The owners of two Roaring Fork Valley mobile home parks rejected an initial offer from residents, but negotiations will continue.
The rejection letter cited terms like post-closing obligations and financing, not combined offer amounts of $42 million — which the Aspen-Basalt and Mountain Valley mobile home parks’ residents’ offers met.
“Generally speaking, the offer that had been submitted was very aggressive and seller favorable,” Tom Snyder, the attorney representing the Aspen-Basalt Mobile Home Park residents, said.
He said the residents’ offers included terms that divided risk more equitably between the parties because the lenders prefer it, but they are willing to submit a second offer to meet most of the terms listed in the rejection. Title insurance and other protections would still shield the parks, he said.
Another term in the rejection tries to push back on the financing deadline, saying that the buyer has to obtain an offer for necessary financing or guarantees within the 120 deadline from the latest notice.
Boulder-based nonprofit Thistle has said the deadline is Aug. 7; the rejection letter says the deadline is Aug. 18. The reason for the disparity is not clear.
The attorney for the owner did not respond to a request for comment for this story.
Snyder said that the residents’ team read the law differently on that point with $11.1 million in letters of intent signed by local governments.
“If that’s a sticking point then things are going to get [contested], but I’m hopeful the seller sees it our way,” Snyder said. “We’re hopeful. It’s a negotiation process.”
The residents submitted an offer to purchase their parks on June 27, which their representatives said largely met the terms outlined in the existing offer from another party, which appears to be a group from Dallas that is raising rents at a park in Jackson, Wyoming.
The Aspen-Basalt and Mountain Valley mobile home parks’ residents’ offers met the asking prices of $26.5 million and $15.5 million for the parks, respectively.
They were first notified of an impending sale in March, as Colorado law requires owners to notify mobile home park residents of things like rental increases or an intent to sell or list the property. Since then, the residents have aggressively pursued a resident-owned community model with the assistance of Thistle.
The current owners, Park City, Utah-based Investment Property Group, rejected the offer on July 3, but stressed in the letter that they will negotiate the offer “in good faith,” a requirement of owners from the Colorado Mobile Home Park Act.
Snyder said that negotiations could run until the deadline in August. Park residents will have the opportunity for a final vote of approval on the purchase.
In total, Roaring Fork Valley governments have committed $11.1 million through letters of intent to the park residents to help alleviate the mortgage payments that would be associated with financing from mobile home park-specific lender ROC USA Capital.
Thistle analysis found that the parks would need $20 million in contributions toward the purchases to keep lot payments steady. Without it, the high asking price would significantly raise the mortgage payments from even the park-friendly lender.
Pitkin County and the city of Aspen both approved $3 million in commitments. Eagle County approved $2.5 million as a $1.5 million grant and $1 million loan. Snowmass Village and Carbondale both approved $1 million and Basalt — the first to dedicate funds — committed $500,000. Glenwood Springs committed $100,000.
With private donations, the parks have at least $12.6 million from community partners committed to their offers.
Garfield County is the only municipality from Aspen to Glenwood Springs that has not committed any funding. The Mountain Valley park is located within unincorporated Garfield County.
The Garfield Board of County Commissioners heard a presentation during its work session on Tuesday from Tim Townsend, ROC director with Thistle, and April Long, the executive director of West Mountain Regional Housing Coalition, who is leading the funding push. As it was just a work session, the commissioners did not take a formal position.
Commissioner Tom Jankovsky said that while he was sympathetic to the residents’ situation, other pressures on the county budget — like an anticipated $6 million in cuts going into 2026 — were also weighing on county resources.
The BOCC was curious about the potential to commit funding only to the park in Garfield County, but Long encouraged them to commit to a pool that could be used to benefit both parks, as did every other entity.
“I believe that the threat of what you could potentially lose and face moving forward is large enough to consider that it is worth your investment in preserving what you have,” Long said. “If Garfield County showed up in a big way with something like $1 million dollars, I think you would see increased contributions from other communities.”
The BOCC would have to consider a contribution at a future meeting as a formal agenda item for a letter of intent. When and if that would happen is not clear.
“I know you have our support. I don’t know that you have our financial support,” Jankovsky said at the end of the discussion. “There’ll be another round for that.”
The residents and their partners will solicit donations throughout the negotiation process. Interested donors can contact Long at april@wmrhousing.org.
