The city of Aspen is considering another contribution to a resident-ownership model purchase of a mobile home park, less than a year after the closing of the Aspen Basalt and Mountain Valley mobile home park purchase that the city assisted with. 

The Cavern Springs mobile home park in Glenwood Springs has received an offer to purchase the land underneath the park from an undisclosed buyer for a price of $23 million.

“Once this park is sold again to an outside entity … it will no longer be affordable,” Katherine Coe, project organizer at Mountain Voices Project — the presenting organization — said. “We know this from experience … and we know that this park is valuable to Aspen. More than 40% of residents work in Aspen, sometimes six to seven days a week, especially in the high season.”

Colorado law allows mobile home park residents the chance to make a counter-offer, creating the possibility that mobile home park communities can become “Resident-Owned Communities” before they are sold to the highest bidder. 

Distance hasn’t kept the city of Aspen from contributing to similar efforts in the past, as both the Aspen Basalt mobile home park in Basalt and Mountain Valley in Carbondale received funds from the city toward their successful resident-ownership purchases. 

“We all know there has been a proud history of investment in trying to maintain mobile home parks,” said Aspen Mayor Rachael Richards on Monday evening. “I think Smuggler (mobile home park) was the very first that was designated resident-occupied and saved for permanent residency.”

Cavern Springs is home to 300 residents, according to the staff memo shared with city council ahead of Monday’s meeting, with more than 120 residents working in Aspen. 

The city memo listed $2.1 million as a potential contribution amount, based on funds provided last year to the Aspen Basalt and Mountain Valley purchases. The park is also seeking Department of Local Affairs funds that could amount to $2.5 million, but would likely not materialize until later in the process as it relies on other funding sources being secured. 

More than $1 million has already been committed by other foundations and local municipal bodies. 

Residents have until June 13 to make a competitive offer, according to Mountain Voices project staff. 

While Aspen didn’t commit to a solid number on Monday,  councilors were mostly in support of providing some level of funding

Councilor John Doyle did note that he had previous concerns about fulfilling this request, as it could set a precedent of parks coming to Aspen for money when their owners look to sell. But he recognized research shared in the city’s memo that there are only three more parks between Aspen and Glenwood Springs that are potentially at risk of a sale uprooting their housing stability. 

Many other parks have already gone through a resident-ownership process or are otherwise considered “safe,” because ownership is not looking to sell in the near future. 

“I’m feeling pretty good about supporting this, because this won’t be happening again, over and over,” Doyle said. “I fully support this. I ran on housing and housing is essential for everyone, and the workers that work in this mobile home park are essential to Aspen.”

Councilors Christine Benedetti and Sam Rose, along with Richards, joined Doyle in their support of the request. Benedetti also echoed Doyle’s concerns and asked that there be a formal process or set of guidelines through which future requests are considered. Rose countered by pointing out the high return-on-investment of keeping housing in the hands of residents as opposed to building new affordable housing. 

“Return-on-investment specifically to us at the city is potentially quite high, where 42% of working residents are employed in Aspen,” Rose said. “The acquisition price is a small fraction of the cost to build a new unit.”

Councilor Bill Guth, however, was opposed, questioning how big the risk of doubling rent was and asking whether it was the city of Aspen’s responsibility to prevent rent from rising. 

“I don’t think that this perceived risk is what you think it is,” Guth told presenters on Monday. “I think that mobile home parks are naturally occurring workforce housing … and I don’t think that means that rent should stay the same as it is, forever and always.”

Guth asked whether there are examples of other mobile homes in the valley doubling rent or being otherwise unhoused due to an exchange of ownership. 

Richards responded by saying that there are ways in which a mobile home park could change rules after ownership changes hands to uproot long-time residents. She also noted that, despite Guth’s opposition, a majority on the council were supportive of some type of funding, though she added that it was unlikely that council would meet the full $2.1 million request. 

“I think that’s really the question of, who do we want to house at the park?” She asked. “Should it become second homes? … For a lot of people (Glenwood Springs) is right in the hiking trails and right next to these other little towns that are great.” 

No action was taken at Monday’s work session. The issue will come before the council again for consideration in a future regular session.