HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20220919AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 19, 2022
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Childcare - Council Goal: Childcare Capacity Goal Update
I.B Short-term Rental 'Run-out' Period
I.C Council Board Reports and Council Updates
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85306367158?
pwd=akdLUFVOd2pENHNaTFJaTG15RG5Vdz09
Passcode: 81611
Or join by phone:
Dial:
US: +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 853 0636 7158
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kddtA3uX4r
Council__memo_9.19.22.docx
Attachment A _August 22 work session summary.pdf
Attachment B_Final Burlingame Ranch Center Report Aug 2022.pdf
Attachment C_TOSV_Town_Council_mtg__8.15.22.pdf
Memo_STR_Run-out_Work_Session_FINAL.docx
Exhibit A_Summary of Responses.pdf
Exhibit B_ Ordinance #09 Series of 2022.pdf
1
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Shirley Ritter, Director, Kids First
THRU: Sara Ott, City Manager,
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
Scott Miller, Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE:September 19, 2022
RE:City Council’s Childcare Capacity Goal Summary
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this memo is to provide an update for achieving City Council’s Critical 2-year
childcare capacity goal.
SUMMARY & BACKGROUND:
On August 10, 2021, City Council adopted Resolution #76_Series 2021, which directed staff to
increase the number of available childcare spaces.
This will be accomplished through:
1.Plan, design to repurpose or build new buildings to add physical capacity to increase
available childcare space.
2.Increase the recruitment and retention of qualified early childhood teachers.
3.Generate funding to support the development of new childcare spaces.
This goal runs for two years, with an expected completion date of July 2023. This is a short
timeframe to accomplish this overall goal; however, the next two years will include measurable
steps to show accomplishments that are achievable. The need to expand childcare capacity has
been an ongoing part of Kids First’s mission. This City Council goal provides added support and
a clear path to achieve this goal.
This goal includes five key workplan areas with activities that will happen for the next two years.
These elements are:
1.Planning and Design for a new childcare building,
2.Recruitment and Retention of early childhood workforce,
3.Funding to meet the community need for early childhood,
4.Policy,
5.Long-range Planning.
2
Page 2 of 6
In previous work sessions staff has provided an overview of goal workplan areas. We got council
majority consensus in two areas:
1. Kids First staff is to continue coordination and communication to find regional solutions,
with other partners participating in-kind.
2. Kids First staff will consider funding sources and budget adjustments to reduce the cost
of housing for childcare staff. With regard to Burlingame, staff will consider multi-family
development as part of the program.
Council gave staff direction to continue with next steps in these areas:
1. Staff is directed to research the ability to change the sales tax allocation ratio, preserving
the 55% childcare/ 45% housing development. Diane, Pete and Shirley will bring
information and a recommendation to city council during budget work sessions.
2. Staff is directed to consider regional models such as RFTA and Housing Alliance. Shirley
and Kids First staff will continue to participate in regional efforts to fund and find solutions
to the childcare capacity issue. Staff will bring information on this to the September 19
work session. Shirley and Jennifer will communicate about Burlingame progress to
regional partners.
These steps will be the focus of our discussion today.
Staff has also shared information about capacity, waitlists, classroom spaces in the Yellow Brick
Building and CMC, and we will provide updates on these items as well. In addition to city staff, I
am joined by Ashley Perl, Community Resiliency Manager with Pitkin County, and Stacy Petty,
Director of the Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council.
1. Planning and Design for a new childcare building
An infant childcare room at Colorado Mountain College (CMC) renovation in the
classroom is complete. Equipment and furnishings are in place. The IGA approved last
year is in place and a lease has been created for the space.
Burlingame Early Childhood Center was discussed at a work session on August 22,
with agreement to continue development of the hillside concept to the schematic design
stage. That work session summary is attachment A
Policy Question – Does council support the staff recommendation to continue the
Burlingame Early Childhood Center to 100% schematic and then pause the project?
Kids First has also received the final planning report from Kate Kalstein, supporting the
vision and values for the Burlingame Ranch Childcare Center, as well as resources for
funding, shared messaging, and business model viability. That executive summary is
attachment B
Classrooms in the Yellow Brick Building are still available, and the RFP is still open for
this space. We continue to engage with the community to explore options for re-opening
this space. Depending on the outcome of our conversation this evening, we expect more
interest in this space.
Related updates: The Town of Snowmass Village held a work session to consider the
report from consultants regarding the expansion of childcare. The report included 3
options for use of existing and potential new space, discussed the need for childcare, and
recommended year-round, full-day care for residents and workers, especially for infants.
This presentation is attachment C
The Town of Basalt has two projects in development. The first project at Stotts Mill has
the foundation poured for the childcare center, there is currently operator contracted for
the space. The second is Willets Parcel 2e, Blue Lake Preschool is working with the design
team and fund raising for this project.
3
Page 3 of 6
DISCUSSION:Recruitment and Retention of early childhood workforce
Support for early childhood workforce capacity – revised dedicated sales tax split.
Staff recommendation is to allocate 75% of the fund to childcare for workforce capacity supports.
Kids First Advisory Board recommendation is to allocate up to 100% with the additional funding
used to purchase housing for childcare staff. Members recognize that housing is also a critical
city council goal. Housing development, however, has other sources of funding while childcare
relies entirely on the sales tax funding. They also feel that this would still meet the council goal of
creating housing, in this case for an essential workforce that is a vital part of the economic
infrastructure in our community.
Programs and services to accomplish this are outlined below.
Policy Question:
1. Does council support changing the sales tax split?
2. What level of change does council support?
Sales tax calculations from the Finance Department:
Current
Allocation:Option 1:Option 2:Option 3:Option 4:
Affordable Housing $2,068,237 45%$1,838,428 40%$1,149,017 25%$919,214 20%$229,803 5%
Childcare $2,527,832 55%$2,757,642 60%$3,447,052 75%$3,676,855 80%$4,366,266 95%
Total 2021
Collections:$4,596,069 $4,596,069 $4,596,069 $4,596,069 $4,596,069
Increase to
Childcare $229,810 $949,220 $1,149,024 $1,838,434
Council members have urged staff to consider ways to provide support to childcare staff that will
increase recruitment and retention of qualified staff.This is a current barrier to maintaining existing
programs, and to any expansion of physical childcare space. This is also driven by the city council
critical goal to increase childcare capacity to meet the community need and is seen as both an
urgent and a long-term challenge.
Working in partnership with the Finance Department, City Manager’s office, childcare programs,
and other community partners, staff is proposing a multi-pronged approach that will benefit the
most people most immediately.
Programming summary to support early childhood education staff include:
Proposed Program Funding mechanism Estimated
allocation
1.Wage enhancement funding to increase the
ability for childcare staff to afford to live
near the community in which they work.
This is estimated based on $500 per FTE,
Will be included in 2023
supplemental budget
request if approved.
$600,000
4
Page 4 of 6
per month. This amount decreases over
out years with increased tuition providing
the funding. Kids First financial aid will
increase to support qualifying families.
2.Financial aid increases to support families,
both maximum income allowed, and
percentage paid by Kids First.
Increase will impact
current operational
budget.
Estimate will
be available
for budget
work
session.
3.Director supports –training, coaching
specific to financial planning, HR functions
and more tailored to each program.
Will be included in 2023
supplemental budget
request if approved.
$ 25,000
4.Yellow Brick Building rent decrease –no
rent
Decrease will impact
current operational
budget.
$145,000
5.Two additional Early childhood teacher
interns
Will be included in 2023
supplemental budget
request if approved.
$154,820
6.Capital investment in childcare staff
housing
Funding from Kids First
reserve fund, and from
supplemental if approved
at Kids First Advisory
Board recommended
level.
$1,000,000 -
$1,500,000
7.Capital program grants to increase
capacity, buy or renovate existing
buildings
Increase will impact
current operational
budget.
Unknown at
this time.
8.Waitlist online platform (BridgeCare) to
provide easier access to families needing
care, more efficient ability to fill spaces for
programs, and more accurate data for Kids
First.
Purchased by Rocky
Mountain Early
Childhood Council
Kids First
will support
marketing
this new
platform.
1. Wage enhancement funding to increase the ability for Pitkin County licensed childcare staff
to afford to live near the community in which they work.
2. Kids First financial aid will increase to support qualifying families. Adjustments to both the
maximum family income to qualify, and the percentage of support a family qualifies for are
both being tested to be able to find the amount that best supports families and childcare
programs and is equitable. Kids First Advisory Board and staff also need to consider the
impact the new statewide Universal Pre-K funding (UPK) will have for families, and for our
financial aid program. UPK will fund 10 hours of preschool for all 4-year-old children in
Colorado. This funding and how it works together with Kids First financial aid will have
consequences for families and programs.
3. Director Supports - Part of this proposal is the use of early childhood financial experts to
provide training and coaching to support budget development and management in a business
that is a broken business model. Childcare programs rely on parent tuition, grants, and
fundraising to operate. At the same time staff related expenses are often 80% or more of their
5
Page 5 of 6
overall expenses. This creates a situation that requires a high level of expertise and oversight
since there is often little or no cushion to fall back on if enrollment drops suddenly, costly
repairs are needed urgently, or a pandemic happens.
Kids First will also offer directors expert coaching in other management areas that are specific
to each program and director. Directors have very diverse roles, many are supervising staff,
while managing the budget, or needing to be in a classroom to cover for a teacher, then make
sure the plumbing isn’t backed up, and maybe sit with a sick child until a parent comes. Most
of us in management roles have benefitted tremendously by having a mentor to offer support.
Research has shown that Directors are the key to program quality, staff retention, parent
satisfaction, and even the sustainability of the program.
4.Yellow Brick Building Rent - Staff is recommending that to increase capacity in existing
buildings, that rent will no longer be charged in the Yellow Brick Building. Programs will still
be expected to pay for utilities and be mindful users of resources such as water, gas,
electricity, and trash services. Programs will be asked to demonstrate how the money saved
in rent will be used to support staff recruitment and retention. The city currently pays for all
major capital improvements in the building and subsidizes the operations and maintenance;
this will increase this benefit to childcare tenants substantially. This will also make it more
conducive for a new program to serve infants and toddlers in the available classrooms.
5.Early Childhood Techer Interns - Staff is excited to expand our early childhood teacher
intern program and be able to provide more people with higher qualifications to work in our
local early childhood programs. The Kids First interns will gain experience by substituting in a
variety of local childcare programs, while taking classes and receiving coaching by Kids First
staff. This has been successful, and we plan to continue and expand this success. The
position is paid, is termed at no longer than one year, but would be budgeted to be ongoing
and repeat as long as there is a need.
6.Childcare staff housing - Kids First Advisory Board recommends purchasing housing for
childcare staff so that an inventory of rental units is available to support recruitment of new
staff or changing needs of existing staff.
7.Capital expansion funding - Childcare programs will be encouraged to explore capital
expansion that will allow for increase capacity. Kids First Advisory Board will review requests
for capital grants as opportunities become available. Kids First staff will also work with the
Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council and childcare providers to access state and
philanthropic funding for this purpose.
Policy and Planning to Support Childcare Capacity
8.Waitlist online platform - Development of a community-wide waitlist platform: The Rocky
Mountain Early Childhood Council (RMECC) has signed a contract with BridgeCare.
BridgeCare is a user-friendly, web-based tool that connects local families with available
childcare openings. It also allows providers to market their programs, highlight their services
and staff, and manage enrollment.
6
Page 6 of 6
This platform will be used to support programs and families across our 4-county region.
RMECC and partner agencies including Kids First, will be able to have access to data
regarding childcare openings, unduplicated counts of children on waitlists, and will also be
used as the platform for families to apply for Universal Preschool funding. Programs will be
able to provide regular updates regarding openings and will be able to manage waitlists.
Families will be able to easily search for available childcare openings that fit their needs. This
platform continues to grow and develop in partnership with our Councilas well as the Colorado
Department of Early Childhood. We are working closely with BridgeCare staff to launch as
soon as possible. Our current timeline is to launch the system to programs the end of
September; once programs are familiar with the software and provide their information, we
will launch to families.
VIP awards to childcare staff have been revised, with additional ways to increase their skills
and earn points added. This application will go out to all childcare programs on December 1
to earn their second award for 2022. Individuals can earn points that will result in awards up
to $1,500 for this 6-month period.
Kids First is offering a $1,500 hiring bonus to childcare staff. Childcare staff can access this
bonus when they are hired, starting in August 2022.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Staff will continue to work with the Finance Department and City
Manager’s office to have more programmatic and financial detail for council at our October Budget
work session.
RECOMMENDATION:
Policy questions for council
1. Burlingame Early Childhood Center – does council agree to complete schematic design,
then pause for more information before construction phase?
2. Does council agree to modify the critical childcare capacity goal to focus more at this time
on childcare staff recruitment and retention, item 2 on the work plan?
3. Does council support changing the sales tax split? What level of change does council
support?
4. Is City Council supportive of eliminating rent charges at the Yellow Brick, while still
charging proportionally for utilities and trash/recycling services?
5. While no specific purchase targets have been identified, does the Council support the
acquisition of housing for early childhood educators?
Staff recommends the above changes for city council approval. Alternatives include making no
changes to the sales tax split, continuing the course on the Burlingame Early Childhood Center
capital project and making no changes in programming. Other alternatives would include staff
direction to return with different recommendations and funding solutions.
EXHIBITS:
A. August 22, 2022 work session summary
B. Burlingame Early Childhood Center consultant report
C. Town of Snowmass Village Childcare feasibility report
7
1
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2022
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE: August 25, 2022
AGENDA TOPIC: City Council Critical Goal – Design Direction on
Burlingame Early Childhood Education (ECE)
Center
PRESENTED BY: Jennifer Phelan, Development Manager
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Torre, Councilmembers Ward
Hauenstein, Rachael Richards, John Doyle,
Skippy Mesirow
______________________________________________________________________
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Staff provided background on the project and
an overview of how the site programming was developed, where concepts advanced to two
designs: Hillside (separate childcare building and housing building with surface parking) and
Streetside (combined childcare and housing building with surface and structured parking).
Staff also highlighted the public outreach undertaken for the project (open houses, Aspen
Community Voice, CoA 2022 Community Survey). Staff requested direction on which
concept to further to schematic design.
1. Topic: Which design concept should progress to schematic design?
Council majority consensus: Continue development of the Hillside concept to
schematic design.
2. Topic: Childcare demand was discussed and interest in understanding what the
current level of need is and what it will be over time.
Council majority consensus: Provide more data on childcare capacity needs.
3. Topic: Somewhat related to understanding the need for additional capacity,
questions were raised on how to staff the facility and the parameters around
development of housing at Burlingame beyond the existing development cap
allowed in the subdivision.
Council majority consensus: Provide more information on staffing needs for the
facility and the process to increase the housing unit cap.
4. Topic: Discussing the site plan, council still showed interest in the development of
multi-family residential as part of the project, recognizing that there is a density cap
for the subdivision that would need to be amended.
8
2
Council majority consensus: Continue development of multi-family housing to
schematic.
NEXT STEPS: Staff will be working with the design team and Design Advisory Group to
further the Hillside concept to schematic design. Schematic design is anticipated to be
ready for council review in November/December. This section outlines next steps for staff
and Council on the topic(s) described above.
1. Staff is directed to research and quantify the additional need/demand for childcare
capacity now and in the future.
2. Staff is directed to outline the staffing implications of the facility.
3. Staff is directed to provide more detail on the process to engage the HOA in any
density increase for housing units at Burlingame.
4. Staff will continue to look at high level options to value engineer the project and
weigh the costs vs. benefits related to those decisions (for example getting to net
zero vs. highly efficient, etc.).
5. The design team will continue to develop multi -family housing for schematic
design.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
9
Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center Planning Report:
Executive Summary
August 2022
Introduction 2
Child Care Settings in Colorado and Early Childhood Professional Workforce 2
The Burlingame Ranch Community and Child Care Center Opportunity 2
Center Vision & Values 3
The planning group envisions a Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center that seeks to provide a ordable,
inclusive, high quality, early childhood learning and development experiences to meet the needs of
working families in the City of Aspen. This especially includes o erings for infant and toddler care.3
The vision of the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center is a thriving community where each child is
supported to learn and grow, each family is connected to tools and information for wellbeing (including
the ability to work), and partnerships cultivate success.3
Center Overview 4
Funding and Business Model Viability 6
Fundraising Plan, Communications, and Key Messages 7
Conclusion 8
Resource Links 10
10
Introduction
Kids First has convened a broad community wide collaborative conversation focused on enhancing
child care capacity over the last several years. The convenings include private employers (Aspen Skiing
Company, Alpine Bank, and Aspen Valley Hospital), governmental partners (Pitkin County and other
City of Aspen sta ), Aspen School District, Aspen Community Foundation, and nonpro t partners
(including Aspen Chamber of Commerce and Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council). This
diversity of perspectives and connections to the community allowed the group to identify key
community assets and needs relative to child care for those who live and work in Aspen. Aspen City
Council, Kids First, and the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Planning Group share a common priority:
increasing child care capacity (including more center based classrooms) within the City of Aspen.
Inadequate care for children under 5 has been routinely noted as a concern for families in the area,
including 25% of families citing this concern in a 2021 regional assessment and that only 3 Pitkin
county licensed providers serve infants. While birth rate in Pitkin County remains consistent (about
140 per year), overall workforce and housing issues likely in uence the proportion of families within
the community, percentage of families who need care, average distance traveled between home and
work, and other a ordability factors that in uence the number of children in need of care within the
City of Aspen in any given year.
The entire Roaring Fork Valley ecosystem (Aspen to Parachute) demonstrates a level of
interconnectedness well beyond that of many similar communities. Housing, transportation,
healthcare, education, and child care access costs impact where local community members live and
work. Employers note that many parents and caregivers continue to face child care challenges related to
disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Child Care Settings in Colorado and Early Childhood Professional Workforce
The Burlingame Ranch Community and Child Care Center Opportunity
The City of Aspen has dedicated space within the Burlingame Ranch Community for additional child
care capacity in support of their 2021 priority. In partnership with the Burlingame Ranch Child Care
Planning Group, Kids First seeks to support development of a child care center to meet the needs of
those who live and work within the City of Aspen. The Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center will be
operated similarly to the current model at the Yellow Brick Building: Kids First will partner with a
child care operator who retains responsibility for the programmatic design, sta ng, enrollment, and
11
other operational elements. This report seeks to outline the vision of the planning group but does not
create a required structure for the anticipated center.
The planning group is not likely to have a formal role going forward. The planning group recommends
that a dedicated fundraising consultant should be hired to support the next phase of planning to
support applications for grants and other funding opportunities as well as the broader campaign that
will be necessary to support development of the center. Members of the planning group are likely to
continue to support e orts to enhance child care capacity within the City of Aspen, and some may
have capacity to support fundraising e orts for the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center.
It should be noted that the perspectives of the planning group mirrored those of the 2021 Community
Survey o ered by Kids First (which included 115 responses within the City of Aspen) as well as many
community stakeholder comments as well. These perspectives with community research and
research-based models were used to shape the center overview presented below.
Center Vision & Values
The planning group envisions a Burlingame Ranch Child Care
Center that seeks to provide a ordable,inclusive,high quality,early
childhood learning and development experiences to meet the needs of
working families in the City of Aspen.This especially includes
o erings for infant and toddler care.
The planning group hopes the Center will be able to support as many children and families as possible
to help ensure each child in care within the City has access to developmentally appropriate high quality
learning experience and social emotional support for both children and caregivers.
The vision of the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center is a thriving
community where each child is supported to learn and grow,each
family is connected to tools and information for wellbeing (including
the ability to work), and partnerships cultivate success.
12
The Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center should support values including:
●Inclusion
●Diversity
●Honesty
●We are stronger and more e ective working in partnership, including utilizing resources
and referrals to connect to wrap around supports.
●Responsive to community need
●Curiosity and exploration for children and adults
●Community choice within a spectrum of early childhood care options
Center Overview
Kids First and the planning group hope the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center can provide
a ordable and high-quality early childhood learning experiences accessible to all children for those who
live and work in the City of Aspen. The Center is anticipated to include two infant, two toddler, and
three preschool classrooms. Additional spaces will provide for administrative o ce space, a nursing
area, small conference room for individual meetings and therapy sessions, as well as a large exible
classroom available for both gross motor activities for children as well as larger meetings when needed.
While ultimately the speci c curriculum and program design will be responsibilities of the operating
partner, it should be noted that planning group hopes the center will be progressive/ constructivist,
whole child focused, responsive to the needs of both children and their families, focused on providing
and/or connecting to social-emotional learning, screening and referral services and support. The
program will have an opportunity to maximize funding opportunities through program design aligned
to Colorado Shines and Universal PreK curriculum requirements. The program should make every
e ort to support the needs of all children including partnerships to provide robust support services
including mental health and other therapeutic services.
Given the high priorities for inclusion and serving a diverse group of children (and families), the
planning group hopes that the center can nd innovative ways to support barriers to a ordability.
Many families who work in Aspen face challenges related to the intersection of low-income wages and
average monthly center based child care rates. Additionally, these same families face barriers related to
housing costs, transportation, work hours (and the needs for care outside of 9a – 3p).
To support the entire early childhood community ecosystem, the center should explore innovative
support for individuals who are interested in a career in early childhood education by providing
13
professional development, training, and educational and instructional support to achieve the
high-quality experiences envisioned for the center. The professional development component of the
center is envisioned to cultivate opportunities in early childhood careers and include other professional
development focus areas as needed (administrative, etc.).
Another signi cant a ordability barrier impacts early childhood professionals whose wages often do
not provide su cient family income to make housing in or near the City of Aspen accessible. As a
result the number of workforce candidates is limited, and those sta who do provide child care within
the City of Aspen often drive well over an hour one way from their homes. Innovative solutions to
increase housing a ordability for early childhood professionals will be another critical opportunity to
ensure long term success for the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center as well as the broader local
Aspen child care provider community.
Planning group members and community stakeholders noted the need for both professional
development opportunities for professionals already working in the early childhood sector as well as
pathways opportunities to cultivate additional child care sector sta . Classes to support parents and
caregivers were also noted as an opportunity by the planning group as current opportunities are limited
relative to support for growth and support for caregivers. These o erings might include information
on child development, social emotional skill building, and support for caregivers.
Planning group members and community partners also emphasized the need for the center to provide
a fully inclusive and welcoming culture to meet the needs of all community members. Culturally
competent practices should be re ected throughout communications from the earliest outreach and
information through daily programming.
Application and enrollment processes will be determined by the operator partner, but the planning
group hopes that priority can be provided for prioritization of those with highest need in the
community including nancial need, working parents, and children with needs not met in other child
care settings.
Finally planning stakeholders clearly prefer the center to o er full year (12 month) enrollment with
evening, weekend and backup care options as possible (rather than academic year schedules with
separate summer enrollment). It should be noted that most community providers do not utilize the
full year enrollment model, and some noted that evening and weekend o erings were rarely utilized by
families.
14
Funding and Business Model Viability
Funding the development of the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center will include two phases: the
physical build out and programmatic launch. Given the scale of the project and amount of funds
required to build out the space and prepare for the child care center, dedicated fundraising support will
be required to cultivate the resources necessary and provide ongoing project support. The summer
2022 estimate for total cost to develop the center is approx. $15 million to include physical build out,
fundraising e orts, and programmatic launch funding.
Cost estimates include $10-15 million for the physical build out, up to $250,000 for sta ng and
materials to support fund development including communications and community engagement for
the next three years, and up to $125,000 to support leadership planning and materials to support
highest quality learning experiences within each classroom (and the center as a whole) for a short
transition period as the center opens.
The center will likely need to expand o erings over time to ensure nancial viability from the time of
opening within the constraints of the currently available early childhood workforce. With appropriate
sta in place, it may be possible for the center to expand beyond core hours to include early drop o
and late pick up to meet the needs of working parents. The planning group also hopes that backup and
emergency care (drop in availability) can be o ered, but expects to prioritize full time, weekday
schedules to ensure continued viability for the center. It is likely that core programming hours will
support development and educational goals while extended care hours will be available to support
working parents. It should be noted that the lack of consistently available evening and weekend child
care o erings have contributed to low utilization rates. Employee feedback suggests that since center
based evening and weekend options have been rare; they have been forced to identify alternative care
plans for their families. While employees have found care, it is often not ideal or their priority choice.
Consistent, high quality a ordable care options would enable more employees to commit to evening
and weekend schedules with certainty.
It will also be important for the center to maintain a mix of infant and toddler classrooms alongside
preschool classrooms for long term sustainability. The lower sta to child ratios necessary for highest
quality infant and toddler care and education result in higher average expenses per classroom/child
when compared to preschool classrooms. By maintaining a mix overall family a ordability can be
maintained to support the center. A full range of infant through preschool classrooms also supports
the planning group and community stakeholder preference around continuity of care, children being
able to remain in the same child care center over a period of years without transition.
15
The center should also work to maximize funding opportunities from state and local programs
(including current stimulus funded opportunities), meet licensing requirements as soon as possible in
order to access licensing-based funding, secure Colorado Shines Quality Improvement (CSQI,
typically ratings occur within 18-24 months of opening, utilize business coaching through the
Department of Early Childhood, and access additional coaching through partnership with Kids First.
Each of these elements will help the center to receive all available nancial support and maintain a
strong business model to support a sustainable high-quality center. The center should be able to
maintain a ordability for families through partnerships that could include CCCAP, Colorado
Preschool Program, Kids First, and sliding scale or other internal scholarships for families. The fall
2023 addition of universal preschool funding for all children in Colorado (10 hours per week per
student) will also provide an additional funding stream to support the center.
Another opportunity to support sustainability for the center operating model can be found by clearly
identifying the costs associated with maintaining a safe, healthy, and well-functioning space.
Responsibility for the ongoing facility related expenses should be clearly de ned.
While maintaining a ordability will be key to meet the needs of the community, it is also critical that
the actual cost of care (vs. market rate) is charged for child care provided at the center. The cost of care
provides su cient resources for the center to provide high-quality, developmentally appropriate, safe,
and reliable care provided by a professionally compensated workforce. Most child care providers within
Colorado do not charge cost of care which compromises their ability to pay competitive professional
wages, recruit and retain the workforce needed to meet community need for child care services.
Fundraising Plan, Communications, and Key Messages
To raise the funds necessary to successfully build, plan, and launch the Burlingame Ranch Child Care
Center a robust strategic fund development plan will be critical. The Funding Planning Report
prepared by Mission Launch provides step by step guidance for this endeavor.
A number of speci c programs are currently o ered to support enhanced child care capacity for
Colorado communities including those noted here. A complete compilation of Funder Prospects has
been prepared to support the fundraising campaign launch. As noted in the Funding Planning Report,
the initial 50-70% of project funds are recommended to be raised in a “Quiet Phase.” During this time
key messages should also be con rmed to cultivate community support as well as funding necessary for
16
the project. Guidance for the development of a campaign communications plan is included within the
Funding Planning Report.
Given the impact of COVID on the early childhood sector within the community, program closures,
challenges for child care providers, and struggles for families to nd care that meets their needs - key
messages should be carefully identi ed to promote positive change. The community is encouraged to
draw from the Colorado Shared Message Bank. These research-based messages promote the need to
invest in early childhood education, models to support all parts of the community ecosystem (families,
providers, and other support professionals), and the impact of high quality early childhood
experiences.Additional materials are available from the State of Colorado Department of Early
Childhood emphasizing the importance of social emotional and mental health support for both young
children and caregivers. It is likely that e orts to highlight goals of the planning group to support these
supports will strongly resonate to cultivate community support.
Conclusion
A few key next steps will be critical as work continues to plan and develop the Burlingame Ranch
Child Care Center:
1.Con rm key roles for community partners relative to the Burlingame Ranch Child
Care Center project including Kids First sta , Kids First Advisory Board, Rocky Mountain
Early Childhood Council, Pitkin County partners, local employers, and other stakeholders.
Each partner should clearly de ne their mission as well as goals relative to the
early childhood ecosystem in the City of Aspen. Partners can share these
mission/purpose statements as well as goals with one another.Partners should also
de ne how within their role in the community they can support the
Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center. For example, can each partner identify a
representative to continue collaboration with Kids First and other Valley wide early
childhood initiatives; can each partner de ne their needs relative to early childhood
providers (speci c schedules, locations, ages); and/or what resources can the partner
contribute.
2.Continue to build a strong coalition of community partners to guide the project.
Kids First sta and Advisory Board members should work with a coalition of community
partners to re ne and strengthen the center development plans (vision as well as design) based
on evolving community needs and opportunities. This group should include content experts
in early childhood, funding partners, cross sector members, and parents.
17
3.Con rm a detailed fund development and communications plan (embedded within this
center plan). While the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center will speci cally bene t from this
plan, Kids First can also use the communications plan and community engagement
opportunity to strengthen relationships, educate the community, and cultivate support for a
broad range of early childhood related e orts within the City of Aspen.
4.Identify a Fund Development and Communications Lead as well as committee
members to support plan implementation.As noted in the Fundraising Planning Report,
for a campaign of this size a dedicated sta or consultant support is strongly recommended.
Committee members will be crucial for cultivating support and sharing key information.
5.Continue workforce development e orts to strengthen the pipeline of early childhood
professionals available to work in the City of Aspen.Workforce emerged as the key
concern and challenge facing the City of Aspen as e orts continue to increase child care
capacity. Kids First and other community partnerships should continue strategic and
innovative approaches to increasing the number of quali ed early childhood professionals.
Note:It will be critical for Kids First to work with Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council
and other community partners to inventory existing programs (and models) that currently are
o ered in the Roaring Fork Valley to support workforce development, recruitment and
retention e orts. With clear understanding of existing o erings, support for enhanced
professional development and workforce pathways can be strengthened and increased.
6.Strengthen systems to maintain more complete and accurate community information
on a range of issues relevant to center planning:parental preference on child care setting,
actual community capacity including licensed providers as well as informal/private nannies and
other FFN, sta turnover and retention, number of types of quali ed early childhood
professionals, kinder readiness, social emotional wellbeing, number of parents who work in
Aspen, and other critical elements.
7.Integrate the Burlingame Ranch Child Care Center into a comprehensive long range
early childhood strategic vision (and implementation plan) for the City of Aspen.
___________________________
18
Resource Links
Kids First, City of Aspen
Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council
Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council 2020 Community Assessment
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments 2021 Regional Assessment of Child Care Industry
19
Snowmass Village ECE Feasibility
Project: Update II
Presentation to Town Council
August 15, 2022
Presented by:
Rob McDaniel, MetrixIQ
Andrew Brodsky, Brodsky Research and Consulting
Cody Belzley, Common Good Consulting
08-15-22 TC Paket 15 of 164 20
Project Phases
Needs Assessment complete
Site Evaluation complete
Budget Development complete
Administrative Guidance August
08-15-22 TC Paket 16 of 164 21
Needs Assessment Highlights
Current lack of access to child care in TOSV
In Pitkin County, there are about 5 children under the age of 5 for each licensed
slots (279 slots for 818 children). About 58% of these are higher quality (Colorado
Shines level 3, 4, or 5).
TOSV has only one childcare provider (Little Red Schoolhouse), which is currently
licensed for 30 but typically enrolls 20 to 24 children
Lack of licensed care for infants and toddlers only 3 locations in Pitkin County
serve infants, with 39 licensed slots, and none in TOSV
08-15-22 TC Paket 17 of 164 22
Needs Assessment: Summary of
Recommendations
Expansion of capacity at LRSH is warranted –size / scope of expansion
depends in part on what your goal is.
Seek to serve TOSV residents and workers
Year-round, full-day (8 hr) or extended day (10+ hr) programming priority;
Weekend and holiday care during winter peak season would be major
benefit –especially important to SkiCo employees
Explore possibility of infant care
Build dynamic spaces that can serve children of various ages to enable
flexibility as enrollment changes year to year
08-15-22 TC Paket 18 of 164 23
Site Evaluation
Purpose: Identify and cost out options for expanding child care on
the Little Red School House site
Key Considerations
Priority for preserving/renovating the current historic structure
Other structures replaced?
Consider phased expansion approach
What could you do short term and long term?
How much could you build vs how much should you build (now vs tomorrow)
future
Child care only vs child care + housing, etc.
Engaged GF Woods with on-the-ground experience and expertise
Costs estimate base case is 5 classrooms
08-15-22 TC Paket 19 of 164 24
Budget Development: Re-development
Alternatives
Scenario A
Refurbish LRSH
Replace Auxiliary Bldg
with similar structure
Replace existing
capacity with newer,
safer, more functional
space
Scenario B
Refurbish LRSH
Replace Auxiliary
Bldg w/expanded
structure
Expand child care
capacity
Scenario C
Refurbish LRSH
Replace Auxiliary
Bldg w/expanded
structure
Add four (4)
employee apartments
Expand child care
capacity
Expand affordable
housing inventory
08-15-22 TC Paket 20 of 164 25
Current Site Layout
NORTH
08-15-22 TC Paket 21 of 164 26
Future Site Plan Alternatives (GF Woods)
NORTH
LRSH Expansion (B)
Future Employee
Housing (C)
Auxiliary
Structure (A)LRSH (A)
08-15-22 TC Paket 22 of 164 27
Scenario A: LRSH Refurb + Replacement
Refurbish LRSH
Demolish Auxilary Bldg
Replace with Similarly Sized Facility
Goal would be to replace current facilities with newer, safer and more functional
space, but not to grow capacity
We do not have precise measurements of existing auxiliary facilities, so square
footage is estimated
We do not have any conceptual drawings for how similarly sized facility could /
should be reconfigured to maximize utility / benefit
Could enhance play area and landscaping
08-15-22 TC Paket 23 of 164 28
Scenario B: LRSH Refurb + Expansion
Refurbish LRSH
Demolish Auxiliary Bldg
Replace auxiliary bldg. with
expanded child care facility:
6 total classrooms
Additional office and storage space
4,400 sq.ft. to 9,100 (110%
increase)
Enhanced play area and landscaping
(pricing not included)
Estimated capital cost:
$4.6 -$6.3 million
08-15-22 TC Paket 24 of 164 29
Scenario C: LRSH + Housing Expansion
Refurbish LRSH
Demolish Auxiliary Bldg
Replace with expanded child care
facility:
6 total classrooms
Additional office and storage space
4,400 sq.ft. to 9,100 (110%
increase)
Enhanced play area and landscaping
(pricing not included)
Construct four (4) 1,000 sq.ft.
employee housing units (2br, 1 ba)
Estimated capital cost:
$6.8 -$9.0 million
08-15-22 TC Paket 25 of 164 30
Capital Budget: Additional Costs
Estimated Budget
Design Services 10% of construction cost
Landscaping $250,000
Contingency 25% of construction cost
Sub-total: Known Additional + Contingency
Scenario A $501,500
Scenario B $1,148,335
Scenario C $1,704,966
Known, Unknown Costs
Plan for re-location during construction ??
Foundation -Structural engineering ??
Foundation –Incremental structural construction ??
08-15-22 TC Paket 26 of 164 31
Capital Budget: Cost Summary
SF $ / SF
(GF Woods)
$ / SF
(25% contingency)
Estimated Cost
(GH Woods)
Estimated Cost
(incl. contingency)Scenario ALRSH 2,400 $375 $450 $900,000 $1,125,000
Auxiliary Bldg 2,000 $553 $665 $1,106,000 $1,332,500
SUBTOTAL 4,400 $464 $558 $2,006,000 $2,507,500
Additional Costs (excl. contingency) 1 $450,600 $500,750
TOTAL $2.5M $3.0M
Scenario BLRSH 2,400 $375 $450 $900,000 $1,125,000
Auxiliary Bldg ----------
LRSH Expansion 6,705 $553 $665 $3,711,496 $4,634,831
SUBTOTAL 9,105 $464 $558 $4,611,496 $5,538,825
Additional Costs (excl. contingency) 1 $711,150 $825,983
TOTAL $5.3M $6.6M
Scenario CLRSH 2,400 $375 $450 $900,000 $1,125,000
Auxiliary Bldg ----------
LRSH Expansion 6,705 $553 $665 $3,707,865 $4,634,831
Housing (4 apts) 2 4,000 $553 $665 $2,212,000 $2,765,000
SUBTOTAL 13,105 $494 $593 $6,819,865 $8,198,825
Additional Costs (excl. contingency) 1 $931,987 $1,102,483
TOTAL $7.8M $9.6M
1 Contingency included in increased cost/SF)
2 Approx. unit cost = $550,000
08-15-22 TC Paket 27 of 164 32
Important Construction Considerations
Addressing the current parking area does the current asphalt area need to increase?GF Woods estimates do not account for a larger parking surface.
Lead times on construction materials are lengthy, currently 3-4 months prior to breaking ground currently as lead times on structural steel, appliances, windows, hardware, mechanical/electrical items still come with a very lengthy lead time.
What will the plan be fore the pre-school while the facility is under construction?Is there a need for a phased approach to this project to allow the historic structured to be renovated prior to the any other areas to allow that structure to partially house the pre-school while the other facility is being re-developed?Or does the town have a temp facility that could house the entire program while the site is being fully renovated? (second approach will be quicker and more efficient for all parties).
Necessary research needs to be accounted for as it relates to the foundation of a new structure on this hillside.Will a deep foundation or how extensive of deep foundation be necessary? (caissons or micro-piles to mitigate the natural springs on the site)
08-15-22 TC Paket 28 of 164 33
Budget Development
identify a financially sustainable business model for childcare operations at
LRSH site
Take into account start-up costs and ongoing operational costs
Identify likely revenue sources (public and private)
Consider costs to deliver care and likely revenue streams
Incorporate findings from needs assessment and site evaluation phases
08-15-22 TC Paket 29 of 164 34
Operational Costs: Assumptions
Operating costs based on actual operating costs for LRSH
Thank you to Christina Holloway for invaluable time educating research team on local
market and her business practices
Staffing model drawn from Christina’s experience in TOSV
Operating costs align national accreditation standards (NAEYC) –also equivalent to a
Level 4 on the Colorado Shines quality rating scale
Salaries based on current pay for LRSH teachers:
Lead teachers: $27.50/hour = $47,457/year
Assistant teachers: $23.00/hour = $39,691/year
Operating costs also take into account:
Administrative personnel
Benefits such as health insurance
Nonpersonnel costs such as materials and utilities
Operating costs do not include:
Capital construction costs
Transportation
08-15-22 TC Paket 30 of 164 35
Operational Costs: Scenarios
Two scenarios created:
Scenario 1: Assumes 5 classrooms (1 infant, 1 low toddler, 1 high toddler, 2
preschool)
Scenario 2: Assumes 8 classrooms (2 infant, 1 low toddler, 2 high toddler, 3
preschool
Note: Scenarios created for illustrative purposes only not a specific
recommendation!
Teacher: child ratios and class size based on actual operating realities for
high-quality care at LRSH:
Infant room: 2 teachers, 8 children
Young toddler room: 3 teachers, 10 children
Older toddler room: 3 teachers, 12 children
Preschool room: 3 teachers, 19 children
08-15-22 TC Paket 31 of 164 36
Operational Costs: Results
Classrooms Age No. Classrooms No. Children Cost Per Child Total
5
Infant 1 8 $26,602 $212,816
Toddler 2 22 $21,337 $469,403
Preschool 2 38 $15,193 $577,315
TOTALS 5 68 $18,523 $1,259,534
8
Infant 2 16 $23,726 $379,616
Toddler 3 33 $18,542 $611,886
Preschool 3 57 $12,493 $712,101
TOTALS 8 106 $16,072 $1,703,603
08-15-22 TC Paket 32 of 164 37
City Council Work Session
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM:Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner
THROUGH:Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE:September 12, 2022
MEETING DATE:September 19, 2022
RE:Council Work Session
Short-term Rental ‘Run-out’ Period
__________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff is providing information and research conducted on ‘run-out’ periods for short-term
rental (STR) permits. Staff requests Council direction on their desire to address ‘run-out’
for STR permits upon a sale of a home. The result of this Work Session will determine if
Council wishes staff to pursue a code amendment on this topic to the newly codified STR
Regulations.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
On June 28, 2022, Council passed Ordinance #09, Series of 2022, included as Exhibit B,
which created new STR regulations. The regulations include new definitions, a three-
permit system, caps for STR-C permits, new permitting requirements, occupancy and
operational standards, updated fees, active enforcement, and a non-transferability
clause. The non-transferability requirements are central to the run-out discussion. During
second reading on June 28th, public comment was received asking Council to consider a
specific circumstance where a property with existing reservations for STR stays would be
sold to another party prior to the commencement of the reserved rental dates. In response
to these comments, Council directed staff to return at a later date with research results of
what a ‘run-out’ period on STR permits upon a sale of a home might mean for the City’s
STR permit non-transferability policy.
Non-transferability of STR permits is a key feature of the new regulations – the most
important element of which is the attrition model to reduce the number of STR-C permits
over time. As read in the staff produced Short-term Rental Case Study, the research found
that non-transferability clauses were a common and equitable practice in achieving
attrition when a cap on the number of permits is in place. City Council directed staff to
reduce the number of permits in Aspen by 25% from the existing number of approximately
1,300. The cap set in place by Ordinance #09, Series 2022, applies to STR-C permits
38
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 2 of 5
and decreases the number of STR-C permits in capped zones from 11% to 8% of the
total number of residential units. Natural attrition through means of non-transferability will
support achieving this goal.
The City’s non-transferability clause states that STR permits may not be transferred to a
new owner when a property sells or from one residential address to other. The language
in Section 26.530.030.5 is as follows:
Non-Transferability. Commencing October 1, 2022, STR permits shall be granted only
for the property for which it is issued and solely to the permittee to whom it is issued.
The permit shall not be transferable to any other person, legal entity, or residential
address. If the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, association or company,
a transfer shall be deemed to occur if the permittee transfers his or her interest in the
property to a third-party individual or entity or if more than ten percent (10%) of the
partnership, corporation, association, or company is transferred to a third-party individual
or entity, even if the permittee retains an ownership interest in the property. Upon such
transfer of ownership, the permit shall be deemed terminated and revoked and the new
owner of the property shall be required to apply for a new STR permit if it wishes to
continue the use of the property as a vacation rental. The STR permit shall include a
non-transferability clause and notice that the permit shall be deemed terminated and
revoked automatically upon the sale or change of ownership of the property for which a
permit has been issued, as described herein.
There is no cap on STR-C permits in the C-1, CC, L and CL zones, or on STR-OO and
STR-LE permits. Although this regulation does apply to these permit types, un-capped
classic, owner-occupied and lodge units may apply for and subsequently may be granted
a new permit without being subject to the waitlist process. Only the STR-C permits within
capped zones will be subject to a waitlist. Therefore, those permit types may be the only
STR permits that will not be granted a permit within the 21-day timeframe of a completed
application and if applicable, noticing period. The ‘run-out’ topic specifically relates to
STR-C permits that are within capped zones.
On June 28th, Council heard from operators of the STR community. The primary concern
that STR operators communicated is the scenario of when a property has STR bookings
far into the future, but the property is sold prior to the bookings commencing. STR
operators feel that if bookings are canceled due to the non-transferabilty clause and
waitlist, it will harm the reputation of both the booking agent and City. There are often
financial concerns for STR operators and managers as well, whereby they may be held
liable to the customers for losses incurred because a booked property is no longer
available.
The other consideration brought forward by operators is if a new owner does decide to
continue with the prior bookings in honoring a contract for the bookings, without having
an issued permit, that would violate the STR policy. The new owner would potentially be
caught between the City’s regulation and the terms of a contract for the STR booking.
When staff asked operators within the STR Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) the
frequency of this challenge, there were two responses. One operator stated that in the
39
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 3 of 5
last three years this scenario had occurred approximately 10 times. The second operator
stated that they were unaware of any such occurrences currently, but in the past, they
typically have a short 30-60 days’ notice of an owner selling the unit; the number of times
this scenario had occurred was not mentioned by the second operator. 10 occurrences
out of the current 1,300 permits make this occurrence a percentage of 0.75% occurrences
per permitted STRs within the past three years. Given the likely high number of annual
bookings, that frequency is estimated to be significantly lower.
Subsequent to the passage of Ordinance #09, staff contacted the communities
interviewed for the STR Case Study Report. In response, out of the seven communities
who instituted a non-transferability clause in their STR Policy and responded to the
request, only one community, the Town of Breckenridge, responded that they institute a
temporary six-month license to honor previous bookings. This is due to the high number
of individually licensed condo-hotel rooms in their program and the frequency with which
those units are booked and sold.
Other responses included the acknowledgement that property owners should have a
sense of when they wish to sell a unit and could choose to stop taking bookings, or to
determine when a closing should occur to honor those bookings made by the owner and
their representatives. The Town of Crested Butte responded that they have seen the
owner and buyer negotiate a later closing date that allows the remaining summer or winter
bookings to take place. The City of Ouray responded that many agents work with the
previously made booking to find other units to place them in so that they may retain
business and reputation. Other communities responded that the community is well
informed on non-transferability and the topic has not been brought to City management,
because there are very few complaints about non-transferability. With the exception of
the Town of Breckenridge, other communities let the owner and buyer make the decisions
that best fits the needs of the renter, and the City is not party to the discussion.
In addition to staff’s outreach to the TAC and neighboring communities, staff contacted
VRBO to discuss how third-party operators conduct business upon the sale of a rental
property that they list and to understand how other municipalities respond. The VRBO
representative informed staff that they are not party to honoring any reservations that
were booked prior to a sale. VRBO leaves all decisions regarding prior booking to the
seller and the buyer, and that most jurisdictions do not attempt to legislate this process.
Verbatim responses from the TAC, neighboring communities and the VRBO
representative are included as Exhibit A, Summary of Responses.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
Staff has devoted time to research best practices on non-transferabilty and its relationship
to Council’s goals for the management of the STR permit program. Staff has also
conducted internal research with the City departments that would be responsible for
changing the code language and setting up an internal administrative system to
implement a ‘run-out’ period. Legal, Finance and Community Development have
discussed this policy alternative to the non-transferabilty clause and determined that for
40
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 4 of 5
a ‘run-out’ period to occur, a new, fourth, temporary permit would need to be created and
issued. This is the only means by which a ‘run-out’ period could be accounted for while
maintaining the City’s legal and regulatory position and not undermining the program.
In contemplating the creation of a fourth, temporary permit, staff identified the following
concerns:
There are solutions available that do not require City intervention.
Increased administrative workload to create and implement a fourth permit year-
round.
A new permit would need to be built within MUNIRevs which requires additional
funding and a 10 to 12-week timeline for contracting and coding.
Finance staff would need to develop a new system to gather information for taxes
and fees during the ‘run-out’ period, which is distinctly different than an annual
collection.
Important regulatory compliance obligations such as HOA approval, inspections
and noticing would need to be omitted from the temporary permit issuance process
to meet the timeline needs of a new owner.
Diversion of staff time to issue temporary permits would take resources away from
the monitoring and enforcing of regulations for exiting permit holders.
Inequity for applicants and permit holders who are in other stages of the permitting
process due to the prioritization of the temporary permit issuance needing a quick
turnaround.
A temporary STR permit would undermine the intention of the waitlist and permit
cap system as a temporary permit would skip the waitlist process and
subsequently create longer waiting times due to the diversion of the newly freed
STR-C permit to be put back into the system as a temporary permit.
Unequal competition between owners and operators on the waitlist versus those
‘jumping the line’ through the temporary permit process. Bookings allowed to
remain in place for a newly sold property would get a temporary permit, yet would
deny that business to the next property on the waitlist.
A temporary STR permit reduces predictability for applicants on the waitlist, creates more
administrative workload for staff, and is a questionable customer service practice on the
City’s behalf based on the newly adopted STR regulations. Due to these concerns and
staff’s evaluation that need for a ‘run-out’ period is a relatively infrequent circumstance
that could be avoided by the private parties involved, staff does not support a run-out
period at this time.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
October 1, 2022 will be the date new STR owners and operators are allowed to apply for
new permits. All ‘grandpersoned’ permits must renew their permit by December 31, 2022.
Staff is dedicated to a smooth launch and requests that any code amendments desired
by Council to respond to the ‘run-out’ concept also consider the time and resources
required to create a new program.
41
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 5 of 5
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:The Finance team has confirmed a fourth permit within
MUNIRevs would incur additional costs. There would need to be a new contract and a 10
to 12-week period to code the new permit into the system. Estimated costs are $3,000 for
the first year to create the temporary permit, and $1,800 for annual fees thereafter.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:N/A.
ALTERNATIVES:
1.Take no action and staff will continue to evaluate the topic as the program rolls
out.
2.Direct staff to pursue a code amendment that creates a fourth, temporary permit
type to accommodate the ‘run-out’ period.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council does not pursue a ‘run-out’
period for STR permits upon the sale of a home. A ‘run-out’ period counters the intention
of the non-transferabilty clause and waitlist and would create burden on both the
administrative application of a temporary permit and the legal boundaries the City would
be party to in administrating it upon the private sale of a home. Staff supports that an
owner and buyer may be able to privately determine how to best accommodate future
bookings in the case of a property sale.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Summary of Responses
Exhibit B – Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
42
1
Exhibit A
Summary of Responses
9/12/22
On June 28, 2022, Council passed Ordinance #09, Series of 2022, creating the City’s first
ever set of regulation on short-term regulations (STRs). This ordinance implemented a
comprehensive set of policy related to the issuance of STR permits. During second
reading on June 28th, Council directed staff to return to and research what a ‘run-out’
period on STR permits upon a sale of a home might mean for the City’s non-transferability
policy in response to STR stakeholder public comment.
Staff conducted research and reached out to third party renting services, neighboring
mountain west communities, and the 12-person STR Technical Advisory Committee
(TAC) to gain understanding of what the issue is, what other communities are doing to
respond, and how the City may respond. The following is a summary of the questions
asked and responses from Vrbo, seven neighboring mountain west communities, and two
TAC members.
Vrbo Response:
Question: How do third party services conduct business upon a sale of a rental
property that they list? Do you have a cancellation policy? What is the language
you have that either supports or protects the owner/buyer or subsequently the
renter?
Response from Ashley Hodgini, Regional Government Affairs Manager with Expedia
Group / Vrbo:
To the best of my knowledge, Vrbo does not track this information, and all decisions on
when/whether to list a home for short-term rent are left to the owner of the property.
Sellers/buyers and real estate agents almost always do a thorough job of working
through how to honor or cancel bookings on their own, and I’d say the vast majority of
jurisdictions do not attempt to legislate this process.
With regard to Vrbo, if an issue arises such as, for example, a previous owner did not
take down their listing and the new owner doesn’t wish to rent, we simply deal with that
on a case by case basis—it’s usually a straightforward process to remove the listing at
the request of the property owner. In my experience, however, that is a rare
circumstance, and I’ve personally never seen it where there are existing bookings that
need to be handled.
Hoping this information is helpful!
43
2
TAC Responses:
Question 1: What is the issue you’re experiencing
Response from TAC Member #1: We are renting units far into the future, sometimes as
much as a year in advance. An owner’s circumstances can change during that time and
they may list their unit for sale with existing rentals in place. If we are unable to relocate
the rental to another unit, we are forced to honor the rental or just cancel it outright, leaving
the guest with no alternative and potentially ruining their planned, booked, and paid for
vacation.
Response from TAC Member #2: How this comes into play is when an owner with a
current STR has an executed rental agreement in place for the future. It could be in 30
days, or next winter. When they decide to sell the property, there is an executed rental
agreement in place between the owner and the tenant. The executed rental should be
allowed to “run – out”. Whatever that timeframe may be.
Question 2: Who does the issue affect?
Response from TAC Member #1: Frias Properties as the rental agent and the paying
rental guest.
Response from TAC Member #2: No Response
Question 3: Specifically, how does the issue affect each of the parties mentioned
above?
Response from TAC Member #1: Frias Properties as the rental agent – If we have to
cancel a booking solely because the license is no longer valid because the unit sells, it
makes us look bad and will harm our reputation. This guest would likely never book
through us again and could also share their negative experience with other potential
clients. Paying rental guest – Potentially leaves the guest with no alternative and can ruin
their planned, booked, and paid for vacation.
Response from TAC Member #2: If the new owner isn’t allowed to acquire an STR permit
in a capped area, they do have the responsibility to complete the executed rental. Without
allowing a “run-out”, the new owner would end up in violation of the new ordinance, with
no way to remedy.
Question 4: How often do you experience this issue, i.e., in the last three years how many
times have you had to navigate this issue on a property?
44
3
Response from TAC Member #1: So far, this has not been an issue because a new owner
was always able to get a permit at any time. Over the last three years approximately 10
units have sold with rentals in place that we honored through a contract with the new
owner.
Response from TAC Member #2: I don’t know that we have any owners at the moment
that are in this specific situation, but when it’s come up in the past year, there’s usually
not more than 30-60 days notice.
Question 5: What is the financial impact of this issue?
Response from TAC Member #1: If we are forced to cancel a fully paid for booking, we
will have to refund the entire amount back to the guest so we will no longer earn our
commission on the rental.
Response from TAC Member #2: No Response
Question 6: What other impacts are associated with this issue?
Response from TAC Member #1: The bigger hit to on our reputation as we rely on a lot
of repeat business and if we are forced to cancel on a client, they likely will not use us
again for their rentals.
Response from TAC Member #2: No Response
Question 7: Why should the City of Aspen consider a code amendment to address
this issue?
Response from TAC Member #1: Because at the end of the day, it is a really simple
process and will allow all of the rental companies to avoid having to cancel on a guest.
Response from TAC Member #2: We strongly recommend creating a situation that
doesn’t put the new owner in violation and restriction of having an STR in the future via
the standard application process.
Question 8: What are your suggestions for solving this issue? Be specific.
Response from TAC Member #1: If a unit sells with confirmed bookings in place, the City
could issue a temporary permit for 90 days from the sale date to honor only existing
bookings that are already in place. The new owner will obtain that temporary permit, we
45
4
will honor the bookings in place, pay the new owner the revenue, and at the end of the
90 days, the permit will no longer be valid and STRs will no longer be allowed in the unit.
Response from TAC Member #2: No Response
Community Responses:
Question: Does your STR Policy include a ‘run-out’ period? Please describe any
conversations you may have had with the public or your Council on this concept.
Response: City of Salida
We have a non transferability clause as well. Basically, once I get a confirmation that a
property with a STR license is sold (I get a biweekly list of houses for sale/sold by our
Utilities coordinator) then I follow up with the STR owner and let them know to pay out the
final taxes and to cancel all future bookings. Most of the time, I hear the news directly
from the STR owner since they don't want to have to keep paying the occupational lodging
tax on the property they no longer own. From there, I double check that the property listing
has been taken down.
The 60-90 day grace period would be very challenging administratively. Who would pay
the taxes on the future bookings? The new buyers who don't have a license yet or the old
owners who no longer own the property? Very strange.
Response: Town of Crested Butte
Town of Crested Butte vacation rental licenses are non-transferable.
A realtor had once suggested that Town offer a provisional license to new owners of
previously licensed vacation rental properties that would allow the new owner to honor
the existing bookings through the end of either the summer/fall tourist season or the
winter/spring tourist season. The suggestion was that this license would have a fee and
a set expiration date so vacationing guests would not be displaced due to the sale of the
property. The realtor did not ever present a formal request to council to consider
amending the licensing regulations to create a provisional license. The provisional
license would not have been subject to the Town’s 30% cap limit on the number of
licenses issued. It would instead be regulated by a date certain expiration.
What I have seen occur over the last four years in the real estate market is the owner and
buyer negotiate a later closing date that allows the remaining summer or winter bookings
to take place. This approach of course depends upon the individual parties involved in
46
5
the real estate transaction. Conversely, I have seen properties stop taking bookings once
they put the property on the market.
It is the vacation rental business owner’s responsibility to manage the contract with their
clients. If they continue to take bookings after their property is listed for sale they are
taking the risk of having to cancel bookings when the property goes under contract.
Hope this helps and thanks for the copy of the ordinance. I will forward it on to the
planning team as we are just commencing the process to revise our existing regulations
through a new ordinance.
Response: City of Ouray
Good question. That is definitely something the city of Ouray doesn't include in its STR
regulations. However, we of course have encountered this situation many times and have
handled it fairly consistently:
- STR licenses are not transferable within the City of Ouray.
- If a property is licensed and sells to a new owner who also wishes to continue operating
a STR, they must apply for a new license, pass a building inspection, have all their state
sales tax forms on file, etc. Since that often takes more than 1 day (and often takes
months) any STR operations in the meantime would be essentially operating without a
license.
- If the STR was managed by a property management company who has other rentals in
its pool, when we discuss this policy with them if the current/prospective owner is
concerned about this rollover of bookings, they are often able to rebook those to a new
property to avoid losing clients.
- Long story short, it is often an inconvenience, but I care more about properties operating
with a valid license and during that gray area between owners, that would be operating
without a license, or illegally.
I hope that helps! I will also mention the County of Ouray does give new property owners
an option to transfer an existing STR license as part of the sale (I believe there's a 60-
day window to do so) so the county might have some insights on how they've navigated
this in the past.
Response: County of Ouray (per City of Ouray’s suggestion)
If an existing homeowner is selling their house and gives the date they plan to close – the
new owner has 60 days to submit a new STR application - pay new fee; if they don’t then
the existing permit will be reissued to a waitlist.
47
6
Response: Glenwood Springs
In my experience I have not received any of those types of requests. In general, once
the house sells and changes hands – the Short Term Rental Permit is null and void. If
the previous owner had made reservations, any use of the home as a short term rental
would not be legal, unless the new owner was able to secure a permit. Once the house
is sold, permit is gone, and the house is just like any other home used for residential
purposes.
Response: City of Durango
As for the question at hand regarding run-outs or grace periods, I can say that we in
Durango have not historically allowed for any flexibility. Property owners should have a
pretty good idea of when they intend to sell and could easily just choose to stop taking
bookings beyond a certain date as they get close to listing the property. Presumably, they
would also have some say in determining when the closing occurs. Frankly, minimal
planning ahead on behalf of the property owner would make this a non-issue.
Hope that helps! Feel free to give me a call if you need more info, I’d be happy to chat.
Response: Breckenridge
Here is how we defined taking care of existing reservations booked by the previous owner.
Our ordinance contains this language:
“If an accommodation unit license is lost because the licensee no longer holds legal title
to the real property that is the subject of the license, the Finance Director shall, upon
request of the subsequent owner of such real property, issue to such owner a temporary
six-month accommodation unit licensee to allow such owner to honor, insofar as possible,
reservations for the property that existed on the date that the previous owner’s
accommodation unit license was lost due to the transfer of legal title to the real property
that was the subject of the previous license.”
The process works like that:
The buyer has to apply for the license and pay any fees if applicable. We issue a license
with an automatic expiration date 6 months from the date of deed transfer. The buyer
cannot advertise or accept additional bookings. The license covers only reservations
made by the previous owner.
48
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 1 of 14
ORDINANCE NO. 09
(Series of 2022)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE VACATION RENTAL REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF ASPEN
LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the “City”) is a legally and regularly created, established,
organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution
of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the “Charter”); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently regulates land uses within the City limits in
accordance with Chapter 26.104 et seq. of the Aspen Municipal Code pursuant to its Home Rule
Constitutional authority and the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as
amended, §§29-20-101, et seq. C.R.S; and,
WHEREAS, Aspen is a tourists destination, attracting tens of thousands of visitors a year in
all seasons, visitors which require transient tourist accommodations and participate in and support
Aspen’s tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS, a variety of tourist accommodations at varied sizes, quality, and price points is
essential to supporting the City’s tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS, a tourist-based economy such as the City’s requires a sufficient number of
employees to provide the services required to serve such an economy. Without adequate
workforce housing, a tourist-based economy cannot thrive; and,
WHEREAS, to allow for a sufficient number of employees to be hired to provide the
services necessary to sustain a tourist-based economy there must be an adequate supply of
workforce housing; and,
WHEREAS, historically, the long-term rental of residential property, or at least the
long-term rental of space within a residential property, has been an important means for
providing workforce housing within the City; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to the required workforce housing, it is also essential to the
continued vitality of the City’s economy that adequate short-term housing be made available to
the many tourists who visit the City each year; and,
WHEREAS, short-term rentals are extremely valuable to the City’s economy and exist
in various locations throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS, the operation of a short-term rental in the City is the operation of a
business; and,
49
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 2 of 14
WHEREAS, without regulations and limitations on their operation and extent, short-
term rentals also have adverse impacts on the character of residential neighborhoods and the
availability of long-term housing options; and,
WHEREAS, tourists visitation, the operation of tourist accommodations, the goods and
services demanded by tourists, and the transportation systems required to move tourist to and
throughout the community have environmental impacts, measured as Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; and,
WHEREAS, in keeping with the goal of the City’s Comprehensive Plan to preserve
small town character while maintaining livability, the City desires to minimize the negative
impacts of short-term rentals on Aspen’s neighborhoods, housing supply, economy, and
environment; and,
WHEREAS, during the moratorium, adopted Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2021, City
staff engaged in a robust public engagement process which included two online surveys
regarding community perception of short-term rentals and feelings toward specific regulations;
an open house at City Hall which included story boards and an opportunity for feedback; a public
work session to discuss the online survey results and expand further into certain topic areas;
and research into how other municipalities in Colorado regulate short-term rentals; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission received and considered the
information gathered through the public engagement process, as well as comments from the
public, during a Meeting held on May 17th, 2022, and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval of
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 to City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2021, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 26, Series of
2021 enacting a temporary moratorium in the issuance of new short-term rental permits until
September 30, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on May 24, 2022, City Council by a 5 to 0 vote, approved
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022, approving at First Reading a Code Amendment to Vacation Rental
Regulations; and,
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting and properly noticed public hearing on June 28th, City
Council by a 5 to 0 vote, approved Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 on Second Reading; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
Section 26.104.100 “Definitions shall” be amended as follows:
50
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 3 of 14
Condo-hotel. A condo-hotel is a lodging property which meets the definition of Lodge in
26.104.110, Use Categories and in which ownership of individual lodge units has been
condominiumized in accordance with The Colorado Condominium Ownership Act, C.R.S. § 38-33-
101, et. seq.
Hotel. See definition of Lodge, 26.104.110 Use Categories.
Motel. See definition of Lodge, 26.104.110 Use Categories.
Natural Person. A living, individual human being, as distinct from a “legal person” for the
purpose of assigning certain legal rights.
Owner Occupied. A residential property that serves as the primary residence of the title owner of
the property.
Owner Occupant. For the purposes of permitting specific types of short-term rentals, owner-
occupant is a natural person whose principal residence is the City of Aspen residential property or
unit for which a short-term rental permit is sought.
Pillow. A unit of measure for assessing affordable housing generation and occupancy of lodge
rooms/units per bedroom in a short-term rental. Each lodge and short-term rental unit shall be
considered to have two pillows for each bedroom. For calculating occupancy in short-term rentals,
sleeper sofas, murphy beds, and similar sleeping accommodations shall be considered as two
pillows. Studio units shall be considered to have two pillows.
Primary residence. The permanent residential address, as demonstrated by acceptable legal
documentation described in this title, of an Owner- Occupied Short-term Rental Permit holder.
Qualified Owner’s Representative. A natural person who is legally designated on the permit
application by the permittee to apply for and maintain compliance with a City of Aspen Short-term
Rental Permit. For each short-term rental property, there may be only one qualified owner’s
representative. All qualified owner’s representatives must have a business license through the City
of Aspen.
Short-term Rental (STR). The use or occupancy of a residential property or dwelling unit, in
whole or in part, by the general public for a fee, primarily for tourist accommodations, and for a
period of less than 30 days. Timeshare, hotel, motel, and bed and breakfast uses are not short-term
rental uses.
Vacation Rental. See short-term rental.
Section 2.
Valid 2021-2022 Permits. 2021 Vacation Rental Permits (2021 VRP) issued pursuant to
Section 26.575.020 “Vacation Rentals” on or prior to December 8th, 2021, shall be deemed to be
valid 2022 STR Permits and shall be valid until December 31, 2022. Valid 2022 permits may be
renewed annually thereafter, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this chapter until
they are abandoned or revoked in accordance with this chapter. Valid 2022 permits which are
51
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 4 of 14
renewed after December 31, 2022, may not be transferred to owners or properties other than that
listed on the 2022 STR permit. Upon renewal, 2022 STR permits issued to a corporation,
partnership, association, or company must update the permit application information to comply
with the requirements of Chapter 26.530. The number of Short-term Rental-Classic (STR-C)
permits as of January 1, 2023, may exceed the cap for zone districts, as defined in Chapter
26.530, until such time as they are revoked, abandoned, or otherwise eliminated. Owner-
occupied Short-term Rental Permits and Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental Permits may be
issued with the requirements of Chapter 26.530 beginning October 1, 2022.
Section 3.
Section 26.575.220 “Vacation Rentals” shall be deleted in its entirety.
Section 4.
Chapter 26.530 “Reserved” shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Chapter 26.530
Short-term Rental Regulations
Sec. 26.530.010 Purpose
Sec. 26.530.020 Applicability
Sec. 26.530.030 Permitting Requirements
Sec. 26.530.040 Permitting Procedures and Standards
Sec. 26.530.050 Occupancy and Operational Standards
Sec. 26.530.060 Enforcement
Sec. 26.530.070 Fees
Sec. 26.530.080 Appeals
26.530.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate short-term rentals (STRs) as a land use within the City
of Aspen. STRs are an important component of the City’s lodging bed base, support a vibrant
tourist economy, and provide real property owners with STR permits significant financial
benefit. STRs influence property value and occupancy patterns of residential dwelling units.
STRs influence neighborhood character by introducing commercial lodging uses in residential
neighborhoods. STRs require services and infrastructure to operate. STRs further reduce the
potential availability of long-term rental housing to support the local economy and community.
STRs require regulation as a distinct land use to ensure the health, safety, peace, and welfare of
the community through the application of zoning police powers. The following regulations
support the operation of STRs balanced with community policies related to housing,
development, growth management, and a sustainable economy as described in the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
26.530.020 Applicability
A. This chapter applies to all STRs in the City of Aspen. STRs are required to obtain a
permit in accordance with their type and operation as defined in this section. STRs
operating without a permit are subject to enforcement as defined in Section 26.530.060
Enforcement.
52
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 5 of 14
B. It shall be unlawful for any person, whether a principal or agent, clerk, or employee,
either for him or herself, or for any other person for anybody, corporation or otherwise, to
lease or operate an STR without first obtaining an STR permit in accordance with the
provisions and procedures of this section.
26.530.030 Permitting Requirements
A. Permits.
Any property rented as an STR shall require a permit to operate. Permits shall be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the
following criteria:
1) Permittee. Permits shall only be issued in the name of one natural person who has an
ownership interest in the property for which the permit is issued (“Permittee”).
2) Permit Number. STR permits are issued a unique permit number. That permit number
shall be clearly displayed in all advertising and listings of the STR, including but not
limited to all digital and print advertising. The permit number must be listed in the STR,
along with permittee and/or qualified owner’s representative and emergency contact
information as part of the in-unit Community Messaging Program described in the STR
Program Guidelines.
3) Permit Application Contents. The following information is required for STR permit
applications: the owner(s) of the property, the name and contact information of the
proposed permittee; if title to the subject property is held by a corporation, partnership,
association, or company, the name and contact information of any officer, director or
stockholder holding ten percent (10%) or more of the interests in the corporation,
partnership, association, or company; the property address, Pitkin County parcel
identification number; Pitkin County owner name; number of bedrooms and pillows in
the unit in its largest configuration; size of heated area of the STR residence, and all
previous notices of code violations or complaints filed against the property.
4) Licensing. STRs are required to maintain a City of Aspen Business License and are
required to remit lodging and sales tax in accordance with Municipal Code regulations
and Finance department policies. The STR Program Guidelines include details about
licensing and tax compliance standards and procedures.
5) Non-Transferability. Commencing October 1, 2022, STR permits shall be granted only
for the property for which it is issued and solely to the permittee to whom it is issued.
The permit shall not be transferable to any other person, legal entity, or residential
address. If the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, association or company, a
transfer shall be deemed to occur if the permittee transfers his or her interest in the
property to a third-party individual or entity or if more than ten percent (10%) of the
partnership, corporation, association, or company is transferred to a third-party individual
or entity, even if the permittee retains an ownership interest in the property. Upon such
transfer of ownership, the permit shall be deemed terminated and revoked and the new
53
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 6 of 14
owner of the property shall be required to apply for a new STR permit if it wishes to
continue the use of the property as a vacation rental. The STR permit shall include a non-
transferability clause and notice that the permit shall be deemed terminated and revoked
automatically upon the sale or change of ownership of the property for which a permit
has been issued, as described herein.
B. Permit Types.
STRs shall be eligible for one of three permit types: Short-term Rental Classic, Owner-Occupied
Short-term Rental, or Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental. The ability to obtain an STR permit is
conditioned upon the permittees consent of the eligibility, requirements, and standards for each
permit type as follows:
1) Short-term Rental Classic (STR-C) – this permit is issued only to residential units
located in eligible zones and the approved use of which is not a Lodge use. (Condo-hotel
properties must apply for a Lodging-Exempt STR permit.)
a. STR-C permits shall be renewed annually and are assessed an annual
permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees.
b. STR-C permits are subject to the life-safety standards and the operational
standards described in this chapter and the STR Program Guidelines.
c. There is no annual limit on the number of nights an STR-C permittee may
operate the STR unit. Bedrooms, lock-offs, or portions of the residential
unit, in addition to the whole residential unit, may be rented. Occupancy
for the unit is limited by the standards described in Section 26.530.050.
2) Owner-occupied Short-term Rental (STR-OO) – this permit is issued only to owner-
occupied residential units, where the property is the primary residence of the permittee.
Part 700 of this Title describes the zone districts where STRs are a permitted use.
a. STR-OO rental permits shall be renewed annually and are assessed an
annual permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees.
b. STR-OO are subject to the life-safety standards for STRs described in this
chapter and the Program Guidelines, and who must have two (2) of the
following valid documents indicating that the STR is the applicant’s
primary residence:
i. valid Colorado driver’s license;
ii. valid motor vehicle registration;
iii. voter registration;
iv. Federal or state tax return; or,
v. other legal documentation deemed sufficient by the Community
Development Director which is pertinent toward establishing
principal residence.
3) Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental (STR-LE) – Lodges and condo-hotels which meet
the definition of Lodge are eligible for STR-LE permits.
a. For eligible properties, only one permit is required for all units under
management.
b. In addition to the limitations of the definition of Lodge and/or Condo-
hotel, Lodging Exempt eligible properties must offer STR units under a
54
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 7 of 14
unified brand and marketing model where individual ownership of units is
secondary to the central brand of the property.
c. Lodging Exempt permittees must submit an affidavit attesting to their
eligibility.
d. STR-LE permits must be renewed annually and are assessed an annual
permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees. To ensure
ongoing eligibility for the STR-LE permit, permittees are subject to the
Lodging Occupancy Auditing regulations in Section 26.575.210.
C. Zoning Limitations.
STR-C permits are limited by number in residential zone districts. Refer to Part 700 of this title for
permitted uses by zone to assess where STR-Cs are permitted. In zones where STR is not a
permitted use, it is a prohibited use.
1) STR-C permits are limited by number in specific zone districts as follows:
a. RR: 2 permits;
b. R-3: 1 permit;
c. R-6: 81 permits;
d. R-15: 47 permits;
e. R-15A: 8 permits;
f. R-15B: 12 permits;
g. R-30: 1 permit;
h. R/MF: 190 permits;
i. R/MFA: 12 permits;
j. AH: 9 permits;
k. MU: 39 permits;
l. NC: 1 permit;
m. SCI: 2 permits;
n. SKI: 2 permits.
2) There is no limit to the number of STR-C permits in the following zone districts:
Commercial (C-1), Commercial Core (CC), Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge
Overlay (LP), Lodge Preservation Overlay (LO).
3) STR-OO are not limited by number in any allowable zone district. Refer to Part 700 of this
title for zone districts where STR is a permitted use.
4) STR-LE are not limited by number in any allowable zone district. Refer to Part 700 of this
title for zone districts where STR is a permitted or prohibited use.
26.530.040 Permit Procedures and Standards.
Prior to the issuance of an STR permit, the permit application will be reviewed for compliance
with the following standards.
A. Zoning Compliance.
All STR permits must comply with zoning regulations for the zone district in which they are
located. STR permit applications shall include the Parcel Identification Number and residential
55
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 8 of 14
address including unit number for the property to ensure compliance with underlying zoning.
Zone district STR regulations, including permitted uses and cap limitations, may change over
time per City Council action. Possession of an STR permit does not supersede compliance with
zone district STR regulations.
B. Life-safety Compliance and Inspection.
1) Required Noticing. All new STR applicants shall comply with neighborhood noticing
requirements per Section 26.304.060.E.3.b-c, Manner of Notice.
2) Inspections. By signing and submitting an STR permit application, and subsequently
being granted a permit, the owner(s) of the property shall consent to inspections of the
property by City of Aspen personnel and their agents for the purpose of determining
compliance with City Codes, Regulations and Laws. No inspection will be made without
first giving the permittee and, if applicable, the qualified owner’s representative, 48
hours’ notice of the inspection.
3) Life-Safety. STRs are required to comply with all applicable life-safety standards in
Municipal Code Title 8 and the STR Program Guidelines, as amended from time to time.
Life-safety standards including: fire suppression, occupancy limitations, mechanical
codes, emergency contacts and procedures, and inspections.
C. Qualified Owner’s Representative.
Permittees who cannot meet requirement for regulatory compliance, in-person service,
emergency response and other regulations in this title may designate a qualified owner’s
representative. A qualified owner’s representative shall be a natural person residing in the
Roaring Fork River Drainage area situated in Eagle, Pitkin, Garfield or Gunnison Counties, or
within the Colorado River Drainage area from and including the unincorporated No Name area
to and including Rifle. The qualified owner’s representative is designated by the permittee who
is the property owner as the point of contact for the permitted STR. For permittees that designate
a qualified owner’s representative, the qualified owner’s representative shall be responsible for
responding to tenant and City inquiries, complaints, enforcement actions, and other on-site
needs.
1) If a qualified owner’s representative is designated for an STR, the qualified owner’s
representative must have a City of Aspen business license. The qualified owner’s
representative shall be listed on the STR permit for the property including the qualified
owner’s representative’s name, entity or company name, telephone number, email
address, and physical address.
2) STR permittees who designate a qualified owner’s representative are liable for
compliance with applicable Land Use Code and Municipal Code regulations. The
qualified owner’s representative is not legally liable for violations of this section or
compliance with applicable Municipal Code regulations but is responsible for notifying
the permittee when a violation has occurred.
3) The name, address, and telephone number(s) of the qualified owner’s representative, as
shown on the STR permit, shall be made available to the Community Development
56
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 9 of 14
Department, the Aspen Police Department, and the Aspen Fire Protection District. Any
change to the qualified owner’s representative or permittees’ contact information shall be
promptly furnished to the City of Aspen via a revised STR permit application within ten
(10) days. Failure of the permittee to provide or update the qualified owner’s
representative contact information to the City shall constitute an enforcement violation
subject to actions and penalties as described in Section 26.530.070 Enforcement.
4) The permittee, or if designated, the qualified owner’s representative, shall be available 24
hours a day, year-round to ensure that the property is maintained and operated as required
by Land Use Code standards and the STR Program Guidelines. The permittee, or if
designated, the qualified owner’s representative, shall respond to service or compliance
inquiries from occupants and City officials, and shall be available to be at the property
within two (2) hours in an emergency. Failure of the permittee, or if designated, the
qualified owner’s representative, to respond to a call from a tenant or the Community
Development Director within 24 hours shall result in an enforcement violation subject to
actions and penalties as described in Section 26.530.070 Enforcement against the
permittee.
D. Permit Application, Fees, Issuance, Renewal, Revocation, and Abandonment.
1) Application. Permit applications shall be received and processed on a first come, first
served basis. The Community Development Director shall deem applications complete
based on the requirements of this Chapter and the standards in the STR Program Guidelines.
Only complete STR permit applications shall be accepted and reviewed.
2) Fee Payment. Permit fees shall be remitted at the time of permit application and cover the
cost of processing the application. Application fees are nonrefundable.
3) Neighborhood Noticing. Upon application for a new STR-C or STR-OO permit, the
applicant shall provide neighborhood noticing in accordance with Section 26.304.060.E.3.b-
c. Manner of Notice. Permit renewals do not require neighborhood noticing. Permits shall
be approved, approved with conditions, or denied following the notice period. STR-LE are
exempt from this provision.
4) HOA Compliance. Permit applications for residential properties which are in a
Homeowners Association (HOA) must include HOA approval for the applicant to operate
an STR in the form of a signed letter, including telephone and email contact information for
the HOA, with the permit application.
5) Issuance. Permits shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied within 21
working days of the closure of the notice period described above. The Community
Development Director may issue permits with conditions based on review of the permit
application and public comment. The review and issuance period for individual permit
applications may be extended at the direction of the Community Development Director.
6) Waitlist. Once the permit limit is reached for each zone district, applicants will be placed
on a waitlist for the next available permit in the order in which the application was received.
57
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 10 of 14
A waitlist applicant shall be a natural person. The residential address included in the waitlist
application must match the residential address for which the subsequent permit is issued.
Applicants who sell the property for which the permit is sought shall be removed from the
waitlist. As permits become available, waitlist applications shall be reviewed and approved,
approved with conditions, or denied. If the property has been found in violation of this
Chapter during the waitlist period, the application shall be denied.
7) Renewal. STR permits shall be renewed annually in accordance with the procedures in the
STR Program Guidelines. Failure to renew a permit within fourteen days (14) of the permit
expiration date shall result in the abandonment of the permit.
8) Tax Filing. STRs must be occupied by a short-term renter a minimum of once per year,
as shown in tax filings to be eligible for renewal. Permits with one year of zero tax
filings from the date of permit issuance or renewal will be considered abandoned and be
processed in accordance with the standards in this chapter.
9) Abandonment. STR-C and STR-OO permits shall be valid for one year from the date of
issuance and shall be renewed annually. Failure to renew a permit in accordance with the
STR Program Guidelines will result in the abandonment of the permit. STR permits may
be abandoned by permittees at any time by notifying the Community Development Director
of the intent to abandon the permit. Abandoned permits will be made available to the next
applicant on a first-come, first-served basis or the next applicant on the waitlist for that
zone district in accordance with the STR Program Guidelines. STR-LE are exempt from
this provision.
10) Revocation. STR permits may be revoked by the Community Development Director for
any of the following reasons: three violations of the requirements of this chapter and
applicable Municipal Code standards as described in the STR Program Guidelines, failure
to rent the property during the term of the permit, failure to pay STR taxes and fees, or
violations of the requirements of this section.
26.530.050 Occupancy and Operational Standards.
Prior to the issuance of an STR permit, the permit application will be reviewed for compliance
with the following standards.
A. Occupancy Limits and Unit Size.
STRs are limited to a total occupancy of two occupants per bedroom plus two additional
occupants, studios are limited to a total occupancy of two occupants plus one additional
occupant. Permit applications are required to list the number of bedrooms in the unit at its
largest configuration. STRs may be inspected for accuracy of bedroom count on the permit
application and for compliance with these occupancy requirements. For the purpose of
establishing unit occupancy, a studio shall have an occupancy of two occupants plus one
additional occupant. Occupancy for each STR shall be included in all STR advertising, the in-
unit messaging, and permit on display in each permitted STR. Bedrooms, lock-offs, or portions
of the residential unit, in addition to the whole residential unit, may be rented.
58
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 11 of 14
B. Annual Rental Night Limits.
STR-OO are limited to 120 short-term rental nights per year from the date of permit issuance.
There is no annual limit on the number of nights per year an STR-C can be rented. There is no
annual limit on the number of nights per year an STR-LE can be rented.
C. Good Neighbor Guide.
STRs are required to operate in accordance with all applicable Municipal Code regulations
protecting the health, safety, and peace of the community and supporting the maintenance of
community character and values. STR owners and permittees are required to assist STR
occupants in being ‘good neighbors’ by recognizing their obligation to following the rules and
customs of the community. To support these community goals, the Community Development
Department maintains the Short-term Rental Program Guidelines, Good Neighbor Guide, and
collaborates with non-governmental organizations to promote good neighbor behavior by
visitors.
1) STR-C and STR-OO permittees, and if designated, their qualified owner’s representatives
must comply with the policies described in the City of Aspen Good Neighbor Guide and
provide that information at all times to occupants of the unit.
2) In-unit messaging is essential to assisting STR occupants in supporting the City’s good
neighbor policies, ensuring STRs in neighborhoods support community character, and
assisting in the promotion of Aspen’s community character. The following notices shall
be posted in a conspicuous location inside the rental unit:
i. A copy of the STR-C or STR-OO permit,
ii. STR license and business number,
iii. The name, address, and telephone number(s) of the permittee or qualified owner’s
representative,
iv. A statement which reads: Occupants shall comply with the City’s Noise
Ordinance,
v. The location of the required parking spaces,
vi. Wildlife protection policy,
vii. The location of the fire extinguisher,
viii. Information on the trash, recycling, and composting programs including:
a. Solid waste pickup schedules;
b. Guidelines on living with wildlife and instructions for operating wildlife
containers; and
c. A notice that trash and recycling containers must be stored indoors except
between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM on the day of scheduled trash or recycling
pickup, where they may be placed at the curbside or in alleys.
ix. City of Aspen emergency services information and contact information,
x. The City of Aspen’s Good Neighbor Guide
D. Adoption of and Compliance with STR Program Guidelines.
The City Council hereby adopts the Short-term Rental Program Guidelines. The Community
Development Department shall keep on file and make available to STR permittees, and if
applicable, qualified owner’s representatives. These guidelines set forth the standards, procedures,
and supplemental information necessary for the operation of an STR within the City of Aspen. The
59
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 12 of 14
Community Development Director may use the guidelines as a basis for enforcement actions in
accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. The Guidelines may be updated, amended, and
expanded from time to time by City Council Resolution.
26.530.060 Enforcement.
The City of Aspen actively enforces its STR regulations through inspections, citizen complaints,
audits, and permitting. These measures ensure that STRs reinforce, not undermine, community
policies and character. Active enforcement ensures that visitors who choose to stay in STRs are
informed of the unique qualities of mountain living and enhance our community culture by being
good visitors and acting as neighbors and community members during their stay. STR permittee,
and if applicable, qualified owner’s representative, play an essential role in supporting and
advancing these policies and supporting the City’s enforcement activities.
A. Complaints.
Any valid complaint received regarding the STR property will first be referred to the permittee,
and if applicable, qualified owner’s representative for response and correction. The Community
Development Director will follow up with any complaining party, the permittee, and if applicable,
qualified owner’s representative, for compliance or resolution. The permittee or qualified owner’s
representative must respond to all complaints or inquiries from City officials within 24 hours and
occupant complaints within two (2) hours. The City of Aspen is not responsible for complaints
against a HOA, hotel, or condo-hotel’s own guidelines outside of the City’s code, rules and
regulations. Failure to respond within 24 hours shall result in a notice of violation and demand to
cure. All valid complaints will be recorded and kept on-file including the address, permittee,
permit number, business license number associated with the complaint, and the complainer’s
name and contact information.
B. Enforcement and Penalties.
Upon receipt of a compliant, the Community Development Department shall investigate and if it
is determined there are grounds to believe a violation of this Chapter or any STR rules and
regulations may have occurred, the Community Development Director may issue an
Administrative Notice of Violation to the permittee. The Director shall revoke the STR permit
of any permittee who receives three (3) Administrative Notices of Violation within the one (1)
year permit cycle, effective upon mailing notice to the permittee’s address on file. The permittee
may appeal the decision to revoke the STR permit by providing notice of appeal to the
Community Development Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision to revoke
the permit. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall hear appeals brought pursuant to this
section (B). Appeals shall be governed by the procedures set forth in Section 26.316.030.
1) Penalty. Any permittee that violates or allows another to violate any section of this Title
shall be subject to prosecution in Municipal Court and upon conviction subject to the
fines and penalties set forth in Section 1.04.080. A first offense shall be punishable by a
fine of no less than five-hundred dollars ($500). Each day of any violation of this section
shall constitute a separate offense.
2) Civil Remedies.
60
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 13 of 14
a. The City Attorney may institute injunctive, abatement, or other appropriate action
to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove a violation of this Title when it occurs. The same
right of action shall accrue to any property owner who may be especially damaged by
violation of this Title.
b. In addition to the penalties and remedies set forth herein, an STR permit shall be
automatically revoked by the Community Development Director upon the third
conviction of a violation of this Title by the permittee of the property subject to the
permit within the one (1) year.
c. Until paid, any delinquent charges, assessments, or taxes made or levied by the
City pursuant to this Title shall, as of recording, be a lien against the property on
which the violation has been found to exist. If not paid within thirty (30) days from
the date of assessment, the City Clerk may certify any unpaid charges, assessments,
or taxes to the Pitkin County Treasurer to be collected and paid over by the Pitkin
County Treasurer in the same manner as taxes are authorized to be by statute together
with a ten percent penalty for costs of collection. Any lien placed against the property
pursuant to this Chapter shall be recorded with the Pitkin County clerk and recorder.
26.530.070 Fees.
STR permits are assessed an annual fee per unit, remitted at the time of permit application, in
accordance with the following table.
Annual Administrative Fee
STR-Classic: $394
STR-Owner-occupied: $394
STR-Lodging Exempt: $148/unit
Table 1: Fee Schedule
26.530.080 Appeals.
Permittees may appeal decisions made by the Community Development Director in the enforcement
of this chapter. Appeals will be heard by the Administrative Hearing Officer in accordance with
Section 26.316.020.D. Appeals shall be processed in accordance with Section 26.316.030.
INTRODUCED AND READ, as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the
24th day of May 2022.
ATTEST:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
61
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 14 of 14
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 28th day of June 2022.
ATTEST:
_____________________________ ____________________________
Nicole Henning, City Clerk Torre, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
James R. True, City Attorney
62