Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20110321 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner DATE OF MEMO: March 18, 2011 MEETING DATE: Monday, March 21, Spm Council Chambers RE: Review of 2011 AACP Survey REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No action is requested at this time. The consultants will present the findings of the recent AACP survey. SUMMARY: In late 2010, City Council directed staff to conduct a statistically -valid survey on the AACP. Using consultants from Design Workshop, a survey was crafted and sent to a random sampling of 2,000 voters and 2,000 property owners in the Aspen Area in January 2011. The results of the survey were compiled by the consultants, and are attached to this memo. Many of the questions in the survey come from the 2010 clicker sessions and the 2008 AACP survey. This was done to help compare the results of the various public outreach methods. The report includes an analysis of how the responses in the 2011 Survey compare to those past methods. The survey results are divided into eight (8) parts: 1. Executive Summary: This provides a quick overview of the results. 2. Question by Questions Results: This section provides the results of each question in table and graph form. Where applicable, the results are compared to those from the 2008 survey and the 2010 clicker meetings. 3. Sampling Methodology: This section provides an overview of the methodology for generating the random voter and property owner samples. 4. Survey Instrument: This is a copy of the survey that respondents filled out. 5. Scattergram: The 2011 and 2008 surveys asked respondents to rank how important certain issues are, and how the Aspen area is doing on those issues. This section provides a table of the responses, comparing the 2008 and 2011 data. 6. Age Cross -Tab: This section shows the questions cross - tabulated by age. 7. Demographics: This section includes basic demographic information on the Aspen Area. Most is from the 2000 Census, but the items that have been released from the 2010 Census are included. 8. Presentation: The section includes a copy of the presentation that the consultants will present at the work session on March 20 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Results of Survey Page 1 of 1 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey _ . , , ,..- r . .,• _ . . r•f .. • , , ' I' A .. . - ?ti t , ' n� _ t ' • . I: 71_?,. _:•.'". 4. 7 _ , ': a: 6 ., . . .: . ._ ... air , .; .., , .. : . r r MhM '' . "7 . - ' : ".... • ". , . 1: s''‘I' . * . . 1' i ' I, i t i- y R 4141 4.7 . A .' Ntia..%- Community Engagement Associates Creative Public Engagement, Facilitation, Mediation, Surveys, Strategic Planning March 2011 1 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey: Executive Summary Purpose The core purpose of the 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey was to collect input from the community on language in the preliminary draft of the AACP. This survey provides statistically valid data to supplement that which came from many other community input options including the keypad polling sessions that were conducted in November 2010. This survey included questions that were asked at the keypad polling sessions, and therefore provides an opportunity to compare results gathered via this random selection process and the self - selected keypad polling events. In addition, our community like many others has experienced a great deal of change over the past two years when the initial 2008 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey was conducted. This survey instrument includes questions from the 2008 survey, providing a unique opportunity to see how our changing economic and community conditions have affected community priorities and attitudes. Methodology In November 2010, Design Workshop Inc. was contracted to administer a scientific survey of Aspen area residents and second homeowners. The Pitkin County Voter Registration and Assessor lists were used to sample local residents including homeowners, second homeowners, renters, and business owners. Random sampling techniques were employed to select the samples. Letters were sent in January 2011 to the randomly selected potential respondents directing them to go to the internet to fill out the survey. All respondents were assigned identification numbers (IDN) to assure that no duplicate responses were counted. After two weeks, non - respondents received a second letter again inviting them to take the survey on- line. 2010 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey Sample Data Samples: Sample Mailed Delivered Returned o� Standard Frame Error County Assessor 5,305 1,987 1,934 310 16.02% +/- 5.6 Voter Registration 6,720 2,001 1,747 220 12.59% +/- 6.6 Total 12,025 3,988 3,681 530 95% Confidence Level The chart above details the size of the original sample frame, the number of surveys that were mailed, the number of surveys delivered (meaning those not returned by the Post Office as `undeliverable'), the number of surveys completed and returned, the % of response, and the resulting margins of error for each sample frame. The chart below details the number of responses received from each of the two mailings. For more detailed information on the sampling process, see the section on Purpose and Methodology. 4 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey Highlights of the Survey Results 1. Thumbnail Profile Following are the most selected responses to some of survey questions: Most respondents were 55 — 64 year old males, are full -time residents living in the Aspen Townsite and have lived in the Aspen area for 21+ years. Most respondents had not participated in the AACP process previously. The four most important issues Aspen will face in the next five years were identified as: preservation of small town character, traffic, economic development and managing growth. Most respondents prefer to let the market decide about what development occurs, but would be willing to discourage the development of larger lodging units. They identified that development should be compatible with the neighborhood, that new buildings should fit into their surroundings, and that downtown Aspen should be allowed to evolve past the Victorian era. Most respondents felt there was too much development activity during the 2005 -6 construction boom, but rather than creating a construction pacing system, indicated we should work to manage impacts. When asked how much growth should occur, the majority stated the rate of growth should be about the same as at present. They indicated there should always be some flexibility in housing mitigation and that affordable housing should not be required to be on -site. Most respondents care very much about maintaining Aspen's small town character and that we are doing best at recreation opportunities and worst at economic development and traffic management. 2. Comparison of the 2008/2011 Surveys and the Keypad Polling Results By in large, the results of all three survey processes were very similar. The respondent pools were demographically very similar as were their responses. Of the 51 questions or sub - issues in a question that were shared by two or more of the surveys, there were only five instances in which the top three choices differed. • (Q10) Five Most Important Issues — The 2008 Survey included `preservation of open space' in the top five issues and the 2011 Survey did not. The 2011 Survey had `economic development' in the top five while the 2008 survey did not. • (Q13) Development to Discourage — Keypad Pollers were inclined to discourage affordable housing and tourist oriented retail; 2011 Survey respondents recorded office space and public /institutional development as ones they would discourage. • (Q11 + 33) Values /Assessment Scattergram —The 2011 survey respondents registered less dissatisfaction with traffic than the 2008 respondents, and they registered more dissatisfaction with economic development than did the 2008 respondents. • (Q12) Development to Encourage — Keypad Pollers were inclined to encourage the development of smaller lodging units. This was not selected as one of the top three choices in the 2011 Survey. 5 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey • (Q23) Construction Pacing — When offered the statement, "I would support a construction pacing system, but only if it place annual limits on only the..." the third most selected response by Keypad Pollers was: Lodging development. That was the fifth most selected response among the 2011 Survey respondents. Differences between the 2008 and 2011 surveys seem mostly to have been influenced by the intensifying economic down turn over the past two years, and the resulting community impacts including the decreased dissatisfaction with traffic and increased dissatisfaction with economic development. The sentiment to "let the market decide" had significant support in several survey questions notably Questions 12 and 13, which asked what types of development to encourage and discourage. The concept of relaxing regulation and policy that would inhibit economic development was expressed more abundantly in the 2011 survey and in the Comments section. (See #5 for a review of the Scatter gram illustrating Values vs. Assessment.) 3. Five Most Important Issues Question 5 in the 2011 Survey asked, "What are the five most important issues that will be facing the Aspen area in the next five years ?" The 2008 and 2011 surveys had four of their top five issues in common, although in slightly different priority order. But, 'preservation of open space' which was in the top five in 2008, was replaced by `economic development' in the top five in 2011. Comparison 2008 and 2010 Total 2011 Survey Total 2008 Survey Surveys Count % Count Public transportation 70 7.46% 141 5.8% Affordable housing 65 6.93% 78 3.2% Cost of living 87 9.28% 259 10.886 Economic development 89 9.49% 106 4.4% Preservation of open space 67 7.14% 205 8.4% Preservation of small town character 103 10.98% 316 Visual impact 56 5.97% 154 6.3% Water quality 34 3.62% 87 3.6% Air quality 34 3.62% 105 4.3% Traffic 95 327 13.4'%, Construction impacts 42 4.48% 168 6.9% Public safety 24 2.56% 31 1.3% Managing growth 89 9.49% 231 9.5% Child care 15 1.60% 23 0.9% Senior services 45 4.80% 74 3.0% Historic preservation 23 2.45% 71 2.9% 1 st Choice 3` Choice 4 Choice 5 Choice 6 1 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey 4. Values versus Assessment Question 11 and 33 provided respondents a list of 18 community issues such as affordable housing, economic development, public transportation, and recreation opportunities and asked them to rate those issues in terms of their 'importance' and then later to rate those same issues on 'performance' or how effectively the Aspen area is addressing those issues. By comparing the importance and performance ratings, we can identify the things that community members are satisfied with and the things that they might want to see improved. Following are two displays of this information. The table shows the 'difference' between the importance and performance rating for each issue. Positive scores mean that expectations are being exceeded. A negative score means that respondents believe we are underperforming on that issue. The foursquare Scattergram tells an additional element of this story. If we consider the four quadrants of the Scattergram as: Quadrant 1: Low Importance /Low Performance; Quadrant 2: Low Importance /High Performance; Quadrant 3: High Importance /Low Performance; and Quadrant 4: High Importance /High Performance. There is a strong suggestion that the most attention should be paid to those issues that fall in Quadrant 3 — High Importance but Low Performance — in the 2011 Survey, traffic and economic development fell into this quadrant. It is possible to have a large negative differential on an issue that still falls in the High Importance /High Performance area...or in the Low Importance /Low Performance quadrant. So, looking at the differential coupled with identifying which quadrant the issue occupies provides additional information for making priority decisions. 2011 2008 1 Survey survey 1 2010 2008 2010 Assessm't Assessm't 2008 2010 Value Assessm't Value Value 2008 Value Assessm't 2010 Topics Importance How well Difference Difference Importance How well 2008 Topics Traffic 75% 16% -59% -81% 84% 3% Traffic Economic development 65% 31% -34% -26% 49% 23% Economic development Sense of community 80% 50% -30% -32% 82% 50% Sense of community Energy efficiency 68% 52% -16% -44% 81% 37% Energy efficiency Local airport 77% 64% -13% 11% 60% 71% Local airport Environmental quality 83% 70% -13% -17% 89% 72% Environmental quality Scenic /visual quality 87% 78% -9% 6% 89% 95% Scenic/visual quality Senior services 39% 31% - 8% -18% 50% 32% Senior services Health care 71% 65% -6% -10% 79% 69% Health care Open space 72% 70% -2% 15% 66% 81% Open space Public safety 76% 74% -1% 9% 74% 83% Public safety Affordable housing 43% 42% -1% -23% 62% 39% Affordable housing Cultural diversity 46% 47% 1% -5% 47% 42% Cultural diversity Child care 25% 32% 8% -2% 31% 29% Child care Recreational 79% 89% 81% 97% Recreational opportunities 10% 16% opportunities Historic preservation 47% 58% 11% 7% 50% 57% Historic preservation Public transportation 67% 78% 11% 11% 65% 76% Public transportation Education 54% 70% 16% 15% 66% 81% Education 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey 2008- How important are these issues and how well is the Aspen area doing with respect to these issues? • Economic development 1 00% •Affordable housing Rec OpA Scenic Qual Open space •Sense of community y Pub Safety K -12 Ed O S •Public safety 0 Pub Trill N . Env Qual ty • Environmental quality L Airport Health Al ■Energy efficiency •Public transportation = Historic Pres •Cultural diversity 3 50% •Community ■ Local airport Divers. Aff HoUSI SceniGvisual quality Energy c ■ Education II Sr Svs C Child Care •Historic preservation CD . O. Econ Dev •Cnilo care N Q A Recreational opportunities CD C ;F, - Traffic N Traffic •Senior services d ■Health care • 0% 50% 100% w Percent rating the issue as important a 2011 - How important are these issues and how well is the Aspen area doing with respect to these issues? • Economic development 1 00% •Affordable housing Open space Rec Opp •Sense of community N •Public safety 0 Pub Trill Scenic Qual N N ■ Pub Safety •Environmental quality L - K -12 Ed O Space . Env Quality ■ Energy efficiency 3 ffi Health c■ Airport d Historic PreS •Public transportation = 50% Energy U • Community •Guttural diversity — Diver. Local airport 0 Y Aff Housili N Scenic/visual quality R C Child Care Education m _ I. Sr Svs . Econ Dev 0. Q .; Historic preservation 07 . Child care c Traffic R • Recreational opportunities L - C Traffic N o • 0 / •Senior services tU a- 0% 50% 100% •Heatth care Percent rating the issue as important 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey 5. Non - consensus Issues There were two questions on which the opinion was nearly evenly divided. Question 20 which asked, "What is your preference for how development applications should be reviewed ?" had the following response ratios in the 2011 Survey and the Keypad Polling: Total 2011 Survey - Aggregate Table Count % Develo•ment should never be vaned 234 44.2% Development should be negotiated. 223 42.1% don't know enough about this topic ° to express an opinion. 0 0.0 /° Other (please specify) 40 7.5% Missing 33 6.2% 2010 Keypad Polling - Aggregate Total Table Count % Development should never be varied 68 47.6% Development should be negotiated. 71 49.7% I don't know enough about this topic to express an opinion. 4 2.8% Other (please specify) 0 0.0% Missing 0 0.0% Question 30 asked, "In general, do you think things in the Aspen area are headed in the right or the wrong direction ?" Both the 2008 and 2010 Surveys showed a similar lack of consensus about that question. Total 2011 Survey - Aggregate Table Count % Right direction 218 41.1% Wrong direction 204 38.5% Other 93 17.5% Missing 15 2.8% Total 2008 Survey - Aggregate Table Count % Right direction 230 40.6% Wrong direction 208 36.7% Other 106 18.7% Missing 23 4.1% 9 2011 Aspen Area Community Plan Survey 6. Survey Results by Age The Aspen area is, to some extent a bifurcated community, economically and generationally. Some of the issues facing our area may look very different depending on which end of an economic or age spectrum a respondent rests. In the Appendix are data tables in which the survey data is cross tabulated based upon age. 7. Survey Methodology — Internet vs. Paper Surveys: A two -stage mailing was used for both the 2008 and 2010 survey. In the 2008 survey, the second mailing included a hard copy of the survey with a postage paid return envelope. In the 2011 survey, the second mailing was a reminder to take the survey on- line or to request a hard copy survey. In comparing the results in 2008 and 2011 Surveys (tables below), the total response amount is very similar. The age breakdown for respondents is virtually the same. It appears, based on the results of the second mailing in the 2008 survey that if a hard copy was provided, that is what people used. It also appears that the response rate in the 2011 survey was not compromised by offering the survey primarily on -line with hard copies only available upon request. 2011 Survey 1st Mailing 2nd Mailing Total Internet 183 369 552 97.53% Pa•er Surve * 10 4 14 2.47% Total 193 373 566 100% * Paper surveys were made available upon request during both mailings. 2008 Survey 1st Mailing 2nd Mailing Total cyo Internet 230 28 258 48% Paper Survey 0 276 276 52% Total 230 304 534 100% 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager FROM: Steve Aitken, Director of Golf DATE: March 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: March 21, 2011 RE: Golf School and Teaching Operation Request of Council: Staff is requesting a work session with City Council to review a proposed lease agreement for golf school operations at the City of Aspen golf course. Background: Over the past several years the Aspen City golf course has upgraded its facilities and is now recognized as one of the best municipal golf courses in the country. With the name recognition of Aspen and an award winning golf facility, there is an opportunity to attract destination golfers who want to improve their game. Partnering with a nationally recognized golf school will allow the Aspen Golf Club to combine marketing efforts to provide an attractive destination for golfers from around the country. The benefits of this relationship benefit the golf course with increased greens fee paying rounds, retail sales, and restaurant sales. In addition local hotels, restaurants and shops can also benefit from the addition of this type of operation. Staff advertised nationally for proposals from qualified golf school operators and interviews were conducted with the top candidates. Rabito Golf was selected based on background, experience, teaching philosophy, ability to utilize our staff for teaching, ability to attract new business, and financial proposal. Carl Rabito formed Rabito Golf Schools 14 years ago and since then has worked with beginners, juniors, amateur, and professional golfers to improve their game. His teaching philosophy has been featured in Golf Journal magazine and Golf Week magazine. Staff was able to review the Rabito Golf School operations in Orlando. The Rabito Golf School personnel were very professional in appearance and demeanor. The operation provided instruction to golfers of all abilities. Instructional staff were excited about teaching golf and wanted to share all of their knowledge and insight to improve each player. Currently Rabito Golf Schools are located in Illinois, Virginia, Texas, and Florida. In addition Rabito Golf Schools are working with some of the Billy Casper managed golf properties. Staff believes that there is potential to create golf packages to Aspen for members at these managed facilities. Mr. Rabito also has been working with a contact in China to bring approximately 5 -10 Chinese golf students to Aspen for the summer. Staff is confident that an agreement with the City and Rabito Golf will be a success due to: • Rabito Golf s ability to attract new students and retain existing students. • The ability to utilize on site existing staff to teach. • The ability to market together with Rabito Golf to provide attractive golf/ golf instruction packages to various target markets. Financial Implications: Staff has researched contracts for golf schools and believes that the following financial agreement would be favorable to both the City of Aspen and Rabito Golf. The lease would be structured so that the City would receive 30% of gross income from golf school operations. Due to the start up costs and travel for Rabito Golf Schools the City would agree to fund start up and travel costs annually of $15,000.00. Based on projected income for the 1st year of operations of $85,000.00, Rabito Golf would net $74,500 and the City of Aspen Golf Department would make $10,500 after the annual $15,000 investment. In previous years, the Golf Department did not realize revenue from golf instruction, all revenues went to the instructors. If council concurs, Staff will return with a formal lease agreement for approval at a regular City Council meeting.