HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20140401
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 01, 2014
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Request for Funds
ACES - 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act / Maroon Bells 50th Birthday
Mountain Plains Museum Association Conference - City Sponsorship
II. Next Generation Advisory Committee Update
III. Lodge Incentive Program Follow-Up
March 5, 2014
Steve Skadron
Mayor of Aspen
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Dear Steve:
Preparations are under way for what may be the biggest environmental celebration the Roaring Fork
Valley has ever seen! The Maroon Bells 50
the base of Aspen Highlands, will feature a
activities for all ages. It will draw more than 1,000 people. The purpose of the event is t
awareness and educate the public around the values of wilderness.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the first 54 wilderness areas, including the Maroon Bells
Snowmass Wilderness. This 50th
throw a giant, community-wide party for the Maroon Bells
of our valley, beloved by every resident of this community and by millions around the world.
The event is presented by three Valley institutions: th
Center for Environmental Studies, and Wilderness Workshop, with many other organizations
planning related activities during the day
being put together by ACES, the USFS
We would love to count the City
be interested in being a presenting sponsor at the $5,000
for additional event details. We are also
asking them to join us as presenting sponsors.
The City of Aspen would of course be acknowledged on the poster, on the event page online, in all
email communication about the event, with signage at the event, on any commemorative
merchandise, and in any large print ads.
more detail. Just let us know a good time for you.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Chris R. Lane
CEO
ACES
reparations are under way for what may be the biggest environmental celebration the Roaring Fork
Maroon Bells 50th Birthday Party, to be held on Saturday, August 2
the base of Aspen Highlands, will feature a multi-band outdoor concert, a keynote speaker,
will draw more than 1,000 people. The purpose of the event is t
awareness and educate the public around the values of wilderness.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the first 54 wilderness areas, including the Maroon Bells
anniversary is a fitting moment to celebrate that legacy and to
wide party for the Maroon Bells – (as you know) the pride and symbol
of our valley, beloved by every resident of this community and by millions around the world.
The event is presented by three Valley institutions: the White River National Forest (USFS)
Center for Environmental Studies, and Wilderness Workshop, with many other organizations
during the day. For example, the Aspen Youth Wilderness Conference
ACES, the USFS, and the Aspen Institute on August 2 as well.
uld love to count the City as a partner in this exciting, fun event! Would the City of Aspen
senting sponsor at the $5,000 level? Please see the attached proposa
We are also approaching the Aspen Skiing Company and Pitkin
presenting sponsors.
ould of course be acknowledged on the poster, on the event page online, in all
unication about the event, with signage at the event, on any commemorative
merchandise, and in any large print ads. We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this idea in
more detail. Just let us know a good time for you.
ation.
Sloan Shoemaker
Executive Director
Wilderness Workshop
reparations are under way for what may be the biggest environmental celebration the Roaring Fork
Saturday, August 2 at
outdoor concert, a keynote speaker, and
will draw more than 1,000 people. The purpose of the event is to raise
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the first 54 wilderness areas, including the Maroon Bells-
gacy and to
(as you know) the pride and symbol
of our valley, beloved by every resident of this community and by millions around the world.
(USFS), Aspen
Center for Environmental Studies, and Wilderness Workshop, with many other organizations
Youth Wilderness Conference is
the City of Aspen
Please see the attached proposal
and Pitkin County
ould of course be acknowledged on the poster, on the event page online, in all
unication about the event, with signage at the event, on any commemorative
We would be pleased to meet with you to discuss this idea in
P1
I.
Maroon Bells Birthday Party
Celebrating 50 years of Wilderness
The Maroon Bells 50th Birthday Party will be the Roaring Fork Valley’s biggest celebration of
our environment in decades! This one-day event will feature an outdoor concert and community
celebration at the base of Highlands, preceded by a host of free daytime activities, all in honor of
the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act and the establishment of the Maroon Bells-Snowmass
Wilderness.
The Maroon Bells 50th Birthday Party is a partnership between Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies, Wilderness Workshop, and the USFS White River National Forest. Daylong supporting
events are provided by a coalition of local environmental organizations.
Partners: Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers, Independence Pass Foundation, Aspen Valley
Land Trust, Roaring Fork Audubon, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, Forest Conservancy.
Potential Partners: City of Aspen, Pitkin County, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt,
Aspen Skiing Company, Roaring Fork Conservancy.
The vision
Designated wilderness is a uniquely American concept and one that has profoundly contributed
to the quality of life and economy of our valley. With five wilderness areas in the Roaring Fork
watershed – Maroon Bells-Snowmass, Hunter-Fryingpan, Collegiate Peaks, Raggeds, and Holy
Cross – we are truly blessed. Thanks to the foresight of an earlier generation, we can know that
these magnificent areas will remain in their natural state – and will endure as a source of
community strength and wealth – forever.
The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the first 54 wilderness areas, including the Maroon
Bells-Snowmass Wilderness. This 50th anniversary is a fitting moment to celebrate that bold
legacy and to throw a giant, community-wide party for the Maroon Bells –the pride and symbol
of our valley, beloved by every resident of this community and by millions around the world.
In addition to celebrating our regional landscape, this daylong event will raise awareness in our
community about the benefits of our wilderness areas as well as stewardship challenges faced in
the future.
The details
What: A menu of wilderness oriented activities during the day (e.g. restoration projects, Aspen
Youth Wilderness Conference, naturalist-led hikes) culminating with a birthday bash at the base
of Highlands featuring: a keynote speaker, a headliner and two other live bands, food and
beverages, family and kids’ activities.
When: Saturday, August 2nd, 2014.
Where: The base of Aspen Highlands (keynote and party), and White River National Forest (day
activities)
P2
I.
Cost:
• $25/person when purchased online in advance
• $30/person at the door
• Kids under 12 free
• Food and drink specials by Highlands Alehouse
• Tickets include keynote; at least two live musical acts; family and kid activities.
Agenda:
9:00am – 3:00pm Stewardship and educational activities including: trail work with Roaring
Fork Outdoor Volunteers, guided hikes with Wilderness Workshop, the
Aspen Youth Wilderness Conference with ACES.
4:40 – 5:30pm Keynote address by author and Wilderness advocate Rick Bass
6:00 – 10:00pm Music and family activities
Budget:
Expenses
Headliner band $10,000
Other entertainment $3,000
Keynote $2,000
Sound system rental $4,000
Stage rental $2,000
Tent/tables/chairs rental $5,000
Merchandise $1,000
Advertising - newspapers,
radio $6,000
Posters $500
Portapotties $3,000
Signs, banners, materials $1,600
Permitting $1,000
Trash/recycling service $1,500
Emergency services $600
Paid labor $2,000
$43,200
P3
I.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kathryn Koch
DATE: March 27, 2014
RE: Request for Funds – Mountain Plains Museum Association
Through the auspices of the Aspen Historical Society, the Mountain Plains Museum Association
is holding their annual conference in Snowmass/Aspen September 28 to October 2, 2014. The Mountain
Plains Museum Association covers a ten-state area from Montana to Texas and their average
attendance is 350 to 450. The attendees are from local and national museums.
This is a one-time only request and would not have gone through the annual grants request
cycle. There is an Aspen day to include a general session at the Wheeler, lunch at Theatre Aspen, and an
evening at the Art Museum. (See attached Schedule).
Georgia Hanson, co-chair of the conference, is requesting the city of Aspen sponsor
lunch at Theatre Aspen and Aspen Bags. The theme of the conference is sustainability, thus the request
for City of Aspen recycled bags.
The cost of this is:
Lunch $3750
Bags $ 750
Transportation $ 500
TOTAL $5000
Attached is a letter from Georgia Hanson and the schedule.
P4
I.
Mountain Plains Museum Association – www.mpma.net
Presents
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
When this idea first started taking shape, the impetus was to share our glorious home
with a group of dedicated museum and education professionals who could spread the
word about what we have to offer and, importantly, how affordable and accessible we
are. I was tired of hearing the stereotypical comments whenever I shared about where
I lived. “Oh I could never afford to go there!” “That place is only for rich people.” And
my personal favorite: “I wouldn’t know what to wear!” This is a group who spend their
lives dreaming up new ways to engage the larger public in enticing environments that
will ultimately produce life-long learners. We want their loyalty, don’t you think?
I solicited over 65 letters of support from local governments, chambers, non-profits
and businesses – each of whom stands to benefit as a result of this conference. The
Aspen Historical Society stepped forward to lead the pitch at the conference two
October’s ago and the Mountain Plains Museum Association said yes.
In the interim, both the ACRA and Snowmass Tourism have been working on ways to
ensure that this conference is an unforgettable experience for each and every
attendee. The Westin stepped up with a workable lodging rate and communities valley
wide are working to offer affordable experiences for this classy group of people with
discerning taste but limited discretionary income.
The Mountain-Plains Museum Association covers a ten-state area from Montana to
Texas. Our membership consists primarily of Historical institutions and also includes
Art and Natural History and Science museums. The average conference attendance
ranges from 350 to 450. Our expectation is that the number will climb to 500 this year
P5
I.
because of the allure of our valley, presuming we can offer affordable events. It is my
job, along with my co-chair, Tom Cardamone, and a collaborative community to ensure
that our conference visitors are welcomed and offered every opportunity imaginable
to tell our story. We all know the end result of such an effort is an exponential wave of
enthusiasm carried forward.
As we work to assemble a variety of quality experiences, we have declared Tuesday,
September 30th as “Aspen Day” beginning with educational sessions to be staged at
various sites in town first thing in the morning. Then we will hold the conference
general session at the Wheeler Opera House. We have worked with Gram and Laura
Thielen to carve a space out during Filmfest. In addition to welcomes by an elected
official or two, we have enlisted Steve Wickes to address The Aspen Idea and then our
keynote speaker will be Dr. Kirk Johnson who will weave the Aspen Idea concept of
innovation into the collaborative story that makes the Snowmass dig so compelling.
Kirk may have moved on to the Smithsonian but he left a piece of his heart here in the
valley as all of us do.
After the general session, everyone will be guided toward Theatre Aspen, the new
wetland area and the John Denver sanctuary for lunch. We are asking the City of Aspen
to host the lunch – box lunches and CITY WATER ☺ – as several guest speakers discuss
the innovative commitment that our community has demonstrated toward a
sustainable future. Auden Schendler is confirmed to speak and we hope and expect
Mayor Steve to share the spotlight.
After lunch the attendees will be transported back to Snowmass for afternoon sessions
and meetings. In the evening, the Aspen Art Museum will host a special tour and
reception for MPMA. Following this tour, we will provide the opportunity for small
intimate ‘thought sessions’ or salons at the Hotel Jerome (i.e. friends of Hunter
Thompson meet in the J-Bar).
Traditionally, the General Session is open for all and the Leadership Lunch costs $25 to
$35 to attend. As I have watched over the years, I have always been disappointed to
see that the very people who should be attending (the younger start-up professionals)
are often not included due to the cost. Therefore it is my hope and our collective
request that the City pick up the tab for this lunch. In a perfect world you will ALL be
there meeting and greeting as well? We just have SO MUCH to share, don’t we?
P6
I.
We are just finalizing the program for the week as well as working to add special
packages for folks who will want to stay longer. We are excited about the cooperation
we are receiving and it is gratifying for me personally to see my dream truly coming to
fruition.
On a personal note, you are all aware that I have been banished to sea level due to
oxygen issues at altitude. This little blip in my life-plan will NOT prevent me from
fulfilling my commitment to MPMA and I will be returning to the valley in July to
oversee the final countdown and the event itself. I guess we could call it my swan
song? I am disappointed not to be standing in front of you as we make this request and
I am confident you will treat it with the serious consideration it deserves. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Georgia Hanson
Aspen Historical Society
President/CEO Emerita
P7
I.
Schedule At A Glance DRAFT – 3.26.2014 Aspen Day is not shaded for easy
identification for CoA reviewers.
Sometime in September: all volunteer training/history and geology of valley
Saturday, September 27
Staff arrives by 5 pm
Sunday, September 28 no transportation
8:30 to 11 am Staff sets up Registration Erin
12:00 to 2:30 Bag stuffing
3:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m. Registration Hours
3:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m. MPMA Board Orientation Overlook
4:00 p,m.– 6:00 p.m. MPMA Board Welcome Dinner board, friends and chairs internal
6:00 p.m.–9:00 p.m. MPMA Board Meeting Overlook tom and GA to be thanked at beginning
9:15 p.m – 9:25 Conference Icebreaker For attendees who want to gather – Westin’s fun bar
The board heads to the bar immediately after its meeting
Monday, September 29 yes transportation needed for tours
7:30 a.m. Registration Hours for Monday Tour Participants Only Erin
8:00 a.m. –5:30 p.m. Registration Hours
8:00-4:30
Educational Tours Redstone/Carbondale, Independence,
Independence tour could include a hike up the mountain
AAM Tour- Heidi to private home (10:00 – 12:00)
All tours to end by 4:30
8:30 – 4:00 pm Workshops AM and PM
AM 8:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m. Workshops
PM 1:00 pm - 4:00 pm Workshops
4:30 -5:30 Membership Meeting
5 p.m. Knitting Network GA’s 2 buddies as guest KDickson and others to lead
5 p.m MPMA’s Advocacy Committee Rick
5 p.m. – 5:30 Scholarship Gathering Brian
5:30 p.m.–6 p.m. Mentor Icebreaker Henry
6:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m.
Gondoalo opens at 5:45 and speeches start at
6:30
Opening Reception ELK CAMP Snowmass Big Splash Welcome to All –
WELCOME = MAYOR & SKI CO REP & TOSV TOURISM 5:30-6:30 eat; 6 pm
speeches PLUS stargazing and perhaps magician – Klaus welcome yodel
P8
I.
8-30 to 9:30 pm Late nite Bar Session in the Wildwood Bar LISA PETER
Tuesday, September 30 Ron Schiller to have booth /yes need transportation today
7:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Registration Hours Erin
7:30 -8:30 am Sustainablity Meeting
8:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Exhibit Hall & Silent Auction Set Up Hillary and Heidi
8:30 to 10:30 Buses to circulate from Westin to
Wheeler
transportation provided.
Sessions have to be within walking distance. 4-5 sessions. Could go more.
Depends on where the rooms will be located and how many . Limelight is too far
away for folks who cannot walk. Let’s fit number of sessions to locations that are
nearby. This is Georgia: Limelight is just across the park, not too far! Can use
Limelight, Aspen Square, Jerome, maybe City Hall, Fire Station – easy to do and it
fits into the innovation/cross-pollination piece – breaking normal rules of conduct.
10:30- 11:30
General Session WHEELER OPERA HOUSE
KEYNOTE – KIRK JOHNSON 30 min, Mike Smith welcomes
Aspen Idea – Steve Wickes Intro before Kirk – 15 min max, maybe 10
11:30 to 12 Walking or riding golf cart to Theater Aspen. Can view John Denver Memorial
12 noon –1:15 p.m.
12:30 speeches begin
Leadership Luncheons BOX LUNCH –CoA host at J.D. Sanctuary & Theater Aspen
KEYNOTE STEVE SKADRON + AUDEN SCHENDLER THEME IS COMMITMENT
TO SUSTAINABILITY – INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS
1:15 p,m. – 1:45 p.m. Transport back to Snowmass
1:30 -5:00 Exhibt Hall is open Hillary/Heidi
1:45 pm -2:45 pm Sessions 60 minutes LISA PETER
Session on marketing the Mastadon
2:45 p.m. – 3:15 p.m. Break BIG food break in Exhbit Hall Quicki Demos/Chats HILLARY
Options: Possibly dream up an afternoon event in hall if want exhibiter to open
today but seems like Wed Thurs is better with Breakfast opening Wed a.m.
YES to major event in the afternoon HILLARY
3:15 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Sessions 75 minutes LISA PETER
3:15- 4:30 Field Trip to Ziegler
4:00 pm – 5:00
4:30 p.m.–5:15p.m.
5:30 p.m.–8:30 p.m.
Meet Ups Tech KU 45 min on Tuesday or for one hour on WED
These could meet in 2 rooms off of the exhibit ha
Aspen Night:
5:15 first bus out then 5:30, 5:45
Back to Westin by 8:30
Aspen Idea: Aspen Art Museum – Thought Sessions
Aspen Institute: 5:30 to 6:30
People on bus talk to riders about story of Aspen
Greeters help walk everyone from Paeptke Park to the Institute
GA to get donor for AV
Sit down at tables with food in middle/ water on table/ no cash bar
Presentation
Aspen Art Museum: 6 to 8 p.m.
Confirm number at 200 – AAM hosting food and drink – giving tours
Thought sessions: 8:00 – 9:30 pm hopefully at Hotel Jerome – Tony checking now.
Buses to circulate 5:15 to 8:30
After 8:30, pubic transportation will be available
Timing: GA is working on this
Details for Aspen Night
Salons for those wanting to stay later. Take public transporation back
If you want to stay in town for Aspen Nite light, this is the night to do it. Come up
P9
I.
90 minutes for thought sessions?
with info that lists places to go (GA to do). The late nite folks take public
transportation back to westin
Thought sessions: Georgia says: lets start calling them salons?
Kitchen readings with Hunter Thompson (his friends) with a warning
Harry Teague: architect/ stories about IDCA. Designed many aspen buildings and
can tell IDCA stories all night long. Find him a partner too.
2 more speakers? Need fun, sassy, classic old Aspen. Jerome will host/cash bar.
Wednesday, October 1 only one transportation required – Snowmass day except for retreat
at Toklat in the morning.
7:30 a.m.–6:00 p.m. Registration Hours Erin
8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.
8;00 a.m. – 9:30 a.m.
Exhibit Hall opens Hillary/Heidi
Exhibit Hall breakfast
8:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m. Sessions LISA PETER
8:30 -1:30 CATO Center at Toklat Retreat for Senior Leadership
Moderator is Paul Andersen who will talk about vision and the Aspen Idea and
connect it to museum vision with Kirk Johnson and Andy Anway – Powerful team!
9:45 – 10:15 Break in EH Quicki Demos/Chats
10:15 a.m. – 11:30 Sessions LISA PETER
12 noon – 1:30 p.m.. Affinity Lunches MLD to get prices. Need info on where to eat lunch in
Snowmass and walk around
Registrars, EdCom, NAME, NAC? SMAC,
1:30 to 3 pm Field trip to Ziegler Reservoir Tom could have this 5:30 to 6:30
1:45 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Sessions LISA PETER
2:00-3:30 Booksigning in EH booksigner/presenter do right after talk
3:00 pm – 3:30 pm Coffee Break Quicki Demos/Chats
3:30 p.m.–4:45 p.m. Sessions LISA PETER
4-5:30 Exhibit Hall Reception
4:30 p.m.–500 p.m. Exhibit Hall Quicki Demos/Chats
5:00 p.m. to 5:30 Silent auction last call cash bar Heidi / Hillary
5:30 pm to 6:30 pm Meet-Ups for one hour here AAMG EMPs
6:30 pm to 7:30 pm Cocktail Hour
7:30 p.m. – 9:30 p.m. Awards Banquet and Live Auction Westin
7:30-8:30 dinner,
8:00 awards and welcome, Kathy Shannon
8:30 pm – 9:30 pm auction Heidi
GA to review program
Thursday, October 2 yes transportation
7:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m. Registration Hours Erin
7:30 am to 8:30 am Affinity Breakfasts Curcom, Volunteers
8:00 a.m.–3:30 p.m.
Registrars Committee’s Helping Hands Brigade
4 Rivers Historical Alliance GA has contacted to see who needs most help
Kallie Moore is RC contact
8:00 am to 11:30 Exhibit Hall HILLARY with coffee
8:30 a.m.–11:30 a.m. Workshops
9:00 a.m.–10:15 a.m. Sessions LISA PETER
10:15-10:45 am Break in Exhibit Hall
Booksigning Quicki Demos/Chats
10:45 a.m.–12 noon Sessions LISA PETER
12:15 –1:30 p.m.
Closing Luncheon RON SCHILLER and MPMA business meeting
12-12:45 lunch,
12:20 to 12:45 meeting;
12:50 -1:30 Ron speaks
Book signing just for Ron right after lunch
P10
I.
11:30 to 1:30 Exhibit Hall Breakdown HILLARY
2:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. or 6 (Glenwood)
Educational Tours local sites
Modernism Tour
Designer Thirft Shop Tour
Private Home Collection
Aspen Then and Now –walking tour end at the Meadows. Include Gwen?
ACES tour: huge, 4 sites, geological tours
Glenwood
Marble?
AHS Walking Tour from W/S to Jerome – tea at the Jerome
Hand-out guide to thrift shops
GA to talk to groups about putting together own deal: they plan and implement
5:00 p.m –9:00 p.m. Dinner on Your Own
9:00 p.m –11:00 p.m.
Closing Party Firepit at Westin? Camp songs and Somores camp clothes, bring
your favorite camp songs for one hour. GA will get guitarist and singers – will have
to pay them. Dancing at bar in the other building after firepits??? DJis free and
can bring his own equip do in the Wildwood bar: the fun bar
Theme: Camp Songs and Campy Dancing
Also will offer super-bargain weekend packages at the “little gems”– small lodges in Aspen for those who want
to stay over. AND Blazing Adventures will be offering super-discounted high country tours as well. Need to
offer ads to Glenwood and Snowmass too.
P11
I.
Aspen Next Generation Advisory Commission
Annual Survey Report2014
P12
II.
P13
II.
Background & Methodology
Results
Table Of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................1
Who We Are: Why We Survey...................................3
Introduction...........................................................4
Methodology, an Overview.......................................5
Findings Overview...................................................7
Trends and Takeaways............................................8
Our Participants...................................................10
Difficulties to Living In Aspen................................13
Difficulties to Working in Aspen.............................19
Contact.........................................................23
P14
II.
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of the survey is to better understand the challenges perceived by those
in the 18-40 demographic that wish to live and/or work in the Aspen area (defined
by the borders of the Aspen School District; hereafter “in Aspen”). During its fall
work sessions, the Commission identified a list of factors it believes limit the younger
demographic’s ability to remain in Aspen long-term. The survey is a tool to “ground
truth” this list, identify gaps in the list, and prioritize factors based on their
importance to the 18-40 demographic.
Results
Respondent Characteristics
• Rooted in Aspen: More than 60% of respondents reside in Aspen; of these, 47%
have resided in Aspen for more than 5 years.
• Strong earners: Over 30% of respondents reported a household income of
greater than $100,000.
• Family focused: While nearly 80% of respondents do not currently have children,
65% of respondents indicated that they hope to have children in Aspen.
1
Methodology
To participate in the study, respondents had to meet 2 criteria: (1) be 18-40 years
of age, and (2) live and/or work in the Aspen area. The survey was 15 questions long,
available in English and Spanish languages, and in electronic (Survey Monkey) and hard
copy formats. The hard copy version of the survey is attached as Appendix A.
The survey was designed and analyzed in collaboration with a local statistician. Spe-
cific statistical methodology is discussed in the report. Of the 247 surveys submitted,
only 150 were fully complete. Only two Spanish surveys were submitted (both online),
but neither was fully complete. Multivariate statistics included complete surveys only.
P15
II.
Executive Summary
Analysis
• Residents and nonresidents agreed on the top 3 factors limiting their ability to
live in Aspen.
• Housing, Poor career/business opportunities, and low wages/benefits were se-
lected by the greatest % of respondents for both “living” and “working” questions.
• Notably, 18% of residents and 38% of nonresidents identified childcare in their
top 3.
• Given the opportunity 92% Aspen residents and 83% DV residents would like to
live here long-term. 69% of current residents would like to have children and raise a
family here. 64% of down valley residents who want to live in Aspen long term would
like to raise a family here as well.
Results
Factors
• Housing is the primary concern limiting ability to live in Aspen long-term.
• Wages/benefits, poor career/business opportunities, and childcare are also im-
portant limiting factors across individuals living and working in Aspen.
2
Final Observations
Survey results are limited by the small sample size and under-sampling of the Spanish-
speaking demographic and those working for seasonal and/or hospitality-based
employers. Despite these limitations, respondents’ answers provide a strong
indication that housing, economic sustainability, and childcare are among the top
factors limiting our demographic’s ability to remain in Aspen long-term.
P16
II.
Who We Are
Mission Statement
Why We Survey
To advance the policy interests of the 18-40 year old
demographic who live or work within the Aspen area.
A survey is one tool that can be used to effectively identify, understand,
and prioritize policy issues. The Commission plans to periodically issue
short, focused surveys to better understand the perspective of the 18-40
year old demographic on specific and topical policy issues.
3
Our Long-term Goal
The most fundamental hurdle to realizing action in our demographic is
apathy, the feeling that one’s voice has no impact and thus need not be
spoken. In allowing a public survey to be a primary driver of our annual
agenda, leading to tangible results, we hope to catalyze government
participation.
P17
II.
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of the survey was to understand the challenges perceived by those in the 18-
40 demographic who wish to live and/or work in the Aspen area (defined by the borders of
the Aspen School District; hereafter “in Aspen”). During its fall work sessions, the Com-
mission identified a list of policy issues it believed were important to its demographic. The
survey was a tool to verify this list and prioritize the issues identified as most important.
The survey focused on the following areas:
1. For those respondents living in Aspen: what factors limit their ability to live in the
Aspen area long term?
2. For those respondents not living in Aspen, but wanting to live in Aspen: what factors
limit their ability to reside in Aspen?
3. For those respondents working in Aspen: what factors limit their ability to work in As-
pen long term?
4. For those respondents not working in Aspen, but wanting to work in Aspen: what fac-
tors limit their ability to work in Aspen?
Additionally, demographic factors were collected for each respondent for comparison
against Census-based demographic data for weighting in the analysis, if necessary.
4
Scope/Qualifying Criteria
We identified 2 key criteria for participation in the study: age and a significant
connection to Aspen. To qualify, all participants were required to both:
1. Be between 18-40 years of age, and
2. Live and/or work in Aspen.
P18
II.
Methodology - Overview
Survey Structure and Questions
We developed the survey in collaboration with a local statistician experienced in
survey design. We also consulted with the City of Aspen and several local employers
during survey revisions.
The survey was 15 questions long, including qualifying criteria and demographic data.
It was available in two languages (English and Spanish) and in electronic (Survey
Monkey) and hard copy formats. The hard copy version of the survey is attached as
Appendix A.
Primary questions focused on identifying, prioritizing, and contextualizing major policy
issues affecting the 18-40 year old demographic’s ability to live and/or work in
Aspen. Other questions gathered information on relevant demographics (e.g., town of
residence, sex, income, children, years living in Aspen, years working in Aspen) and
aspirational (e.g., wanting to live/work in Aspen long term, wanting to have children
while living in Aspen) thought to have substantial impacts on responses.
Survey Distribution
In fall 2013, Commission members contacted representatives from large local
employment sectors including hospitality (hotels and restaurants), skiing,
education, and nonprofit. When permitted, we provided representatives with
survey details and links, which they were asked to distribute to their
employees.
The Commission also offered hard copy surveys to attendees of its January
14th Meet & Greet Mixer at Aspen Brewing Co. The survey was open for
approximately 2 months, starting on November 26, 2013 and ending in on
January 14, 2014. 5
P19
II.
Methodology - Overview
Analysis
To estimate the representativeness of the survey sample, data from the U.S.
Census Bureau’s 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) matching
demographic distributions assessed by the survey (i.e., sex, income, having
children, duration in Aspen) were obtained. These distributions were obtained
to allow for appropriate survey weights to be developed to account for a
non-representative sample.
Demographic data obtained from the survey sample and the ACS were
compared by calculating simple differences among proportions and comparing
against ACS survey error.
To identify demographic and aspirational factors important in characterizing
respondents’ identification of issues limiting their ability to work or live in
Aspen, multivariate statistical procedures (including Permutational Multivarate
Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) and Canonical Analysis of Principal Coordi-
nates (CAP) Analysis) were used. Further analyses of single issues were con-
ducted, including only those factors that played a role in response patterns.
Single-issue responses were assessed using t-tests or Analysis of Variance to
assess differences among factors identified by multivariate statistics. Where
no differences were identified, data were pooled, and issues ranked by relative
importance. Tukey’s range test was then applied on pooled data to identify
differences among issue ranks.
6
P20
II.
Findings Overwiew
7
P21
II.
Trends and Take Aways
Overall Conclusions
l 92%(current residents) & 83% down-valley respondents would
like to live in Aspen long-term
l 69% (residents) & 64% (down-valley residents wanting to be in
Aspen long-term) would like to raise a family here.
l Amongst all respondent groups, Housing was the number 1
hurdle to living or working in Aspen
l The vast majority of respondents would like to see more
opportunity for business ventures and upward career mobility
l There are a large cohort of down-valley residents who would
like to live and work in Aspen given better opportunities
l Emphasis on the importance of childcare increases greatly once
a person has children
8
Transportation
Other
Affordable Workspace
Education
Healthcare
Child Care
Low Wages & Benefits
Poor Career and/or
Business Opportunities
Housing
Top Factors Limiting Ability to Live in Aspen:
Residents & Non−Residents
Percent of Respondents
0 20 40 60 80 100
P22
II.
Trends and Take Aways
9
Transportation
Education
Child Care
Healthcare
Affordable Workspace
Low Wages & Benefits
Housing
Poor Career and/or
Business Opportunities
Top Factors Limiting Ability to Work in Aspen:
Residents
Percent of Respondents
0 20 40 60 80
Education
Healthcare
Transportation
Affordable Workspace
Child Care
Low Wages & Benefits
Poor Career and/or
Business Opportunities
Housing
Non−Residents
Percent of Respondents
0 20 40 60 80 100
P23
II.
Our Participants
Positive Realities
l Wide variety of demographics (e.g., sex, household in-
come, etc.) agree on major issues
l 247 respondents with 150+ complete surveys
l Captured many Aspen “lifers”
l With 47% of respondents have lived or worked in
Aspen over 5 years, our sample is familiar with the
challenges and working to overcome them
Limitations
l Small sample size due in part to incomplete surveys.
Other factors that may have affected sample size:
• Length and/or format of survey
• Incompatibility of Survey Monkey with certain
browsers, specifically version 11 of Internet Explorer
• Holiday season – resulting in possible limited
circulation across employers due to holiday season
and/or limited time for employees to complete surveys
l Sample was not representative of our demographic. The
sample is unlikely to represent residents working in
seasonal and/or tourism industries. Spanish-American
residents were also under-represented.
l Limited distribution of hard copy surveys.
Representatives from employment sectors overwhelmingly
preferred to distribute the survey electronically.
Therefore, individuals with limited or no access to
computers or smart phones were less likely to receive
and complete the survey. 10
P24
II.
Our Participants
11
Surveys Started Some Usable Data Complete
Count of Surveys Started and Complete
Su
r
v
e
y
C
o
u
n
t
0
50
10
0
15
0
20
0
25
0
Female Male
Sex
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
<$30,000
$30,000 − $44,999
$45,000 − $59,999
$60,000 − $79,999
$80,000 − $99,999
>$100,000
Salary
Percent of Survey Respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Aspen
Basalt
Carbondale
El Jebel
Glenwood Springs
New Castle
Old Snowmass
Snowmass Village
Woody Creek
Location of Current Residence
Percent of Survey Respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
No Yes
Currently Have Children
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
0
20
40
60
80
No Yes
Hope to Have Children in Aspen
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
0
20
40
60
80
Demographic Data
P25
II.
Our Participants
12
Years In Aspen by Percentage of Respondents
0.
0
0.
2
0.
4
0.
6
0.
8
1.
0
Years Living in Aspen
Years Living in Aspen
Fn
(
x
)
0.26
0.53
0.83
0.91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.
0
0.
2
0.
4
0.
6
0.
8
1.
0
Years Working in Aspen
Years Working in Aspen
Fn
(
x
)
0.27
0.51
0.85
0.97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l Horizontal axis
represent years
lived / worked in
Aspen
l Vertical axis
represents the
precentage of
respondents
who have lived /
worked in Aspen
for so many years
l For exampe,
53% of
respondents have
Lived in Aspen
for 5 years or
less & 13% of
respondents have
worked in Aspen
for 15 years or
more
P26
II.
Living In Aspen
13
P27
II.
14
Amongt residents & non-residents
those with kids & withoutMen & Women
all agree that
HOUSING
is the
biggest hurdle to living in
Aspen
“there are very limited op-
tions between the $500K and
$1 million within the afford-
able housing program. This
price gap leads to inequitable
opportunities for this par-
ticular dual income/profes-
sional population in the com-
munity and may cause this
portion of the community to
relocate; thus decreasing the
potential quality of the year-
round professional workforce
and community. This gap is
inconsistent with the Aspen
Community Vision Plan”
“Affordable, quality housing
effects ones overall quality of
life.”
“affordable housing is a crap
shoot, if you want to have a
family you either get lucky in the
lottery or move DV”
“There are very limited options on afford-
able housing options for families able to
afford a home between $500k-$900k.”
Living In Aspen
Want to live in Aspen Long-TermResidents: 92%DV Residents: 83%
Want to raise a family in AspenResidents: 69%DV want to be in Aspen: 64%
P28
II.
Living In Aspen
15
l These respondents currently live in Aspen
l Each box explores individual impact of an issue on the ability to
live in Aspen.
for example:
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Career/Business
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Child Care*
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Education
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Health Care
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Housing
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Wages/Benefits
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Workspace*
No Yes
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Transportation
No Yes
Has Children Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Other*
No Yes
P29
II.
Living In Aspen
16
l This is a summary of the previous graphs
l These respondents currently live in Aspen
l The graph shows the average importance rank given to each
factor by respondents (where 1 = most imp & 12 = least imp).
l Factors group into four importance categories, the most highly
ranked of which was housing
Relative Rank
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
±
S
E
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Career/Business
Child Care
Education
Health Care
Housing
Other
Transportation
Wages/Benefits
Workspace
All Residents
With Children
No Children
P30
II.
Living In Aspen
17
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Career/Business
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Child Care
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Education
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Health Care
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Housing*
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Wages/Benefits
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Workspace
Female Male
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Transportation*
Female Male
Sex Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Other*
Female Male
l These respondents currently DO NOT live in Aspen
l Each box explores individual impact of an issue on the ability to
live in Aspen.
for example:
P31
II.
Living In Aspen
18Relative Rank
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
±
S
E
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Career/Business
Child Care
Education
Health Care
Housing
Other
Transportation
Wages/Benefits
Workspace
All Residents
Female
Male
l This is a summary of the previous graphs
l These respondents currently do NOT live in Aspen
l The graph shows the average importance rank given to each
factor by respondents (where 1 = most imp & 12 = least imp).
l Factors group into three importance categories, the most
highly ranked of which was housing
l DV residents perceive housing to be the biggest factor
preventing them from living in Aspen
P32
II.
Working In Aspen
19
P33
II.
20
Lack of upward career
mobility & business creation
is a primary concern
for those
Wanting to
to make a
life inAspen
“I’m currently still working
for my company in Palo Alto
because even with part time
work, their wages are almost
double what I could make
here”
“The professional opportunities
are too limited to offer attractive
enough career growth for young
professionals, outside of entrepre-
neurial endeavors.”
“living paycheck to paycheck”
“i would like a more developed
career. I feel i have had to switch
my jobs a few times because
of the lack of opportunity or
growth”
“If I don’t have a job, I can’t stay here.”
“There are limited career
opportunities in the valley to
utilize my degree”
“very limited employment options other
than mindless, meaningless work”
“Perhaps if I made more
more I could afford
housing, but that seems
doubtful.”
“Haven’t gotten to
opening a store front
yet, but I’m familiar
with rent prices”
Working In Aspen
P34
II.
21
Working In Aspen
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Career/Business
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Child Care^
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Education
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Health Care
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Housing
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Wages/Benefits
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Workspace
Aspen:No Not Aspen:No Aspen:Yes Not Aspen:Yes
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Transportation
Aspen:No Not Aspen:No Aspen:Yes Not Aspen:Yes
City : Wants Children Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Other
Aspen:No Not Aspen:No Aspen:Yes Not Aspen:Yes
l Each box explores individual impact of an issue on the ability to
work in Aspen.
for example:
P35
II.
22
Working In Aspen
Relative Rank
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
±
S
E
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Career/Business
Child Care
Education
Health Care
Housing
Other
Transportation
Wages/Benefits
Workspace
All Respondants
Want Children
Don't Want Children
l This is a summary of the previous graphs
l These respondents currently do NOT live in Aspen
l The graph shows the average importance rank given to each
factor by respondents (where 1 = most imp & 12 = least imp).
l There are 3 Primary tiers
l When career opportunities and low wages/benefits are
combined they are the largest issue ranked most important by
nonresidents
P36
II.
Skippy Leigh Upton Mesirow ChairSocial Entrepreneur, Aspen Institute employee, AVSC Coach& Co-Chair ADI
Christine BenedettiCo- ChairFreelance writer, Aspen Historical Society marketing director
Jennifer BurnettTreasurer Mom, Broker Associate, Environ-mental Enthusiast, Artist
Kimbo Brown-Schiracco Founding Member South Africa Native, works atObermeyer Asset Management,Former Springboard Chair
Jill Teehan Founding MemberAttorney at Law Praxidice PCFounder ADI, London Schoolof Economics Grad
Lindsey PalardyFounding MemberDevelopment Manager atAspen Youth Center, Law and Policy professional
Summer Woodson-Berg Founding MemberPersonal Practice Lawyer & Owner of Portfolio Aspen properties. Buddy Program.
Catherine LutzFounding MemberFreelance writer, editor, and photographer. Mother of two.
Our Team
23
P37
II.
AspenNextGen@gmail.com
Chair
Skippy Mesirow
skippy.mesirow@gmail.com
Co-Chair
Christine Benedetti
christinebenedetti9@gmail.com
Contact
24
P38
II.
Aspen Next Generation Advisory Commission
Annual Survey Report2014
P39
II.
April 1, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: Tuesday, April 1st, 5:00pm Council Chambers
RE: Lodging Incentive Program
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council direction on next steps related to the lodge
incentive goal. This memo outlines potential options related to fee and mitigation reductions that could
be part of a lodge incentive program. Staff requests direction on which areas Council is interested in
pursuing. Specific questions for Council are in bold throughout the memo.
BACKGROUND: One of City Council’s Top Ten Goals is to “Implement an incentive program for the
short-term bed base.” Over the past two (2) years the city has worked with the lodging and
condominium community to understand the sector’s challenges related to improving and maintaining
their properties. An overriding theme staff has heard from the lodging outreach is city processes should
be predictable and streamlined, while also responding to the unique needs and situations on each
property.
Staff met with City Council in March 3, 2014 in a work session and received direction on zoning and
dimensional items that could be part of a lodge incentive program. A summary of Council’s direction to
staff is attached as Exhibit A. This memo focuses on fees associated with lodge development. Fees
associated with condominium (or Vacation Rental Unit) development are similar, and are highlighted
where appropriate in the various sections of the memo.
GENERAL: Staff has received a great deal of input and feedback on what is needed for a successful
lodge incentive program. Fee and mitigation levels are one of the barriers that have been identified by
the lodging and development communities. Each property, however, is different, and like zoning there
is no single fix that address each property’s needs. In staff’s outreach, it’s been clear that the smaller the
lodge operation the more building permit and other associated fees can impact their ability to upgrade or
redevelop. On larger projects those fees, while higher, do not seem to create the same barrier.
Similarly, affordable housing mitigation on smaller projects is less, so that does not represent the same
barrier that is does on a larger project.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends projects with a smaller scope and projects without
a residential component be targeted for fee incentives. Staff also suggests the incentive for these types
of projects be substantial – at least 50% of City controlled fees.
DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS: Staff has created six (6) different lodge development scenarios to
assist in understanding the various building and development fees required of lodges that upgrade,
expand, and redevelopment.
P40
III.
April 1, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging
Page 2 of 5
1. An existing lodge does an interior remodel to its 20 units and adds 5 new lodge units. Total
building square footage is 10,000 sq ft.
2. An existing lodge does an interior remodel to its 20 units and adds 5 new lodge units, 1
affordable housing unit, and 1 free-market residential unit. Total building square footage is
15,000 sq ft.
3. An existing lodge is doing a scrape and replace. It has 40 units, and the redevelopment will
include 50 lodge units, 1 affordable housing unit, and 2 free-market residential units. The total
building square footage is 20,000 sq ft.
4. An existing lodge is doing a scrape and replace. It has 40 units, and the redevelopment will
include 50 lodge units, 2 affordable housing units, and 4 free-market residential units. The total
building square footage is 30,000 sq ft.
5. An existing lodge is doing a scrape and replace. It has 100 units, and the redevelopment will
include 120 lodge units, 10 affordable housing units, 8 free-market units, and 6,000 sq ft
commercial net leasable. The total building square footage is 80,000 sq ft.
6. An existing lodge is doing a scrape and replace. It has 100 units, and the redevelopment will
include 120 lodge units, 12 affordable housing units, 14 free-market units, and 6,000 sq ft
commercial net leasable. The total building square footage is 100,000 sq ft.
In addition, staff has created four (4) condominium (Vacation Rental Units) development scenarios that
are based on an entire complex participating in an incentive program.
1. An existing complex adds an ADA accessible elevator and upgrades exterior materials.
2. An existing complex adds 200 square feet of common area.
3. An existing complex adds 500 square feet of common area.
4. An existing complex adds a new floor with new vacation rental units.
For each lodge scenario, staff has estimated minimum and maximum fees. For the condominium
scenarios, staff has used past permit data. The estimated fees for the lodge scenarios are attached as
Exhibit B, and the estimated fees for condominium scenarios are attached as Exhibit C.
BUILDING PERMIT FEES: There are a number of fees associated building permits. These include
departmental review fees, construction mitigation fees, use taxes, energy code fees, plan check, and the
building permit fee. The City could choose to reduce, waive, or subsidize these fees. There are also
mechanical, plumbing, electric, REMP, and fire fees that have not been calculated for the scenarios
because detailed construction plans are needed to calculate these. The City cannot waive or reduce the
Fire District because they are administered by a special district, but could pay some or all of the fee on
behalf of a development.
P41
III.
April 1, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging
Page 3 of 5
Questions for Council:
1. Is City Council interested in reducing, waiving, or paying any of the building permit fees
for lodge development? For Vacation Rental Unit development?
2. Is City Council interested in paying some or all of the fire district fees associated with lodge
or Vacation Rental Unit development?
STORMWATER FEES: There are two components to stormwater management in Aspen – water
quality and water quantity. Water quality is covered through Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV)
requirements - each site is required to improve the quality of water leaving that site by capturing and
treating it. This volume is the small amount of runoff generated on the site during every rain event and
carries the heaviest pollutant loads. It is best treated as closely to the source as possible. Water quantity
is through detention requirements – each site is required to detain water from big storm events or pay a
fee-in-lieu (FIL) of detention for the City to safely and timely convey that larger amount for them.
Impervious area is the driving force behind the City’s stormwater management requirements. Increasing
impervious area - increasing the footprint on a site - results in the need for larger stormwater
facilities. In the same way, decreasing impervious areas decreases the space needed to treat stormwater.
The City could provide water quality treatment areas for lodges – the tradeoff is land. Land is required
to spread the runoff out and allow it to infiltrate. The City has two options for treating the WQCV of
private properties – using existing City property, such as the right-of-way, alleys, or parks, which is
limited and has other priorities (like parking), or purchasing property specifically for the purpose of
water quality treatment facilities. There are many options for treating the WQCV on City property
including “greening” alleys by replacing them with pervious pavers, planting landscaped strips between
the curb and sidewalk, or converting parks to treatment ponds. The costs for these options vary
tremendously and the trade-offs for use of the land could be considerable. Alternatively, the City could
agree to pay some or all of the costs associated with this fee while requiring the improvements to be
located on-site.
Questions for Council:
3. Does Council support using city land to meet water quality requirements?
4. Is City Council interested in reducing, waiving, or paying any of the stormwater fees for
lodge development? For Vacation Rental Unit development?
WATER TAP FEES: The City charges fees for new fixtures such as toilets, sinks, showers, disposal,
etc. and credits existing fees paid. Some older buildings have not paid tap fees for the existing fixtures,
and under a redevelopment scenario would need to pay for the existing and new fixtures. In the
development scenarios, staff has assumed that there is no credit for existing fixtures, so the fee levels are
the worst case scenario.
Questions for Council:
5. Is City Council interested in reducing, waiving, or paying any of the water tap fees for
lodge development? For Vacation Rental Unit development?
P42
III.
April 1, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging
Page 4 of 5
SEWER FEES: The Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) charges fees for connections to
the sanitation system. Because this is a special district, the City cannot waive or reduce the fees, but
could pay some or all of the fee on behalf of a lodge development. ACSD, similar to Water, credits
previously paid tap fees. In the development scenarios, staff has
Questions for Council:
6. Is City Council interested in paying some or all of the sewer fees for lodge development?
For Vacation Rental Unit development?
ENCROACHMENT/RIGHT OF WAY FEES: The City charges fees to occupy the right of way
and/or parking spaces during construction. The fees are based on a square footage and duration
calculation that takes into account on and off season rates.
Questions for Council:
7. Is City Council interested in paying some or all of the encroachment/right of way fees for
lodge development? For Vacation Rental Unit development?
IMPACT FEES: There are a number of impact fees development is subject to, including Parks, Air
Quality/TDM, and School Lands. The School Lands Fee is collected by the City on behalf of the School
District, so it cannot be reduced or waived. The City could choose to pay the fees for the development.
School Lands Fees are based off the new residential floor area and land valuation. The other fees are
City fees, and could be reduced or waived as part of an incentive program. The Parks and Air
Quality/TDM fees are assessed based off the new commercial net leasable space and the new hotel and
residential floor area. They fund capital improvements in these areas.
Questions for Council:
8. Is City Council interested in reducing, waiving, or paying the Parks Impact Fee for lodge
development? For Vacation Rental Unit development?
9. Is City Council interested in reducing, waiving, or paying the Air Quality/TDM Impact Fee
for lodge development? For Vacation Rental Unit development?
10. Is City Council interested in paying some or all of the School Lands Dedication Fee for
lodge development? For Vacation Rental Unit development?
HOUSING MITIGATION: In all the lodge scenarios, except Scenario 1, staff assumed on-site
mitigation would be provided. However, to illustrate the general cost of affordable housing mitigation,
this fee has been included in Exhibits B and C. If lower mitigation levels are incorporated in a lodge
incentive program, as was discussed during the March 3rd work session, these numbers would be lower.
The City could reduce, waive, or pay these costs on behalf of the development.
Questions for Council:
11. Is City Council interested in reducing, waiving, or paying the affordable housing mitigation
fees for lodge development? For Vacation Rental Unit development?
P43
III.
April 1, 2014 Council Work Session – Lodging
Page 5 of 5
NEW REVENUE: Council may also want to consider options for generating additional
revenue. Basalt is currently discussing generating new revenue to support lodging development in
Willits. New revenue may provide additional options for fee reductions or could support a grant
program to help fund lodging investment.
Questions for Council:
12. Is Council interested in exploring new revenue options to support lodging investment?
NEXT STEPS: Staff will schedule a follow up work session to discuss a draft set of policies, including
zoning, of the Lodge Incentive Program.
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT A: Summary March 3, 2014 Council Work Session
EXHIBIT B: Fees Associated with Lodge Development Scenarios
EXHIBIT C: Fees Associated with Condominium (Vacation Rental Unit) Development Scenarios
P44
III.
March 3, 2014 Lodge Work Session Summary
Page 1 of 2
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: March 3, 2014
AGENDA TOPIC: Lodging Study Update
PRESENTED BY: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner, Chris Bendon, Community
Development Director
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch, Art
Daly, Dwayne Romero
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
Staff provided City Council an update on the City’s lodging work and requested direction on next
steps. City Council provided direction on potential growth management and dimensional
incentives, as outlined below.
Height – Council indicated cautious support for potentially allowing additional height up to four
stories in very limited circumstances near the mountain, and likely with a heighted land use
review. Council did not support additional height allowances for neighborhood lodges. Council
requested additional information on how internal ceiling heights would be impacted if any
additional height is permitted.
Unit Size – Council strongly supported unit size caps for all units in the short-term rental pool
(both lodge units and residential units). Council also supported the continued use of the Historic
TDR program as a way to expand lodge and residential units. This is an area Council expressed
interest in limiting the ability of an applicant to amend through a Planned Development (PD) or
Special Review process.
Free-Market Residential Uses – Council requested additional information on calculating the total
allowed residential net livable area compared to total allowed lodge and vacation rental unit net
livable area. Council expressed concerns that staff’s proposal may have been too aggressive and
that it may incentivize a prolonged land use process. Council requested staff run some example
projects through the proposal to enable a more detailed policy conversation on this issue.
Multi-Family Replacement Program – City Council supported removing the existing location
requirement, preferring to allow mitigation to be provided through a variety of methods, including
off-site, on-site, through Housing Certificates, etc. City Council supported potentially exempting
units in the lodge zone district that agree to participate in a short-term rental program from the
requirements.
P45
III.
March 3, 2014 Lodge Work Session Summary
Page 2 of 2
Lodge Mitigation – Council supported lowering the affordable housing mitigation requirements
for lodge development, but requested more information on how changes would differ from today’s
requirements. Council also supported providing flexibility for lodges to determine how affordable
housing units would be used by lodge employees (maintenance person, manager, etc)
Lodge Allotments – There were mixed opinions on the number of lodge allotments that should be
available. Some supported eliminating the allotment cap, though a majority of Council supported
creating a larger pool of available lodge allotments based on a 2% growth rate over the past 5-10
years and future 5-10 years.
Residential Allotments – Council supported creating a new category in growth management for
Vacation Rental Units. Initial direction is to follow a 0.5% annual growth rate (18 allotments), but
indicated that number may be low.
Fees and Mitigation – Council gave initial direction that some fee rebates or reduction to assist
projects may be appropriate. Staff will present additional information on this topic at a work
session on April 1st.
P46
III.
Scenario summary
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
1,000,000.00$ 4,000,000.00$ 2,605,000.00$ 7,095,000.00$ 8,695,000.00$ 19,475,000.00$ 13,015,000.00$ 28,575,000.00$ 33,700,000.00$ 72,500,000.00$ 43,890,000.00$ 91,450,000.00$
Building Square Footage
Affected Area
Fees/Taxes
GIS 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$ 260.00$
Construction Mitigation Fee 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$ 15,250.00$ 15,250.00$ 15,750.00$ 15,750.00$ 18,250.00$ 18,250.00$ 19,250.00$ 19,250.00$
Zoning Fees 6,000.00$ 6,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 9,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 18,000.00$ 48,000.00$ 48,000.00$ 60,000.00$ 60,000.00$
Building Permit 21,525.00$ 62,775.00$ 45,337.50$ 76,462.50$ 96,462.50$ 231,212.50$ 150,462.50$ 344,962.50$ 409,025.00$ 894,025.00$ 536,400.00$ 1,130,900.00$
Energy Code 3,228.75$ 9,416.25$ 6,800.63$ 11,469.38$ 14,469.38$ 34,681.88$ 22,569.38$ 51,744.38$ 61,353.75$ 134,103.75$ 80,460.00$ 169,635.00$
Engineering Review Fee 15,590.00$ 15,590.00$ 15,590.00$ 15,590.00$ 28,090.00$ 28,090.00$ 28,490.00$ 28,490.00$ 30,090.00$ 30,090.00$ 30,090.00$ 30,090.00$
Building Plan Check 13,991.25$ 40,803.75$ 29,469.38$ 49,700.63$ 62,700.63$ 150,288.13$ 97,800.63$ 224,225.63$ 265,866.25$ 581,116.25$ 348,660.00$ 735,085.00$
Encroachment/Right of Way 82,815.00$ 196,065.00$ 154,272.51$ 268,937.51$ 341,817.51$ 724,507.51$ 502,197.51$ 1,054,577.51$ 1,271,095.00$ 2,648,495.00$ 1,645,840.00$ 3,334,220.00$
Parks Review Fee 270.00$ 270.00$ 270.00$ 270.00$ 600.00$ 600.00$ 720.00$ 720.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$ 1,200.00$
Water Tap 15,936.25$ 15,936.25$ 70,699.00$ 70,699.00$ 187,758.00$ 187,758.00$ 245,128.50$ 245,128.50$ 587,902.75$ 587,902.75$ 723,505.75$ 723,505.75$
Stormwater System - Water Quality 35,000.00$ 264,000.00$ 40,000.00$ 297,000.00$ 45,000.00$ 346,500.00$ 45,000.00$ 346,500.00$ 150,000.00$ 1,204,500.00$ 150,000.00$ 1,204,500.00$
Stormwater System - Detention 36,800.00$ 36,800.00$ 41,000.00$ 36,800.00$ 48,300.00$ 48,300.00$ 48,300.00$ 48,300.00$ 167,800.00$ 167,800.00$ 167,800.00$ 167,800.00$
County Use Tax Deposit 2,500.00$ 10,000.00$ 6,512.50$ 17,737.50$ 21,737.50$ 48,687.50$ 32,537.50$ 71,437.50$ 84,250.00$ 181,250.00$ 109,725.00$ 228,625.00$
City Use Tax Deposit 9,450.00$ 40,950.00$ 26,302.50$ 73,447.50$ 90,247.50$ 203,437.50$ 135,607.50$ 298,987.50$ 352,800.00$ 760,200.00$ 459,795.00$ 959,175.00$
N
o
n
-
C
i
t
y
F
e
e
s
Sanitation District 13,927.78$ 13,927.78$ 41,604.41$ 41,604.41$ 173,873.36$ 173,873.36$ 225,207.42$ 225,207.42$ 535,749.41$ 535,749.41$ 672,894.09$ 672,894.09$
Total Building Permit Fees Due 267,294.03$ 722,794.03$ 502,118.43$ 983,978.43$ 1,138,566.38$ 2,205,446.38$ 1,568,030.94$ 2,974,290.94$ 3,983,642.16$ 7,792,942.16$ 5,005,879.84$ 9,437,139.84$
Building Permit Fees as a
percentage of valuation 26.7%18.1%19.3%13.9%13.1%11.3%12.0%10.4%11.8%10.7%11.4%10.3%
Impact Fees
School Lands Dedication -$ -$ 11,432.96$ 11,432.96$ 5,027.01$ 5,027.01$ 5,027.01$ 5,027.01$ 23,603.25$ 23,603.25$ 23,603.25$ 23,603.25$
Housing Cash In Lieu 64,269.90$ 228,515.20$ 228,515.20$ 228,515.20$ 228,515.20$ 635,557.90$ 635,557.90$ 3,329,180.82$ 3,329,180.82$ 5,642,897.22$ 5,642,897.22$
Parks Impact Fee 5,450.00$ 5,450.00$ 29,975.00$ 29,975.00$ 10,900.00$ 10,900.00$ 65,400.00$ 65,400.00$ 209,900.00$ 209,900.00$ 318,900.00$ 318,900.00$
TDM - Air Quality Impact Fee 610.00$ 610.00$ 3,355.00$ 3,355.00$ 1,220.00$ 1,220.00$ 7,320.00$ 7,320.00$ 23,500.00$ 23,500.00$ 35,700.00$ 35,700.00$
Impact Fees Due 6,060.00$ 70,329.90$ 273,278.16$ 273,278.16$ 245,662.21$ 245,662.21$ 713,304.91$ 713,304.91$ 3,586,184.07$ 3,586,184.07$ 6,021,100.47$ 6,021,100.47$
Total Fees Due 273,354.03$ 793,123.93$ 775,396.59$ 1,257,256.59$ 1,384,228.59$ 2,451,108.59$ 2,281,335.85$ 3,687,595.85$ 7,569,826.23$ 11,379,126.23$ 11,026,980.31$ 15,458,240.31$
Total Fees as a % of valuation 27.3%19.8%29.8%17.7%15.9%12.6%17.5%12.9%22.5%15.7%25.1%16.9%
Total City Fees Due 241,416.25$ 657,916.25$ 427,699.02$ 851,189.02$ 852,708.02$ 1,779,448.02$ 1,174,678.52$ 2,378,658.52$ 3,010,842.75$ 6,315,742.75$ 3,763,465.75$ 7,576,445.75$
City Fees as a % of valuation 24.1%16.4%16.4%12.0%9.8%9.1%9.0%8.3%8.9%8.7%8.6%8.3%
Housing Cash in Lieu as
percentage of valuation 0.0%1.6%8.8%3.2%2.6%1.2%4.9%2.2%9.9%4.6%12.9%6.2%
Other Impact Fees as percentage
of vluation 0.6%0.2%1.7%0.6%0.2%0.1%0.6%0.3%0.8%0.4%0.9%0.4%
Notes:Building Permit Fees do not include REMP, or subpermits (fire, plumbing, mechanical, electrical)
C
i
t
y
F
e
e
s
-
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
C
i
t
y
F
e
e
s
-
E
n
t
e
r
p
r
i
s
e
F
u
n
d
s
T
a
x
e
s
Lodge Development Scenarios
100,000
Scenario 1
Valuation of Work
Scenario 6Scenario 5Scenario 4Scenario 3Scenario 2
10,000 15,000 20,000 30,000 80,000
40,0009,000 9,000 20,000 24,000 40,000
An existing lodge is doing a scrape
and replace. It has 100 units, and the
redevelopment will include 120 lodge
units, 12 affordable housing units, 14
free-market units, and 6,000 sq ft
commercial net leasable.
An existing lodge does interior
remodel to its 20 units and adds 5
new lodge units
An existing lodge does an interior
remodel to its 20 units and adds 5
new lodge units, 1 affordable
housing unit, and 1 free-market
residential unit.
An existing lodge is doing a scrape
and replace. It has 40 units, and the
redevelopment will include 50 lodge
units, 1 affordable housing unit, and
2 free-market residential units.
An existing lodge is doing a scrape
and replace. It has 40 units, and the
redevelopment will include 50 lodge
units, 2 affordable housing units, and
4 free-market residential units.
An existing lodge is doing a scrape
and replace. It has 100 units, and the
redevelopment will include 120 lodge
units, 10 affordable housing units, 8
free-market units, and 6,000 sq ft
commercial net leasable.
P4
7
II
I
.
Scenario Summary
Valuation of Work
Building Permit Fees Due
Building Permit Fees as a % of
valuation
Impact Fees
School Lands Dedication
Housing Cash In Lieu
Parks Impact Fee
TDM - Air Quality Impact Fee
Impact Fees Due
Total Fees Due
Total fees as a % of valuation
18,238.61$ 3,820.95$ 10,799.25$ 452,024.08$
Vacation Rental Unit Development Scenarios
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
An existing lodge
complex adds an
ADA accessible
elevator and
upgrades exterior
materials
An existing complex
adds 200 square feet
of common area
An existing complex
adds 500 square feet
of common area
An existing complex
adds a new floor
with new vacation
rental units
$170,000.00 $ 53,400.00 $ 140,000.00
-$ -$ -$ 101,000.50$
-$ -$ -$ 1,417,258.41$
2,034,857.75$
1,635.00$ 1,090.00$ 2,725.00$ 58,080.70$
183.00$ 122.00$ 305.00$ 6,494.06$
12%9%10%121%
$ 1,685,252.00
7%11%8%27%
1,818.00$ 1,212.00$ 3,030.00$ 1,582,833.67$
20,056.61$ 5,032.95$ 13,829.25$
P4
8
II
I
.