Village at Breckenridge owners made a historical decision for the future of the Village and voted for and approved the special assessments at the Annual General Meeting in January 2009.  It was a tough but right decision as we all want the Village to be the premier Breckenridge real estate property once again!

The assessments are expected to be $76.84 per square foot. The units square footage varies from about 400 sq feet for the studio in Lifside to 1,360 sq feet for a three bedroom condo in Plaza III. If we do a math here, the owners have to pay something between $30,700 to $104,500!

The construction shall start in April 2010 and be over before the Holidays in 2010, so the owners could enjoy Christmas and New Year in the new place and those who have their condos on the rental program could make good rental income.

The interesting fact is that all buildings in the Village will have new names:

Liftside will be Peak 9 Inn

Chateaux will be Wetterhorn

Plaza I will be Antero

Plaza II will be Shavano

Plaza III will be Blanca

The town of Breckenridge has already approved the building plans and now the Village Treasurer is actively communicating with the banks on different financing options for the owners. The Village has a great HOA web site with tons of useful information. The Resource Center has two different  presentations for the upcoming project and monthly newsletters for the owners and everybody who is interested in the Village life.

Real estate in Breckenridge

Tags: Breckenridge, Breckenridge real estate, condos, construction, property

Celebrate Mardi Gras at 9,600 feet. Bring your beads and your festival spirit to Breckenridge. Join us for the annual Mardi Gras celebration including the Bacchus Ball featuring Chris Daniels and the Kings, Lundi Gras at the Riverwalk with the Dirty Dozen Brass Band, and the Mardi Gras Parade down Main Street on Fat Tuesday.

Red, White & Blue wild-land workers will start taking out brush and trees in Highlands Park, above Discovery Hill in Breckenridge. They picked that area because of its high risk and the fact that it backs to national forest. The money comes from a $90,000 federal grant, as well as some kick-ins by the Highlands Park Housing Association. The project will cost about $20,000 to remove trees, which will slowly and safely be burned, in the 5 acres. Other fire mitigation projects will continue near the Upper Blue Valley. In addition, lawmakers are looking at setting aside $5.5 million to clear more trees, recycle beetle kill and create wildfire plans throughout Colorado. The U.S. Forest Service also hopes to dole out $26 million throughout the Rocky Mountains to deal with the problem. Local authorities say that approximately 8,600 acres need to be thinned. The cost is averages $1,250 an acre, but reduced fuel costs are a plus for the cause.

Tags: Breckenridge

For the third time, Home Depot is submitting a proposal to come to Silverthorne. The big box would be 100,000 square feet on a parcel south of intestate I-70, near the outlet stores. In order to deal with traffic concerns, Home Depot developers would extend South Adams Avenue by two lanes, with a median in the center. The Colorado Department of Transportation needs to approve the access. Home Depot would also need approval from the town and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in order to essentially move a wetlands area from the river to Cottonwood Park. Previous proposals failed due to concerns about traffic and the environment. The chain is closing about 15 stores and abandoning plans to open 50 others, but it continues to show interest in Silverthorne because of the region’s prosperity.

Tags: Silverthorne

This November, voters in Colorado will decide if water projects and the health of the forest should come first, or if improvements to Interstate I-70 should.

Amendment 52 calls for diverting up to $90 million in taxes from drilling and mining activities from funding water projects and forest health to contributing to highway upgrades

Some Denver investors are buying homes for $100,000 or less on the Front Range, and then renting them for up to $450 more than their mortgage and taxes. Many are located in Aurora, Green Valley Ranch, Montbello, southwest Denver and Commerce City. Homes selling for less than $100,000 on the Front Range have increased substantially since 2005. That year, 355 properties sold for under $100,000, but in the first nine months of 2008, 2,015 homes have sold in that price range nearly 90% were foreclosures. Foreclosures in 2007 in the Denver metro area jumped 41% since 2006. And so far this year, foreclosures are up 9% over the same time frame last year. However, investors may not be able to find as many good deals in the very near future. Colorado’s Division of Housing is spending about $88 million to purchase foreclosures, which will help about 15% of endangered homeowners.

Tags: real estate

Town council okayed new development on a 51-acre parcel known as the Smith Ranch property, off Highway 9, near the Kum & Go gas station.

Tim Crane, of Compass Homes Development, owns the property and must annex and zone it by Oct. 31, 2008. The development will be called Red Mountain Village and will include affordable housing. (Currently, Silverthorne has no deed-restricted properties that are not rentals.)

Crane hopes to build both single family and duplex homes and expects to start building next year.

Tags: development, Silverthorne, Silverthorne real estate

Copper  Mountain wants to develop its base area more, but the county commissioners are slowing progress by not deciding one way or the other. Another hearing will be held at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday at Mountain Plaza at Copper.

Commissioners are mainly concerned that there won’t be enough parking after Copper Mountain develops 420 more units. Resort officials said Copper might talk about building a parking structure in the future to solve the problem. Questions over how development would affect recpath construction from Copper toward Fremont Pass also raised concerns.

Copper Mountain real estate

Tags: construction, Copper Mountain, Copper Mountain real estate, development

OK. The bad news first: Compared to the first five months of 2007, the first five months in 2008’s total Summit County real estate sales stats has decreased 22% from:

$556,504,300 in 2007 to

$435,302,900 in 2008.

(In 2006, the total year-to-date sales were: $518,502,100, also higher than 2008).

In January, 2008, the total property sales was $85,497,600, down about $2,500,000.

In February, 2008, it took a big hit at $64,539,900, down $23,800,000.

March didn’t fair as poorly, at $95,396,600, only down about $3,000,000.

April and May took another dive, coming in at the $94,000,000 and $95,000,000 range — a difference from April, 2007, of about $39,670,800 and from May, 2007, of about $63,000,000.

Though this sounds like very bad news, it has to be taken in the context of a larger picture. Yes, the number of sales is down compared to this time last year. That means Summit County market is starting to see the slowdown that the rest of the nation has experienced for awhile. However, on the positive side, Summit County real estate is still showing strength in terms of its average single-family home price.

From January through May, 2008, the average single-family home price was$838,347 (with 190 transactions). This compares to the 2007 average of $798,889. Of course, the year-to-date 2008 number only tells a portion of the story. In 2007, 801 homes sold, so we’ll have to see what the rest of 2008 brings. While transactions are down this year, average sales price is looking good so far.

The other good news is that, compared to other resort towns in Colorado, Summit County property is doing better than most in the number of sales.

While Summit County is down 22% in total year-to-date 2008 sales compared to the same months (January through May) in 2007, Eagle County, which hosts the opulent town of Vail and Vail Ski Resort, is down 30%. Worse yet, Pitkin County, home of world-renown Aspen, and Routt County, home of Steamboat, are both down 51%! The only mountain-resort town close to Summit County that fared better than Summit County is Garfield County (where the quaint town of Glenwood Springs and Glenwood Hot Spring lies), which is down 2% less than Summit County, at 20%.

Moreover, Summit County had the highest number of transactions from January through May, compared to Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin and Routt counties. While Summit County had 780 transactions, Eagle had 604, Garfield had 764, Pitkin had 376 and Routt had 572.

On the other hand, Summit County ranked fourth out of the five counties when it came to year-to-date average single-family home prices. This is both good and bad news, depending on how you look at it.

The good news is that Summit County’s average single-family home price isn’t unreachable for many people, like it is in Pitkin County, where the average home price is $5.2 million, or even $1.6 million in Eagle County! And, at $838,347, Summit County’s average single-family home price is much greater than in Garfield County, which is $457,374. However, Summit County does lag behind Routt County (Steamboat), which is at $920,971, year-to-date.

New construction, 2008

From January through May, 2008, the number of closings on new construction was 71. Garfield County saw the most growth in new construction, with 205 closings, while Routt had 179, Eagle had 128 and Pitkin had 110. Summit County new construction sales from January through May added up to $50,878,000.

So far, new construction closings make up 12% of Summit County’s gross transactions, which is the lowest percentage out of all five counties. However, that could be because Summit County is rapidly running out of new areas to develop, whereas other counties have more land on the outskirts of the main towns. In 2007, new construction closings in Summit County totaled 308, just above Pitkin County’s 296 — the least amount of new construction sales. Pitkin County is also rapidly running out of developable land.

While new construction closings in the United States as a whole declined 20.89% from 2006 to 2007, Summit County increased 7.69%.

Price points in 2007

Out of all five counties, Summit County had the lowest price point, with 24,717 units assessed in 2007 under $1 million, compared to Eagle County’s 21,911; Garfield County’s 18,053; Routt County’s 12,761; and Pitkin County’s 5,921.

However, when it came to units between $1,000,001 and $3 million, Summit County ranked third, with 1,505 units, above Routt County’s 1,027 and Garfield County’s 353. Pitkin County had 3,147 and Eagle County had the most, at 5,394.

Between $3,000,001 and $5 million, Summit County ranked second, at 31, ahead of Garfield County’s 10 units. Pitkin, of course won, with 1,256 units, ahead of Eagle County’s 897 and Routt’s 82.

Last year, no Summit County properties assessed above $5 million. Pitkin still had 1,117 units, and Eagle County had 466. Routt and Garfield had less than 20.

Median home price changes between 2006 and 2007

Summit County fared much better in median home prices, compared to the rest of the United States. In October, 2007, Summit County’s median price was $648,750, while the nation’s was $207,800. Between 2006 and 2007, the nation’s median price decreased by 5%, while Summit County’s increased by 5.5%.

Compared to Summit’s surrounding four counties, Summit came in second lowest for median home price, ahead of Garfield County’s 2007 median of $394,950, up 14.6% from 2006.

Again, this just means that Summit County is one of the most affordable mountain resort areas in which to invest. Pitkin County (Aspen area) is unreachable for most people, at a 2007 $3.7 million median, up 5.7% from 2006. Eagle County (Vail area) is quite a stretch, at $810,000. Routt County (Steamboat area) is close to Summit County, at $660,000, up 13.7%. Eagle County saw the greatest increase in median home price from 2006 to 2007, at 32%.