, in
alignment with two 2026 Strategic Plan objectives:
-Consider an update to Section 11.4 of the Development
Code, including reconsideration of appropriate
definitions and density bonus amounts
-Consider updating Town policies defining workforce or
attainable housing for the purpose of Town funding
Direction Requested
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Staff requests feedback related to affordability
targets, zoning applicability, development
feasibility, and appropriate incentive structures to
support workforce and attainable housing
development.
These discussions provide a framework for
housing definitions that will exist with the
Development Code and Housing Policy for the
Town.
Key Questions:
What level of density is acceptable to incentivize development at
lower AMI levels (particularly below 60% AMI)?
Should density bonuses be expanded to additional zoning districts,
including A-(Accommodations)-zoned areas?
What level of development incentive (in the form of a density bonus)
is appropriate to improve project feasibility, given current land,
infrastructure, and construction costs?
Should density bonuses be paired with additional incentives or
flexible development standards (such as setbacks or parking) to
support deeper affordability? Should this be applicable only to certain
zoning districts?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Present Situation
The Town of Estes Park has utilized density
bonuses since the early 2000s.
Between 2013 and 2017, no housing units were
developed utilizing the density bonus
framework.
Since 2017, density bonuses have contributed
to the development of workforce housing but
are still falling short.
Utilization remains limited, likely
due to several factors, including:
•Limited relationship between affordability levels and development incentives
•Uncertainty in the development review process
•High land, infrastructure, and construction costs
•Limited availability of developable RM-(Multifamily Residential)-zoned land
•The need to rezone properties to pursue attainable housing projects
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Proposal Staff seeks guidance on the following points to
inform potential updates to the Code:
1.AMI-Scaled Density Bonus Structure
2.Expanded Applicability Across Zoning
Districts
3.Feasibility and Market Alignment
Policy Direction:
Is additional incentive needed?
What affordability levels should we prioritize?
How much density is appropriate?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
1. AMI-Scaled Density Bonus Structure
•Create a clear affordability-to-incentive relationship
•Higher density incentives tied to lower AMI thresholds
•Projects serving households below 60% AMI qualify
for the highest density
•Improve project feasibility while incentivizing
affordable housing at lower income levels
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Density Bonus Incentive
Current Bonus
Incentive
Current
Base Density
Current Base Density
in RM-zoned area:
8 units per acre
Workforce/Attainable
Housing Density
Bonus:
16 units per acre
Projects that are deed
restricted to the workforce or
attainable housing
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Mountain Wood Townhomes
14 units per acre
8 units on 0.56 acres
Existing Density Examples
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
South Saint Vrain Apartments
12 units per acre
24 units on 1.94 acres
Existing Density Examples
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Eagle’s Landing Condominiums
17 units per acre
45 units on 2.65 acres
Existing Density Examples
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Existing Density Examples
Fall River Village
19.46 units per acre
65 units on 3.34 acres
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Density Bonus Incentive
Current Bonus
Incentive
AMI -Scaled Bonus
Incentive
Current
Base Density
Current Base Density
in RM-zoned area:
8 units per acre
Workforce/Attainable
Housing Density
Bonus:
16 units per acre
AMI-Scaled Density
Bonus:
16+ units per acre
Projects that are deed
restricted to “affordable”
workforce (60% AMI or lower)
Projects that are deed
restricted to the workforce or
attainable housing
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Maximum Base Density Zoning Comparisons
Density
(units/acre)ZoningTown
20MDH-High Density ResidentialGrand Lake
25R-3 Multiple-Family Residential High DensityGranby
20HDMF-High Density Multi-family Residential DistrictFraser
18-20.7R-3 Multiple-Family Residential High DensitySalida
14-80HR-High Density Gunnison
29R-3 High Density Residential Buena Vista
11HDR-High Density Residential Nederland
20R-2 Traditional Residential DistrictLeadville
8RM-Multifamily ResidentialEstes Park
Housing Incentives to Consider
These peer communities did not rely solely on density
bonuses. Successful affordable housing programs
typically combine additional development flexibility with
long-term affordability requirements to improve financial
feasibility while also achieving community housing
goals.
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Existing Density Example-Nederland, CO
Tungsten Village
30.5 units per acre
26 units on 0.85 acres
•20-60% AMI
•Zoned High-Density Residential with a PUD
allowing variance for density, building footprint,
parking, and setbacks in exchange for
permanent affordability.
Policy Direction:
Is additional incentive needed?
What affordability levels should we prioritize?
Where should expanded density bonuses apply?
How much density is appropriate?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
2. Expanded Applicability Across
Zoning Districts
•Consider extending eligibility to include non-residential
zoning districts appropriate for workforce housing, such
as A-Accommodations districts and select commercial
areas appropriate for workforce housing
•Reduce the need for rezoning requests
•Any expansion would still require design standards,
compatibility requirements, and integration with
surrounding neighborhoods and development patterns
Policy Direction:
Is additional incentive needed?
What affordability levels should we prioritize?
Where should expanded density bonuses apply?
How much density is appropriate?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Should density bonuses be paired with additional incentives?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
3. Feasibility and Market Alignment
Consider additional improvement strategies that reflect current
construction costs and development conditions, such as:
•Provide greater certainty earlier in the review process
•Increase allowable unit yield
•Align incentives with project financial feasibility
•Allow flexibility in site design standards
•Pair density bonuses with additional housing tools or
incentives
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Create a more effective, predictable, and financially
viable framework for workforce and attainable
housing development in Estes Park.
Goal
Key Questions:
What level of density is acceptable to incentivize development at
lower AMI levels (particularly below 60% AMI)?
Should density bonuses be expanded to additional zoning districts,
including A-(Accommodations)-zoned areas?
What level of development incentive (in the form of a density bonus)
is appropriate to improve project feasibility, given current land,
infrastructure, and construction costs?
Should density bonuses be paired with additional incentives or
flexible development standards (such as setbacks or parking) to
support deeper affordability? Should this be applicable only to certain
zoning districts?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Direction Requested
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Staff requests feedback related to affordability
targets, zoning applicability, development
feasibility, and appropriate incentive structures to
support workforce and attainable housing
development.
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Who are we trying to serve?
What do we mean by workforce housing?
Which AMI levels should receive the greatest
support?
Housing Definitions
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Existing Density Example-Gunnison, CO
Sawtooth Townhomes and
Apartments
25 units per acre
50 units on ~2 acres
80-120% AMI
Infill project
West Thorn*
18-20 units per acre
450-500 units on 25 acres
80-120% AMI
*Approved preliminary plat and PUD
submittal
8 units per acre
48 units on 5.5 acres
Falcon Ridge
2 units per acre
44 units on 20 acres
Talons Pointe
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
AMI-Scaled Density Bonuses
Units per AcresPotential Density BonusAffordability Level
Standard Bonus100% AMI
Increased Bonus80% AMI
Highest Bonus60% AMI
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Carlie Speedlin, Housing and Childcare Manager
Scott Moulton, Executive Director of Estes Park Housing Authority
Department: Housing and Childcare
Date: September 8, 2026
Subject: Housing Issues - Seasonal Workforce and Seniors
Town Board Direction Requested:
Staff is seeking feedback from the Town Board regarding two housing items in the 2026
Strategic Plan.
• Work with the Chamber and Estes Park Housing Authority to assess how
seasonal employees are housed in Estes Park.
• Discuss with the Housing Authority how 6E funding expenditures should be
targeted in the near term, in light of the current Housing Needs Assessment,
including a discussion of senior and seasonal housing.
Board feedback will be used to guide policy and/or program development for seasonal
workforce and senior housing within the Town's broader workforce housing strategy and
the Annual 6E Funding Plan in coordination with the Estes Park Housing Authority and
community partners. No formal action or funding decision is requested as part of this
study session.
Present Situation:
The Town Board's 2026 Strategic Plan calls for an assessment of how seasonal
employees are currently housed in Estes Park and for a discussion with the Estes Park
Housing Authority (EPHA) about how 6E Lodging Tax investments should respond to
evolving community housing needs. As part of this discussion, the Strategic Plan
identifies both seasonal workforce housing and the community's growing senior
population as important considerations for future housing policy.
To better understand seasonal workforce housing needs, the Town partnered with the
Estes Chamber of Commerce to conduct a Seasonal Employee Housing Survey of local
employers. Survey responses confirmed that housing availability remains one of the
greatest barriers to recruiting and retaining seasonal employees. Approximately 70% of
responding employers indicated that seasonal housing in Estes Park is limited or
unavailable, while 40% reported that housing shortages have prevented them from
hiring qualified seasonal employees. Employers consistently identified affordable
apartment-style housing, shared or dormitory-style accommodations, and flexible short-
term housing options as the community's greatest unmet housing needs.
The survey also demonstrated that employers are utilizing a variety of housing
arrangements to support seasonal staffing, including employer-provided housing,
private rentals, hotel and motel accommodations, recreational vehicle and campground
sites, and employees commuting from Front Range communities. Unlike destination
resort communities with a single major employer, Estes Park's seasonal workforce is
dispersed among numerous small and locally owned businesses, limiting the ability of
individual employers to independently develop or operate employee housing.
While the Seasonal Employee Housing Survey focused specifically on workforce
housing needs, the Town's Housing Needs Assessment also identifies a growing senior
population that will continue to influence future housing demand. Many older adults in
Estes Park wish to age in place and remain connected to their families, healthcare
providers, and community; however, rising housing costs, limited housing options, and
fixed incomes present increasing challenges. As the community's senior population
grows, ensuring access to appropriate housing, supportive services, and community
amenities that support aging in place will become an increasingly important
consideration for future housing and community planning.
Although Ballot Initiative 6E revenues are dedicated to workforce housing and cannot
be used to develop housing intended exclusively for seniors, understanding these
demographic trends is important as the Town and the Estes Park Housing Authority
evaluate the community's long-term housing needs. Considering housing demand
across all stages of life provides valuable context for future housing policy discussions
while maintaining the primary focus of 6E investments on workforce housing.
Since the implementation of Ballot Initiative 6E in 2023, EPHA has expanded the
community's workforce housing inventory, creating housing opportunities that serve
both year-round and seasonal employees through direct leasing and employer
partnerships. These investments demonstrate that preserving and expanding workforce
housing not only supports the local workforce but also contributes to a healthier and
more flexible housing market that benefits the community as a whole.
Proposal:
The purpose of this study session is to present the findings of the Seasonal Employee
Housing Survey, provide an overview of current workforce housing initiatives that
support seasonal employees, acknowledge emerging housing considerations related to
the community's growing senior population, and discuss potential strategies that could
be explored within the framework of existing partnerships, available resources, and the
voter-approved intent of Ballot Initiative 6E. Staff is seeking the Town Board's feedback
to help inform future housing policy discussions and the evaluation of potential
implementation strategies.
As future housing opportunities are developed, staff recommends evaluating
implementation tools that increase housing flexibility for seasonal employees, including
master leasing, employer-assisted housing partnerships, organizational housing
models, adaptive reuse of existing properties, public/private partnerships, and
development code updates that support shared or dormitory-style housing where
appropriate.
In addition to seasonal workforce housing, the Town Board's Strategic Plan identifies
the community's growing senior population as an important consideration in future
housing policy discussions. While 6E Lodging Tax revenues are dedicated to workforce
housing and cannot be used to develop housing intended exclusively for seniors,
demographic trends should continue to inform the Town's long-term housing strategy.
The establishment of new workforce housing creates mobility throughout the broader
housing market by increasing housing opportunities at multiple price points and life
stages. As workforce households transition into newly developed housing, existing
housing inventory becomes available to other residents, including older adults seeking
to downsize or remain in the community. Likewise, future senior housing initiatives could
create additional housing mobility by allowing residents to transition into housing that
better meets their needs, increasing the availability of existing homes for the local
workforce.
Collectively, these strategies are intended to expand housing opportunities by
leveraging existing housing resources and community partnerships rather than creating
separate housing systems for seasonal employees or seniors. Town staff and EPHA
believe this approach is consistent with the intent of Ballot Initiative 6E, supports the
Town Board's Strategic Plan objectives, and provides flexibility to respond to changing
housing needs over time while maintaining the primary focus on workforce housing.
This study session is intended to gather feedback from the Town Board. Should the
Board support further evaluation of these strategies, staff will continue collaborating with
EPHA and community partners to assess feasibility, funding opportunities, and
implementation options before returning to the Board with specific policy or funding
recommendations.
Advantages:
None.
Disadvantages:
None.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate.
Attachments:
1. Presentation
2. Seasonal Housing Survey Summary
Housing Issues
Town Board Study Session
September 8, 2026
CARLIE SPEEDLIN
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE MANAGER
SEASONAL HOUSING & SENIORS
SCOTT MOULTON
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ESTES PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY
Attachment 1
Purpose
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Consider the information provided by staff, Estes
Park Housing Authority, and the responses from
the Seasonal Housing Survey to guide policy
and/or program development for seasonal
workforce and senior housing within the Town’s
broader workforce housing strategy.
Direction Requested
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Staff requests feedback on two housing objectives
in the 2026 Strategic Plan:
•Work with the Chamber and Estes Park Housing
Authority to assess how seasonal employees are
housed in Estes Park.
•Discuss with the Housing Authority how 6E
Funding expenditures should be targeted in the
near term, in light of the current Housing Needs
Assessment, including a discussion of senior
and seasonal housing
Key
Questions:
What role does seasonal workforce housing play within the broader housing strategy?
Which potential strategies warrant further exploration?
How should changing demographics and senior housing needs inform housing policy?
Are there regulatory tools the Board would like staff to evaluate?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Present Situation
The Town of Estes Park has increased the
resources available to address workforce
housing.
Seasonal employers have a difficult time
housing employees due to the availability and
affordability of homes during the summer
months.
Population and demographics continue to
change and impact the larger housing system.
Seasonal Employee Housing Survey
70 employers responded
⚬Hospitality
⚬Food service
⚬Recreation
⚬Retail
⚬Construction
⚬Education
⚬Healthcare
⚬Other local employers
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
In coordination with Estes
Chamber of Commerce.
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Housing is a Workforce Challenge
70%
40%
60%
of respondents characterized
seasonal housing as limited,
very limited, practically
unavailable
reported losing seasonal
employees due to housing
availablility
identified summer seasonal
housing needs
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
What Housing Do Employers Need?
Affordable
Workforce Housing
Shared/Dormitory
Housing
Flexible Short-term
Housing
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Employers are using a range of strategies to try to
meet seasonal housing needs:
•Employer-provided housing
•Private rentals
•Hotels and motels
•RV and campground sites
•Employees commuting from Front Range
However, these approaches have limitations.
Existing Employer-based Strategies
Current Seasonal Housing Approaches
Estes Park Housing Authority is currently serving both year-
round and seasonal employees through direct leasing and
employer partnerships.
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
What Exists Today
5%
33 individuals of the
seasonal workforce are
housed by EPHA
20% elderly average age of
73
EPHA houses 658 local
residents within 334
housing units
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Housing Needs Are Connected
NEW WORKFORCE
HOUSING
CREATES OPPORTUNITIES
FOR WORKFORCE
HOUSEHOLDS
EXISTING HOUSING
BECOMES AVAILABLE
CREATES ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
OTHER HOUSEHOLDS
Housing
Mobility
Estes Park’s Changing Housing Needs
Housing needs change across the life cycle. As the local
population continues to age, staff have identified challenges
with aging in place, downsizing, accessibility, healthcare and
transportation connections, and fixed-income challenges.
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Ballot Initiative 6E
CANNOT
CAN
•Support workforce
housing
•Expand workforce
housing inventory
•Support housing
opportunities for
seasonal employees
•Leverage
partnerships and
housing resources
Fund housing for
households without
an individual working
in the Estes Valley
Future Strategic Coordination
The Estes Park Housing Authority considers the community’s
changing demographics and seasonal workforce housing needs as
part of its broader housing mission. Coordination with public and
private partners leverages Valley-wide resources and identifies
opportunities to address housing needs beyond the dedicated
workforce housing resources available through 6E.
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Estes Park Housing Authority
Provide housing options and services for qualified low-to moderate-income
households, with a focus on the people who live and work in the Estes Valley.
•Seasonal housing efforts
•Private development
•Coordination
•Program support
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Updated Needs
2026 Housing Needs Assessment Addendum prepared by Root Policy to meet
statutory requirements includes the following trends and data points to
consider:
•Future job growth could create demand for an estimated 276 seasonal
workforce housing units
•56% of homes in the Estes Valley are occupied year-round
•About 27% of the Estes Valley labor force is age 60 and older
•64% of cost burdened renter households in Estes Park earn less than
$75,000 annually
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Workforce Data from the Chamber
Direction Requested
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Staff requests feedback on two housing objectives
in the 2026 Strategic Plan:
•Work with the Chamber and Estes Park Housing
Authority to assess how seasonal employees are
housed in Estes Park.
•Discuss with the Housing Authority how 6E
Funding expenditures should be targeted in the
near term, in light of the current Housing Needs
Assessment, including a discussion of senior
and seasonal housing
Key Questions
What role does seasonal workforce housing play within the broader housing strategy?
Which potential strategies warrant further exploration?
How should changing demographics and senior housing needs inform housing policy?
Are there regulatory tools the Board would like staff to evaluate?
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Seasonal Housing Survey Responses
# RESPONDENTSHOUSING NEED
440–2 employees
93–5 employees
76–10 employees
811–20 employees
2More than 20
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Seasonal Housing Survey Responses
# RESPONDENTSSECTOR
24Other
21Hospitality/Tourism
16Retail
12Food Services/Restaurant
6Outdoor Recreation
* Employers were allowed to select more than one sector
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Seasonal Housing Survey Responses
HOUSING AND CHILDCARE
Seasonal Housing Survey Responses
https://doh.colorado.gov/2026-colorado-home-income-limits
2026 Seasonal Employee Housing Survey Report
Overview
The Estes Chamber of Commerce with support from the Town of Estes Park, conducted a Seasonal
Employee Housing Survey in May 2026 to better understand the housing needs of local employers, the
extent to which housing availability affects seasonal workforce recruitment and retention, and the types of
housing and support that employers believe would be most useful. The survey received 70 responses
from businesses and organizations operating in the Estes Valley. Respondents represented a diverse
cross-section of the local economy, including hospitality and tourism, retail, food service, outdoor
recreation, construction, education, agriculture, professional services, health care, and other sectors.
The survey findings indicate that seasonal employee housing is a significant challenge for a portion of the
Estes Valley workforce, particularly during the summer months. At the same time, the results demonstrate
that the issue is not experienced equally by all employers. Some businesses do not employ seasonal
workers, while others primarily hire local employees who already have housing or have developed their
own housing arrangements. The survey results suggest that seasonal employee housing needs are
diverse and require a targeted, flexible mix of solutions tailored to the varying needs of local employers,
rather than a single community-wide approach.
Respondent and Employer Characteristics
The survey included employers ranging from very small businesses with one or two employees to
organizations with substantially larger workforces. Hospitality and tourism represented the largest
identified industry sector, accounting for 21 respondents, or 30% of the total. Retail represented 16
respondents, or approximately 23%, while food service and restaurants represented 12 respondents, or
approximately 17%. An additional 24 respondents identified an industry outside of the predefined
categories, demonstrating the breadth of the local employers participating in the survey. Survey
respondents were allowed to select multiple sectors.
Industry Sectors
Other 24
Hospitality/Tourism 21
Retail 16
Food Services/Restaurant 12
Outdoor Recreation 6
Construction 3
Education/Camps 3
Agriculture 1
Attachment 2
The diversity of respondents is important when interpreting the results. The businesses represented in the
survey have substantially different workforce sizes and hiring practices, and not all rely on seasonal labor.
Consequently, the survey should be viewed as an assessment of employer experiences and perceptions
rather than an estimate of the total number of seasonal workers requiring housing in the Estes Valley.
Seasonal Workforce and Housing Demand
The survey indicates that the need for seasonal employee housing is concentrated primarily in the
summer. Forty-two respondents, or 60%, identified summer as a period when their seasonal employees
typically need housing. Nine respondents identified fall, eight identified spring, and two identified winter.
Thirty-three respondents, or approximately 47%, identified year-round housing needs. Because
respondents could select multiple periods, these responses reflect overlapping workforce patterns rather
than mutually exclusive categories.
The responses regarding the number of seasonal employees requiring local housing further demonstrate
the variability among employers. Forty-four respondents, or 63%, reported that zero to two seasonal
employees typically require local housing. Nine respondents reported three to five employees, seven
reported six to ten employees, eight reported eleven to twenty employees, and two reported more than
twenty employees requiring housing. This distribution suggests that many local businesses have relatively
small individual housing needs, while a smaller number of employers generate substantially larger
demand.
Seasonal Housing Needs
0–2 employees 44
3–5 employees 9
6–10 employees 7
11–20 employees 8
More than 20 2
The duration of seasonal employment also points toward a defined seasonal housing window. Written
responses identified employment periods of approximately four to six months, with many employers
describing a summer season beginning in May or June and extending through September or October.
Several employers noted that younger seasonal employees return to school before the end of the
traditional summer season, creating additional variation in the timing of housing demand.
Availability of Seasonal Workforce Housing
Housing availability emerged as one of the clearest challenges identified by survey respondents. Only six
respondents characterized the supply of housing available to their seasonal workforce as adequate.
Eighteen respondents described the supply as limited and reported some difficulty finding housing.
Fifteen respondents were unsure.
Taken together, 70% of all survey participants described seasonal housing availability as limited, very
limited, or practically unavailable. Nearly half of all respondents characterized the situation as either very
limited or practically unavailable. These results indicate that the availability of seasonal housing
represents a substantial barrier for many employers, although the 15 respondents who were unsure and
the six who found supply adequate demonstrate that experiences vary considerably across businesses.
Quality and Condition of Available Housing
The survey suggests that the challenge involves not only the availability of housing but the quality and
condition of that housing. Twenty-seven respondents characterized available seasonal housing as
functional and able to meet basic needs. Eight respondents considered housing adequate, while three
described it as more than adequate.
Conversely, 15 respondents characterized available housing as barely habitable, and one respondent
identified housing as uninhabitable. Ten respondents described the quality as highly variable, while 22
respondents were unsure. Because respondents could select more than one response to this question,
the results should not be interpreted as mutually exclusive categories. Nevertheless, the findings indicate
that the availability of a housing unit does not necessarily mean that the unit provides an appropriate or
desirable living environment for seasonal workers.
The written comments reinforce this distinction. Several respondents described seasonal housing as
expensive relative to its quality, overcrowded, or lacking basic amenities. Other respondents expressed
support for shared or dormitory-style housing but emphasized that such housing would need to be clean,
safe, adequately maintained, and provide basic amenities. These comments suggest minimum standards
for habitability and occupancy in addition to the number of housing spaces created.
Existing Employer Strategies
Employers are already using a range of approaches to address seasonal employee housing. Sixteen
respondents reported providing on-site housing, making this the most common identified strategy. Nine
employers reported leasing or renting local housing units for employees, while another nine reported
partnering with local property owners or landlords. Eight employers assist employees with finding
housing, and four provide a housing stipend or allowance. Four respondents reported participating in a
housing referral network with other employers, while two provide transportation from housing outside of
the Estes Valley.
Nineteen respondents indicated that they do not provide housing assistance. Other responses
demonstrated that some businesses address the issue in different ways, including hiring employees who
already have local housing, maintaining year-round employment, relying on employees to secure their
own housing, or utilizing existing employer-owned properties.
Respondents were allowed to select multiple strategies from the following list:
• Other
• No housing assistance
• On-site housing
• Lease or rent local units
• Partner with property owners/landlords
• Housing-finding assistance
• Housing stipend
• Employer referral network
• Transportation from outside the valley
• Seasonal RV/campground housing
• Unsure
Among the 27 respondents who answered the question regarding management of employer-provided or
facilitated housing, direct employer management was the most common arrangement, accounting for 13
respondents. Three respondents reported working with a partner organization, two use third-party
property management, and nine identified another management arrangement. This finding suggests that
a centralized seasonal housing program would need to clearly address property management,
maintenance, tenant coordination, and administrative responsibilities.
Management of Employer-provided Housing
Directly managed by the employer 13 48.10%
Other 9 33.30%
Managed by a partner organization 3 11.10%
Third-party property management 2 7.40%
Total 27 100%
Barriers to Employer-Provided Housing
Among the 47 respondents who answered the question about why their business does not currently
provide seasonal housing, cost was the most frequently identified barrier. Sixteen respondents, or 34 % of
those answering the question, identified the high cost of providing or securing housing. Twelve
respondents identified a lack of available properties, while eight identified regulatory or zoning barriers.
Seven cited liability concerns, and five each identified logistical challenges and limited staffing capacity to
manage housing.
Identified Employer Barriers
High cost 16
Other 16
Lack of available properties 12
Historically not needed 10
Regulatory / zoning barriers 8
Liability concerns 7
Logistical challenges 5
Staffing capacity to manage housing 5
Community / neighborhood concerns 1
The responses indicate that employers face both financial and operational barriers to providing housing
independently. This is particularly relevant for smaller businesses that may need only one or two housing
spaces and may not have the financial resources, administrative capacity, or scale necessary to secure a
property for employee use. This demonstrates the need for coordination among multiple employers with
relatively small housing needs to help address a gap that individual businesses may be unable to address
independently.
The open-ended responses also demonstrate that not every employer views additional housing
assistance as necessary. Several businesses reported that they hire locally, employ workers who already
have housing, or do not employ seasonal workers. Other respondents expressed concerns about
government regulation, taxes, or the appropriate role of the Town in addressing employer housing needs.
These perspectives should be considered when developing any future initiatives and suggest that
participation should be structured in a way that accommodates different employer circumstances.
Impact on Seasonal Workforce Recruitment
The survey provides evidence that housing availability can directly affect an employer's ability to recruit
seasonal workers. Thirteen respondents reported that they have frequently been unable to hire qualified
seasonal employees because of housing limitations. Another 15 respondents reported experiencing this
problem occasionally. Five respondents reported that it had occurred rarely.
The survey reveals a clear split in how employers experience the impact of housing limitations. While 28
respondents, or 40% of all participants, reported that housing limitations had never prevented them from
hiring qualified seasonal employees, an equal number reported that this had occurred frequently or
occasionally. Another nine respondents were unsure. These findings suggest that housing is a significant
workforce recruitment constraint for a substantial portion of local employers, while others have not
experienced the same level of difficulty. This variation underscores the importance of a flexible approach
that recognizes differences in employer needs and circumstances, rather than if housing limitations affect
all businesses equally.
These results suggest that initiatives should prioritize the segment of the workforce that is genuinely
unable to secure housing, rather than attempting to provide housing for every seasonal employee in the
Estes Valley.
Preferred Housing and Support
When asked what types of housing or support would most help their seasonal workforce, affordable
apartment units received the highest level of interest. Thirty-one respondents, or 44%, selected this
option. Twenty-eight respondents identified dormitory-style or shared housing, while 26 respondents
selected short-term rental access. Financial assistance or subsidies and transportation assistance were
each selected by 19 respondents, or 27%. Sixteen respondents identified employer partnership
programs. Respondents could select up to three options, and the results represent a number of
respondents who selected multiple options, therefore do not total 100%.
Preferred Housing Types and Support Options
Affordable apartment units 31
Dormitory-style / shared housing 28
Short-term rental access 26
Financial assistance / subsidies 19
Transportation assistance 19
Employer partnership programs 16
Other 17
The results demonstrate that employers are not seeking a single housing model. There is meaningful
interest in both private housing options, such as affordable apartments, and shared housing models that
could provide a greater number of beds within a smaller physical footprint. Several written responses also
suggested alternative approaches such as tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, and small standalone
rentals.
Some employers reported that their employees find housing on the Front Range, while written comments
identified transportation as a key factor in making those arrangements workable. One respondent noted
that employees who commute need reliable, affordable transportation to make that option feasible. These
findings suggest that a seasonal housing strategy should address both the immediate needs of
commuting employees and the longer-term goal of helping employees who want to relocate to Estes
Valley find housing. Potential approaches could include transportation partnerships, employer-supported
shuttles, and coordinated connections to available housing, while also exploring shared, smaller-scale, or
other affordable housing options that create realistic pathways for employees to move closer to their jobs.
Themes from Written Responses
The written comments provide additional context to the quantitative results and illustrate the range of
experiences among local employers. A recurring theme was that the challenge extends beyond seasonal
employees. Several respondents specifically noted that their year-round employees also experience
significant difficulty finding affordable housing, while others described employees commuting from
communities outside the Estes Valley because they cannot find or afford housing locally.
Another recurring theme was the relationship between wages and housing costs. Respondents described
the cost of local housing as difficult to reconcile with the wages that many seasonal and service-sector
positions can support. Some employers reported subsidizing housing for international seasonal
employees because employees could not reasonably absorb local housing costs on their own.
The comments also highlighted the importance of flexibility. Some respondents supported dormitory-style
housing specifically for summer workers, including J-1 employees, while others indicated that communal
housing would not meet the preferences of all workers. Suggestions included small apartments, studios,
tiny homes, accessory dwelling units, and other standalone rentals. One respondent also identified the
ability to legally accommodate employees living in vehicles as a potential component of a broader
seasonal housing strategy.
At the same time, several respondents expressed skepticism about additional government involvement.
Some indicated that businesses should be responsible for housing their own employees, while others
cited taxes, regulations, zoning requirements, or other government policies as barriers to providing
housing. These comments indicate that future seasonal housing strategies should distinguish between
providing a coordinated resource or partnership opportunity and assuming responsibility for housing every
seasonal worker in the community.
Implications for a Seasonal Employee Housing Strategy
Overall, the survey supports the development of a targeted seasonal employee housing strategy focused
on filling gaps that individual employers are unable to address independently. The strongest need
appears to occur during the summer, and many employers have relatively small individual housing needs.
This suggests that a centralized or shared approach could be particularly valuable for small businesses
that need only one to five housing spaces but cannot economically secure and manage an entire property
themselves.
Survey results indicate that initiatives should focus on creating a coordinated seasonal housing pool using
existing housing resources, including privately owned units, accessory dwelling units, employer-owned
properties, apartments, and other accommodations that may be available for a defined portion of the year.
Rather than developing new housing specifically for seasonal employees, strategies could coordinate
existing units and match them with participating employers and seasonal workers.
The survey also suggests that employer partnerships play an important role. Larger employers with
significant seasonal workforces may reserve or sponsor blocks of housing, while smaller businesses
could access a shared inventory. This type of structure distributes costs and administrative responsibilities
among participating employers under a Valley wide coordinator, convener, or facilitator.
Transportation should also be considered to support seasonal employees who live outside the Estes
Valley where reliable transportation could expand the effective workforce housing supply without requiring
every worker to live within the Town. Transportation options are useful for evening and early-morning
workers and for employees living in communities along the HWY 34 and HWY 36 corridors.
Finally, seasonal housing strategies should include clear expectations regarding safety, cleanliness,
occupancy, maintenance, and basic amenities. The survey demonstrates that simply increasing the
number of available beds is not sufficient if the housing is unaffordable or does not provide a reasonable
living environment.
Conclusion
The Seasonal Employee Housing Survey demonstrates that seasonal workforce housing is a meaningful
concern for a significant segment of Estes Valley employers, particularly during the summer months.
Seventy percent of respondents characterized seasonal housing availability as limited, very limited, or
practically unavailable, and 40% reported that housing limitations had at least occasionally prevented
them from hiring qualified seasonal employees.
Meanwhile, many businesses have only a small number of seasonal employees requiring housing, while
others do not employ seasonal workers or have developed their own housing solutions. The survey
therefore does not support a single, universal housing solution. Instead, it points toward a coordinated
approach that is flexible enough to serve different employer sizes, worker populations, and housing
circumstances.
The strongest opportunity identified through the survey is to create a system that connects existing
housing resources with seasonal workforce demand. A strategy combining a seasonal housing inventory,
employer partnerships, flexible housing types, transportation options, and clear housing standards could
address the most frequently identified barriers.
Participating Employers
KMAC Guides
Macdonald Book Shop
The Slab
Green jeep tours
Goldfinch & Company /dba Joe
Pyle Photography
Inkwell & Brew
EP, Properties LLC dba The
Rustic Acre
The cleaning authority of EP
Historic Crags Lodge
Rams Horn Village Resort
Worldmark Estes Park
Caribou Chalet, dba Quality Inn
The Saddle & Surrey Motel
Mocha Angelo’s Inc
Rarebear Management LLC
DM Productions Aiden Sinclair’s
Magick Underground
Riverview Pines
Mountain Berry, bakery
Delaware North - DBA Holiday
Inn Estes Park
Streamside on Fall River
Little Kids Montessori Childcare
and Preschool
Estes Park Learning Place
Rocky Mountain Mugolio, LLC
Craftsman Built Homes &
Remodels
Westover Construction
Ben's Painting Company LLC
The Country Market
Estes park knife co
Creativity Cabin
Colorado Homestead dba The
Hexagon
Estes Park Team Realty - Peaks
Hallmark
SOCK EM
Colorado Games Company
Spur Liquor
The Grey House
WizCraft
Rocket Fizz
Winterworks Inc
Peak to Peak Stitching
PARK SUPPLY
Running Wild Events
Wilderness Prowess
4SP LLC DBA ALTEATUDE
Wapiti Pub
Rock Cut Brewing Co.
Doughlicious llc
Poppy's Pizza & Grill
Elk Express Inc. Dba Elevations
Eatery and Bar
Pines & Cones Ice Cream
Kind Coffee
Inkwell & Brew
The Barrel, LLC
Primerica
Country Market
Alpenstrong Physical Therapy
Girl Friday
Estes Park Dental
Animal Medical Center
British Sports Werks, Inc.
TW Beck Architects
JD's Service Company, LLC
North Star 24 LLC
Let's Communicate
Elkhorn Law Office, LLC
Richardson Team Realty
Rocky Mountain Conservancy
Rocky Mountains Property
Services
Unink Printworks
the Country Market
Anonymous
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Future Study Session Items
September 22, 2026
• Parking License Plate Recognition Policy
• Feather Flag Sign Code Review
• Black Canyon Treatment Plant Property
October 13, 2026
• Overview of Fish Hatchery Project to Date
• Organizational Climate Action Plan
• Future 4th of July Fireworks
• Winter Event Strategy Proposal
October 27, 2026
• Joint Study Session: 2027 Visit Estes Park Operating Plan
November 10, 2026
• Liquor License Process
• Annexation of Enclaves Follow Up
November 24, 2026
• Growth Management Areas Overview
Items Approved - Unscheduled
• Micromobility Devices Code Updates
• Façade and Sidewalk Improvement Program Proposal
• Structure of Potential Development Agreement with Whimsadoodle and the
Estes Park Housing Authority for Cleave Street Development
Items for Town Board Consideration
• Nothing