Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20240923AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 23, 2024 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen I.Work Session I.A Airport Update I.B 2024 Aspen Community Survey I.C USFS Administrative Site Update Zoom Meeting Instructions Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85359076473? pwd=mdHRDiEyX3MzK9NHNMNx330XR8rmRC.1 Passcode: 81611 Or join by phone: Dial: US: +1 346 248 7799 Webinar ID: 853 5907 6473 Passcode: 81611 International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kednWwjnOI 2024 Community Survey Memo.pdf Attachment A_2024 Aspen Community Survey Report.pdf Attachment B_List of Colorado Benchmark Communities.pdf Attachment C_City of Aspen Strategic Framework.pdf Council Memo - USFS parcel.docx Housing Vision Plan Document Pages_240919.pdf 1 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Barker, Strategy and Innovation Interim Director THROUGH: Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director MEMO DATE: September 16, 2024 MEETING DATE: September 23, 2024 RE: 2024 Aspen Community Survey Results _________ REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No formal council action is requested at this time. This memo is to provide City Council with a summary of the results of the recent 2024 Aspen Community Survey. The survey vendor, Polco, is presenting key findings at the September 23, 2024 work session. In addition, complete survey results are available in Attachment A of this memo. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: Since 2006, the City of Aspen has distributed a community survey biennially to Aspen residents to gather statistically valid input on the quality of city services, resident concerns, and community sentiment. The results will be available to the public on the city’s website. These results will also be used by staff and council to evaluate performance and as a tool to guide future priorities and manage prioritization of current projects. To ensure effective feedback, the city contracted a new survey vendor for 2024, Polco, that utilizes a nationally standardized survey format, the National Community Survey (NCS). The NCS provides a comprehensive and accurate picture of livability and resident perspectives about local government services, policies, and management. The survey also allows Aspen to benchmark itself both nationally and with local governments across Colorado. To ensure best practices are implemented within the survey process, revisions were made to this year’s survey. Changes to the community survey for 2024 include: • Introduction of Benchmarking – The standardized format of the NCS allows Aspen to understand how its performance and community sentiment compare to other local governments across Colorado and the nation. This is important because the city needs to assess how its performance compares to other municipalities for generally unpopular services, such as regulatory functions. An example of this is survey respondent’s assessment of the quality of land use, planning, and zoning services, which appears to be negative at 37% approval, but is in line with national and state benchmarks. • Quality / Importance Gap Analysis – The NCS allows the city to quickly identify areas of potential focus in the future, by providing comparisons in key metrics between respondents’ 2 2 assessment of the quality of city services with their feedback on how important each of those services are. Methodology All households within the City of Aspen were eligible to participate in the survey. 3,500 households were randomly selected to receive a mailing inviting them to participate. The survey opened on June 10, 2024 and remained open for seven weeks. About 7% of these households responded to the survey, in-line with participation rates from the 2022 survey. Additionally, a separate open-participation survey was launched on July 1, 2024. This survey was identical to the random-selection survey, with two additions. One asked for confirmation of residency in the City of Aspen, and another asked how respondents heard about the survey. Responses from the two surveys totaled 449 responses and were combined to generate the results presented here. The margin of error for this survey is no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents. DISCUSSION: General Findings The NCS compiles its questions into ten key categories known as the facets of livability and breaks these down further into a performance metric (“Quality”) and a priority metric (“Importance”). For Quality, the City of Aspen rated higher, much higher, or similar to national benchmarks for all facets of livability. For importance, the City of Aspen rated similar to benchmarks for eight facets, placing higher importance on mobility and lower importance on safety. Viewed in another way, the chart can be useful as a high-level prioritization tool for staff and council. It identifies areas where survey respondents have identified a facet of livability as being more important than its current quality. When studied from this perspective, the areas of Economy and Inclusivity and Engagement stand out as possible focus areas. 3 3 It is necessary to be cautious when viewing the importance metric on its own. Respondents may rank facets such as Safety and Parks and Recreation as relatively less important simply because the quality of those services is already quite high. Key Areas of Outperformance & Underperformance While Aspen scored at or above benchmarks in the broad facets of livability categories, a more detailed review of the survey data shows several areas of outperformance, mixed performance, and underperformance. A selection in each of these areas follows with full results available online and as Attachment A to this memo. Key areas of above benchmark performance: 1. Safety a. 96% of respondents feel safe in Aspen, much higher than the national or state benchmark. b. Quality of police services was viewed favorably by 89% of respondents, ranking Aspen first in the state. 2. Parks & Recreation 4 4 a. 97% of respondents rated the overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities favorably, much higher than the national benchmark and first among state benchmarks. b. Amenities such as the availability of trails and fitness opportunities all ranked highly. 3. Education, Arts, & Culture a. 85% of respondents rated overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts positively, much higher than the national benchmark and first among state benchmarks. b. Specifically, items such as community support for the arts and opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ranked highly. Key areas of mixed performance: 1. Mobility a. Overall, 90% of respondents rated the overall quality of the transportation system in Aspen favorably, much higher than national benchmarks and second in the state benchmarks. However, these responses were split between very favorable ratings for multi-modal transportation options and ratings for car travel that were well below national and state benchmarks. Multi-modal options include walking, biking, and public transit. 2. Economy a. Respondents’ assessment of Aspen’s economic health were mixed. b. 92% agree that Aspen is a good place to visit, above benchmarks, and 67% concur it is a good place to work, in line with benchmarks. c. 62% stated that Aspen’s overall economic health was excellent or good, in line with national and state benchmarks. d. Aspen scored below benchmarks in areas of cost of living, business variety, and shopping opportunities. 5 5 3. Inclusivity & Engagement a. Aspen performed consistent with state and national benchmarks for most areas of engagement, with 71% agreeing Aspen is a good place to raise children and 54% having an overall positive view of their sense of community. b. Compared to national benchmarks, respondents rated Aspen as underperforming as a place to retire (47% positive) and attracting people from diverse backgrounds (39% positive). Compared to other Colorado communities, Aspen performed similarly. Key areas of below benchmark performance: 1. Governance a. Aspen rated similar to benchmarks in many governance areas such as overall customer service, value of services for taxes paid, honesty, and public information services. b. Aspen rated higher or much higher than benchmarks in resident involvement with government through actions such as contacting city employees for help, watching, or attending council meetings, and contacting elected officials. c. 32% of respondents expressed overall confidence in the city of Aspen government, below national benchmarks but in line with state benchmarks. d. 30% of respondents favorably rated the overall direction the city of Aspen is taking, below national and state benchmarks. e. While not benchmarked, the survey asked a question inquiring about the effectiveness of Aspen City Council, with results tilting negative: 6 6 In addition to the structured questions discussed above, participants were asked two open-response questions. The responses to these questions were categorized according to theme by the survey vendor and are displayed below. Comments are available in full on the city’s website. Comparison to 2022 Community Survey The change in survey vendor makes a direct comparison between results of the 2022 and 2024 surveys challenging, but general conclusions can still be drawn. As the question language and presentation 7 7 were different, these results should be taken as informative but not as a statistically significant trend analysis. A selection of comparisons follows: Areas of Improved Sentiment 1. Quality of City Services a. In 2022, 52% of respondents were satisfied with the quality of services provided by the city of Aspen, rising to 69% in 2024. 2. Economic Health a. Residents’ favorable impression of the overall economic health of Aspen rose considerably from 2022 to 2024, from 41% positive to 62% positive. Areas of Similar Sentiment 1. Affordable Shopping Opportunities a. In 2022, only 7% of respondents had a favorable impression of affordable shopping opportunities. In 2024, 8% of respondents rated the availability of affordable quality food highly, while 25% were pleased with shopping opportunities overall. 2. Commercial and Residential Development a. In 2022, 15% of survey takers had a favorable impression of development in Aspen. For 2024, this question was split into, “well-planned residential growth” and “well-planned commercial growth” which had 22% and 17% favorability, respectively. 3. Quality of Life a. In 2022, 79% of those surveyed were satisfied with the quality of life in Aspen. In 2024, that remained statistically the same with 77% of respondents reporting satisfaction. Areas of Worsened Sentiment 1. Welcoming Environment for Resident Involvement a. In 2022, 56% of respondents had a favorable impression of how the city welcomes resident involvement. This dropped to 48% in the 2024 survey. 2. Recommend Living in Aspen a. In 2022, 59% of respondents would recommend living in Aspen to someone who asks, dropping to 51% in 2024. Summary & Next Steps Overall, the 2024 community survey shows that Aspen remains a good place to live. Of the ten key facets of livability identified by Polco, Aspen is much higher quality than national benchmarks in five, above national benchmarks in three, and similar in two. Looking deeper, there are clear areas of resident concern that merit continued action, particularly in areas of affordability, community design, commercial vibrancy, sense of community, and approachability of government. Most of the areas of concern highlighted by the survey are already priority areas for council, and staff have active projects underway to address them. Highlights of projects underway include: 1. Affordability a. Armory redevelopment b. Lumberyard & other affordable housing projects c. Completion of Burlingame housing build-out d. Expanding Kids First financial aid for childcare to middle class families 2. Community Design a. Ongoing work related to the entrance to Aspen / Castle Creek Bridge b. Consideration of land use code revisions to support community priorities 8 8 c. Neighborhood sustainability improvements (on-site Burlingame childcare) 3. Commercial Vibrancy a. Selection of new tenants for Wheeler art space & Rio Grande place b. Exploration of a community land trust to create residential and commercial spaces that serve locals c. Reinvigorating the city’s downtown services function 4. Sense of Community a. Prioritization of community events such as Mactoberfest, Art Cart, and Community Picnic b. Development of the Cultural Vibrancy Fellowship, connecting adult and youth artists c. Launch of Aspen’s public art program pilot d. Leveraging our recreation facilities and programming to connect our residents 5. Approachability of Government a. Implementation of city-wide customer service standards b. Development review optimizations c. Enhancement of digital-facing customer experience d. Council governance guidelines / Bob’s Rules of Order Questions For Council 1. What questions do City Council members have about the survey results? 2. Are the areas of concern identified by staff and Polco for continued action in-line with Council’s interpretation of the survey results? FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No funds are being requested currently. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: None. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: 2024 Aspen Community Survey Report Attachment B: List of Colorado Benchmark Communities Attachment C: City of Aspen Strategic Framework 9 Aspen, CO The National Community Survey Report of Results 2024 Visit us online! www.polco.us National Research Center at Polco is a charter member of the AAPOR Transparency Initiative, providing clear disclosure of our sound and ethical survey research practices. Report by: 10 About The NCS™ The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) report is about the “livability” of Aspen. A livable community is a place that is not simply habitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, but where they want to live. The NCS was developed by the experts from National Research Center at Polco in partnership with the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and has been administered in hundreds of communities across the United States. Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector, community-based organizations and residents, all geographically connected. The NCS focuses on the livability of Aspen by categorizing survey questions into the ten main “facets” of community livability shown below, which have been identified through years of extensive survey research as those that are most impactful to residents’ quality of life. • Economy • Mobility • Community Design • Utilities • Safety • Natural Environment • Parks and Recreation • Health and Wellness • Education, Arts, and Culture .. How the results are reported For the most part, the percentages presented in this report represent the “percent positive.” Most commonly, the percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent/good, very safe/somewhat safe, etc.). On many of the questions in the survey, respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving a "don't know" response is shown in the full set of responses included in the “complete data” section; however, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the main body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. Comparisons to benchmarks NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Community Survey. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community in the last five years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. In each tab, Aspen's results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark, or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Aspen residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that Aspen's average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then Aspen's average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark. The report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 265 residents of the City of Aspen collected from June 10th, 2024 to July 15th, 2024. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 5% for all respondents and the response rate for the 2024 survey was 8%. Survey results were weighted so that the demographic profile of respondents was representative of the demographic profile of adults in Aspen. 1 11 About The NCS™The National Community Survey™ (The NCS™) report is about the“livability” of Aspen. A livable community is a place that is not simplyhabitable, but that is desirable. It is not only where people do live, butwhere they want to live. The NCS was developed by the experts fromNational Research Center at Polco in partnership with theInternational City/County Management Association (ICMA) and hasbeen administered in hundreds of communities across the UnitedStates.Great communities are partnerships of the government, private sector,community-based organizations and residents, all geographicallyconnected. The NCS focuses on the livability of Aspen by categorizingsurvey questions into the ten main “facets” of community livabilityshown below, which have been identified through years of extensivesurvey research as those that are most impactful to residents’ qualityof life. • Economy • Mobility • Community Design • Utilities • Safety • Natural Environment • Parks and Recreation • Health and Wellness • Education, Arts, and Culture ..How the results are reportedFor the most part, the percentages presented in this report represent the “percent positive.” Most commonly, thepercent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent/good, verysafe/somewhat safe, etc.). On many of the questions in the survey, respondents may answer “don’t know.” Theproportion of respondents giving a "don't know" response is shown in the full set of responses included in the“complete data” section; however, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the mainbody of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had anopinion about a specific item. Comparisons to benchmarks NRC’s database of comparative resident opinion is comprised of resident perspectives gathered in surveys from over 500 communities whose residents evaluated the same kinds of topics on The National Community Survey. The comparison evaluations are from the most recent survey completed in each community in the last five years. NRC adds the latest results quickly upon survey completion, keeping the benchmark data fresh and relevant. The communities in the database represent a wide geographic and population range. In each tab, Aspen's results are noted as being “higher” than the benchmark, “lower” than the benchmark, or “similar” to the benchmark, meaning that the average rating given by Aspen residents is statistically similar to or different (greater or lesser) than the benchmark. Being rated as “higher” or “lower” than the benchmark means that Aspen's average rating for a particular item was more than 10 points different than the benchmark. If a rating was “much higher” or “much lower,” then Aspen's average rating was more than 20 points different when compared to the benchmark. The report provides the opinions of a representative sample of 265 residents of the City of Aspen collected fromJune 10th, 2024 to July 15th, 2024. The margin of error around any reported percentage is 5% for all respondentsand the response rate for the 2024 survey was 8%. Survey results were weighted so that the demographic profile ofrespondents was representative of the demographic profile of adults in Aspen. 2 12 Conducting the survey The 3,500 randomly selected households received mailings beginning on June 10th, 2024 and data collection for the survey remained open for 7 weeks. The first mailing was a postcard inviting the household to participate in the survey. The second and final mailing was a reminder postcard inviting the household one final time to participate in the survey. All mailings included a web link to give residents the opportunity to respond to the survey online, as well as QR codes to further encourage participation. All follow-up mailings asked those who had not completed the survey to do so, and those who had already done so to refrain from completing the survey again. The survey was available in English and Spanish. All mailings contained paragraphs in both languages instructing participants on how to complete the survey in their preferred language. About 7% of the 3,500 mailed invitations or surveys were returned because the household address was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 3,267 households that received the invitations to participate, 265 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 8%. The response rate was calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #2 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons.¹ In addition to the randomly selected “probability sample” of households, a link to an online open-participation survey was publicized by the City of Aspen. The open-participation survey was identical to the random sample survey, with two small updates; it asked a question to confirm the respondent was a resident of Aspen and also a question about where they heard about the survey. The open-participation survey was open to all city residents and became available on July 1st, 2024. The survey remained open for 4 weeks. It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” and accompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is 95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the survey results because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions. The margin of error for the City of Aspen survey is no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any given percent reported for all respondents (449 completed surveys). The survey datasets were analyzed using all or some of a combination of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), R, Python, and Tableau. For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent/good, very safe/somewhat safe, essential/very important, etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey, respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in the “complete data” section. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. Contact The City of Aspen funded this research. Please contact John Barker of the City of Aspen at john.barker@aspen.gov if you have any questions about the survey. Study Limitations All public opinion research is subject to unmeasured error. While the methodologies employed for this survey were designed to minimize this error as much as possible, these other sources of potential error should be acknowledged, and can include non-response error, coverage error, recall bias and social desirability bias. Non-response error arises when those who were selected to participate in the survey did not do so, and may have different opinions or experiences that survey responders. For general resident surveys, where the results are meant to be generalized to the entire adult population living in households, the mailing lists based on the Delivery Sequence File from the United States Post Office may exclude certain types of housing units, such as those in multi-family buildings where mail is addressed to a named resident at the address rather than to a specific unit or where residents only receive their mail at a post office box and the geographic location of a residence cannot be determined, there may be a coverage error, although for most locations, this is minimal. Respondents may not perfectly remember their experiences in the past year (such as participation in social or civic events, for example), and for some survey items, they may answer in ways they think cast their responses in a more favorable light (recall bias and social desirability bias). Survey Validity See the Polco Knowledge Base article on survey validity at https://info.polco.us/knowledge/statistical-vali 1. See AAPOR's Standard Definitions for more information at https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/standard-definitions/ 2. Pasek, J. (2014). ANES Weighting Algorithm. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Full-anesrake-paper.pdf 3. Targets come from the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey Unweighted Weighted Target⁴ Age 18-34 35-54 55+ Hispanic origin No, not of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin Yes, I consider myself to be of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin Housing tenure Own Rent Housing type Attached Detached Race & Hispanic ori.. Not white alone White alone, not Hispanic or Latino Sex Man Woman Sex/age Man 18-34 Man 35-54 Man 55+ Woman 18-34 Woman 35-54 Woman 55+ Analyzing the data Responses from mailed surveys were entered into an electronic dataset using a “key and verify” method, where all responses are entered twice and compared to each other. Any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Responses from surveys completed on Polco were downloaded and merged with the mailed survey responses. The demographics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Aspen. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, housing type, and housing tenure. No adjustments were made for design effects. Weights were calculated using an iterative, multiplicative raking model known as the ANES Weighting Algorithm.² The results of the weighting scheme for the probability sample are presented in the following table. NRC aligns demographic labels with those used by the U.S. Census for reporting purposes, when possible. Some categories (e.g., age, race/Hispanic origin, housing type, and length of residency) are combined into smaller subgroups. .. Methods Selecting survey recipients All households within the City of Aspen were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within the zip codes serving Aspen was purchased from NRC's mailing vendor, Go-Dog Direct, based on updated listings from the United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Aspen households may also serve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit was compared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file. Addresses located outside of Aspen boundaries were removed from the list of potential households to survey. From that list, addresses were randomly selected as survey recipients, with multi-family housing units (defined as those with a unit number) sampled at a rate of 5:3 compared to single family housing units. An individual within each household was randomly selected using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person who most recently had a birthday” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the introduction of the survey. 3 13 Conducting the surveyThe 3,500 randomly selected households received mailings beginning on June 10th, 2024 and data collection forthe survey remained open for 7 weeks. The first mailing was a postcard inviting the household to participate in thesurvey. The second and final mailing was a reminder postcard inviting the household one final time to participate inthe survey. All mailings included a web link to give residents the opportunity to respond to the survey online, as wellas QR codes to further encourage participation. All follow-up mailings asked those who had not completed thesurvey to do so, and those who had already done so to refrain from completing the survey again.The survey was available in English and Spanish. All mailings contained paragraphs in both languages instructingparticipants on how to complete the survey in their preferred language.About 7% of the 3,500 mailed invitations or surveys were returned because the household address was vacant orthe postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 3,267 households that receivedthe invitations to participate, 265 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 8%. The responserate was calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #2 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons.¹In addition to the randomly selected “probability sample” of households, a link to an online open-participation surveywas publicized by the City of Aspen. The open-participation survey was identical to the random sample survey, withtwo small updates; it asked a question to confirm the respondent was a resident of Aspen and also a questionabout where they heard about the survey. The open-participation survey was open to all city residents and becameavailable on July 1st, 2024. The survey remained open for 4 weeks.It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” andaccompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the surveyresults because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions. The margin of error forthe City of Aspen survey is no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any given percent reportedfor all respondents (449 completed surveys). The survey datasets were analyzed using all or some of a combination of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), R, Python, and Tableau. For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent/good, very safe/somewhat safe, essential/very important, etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey, respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in the “complete data” section. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. Contact The City of Aspen funded this research. Please contact John Barker of the City of Aspen at john.barker@aspen.gov if you have any questions about the survey. Study Limitations All public opinion research is subject to unmeasured error. While the methodologies employed for this survey were designed to minimize this error as much as possible, these other sources of potential error should be acknowledged, and can include non-response error, coverage error, recall bias and social desirability bias. Non-response error arises when those who were selected to participate in the survey did not do so, and may have different opinions or experiences that survey responders. For general resident surveys, where the results are meant to be generalized to the entire adult population living in households, the mailing lists based on the Delivery Sequence File from the United States Post Office may exclude certain types of housing units, such as those in multi-family buildings where mail is addressed to a named resident at the address rather than to a specific unit or where residents only receive their mail at a post office box and the geographic location of a residence cannot be determined, there may be a coverage error, although for most locations, this is minimal. Respondents may not perfectly remember their experiences in the past year (such as participation in social or civic events, for example), and for some survey items, they may answer in ways they think cast their responses in a more favorable light (recall bias and social desirability bias). Survey Validity See the Polco Knowledge Base article on survey validity at https://info.polco.us/knowledge/statistical-vali 1. See AAPOR's Standard Definitions for more information at https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/standard-definitions/ 2. Pasek, J. (2014). ANES Weighting Algorithm. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Full-anesrake-paper.pdf 3. Targets come from the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey Unweighted Weighted Target⁴ Age 18-34 35-54 55+ Hispanic origin No, not of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin Yes, I consider myself to be of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin Housing tenure Own Rent Housing type Attached Detached Race & Hispanic ori.. Not white alone White alone, not Hispanic or Latino Sex Man Woman Sex/age Man 18-34 Man 35-54 Man 55+ Woman 18-34 Woman 35-54 Woman 55+ 33% 37% 30% 35% 39% 27% 58% 33% 9% 13% 87% 11% 92% 3% 97% 44% 56% 45% 57% 22% 78% 20% 80% 20% 81% 30% 70% 80% 20% 84% 20% 93% 7% 48% 52% 52% 51% 54% 46% 17% 17% 14% 16% 19% 16% 18% 19% 15% 18% 21% 13% 30% 18% 6% 26% 16% 4% Analyzing the data Responses from mailed surveys were entered into an electronic dataset using a “key and verify” method, where all responses are entered twice and compared to each other. Any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to the original survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Responses from surveys completed on Polco were downloaded and merged with the mailed survey responses. The demographics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Aspen. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristics used for weighting were age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, housing type, and housing tenure. No adjustments were made for design effects. Weights were calculated using an iterative, multiplicative raking model known as the ANES Weighting Algorithm.² The results of the weighting scheme for the probability sample are presented in the following table. NRC aligns demographic labels with those used by the U.S. Census for reporting purposes, when possible. Some categories (e.g., age, race/Hispanic origin, housing type, and length of residency) are combined into smaller subgroups. .. MethodsSelecting survey recipientsAll households within the City of Aspen were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within thezip codes serving Aspen was purchased from NRC's mailing vendor, Go-Dog Direct, based on updated listings fromthe United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Aspen households may alsoserve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit wascompared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file. Addresses located outside ofAspen boundaries were removed from the list of potential households to survey. From that list, addresses wererandomly selected as survey recipients, with multi-family housing units (defined as those with a unit number)sampled at a rate of 5:3 compared to single family housing units.An individual within each household was randomly selected using the birthday method. The birthday methodselects a person within the household by asking the “person who most recently had a birthday” to complete thequestionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way peoplerespond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the introduction of the survey. 4 14 Conducting the surveyThe 3,500 randomly selected households received mailings beginning on June 10th, 2024 and data collection forthe survey remained open for 7 weeks. The first mailing was a postcard inviting the household to participate in thesurvey. The second and final mailing was a reminder postcard inviting the household one final time to participate inthe survey. All mailings included a web link to give residents the opportunity to respond to the survey online, as wellas QR codes to further encourage participation. All follow-up mailings asked those who had not completed thesurvey to do so, and those who had already done so to refrain from completing the survey again.The survey was available in English and Spanish. All mailings contained paragraphs in both languages instructingparticipants on how to complete the survey in their preferred language.About 7% of the 3,500 mailed invitations or surveys were returned because the household address was vacant orthe postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the remaining 3,267 households that receivedthe invitations to participate, 265 completed the survey, providing an overall response rate of 8%. The responserate was calculated using AAPOR’s response rate #2 for mailed surveys of unnamed persons.¹In addition to the randomly selected “probability sample” of households, a link to an online open-participation surveywas publicized by the City of Aspen. The open-participation survey was identical to the random sample survey, withtwo small updates; it asked a question to confirm the respondent was a resident of Aspen and also a questionabout where they heard about the survey. The open-participation survey was open to all city residents and becameavailable on July 1st, 2024. The survey remained open for 4 weeks.It is customary to describe the precision of estimates made from surveys by a “level of confidence” andaccompanying “confidence interval” (or margin of error). A traditional level of confidence, and the one used here, is95%. The 95% confidence interval can be any size and quantifies the sampling error or imprecision of the surveyresults because some residents’ opinions are relied on to estimate all residents’ opinions. The margin of error forthe City of Aspen survey is no greater than plus or minus five percentage points around any given percent reportedfor all respondents (449 completed surveys). The survey datasets were analyzed using all or some of a combination of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), R, Python, and Tableau. For the most part, the percentages presented in the reports represent the “percent positive.” The percent positive is the combination of the top two most positive response options (i.e., excellent/good, very safe/somewhat safe, essential/very important, etc.), or, in the case of resident behaviors/participation, the percent positive represents the proportion of respondents indicating “yes” or participating in an activity at least once a month. On many of the questions in the survey, respondents may answer “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in the “complete data” section. However, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the reports. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. Contact The City of Aspen funded this research. Please contact John Barker of the City of Aspen at john.barker@aspen.gov if you have any questions about the survey. Study Limitations All public opinion research is subject to unmeasured error. While the methodologies employed for this survey were designed to minimize this error as much as possible, these other sources of potential error should be acknowledged, and can include non-response error, coverage error, recall bias and social desirability bias. Non-response error arises when those who were selected to participate in the survey did not do so, and may have different opinions or experiences that survey responders. For general resident surveys, where the results are meant to be generalized to the entire adult population living in households, the mailing lists based on the Delivery Sequence File from the United States Post Office may exclude certain types of housing units, such as those in multi-family buildings where mail is addressed to a named resident at the address rather than to a specific unit or where residents only receive their mail at a post office box and the geographic location of a residence cannot be determined, there may be a coverage error, although for most locations, this is minimal. Respondents may not perfectly remember their experiences in the past year (such as participation in social or civic events, for example), and for some survey items, they may answer in ways they think cast their responses in a more favorable light (recall bias and social desirability bias). Survey Validity See the Polco Knowledge Base article on survey validity at https://info.polco.us/knowledge/statistical-vali 1. See AAPOR's Standard Definitions for more information at https://aapor.org/standards-and-ethics/standard-definitions/ 2. Pasek, J. (2014). ANES Weighting Algorithm. Retrieved from https://surveyinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Full-anesrake-paper.pdf 3. Targets come from the 2020 Census and 2022 American Community Survey Unweighted Weighted Target⁴Age 18-3435-5455+Hispanicorigin No, not of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish originYes, I consider myself to be of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish originHousingtenureOwnRentHousing type AttachedDetachedRace &Hispanic ori..Not white aloneWhite alone, not Hispanic or LatinoSexManWomanSex/age Man 18-34Man 35-54Man 55+Woman 18-34Woman 35-54Woman 55+Analyzing the dataResponses from mailed surveys were entered into an electronic dataset using a “key and verify” method, where allresponses are entered twice and compared to each other. Any discrepancies were resolved in comparison to theoriginal survey form. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Responses fromsurveys completed on Polco were downloaded and merged with the mailed survey responses.The demographics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2020 Census and 2022American Community Survey estimates for adults in the City of Aspen. The primary objective of weighting surveydata is to make the survey respondents reflective of the larger population of the community. The characteristicsused for weighting were age, sex, race, Hispanic origin, housing type, and housing tenure. No adjustments weremade for design effects. Weights were calculated using an iterative, multiplicative raking model known as the ANESWeighting Algorithm.² The results of the weighting scheme for the probability sample are presented in the followingtable.NRC aligns demographic labels with those used by the U.S. Census for reporting purposes, when possible. Somecategories (e.g., age, race/Hispanic origin, housing type, and length of residency) are combined into smallersubgroups...MethodsSelecting survey recipientsAll households within the City of Aspen were eligible to participate in the survey. A list of all households within thezip codes serving Aspen was purchased from NRC's mailing vendor, Go-Dog Direct, based on updated listings fromthe United States Postal Service. Since some of the zip codes that serve the City of Aspen households may alsoserve addresses that lie outside of the community, the exact geographic location of each housing unit wascompared to community boundaries using the most current municipal boundary file. Addresses located outside ofAspen boundaries were removed from the list of potential households to survey. From that list, addresses wererandomly selected as survey recipients, with multi-family housing units (defined as those with a unit number)sampled at a rate of 5:3 compared to single family housing units.An individual within each household was randomly selected using the birthday method. The birthday methodselects a person within the household by asking the “person who most recently had a birthday” to complete thequestionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way peoplerespond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the introduction of the survey. 5 15 Key Findings Safety in Aspen is a community asset. Overall feelings of safety, along with safety-related services, contribute to the high quality of life experienced in Aspen. More than 9 in 10 residents gave the City a rating of excellent or good for the overall feeling of safety, and nearly all residents reported feeling very or somewhat safe in both their neighborhood and Aspen’s downtown/commercial area during the day. Further, about 9 in 10 or more of residents reported feeling safe from both violent and property crime, both of which were rated higher than national comparison communities. A high proportion of residents also approved of fire services (97% excellent or good) and ambulance/EMS (93%). A strong majority also gave positive marks to fire prevention and education (88% excellent or good), crime prevention (89%), and police/sheriff services (89%). Residents identify the economy as a potential area of focus. A number of aspects of the economy in Aspen garnered positive marks from residents, including Aspen as a place to visit (92% excellent or good), as a place to work (67%), and the economic health of Aspen (62%). About half of residents had favorable views of employment opportunities, the vibrancy of downtown/commercial areas, as well as the overall quality of business and service establishments in Aspen. Items that were lower than the benchmark in this facet tended to relate to either affordability, or shopping within Aspen. Such items lower than the national benchmarks included shopping opportunities (25%), variety of business and service establishments in Aspen (23%), as well as the cost of living (4%). Additionally, about one third of residents reported that they felt the economy would have a positive impact on their family income in the next 6 months, which was on par with comparison communities. Community design may be an area of opportunity for Aspen. Survey items within the facet of community design received mixed results. A strong majority of residents gave excellent or good ratings to their neighborhood as a place to live (85% excellent or good), the overall design or layout of Aspen’s residential and commercial areas (77%), as well as public places where people want to spend time (73%). A strong proportion, about two thirds of respondents, gave positive marks to both preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community and well designed neighborhoods, each similar to national benchmark comparisons. Items in this facet that asked about growth or housing tended to be lower than the national benchmark comparisons, which may be an area of potential opportunity for the City. Such items included overall quality of new development in Aspen (30%), well planned residential growth (22%), well planned commercial growth (17%), availability of affordable housing (11%), as well as the variety of housing options in Aspen (8%). Residents praise both parks and recreation as well as the natural environment in Aspen. Parks and recreation is a bright spot in Aspen, with residents giving every item within this facet marks that were higher than national averages. Nearly all residents gave favorable ratings to the overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities in Aspen (97 excellent or good), the availability of walking paths and trails (97%), as City parks (95%), as well as recreational opportunities (92%). About 8 in 10 also gave high marks to recreation programs or classes, fitness opportunities, and recreation centers or facilities. Residents had similar feelings toward the natural environment, with a number of items within this facet higher than the national averages as well. This included the cleanliness of Aspen (91%), air quality (89%), and Aspen open space (86%). 6 16 Facets of Livability Every jurisdiction must balance limited resources while meeting resident needs and striving to optimize community livability. To this end, it is helpful to know what aspects of the community are most important to residents and which they perceive as being of higher or lower quality. It is especially helpful to know when a facet of livability is considered of high importance but rated as lower quality, as this should be a top priority to address. Inclusivity and Engagement Economy Community Design Utilities Health and Wellness Education, Arts, and Culture Mobility Safety Natural Environment Parks and Recreation 59% 62% 85% 90% 96% 97% 97% 77% 77% 80% 79% 76% 64% 82% 70% 63% 83% 77% 69% 83% Quality and Importance by the Numbers The table below shows the proportion of residents who rated the community facets positively for quality and the priority (importance) placed on each. Also displayed is whether local quality ratings were lower, similar, or higher than communities across the country (the national benchmark). Quality % excellent or good Importance % essential or very importantFacet of Livability Natural Environment Quality Importance Mobility Quality Importance Utilities Quality Importance Inclusivity and Engagement Quality Importance Parks and Recreation Quality Importance Economy Quality Importance Health and Wellness Quality Importance Safety Quality Importance Community Design Quality Importance Education, Arts, and Culture Quality Importance 97% 83% 90%83% 77% 82% 59%79% 97% 77% 62% 76% 80% 70% 96%69% 77% 64% 85%63% Quality/Importance Gap Analysis The gap analysis chart below shows the same data as above; however, this chart more clearly illustrates the comparative differences in quality and importance ratings for each facet, as well as the absolute ratings for each. Quality Importance vs. national benchmark Higher Lower Simi.. vs. national benchmark Higher Much higher Similar 7 17 7. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 34% Good 43% Fair 20%  Poor 4% The overall quality of life in Aspen, 2024 Quality of Life Measuring community livability starts with assessing the quality of life of those who live there, and ensuring that the community is attractive, accessible, and welcoming to all. Aspen as a place to live The overall quality of life in Aspen Similar Similar 79% 77% Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Remain in Aspen for the next five years Recommend living in Aspen to someone who asks Similar Much lower 84% 51% Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following. (% very or somewhat likely) Overall image or reputation of Aspen Similar63% Please rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) vs. benchmark⁷ 8 18 Excellent 10% Good 22% Fair 36% Poor 32% Overall confidence in Aspen government, 2024 Governance Strong local governments produce results that meet the needs of residents while making the best use of available resources, and are responsive to the present and future needs of the community as a whole. Treating residents with respect The value of services for the taxes paid to the City of Aspen The job the City of Aspen government does at welcoming resident involvement Informing residents about issues facing the community Being honest Being open and transparent to the public Generally acting in the best interest of the community Treating all residents fairly Overall confidence in the City of Aspen government The overall direction that the City of Aspen is taking Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar Lower Lower Lower Lower 57% 52% 48% 47% 44% 41% 34% 34% 32% 30% Please rate the following categories of the City of Aspen government performance. (% excellent or good) The City of Aspen The Federal Government Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? (% excellent or good) Overall customer service by City of Aspen employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) Public information services Similar Similar 81% 73% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Contacted City of Aspen employees for help or information Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Contacted Aspen elected officials to express your opinion Attended a local public meeting Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. (% excellent or good) 8. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. vs. benchmark⁸ 9 19 Overall confidence in Aspen government,2024GovernanceStrong local governments produce results that meetthe needs of residents while making the best use ofavailable resources, and are responsive to the presentand future needs of the community as a whole.Treating residents with respectThe value of services for the taxes paid to the City of AspenThe job the City of Aspen government does at welcoming residentinvolvementInforming residents about issues facing the communityBeing honestBeing open and transparent to the publicGenerally acting in the best interest of the communityTreating all residents fairlyOverall confidence in the City of Aspen government The overall direction that the City of Aspen is taking Please rate the following categories of the City of Aspen government performance.(% excellent or good) The City of Aspen The Federal Government Similar Similar 69% 36% Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? (% excellent or good) Overall customer service by City of Aspen employees (police,receptionists, planners, etc.)Public information servicesPlease rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen.(% excellent or good) Contacted City of Aspen employees for help or information Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting Contacted Aspen elected officials to express your opinion Attended a local public meeting Higher Much higher Higher Higher 63% 48% 34% 33% Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. (% excellent or good) 8. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. vs.benchmark⁸ 10 20 9. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 28% Good 34% Fair 23% Poor 14% Overall economic health of Aspen, 2024 Economy Local governments work together with private and nonprofit businesses, and with the community at large, to foster sustainable growth, create jobs, and promote a thriving local economy. Employment opportunities Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area Overall quality of business and service establishments in Aspen Shopping opportunities Variety of business and service establishments in Aspen Cost of living in Aspen Similar Similar Lower Lower Much lower Much lower 56% 54% 51% 25% 23% 4% Please rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) Aspen as a place to visit Aspen as a place to work Much higher Similar 92% 67% Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Economic development Similar39% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be:Similar27% What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: (% very or somewhat positive) Overall economic health of Aspen Similar62% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good) vs. benchmark⁹ 11 21 10. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 56% Good 34% Fair 6%Poor 3% Overall quality of the transportation system in Aspen, 2024 Mobility The ease with which residents can move about their communities, whether for commuting, leisure, or recreation, plays a major role in the quality of life for all who live, work, and play in the community. Ease of walking in Aspen Ease of travel by bicycle in Aspen Ease of travel by public transportation in Aspen Ease of travel by car in Aspen Traffic flow on major streets Ease of public parking Much higher Much higher Much higher Much lower Much lower Much lower 92% 90% 89% 26% 19% 16% Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) Walked or biked instead of driving Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone Much higher Much higher Much higher 96% 88% 69% Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. (% yes) Bus or transit services Street cleaning Snow removal Street lighting Sidewalk maintenance Traffic enforcement Traffic signal timing Street repair Much higher Higher Similar Similar 92% 82% 75% 75% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Aspen Much higher90% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good)vs. benchmark¹⁰ 12 22 10. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Overall quality of the transportationsystem in Aspen, 2024MobilityThe ease with which residents can move about theircommunities, whether for commuting, leisure, orrecreation, plays a major role in the quality of life for allwho live, work, and play in the community.Ease of walking in AspenEase of travel by bicycle in AspenEase of travel by public transportation in AspenEase of travel by car in AspenTraffic flow on major streetsEase of public parkingPlease also rate each of the following in the Aspen community.(% excellent or good)Walked or biked instead of drivingUsed bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead ofdrivingCarpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alonePlease indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months.(% yes)Bus or transit servicesStreet cleaning Snow removal Street lighting Sidewalk maintenance Traffic enforcement Traffic signal timing Street repair Similar Higher Similar Similar Similar 75% 74% 57% 57% 52% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen.(% excellent or good)Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus)in AspenPlease rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole.(% excellent or good)vs.benchmark¹⁰ 13 23 11. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 26% Good 50% Fair 15%Poor 8% Overall design or layout of Aspen's residential and commercial areas, 2024 Community Design A well-designed community enhances the quality of life for its residents by encouraging smart land use and zoning, ensuring that affordable housing is accessible to all, and providing access to parks and other green spaces. Overall appearance of Aspen Public places where people want to spend time Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community Well-designed neighborhoods Overall quality of new development in Aspen Well-planned residential growth Well-planned commercial growth Availability of affordable quality housing Variety of housing options Similar Higher Similar Similar Lower Lower Lower Lower Much lower 78% 73% 62% 57% 30% 22% 17% 11% 8% Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) Your neighborhood as a place to live Similar85% Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) Land use, planning, and zoning Similar Similar 47% 37% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Overall design or layout of Aspen's residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.)Higher77% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good) vs. benchmark¹¹ 14 24 12. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 35% Good 42% Fair 16% Poor 7% Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Aspen, 2024 Utilities Services such as water, gas, electricity, and internet access play a vital role in ensuring the physical and economic health and well-being of the communities they serve. Drinking water Power (electric and/or gas) utility Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) Sewer services Garbage collection Utility billing Affordable high-speed internet access Higher Similar Higher Similar Similar Higher Similar 89% 87% 86% 86% 82% 81% 62% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Aspen (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband)Higher77% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good) vs. benchmark¹² 15 25 13. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. 1% Poor Excellent 68% Good 28% Fair 3% Poor 1% Overall feeling of safety in Aspen, 2024 Safety Public safety is often the most important task facing local governments. All residents should feel safe and secure in their neighborhoods and in the greater community, and providing robust safety-related services is essential to residents' quality of life. Fire services Ambulance or emergency medical services Crime prevention Police services Fire prevention and education Animal control Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) Similar Similar Higher Higher Similar Higher Similar 97% 93% 89% 89% 88% 83% 71% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Overall feeling of safety in Aspen Much higher96% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good) In your neighborhood during the day From violent crime In Aspen's downtown/commercial area during the day From property crime From fire, flood, or other natural disaster Similar Higher Higher Higher Lower 97% 97% 96% 92% 66% Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: (% very or somewhat safe) vs. benchmark¹³ 16 26 14. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. 1% Poor Excellent 75% Good 22% Fair 3% Poor 1% Overall quality of natural environment in Aspen, 2024 Natural Environment The natural environment plays a vital role in the health and well-being of residents. The natural spaces in which residents live and experience their communities has a direct and profound effect on quality of life. Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) Aspen open space Yard waste pick-up Recycling Much higher Much higher Similar Similar 86% 86% 77% 66% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Cleanliness of Aspen Air quality Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) Higher Higher Higher 91% 89% 81% Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) Overall quality of natural environment in Aspen Much higher97% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good)vs. benchmark¹⁴ 17 27 15. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 71% Good 26% Fair 3% Poor 0% Overall quality of the parks and recreation opportunities, 2024 Parks and Recreation "There are no communities that pride themselves on their quality of life, promote themselves as a desirable location for businesses to relocate, or maintain that they are environmental stewards of their natural resources, without such communities having a robust, active system of parks and recreation programs for public use and enjoyment." - National Recreation and Park Association City parks Recreation programs or classes Recreation centers or facilities Higher Higher Higher 95% 82% 80% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Availability of paths and walking trails Recreational opportunities Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) Much higher Much higher Higher 97% 92% 83% Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities Much higher97% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good)vs. benchmark¹⁵ 18 28 16. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 49% Good 31% Fair 11% Poor 9% Overall health and wellness opportunities in Aspen, 2024 Health and Wellness The characteristics of and amenities available in the communities in which people live has a direct impact on the health and wellness of residents, and thus, on their quality of life overall. Health services Similar62% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Please rate your overall health.Higher85% Please rate your overall health. (% excellent or very good) Availability of preventive health services Availability of affordable quality mental health care Availability of affordable quality health care Availability of affordable quality food Lower Lower Much lower Much lower 41% 30% 26% 8% Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) Overall health and wellness opportunities in Aspen Higher80% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good)vs. benchmark¹⁶ 19 29 17. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 49% Good 36% Fair 12% Poor 2% Overall opportunities for education, culture and the arts, 2024 Education, Arts, and Culture Participation in the arts, in educational opportunities, and in cultural activities is linked to increased civic engagement, greater social tolerance, and enhanced enjoyment of the local community. Public library services Higher96% Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Community support for the arts Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities K-12 education Opportunities to attend special events and festivals Adult educational opportunities Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool Much higher Much higher Similar Similar Similar Much lower 88% 81% 77% 74% 58% 18% Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts Much higher85% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good)vs. benchmark¹⁷ 20 30 18. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Excellent 16% Good 43% Fair 26% Poor 15% Residents' connection and engagement with their community, 2024 Inclusivity and Engagement Inclusivity refers to a cultural and environmental feeling of belonging; residents who feel invited to participate within their communities feel more included, involved, and engaged than those who do not. Aspen as a place to raise children Sense of community Aspen as a place to retire Similar Similar Lower 71% 54% 47% Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Aspen. (% excellent or good) Residents' connection and engagement with their community Similar59% Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. (% excellent or good) Making all residents feel welcome Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) Attracting people from diverse backgrounds Similar Similar Similar Lower 57% 53% 44% 39% Please rate the job you feel the Aspen community does at each of the following. (% excellent or good) Opportunities to volunteer Opportunities to participate in social events and activities Opportunities to participate in community matters Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse b.. Sense of civic/community pride Neighborliness of residents in Aspen Higher Similar Similar Similar Similar Similar 87% 74% 69% 57% 57% 54% Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community. (% excellent or good) Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Aspen Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. (% excellent or good) vs. benchmark¹⁸ 21 31 18. Comparison to the national benchmark is shown. If no comparison is available, this is left blank. Residents' connection andengagement with their community,2024Inclusivity and EngagementInclusivity refers to a cultural and environmental feeling ofbelonging; residents who feel invited to participate withintheir communities feel more included, involved, andengaged than those who do not.Aspen as a place to raise childrenSense of communityAspen as a place to retirePlease rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Aspen.(% excellent or good)Residents' connection and engagement with their communityPlease rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole.(% excellent or good)Making all residents feel welcomeValuing/respecting residents from diverse backgroundsTaking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.)Attracting people from diverse backgroundsPlease rate the job you feel the Aspen community does at each of the following.(% excellent or good)Opportunities to volunteerOpportunities to participate in social events and activitiesOpportunities to participate in community mattersOpenness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse b..Sense of civic/community pride Neighborliness of residents in Aspen Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community.(% excellent or good) Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Aspen Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate Much higher Higher 63% 35% Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. (% excellent or good) vs.benchmark¹⁸ 22 32 Open-ended questions Aspen included two open ended questions on their survey. The verbatim responses were categorized by topic area and those topics are reported below with the percent of responses given in each category. Because some comments from residents covered more than a single topic, those verbatim responses are grouped by the first topic listed in each comment. Cost of living/affordability Housing options and affordability Community connectedness/culture Governance Population/density/growth Other n/a 3% 4% 4% 8% 11% 22% 49% If you would not recommend living in Aspen, please specify why: Concern for overall governance Concern for affordable housing Fixing the entrance to Aspen Concern for general cost of living/affordability Concern for the loss of community/growth/development Feeling of cultural and economic divide Other n/a Concern for wild fire preparedenss/other natural disaster 3% 6% 7% 7% 11% 13% 13% 16% 25% Is there anything else you would like to share about the state of our community? Please explain only one topic. 23 33 Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of the Aspen City Council? Excellent Good Fair Poor If you had an issue or question for the City, which of the following would be your preferred method of interaction with City of Aspen employees? (Please select up to two responses.) In-person/face-to-face Telephone Email City website Aspen 311 Connect (Mobile phone app) Texting/messaging Other Compared to your experiences two years ago, how would you rate the overall customer experience provided by the City of Aspen now? Much better Somewhat better About the same Somewhat worse Much worse 27% 37% 34% 2% 4% 13% 7% 15% 50% 30% 50% 4% 12% 65% 14% 5% Custom questions Below are the complete set of responses to each custom question on the survey. By default, “don’t know” responses are excluded, but may be added to the table using the response filter below. Include "don't know" No 24 34 Th e N a t i o n a l C o m m u n i t y S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 2 4 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . The City of Aspen 2024 Community Survey Page 1 of 5 To help us hear from a wide range of residents, please complete this survey if you are the adult in the household who most recently had a birthday. Your responses are confidential and no identifying information will be shared. 1. Please rate each of the following aspects of quality of life in Aspen. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Aspen as a place to live ........................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Your neighborhood as a place to live ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Aspen as a place to raise children ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Aspen as a place to work ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Aspen as a place to visit ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Aspen as a place to retire ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The overall quality of life in Aspen ................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of community ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to Aspen as a whole. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall economic health of Aspen ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Aspen ..... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall design or layout of Aspen’s residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Aspen (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband) ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall feeling of safety in Aspen ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of natural environment in Aspen ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Aspen ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Residents’ connection and engagement with their community ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 3. Please indicate how likely or unlikely you are to do each of the following. Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don’t likely likely unlikely unlikely know Recommend living in Aspen to someone who asks ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 Remain in Aspen for the next five years .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 3a. If you would not recommend living in Aspen, please specify why: 4. Please rate how safe or unsafe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don’t safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 In Aspen’s downtown/commercial area during the day ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 From property crime ....................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 From violent crime ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 From fire, flood, or other natural disaster ............................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Please rate the job you feel the Aspen community does at each of the following. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Making all residents feel welcome .................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Attracting people from diverse backgrounds ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Valuing/respecting residents from diverse backgrounds ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Taking care of vulnerable residents (elderly, disabled, homeless, etc.) ........... 1 2 3 4 5 6. Please rate each of the following in the Aspen community. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Overall quality of business and service establishments in Aspen ....................... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of business and service establishments in Aspen ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Vibrancy of downtown/commercial area ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Employment opportunities .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Shopping opportunities ......................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cost of living in Aspen ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall image or reputation of Aspen .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 25 35 Th e N a t i o n a l C o m m u n i t y S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 2 4 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 2 of 5 7. Please also rate each of the following in the Aspen community. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Traffic flow on major streets ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of public parking ............................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by car in Aspen ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by public transportation in Aspen ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of travel by bicycle in Aspen ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in Aspen ....................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Well-planned residential growth ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Well-planned commercial growth ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Well-designed neighborhoods ............................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of the historical or cultural character of the community ............ 1 2 3 4 5 Public places where people want to spend time ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Variety of housing options .................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality housing ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall quality of new development in Aspen ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Overall appearance of Aspen ............................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Cleanliness of Aspen ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Water resources (beaches, lakes, ponds, riverways, etc.) ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Air quality .................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of paths and walking trails ........................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Fitness opportunities (including exercise classes and paths or trails, etc.) .... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational opportunities .................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality food ............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality health care ............................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of preventive health services ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality mental health care ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend cultural/arts/music activities ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Community support for the arts ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Availability of affordable quality childcare/preschool ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 K-12 education ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Adult educational opportunities ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Sense of civic/community pride ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Neighborliness of residents in Aspen .............................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in social events and activities ................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to attend special events and festivals ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to volunteer ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Opportunities to participate in community matters ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Openness and acceptance of the community toward people of diverse backgrounds ..................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 8. Please indicate whether or not you have done each of the following in the last 12 months. No Yes Contacted City of Aspen employees (in-person, phone, email, or web) for help or information .................. 1 2 Contacted Aspen elected officials (in-person, phone, email, or web) to express your opinion ..................... 1 2 Attended a local public meeting (of local elected officials like City Council meetings, City Council Work Sessions, advisory boards, Board of County Commissioners etc.) .......................................... 1 2 Watched (online or on television) a local public meeting (of elected officials like City Council, etc.) ........ 1 2 Volunteered your time to some group/activity in Aspen ............................................................................................... 1 2 Campaigned or advocated for a local issue, cause, or candidate ................................................................................. 1 2 Voted in your most recent local election ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Used bus, rail, subway, or other public transportation instead of driving .............................................................. 1 2 Carpooled with other adults or children instead of driving alone .............................................................................. 1 2 Walked or biked instead of driving ........................................................................................................................................... 1 2 26 36 Th e N a t i o n a l C o m m u n i t y S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 2 4 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . The City of Aspen 2024 Community Survey Page 3 of 5 9. Please rate the quality of each of the following services in Aspen. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know Public information services ............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Economic development ...................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic enforcement ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Traffic signal timing ............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Street repair ............................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Street cleaning ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Street lighting ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Snow removal ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sidewalk maintenance ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Bus or transit services ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Land use, planning, and zoning ...................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Affordable high-speed internet access ........................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Garbage collection ................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Drinking water ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Sewer services ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Storm water management (storm drainage, dams, levees, etc.) ..................... 1 2 3 4 5 Power (electric and/or gas) utility ............................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Utility billing ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Police services ........................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Crime prevention .................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Animal control ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Ambulance or emergency medical services .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Fire services ............................................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Fire prevention and education ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or other emergency situations) ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Preservation of natural areas (open space, farmlands, and greenbelts) ...... 1 2 3 4 5 Aspen open space ................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recycling .................................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Yard waste pick-up .............................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 City parks ................................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation programs or classes ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Recreation centers or facilities ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Health services ....................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Public library services ........................................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Overall customer service by City of Aspen employees (police, receptionists, planners, etc.) ...................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 10. Please rate the following categories of the City of Aspen government performance. Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The value of services for the taxes paid to the City of Aspen ............................ 1 2 3 4 5 The overall direction that the City of Aspen is taking ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5 The job the City of Aspen government does at welcoming resident involvement ......................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Overall confidence in the City of Aspen government ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5 Generally acting in the best interest of the community ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Being honest ........................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Being open and transparent to the public ................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Informing residents about issues facing the community .................................... 1 2 3 4 5 Treating all residents fairly .............................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 Treating residents with respect ..................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the services provided by each of the following? Excellent Good Fair Poor Don’t know The City of Aspen .................................................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 The Federal Government ................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 27 37 Th e N a t i o n a l C o m m u n i t y S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 2 4 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . Page 4 of 5 12. Please rate how important, if at all, you think it is for the Aspen community to focus on each of the following in the coming two years. Very Somewhat Not at all Essential important important important Overall economic health of Aspen ....................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall quality of the transportation system (auto, bicycle, foot, bus) in Aspen ...................................................................................................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall design or layout of Aspen’s residential and commercial areas (e.g., homes, buildings, streets, parks, etc.) ..................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall quality of the utility infrastructure in Aspen (water, sewer, storm water, electric/gas, broadband) .......................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall feeling of safety in Aspen ........................................................................................ 1 2 3 4 Overall quality of natural environment in Aspen ......................................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall quality of parks and recreation opportunities ............................................... 1 2 3 4 Overall health and wellness opportunities in Aspen .................................................. 1 2 3 4 Overall opportunities for education, culture, and the arts ....................................... 1 2 3 4 Residents’ connection and engagement with their community ............................. 1 2 3 4 13. Overall, how would you rate the effectiveness of the Aspen City Council? m Excellent m Good m Fair m Poor m Don’t know 14. If you had an issue or question for the City, which of the following would be your preferred method of interaction with City of Aspen employees? (Please select up to two responses.) m In-person/face-to-face m Telephone m Email m City website m Aspen 311 Connect (Mobile phone app) m Texting/messaging m Other 15. Compared to your experiences two years ago, how would you rate the overall customer experience provided by the City of Aspen now? m Much better m Somewhat better m About the same m Somewhat worse m Much worse 16. Is there anything else you would like to share about the state of our community? Please explain only one topic. 28 38 Th e N a t i o n a l C o m m u n i t y S u r v e y ™ • © 2 0 0 1 -20 2 4 Na t i o n a l R e s e a r c h C e n t e r , I n c . The City of Aspen 2024 Community Survey Page 5 of 5 Our last questions are about you and your household. Again, all of your responses to this survey are confidential and no identifying information will be shared. D1. In general, how many times do you: Several Once A few times Every Less often Don’t times a day a day a week few weeks or never know Access the internet from your home using a computer, laptop, or tablet computer ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Access the internet from your cell phone ...................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Visit social media sites such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Nextdoor, etc. ........................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Use or check email .................................................................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 Share your opinions online .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Shop online .................................................................................. 1 2 3 4 5 6 D2. Please rate your overall health. m Excellent m Very good m Good m Fair m Poor D3. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: m Very positive m Somewhat positive m Neutral m Somewhat negative m Very negative D4. How many years have you lived in Aspen? m Less than 2 years m 2-5 years m 6-10 years m 11-20 years m More than 20 years D5. Which best describes the building you live in? m Single-family detached home m Townhouse or duplex (may share walls but no units above or below you) m Condominium or apartment (have units above or below you) m Mobile home m Other D6. Do you rent or own your home? m Rent m Own D6A. Do you live in a deed restricted unit? m No m Yes D7. About how much is your monthly housing cost for the place you live (including rent, mortgage payment, property tax, property insurance, and homeowners’ association (HOA) fees)? m Less than $300 m $2,500 to $3,999 m $300 to $599 m $4,000 to $6,999 m $600 to $999 m $7,000 to $9,999 m $1,000 to $1,499 m $10,000 or more m $1,500 to $2,499 D8. Do any children 17 or under live in your household? m No m Yes D9. Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? m No m Yes D10. How much do you anticipate your household’s total income before taxes will be for the current year? (Please include in your total income money from all sources for all persons living in your household.) m Less than $25,000 m $100,000 to $149,999 m $25,000 to $49,999 m $150,000 to $199,999 m $50,000 to $74,999 m $200,000 to $299,999 m $75,000 to $99,999 m $300,000 or more D11. Are you of Hispanic, Latino/a/x, or Spanish origin? m No m Yes D12. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to indicate what race you consider yourself to be.) q American Indian or Alaskan Native q Asian q Black or African American q Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander q White q A race not listed D13. In which category is your age? m 18-24 years m 55-64 years m 25-34 years m 65-74 years m 35-44 years m 75 years or older m 45-54 years D14. What is your gender? m Woman m Man m Identify in another way à go to D14a D14a. If you identify in another way, how would you describe your gender? m Agender/I don’t identify with any gender m Genderqueer/gender fluid m Non-binary m Transgender man m Transgender woman m Two-spirit m Identify in another way Thank you! Please return the completed survey in the postage-paid envelope to: National Research Center, Inc., PO Box 549, Belle Mead, NJ 08502 29 39 Note: This list features all other communities utilizing the National Community Survey (NCS) in Colorado. As not every community asks all questions on the survey, each individual question may feature fewer comparisons than than the total number of communities listed below. It is unknown which communities Aspen ranked above or below on any specific question. List of Colorado Communities for Benchmarking 1 Adams County, Colorado 2 Elbert County, Colorado 3 Aurora city, Colorado 4 Gunnison County, Colorado 5 Berthoud, Colorado 6 Boulder, Colorado 7 Brighton, Colorado 8 Broomfield, Colorado 9 Canon City, Colorado 10 Centennial, Colorado 11 Commerce City, Colorado 12 Dacono, Colorado 13 Denver, Colorado 14 Durango, Colorado 15 Englewood, Colorado 16 Erie, Colorado 17 Estes Park, Colorado 18 Firestone, Colorado 19 Fort Collins, Colorado 20 Fort Lupton, Colorado 21 Frederick, Colorado 22 Frisco, Colorado 23 Fruita, Colorado 24 Golden, Colorado 25 Greeley, Colorado 26 Highlands Ranch, Colorado 27 Johnstown, Colorado 28 Lakewood, Colorado 29 Littleton, Colorado 30 Longmont, Colorado 31 Louisville, Colorado 32 Loveland, Colorado 33 Minturn, Colorado 34 Northglenn, Colorado 35 Parachute, Colorado 40 36 Parker, Colorado 37 Pueblo, Colorado 38 Steamboat Springs, Colorado 39 Superior, Colorado 40 Telluride, Colorado 41 Trinidad, Colorado 42 Wellington, Colorado 43 Westminster, Colorado 44 Wheat Ridge, Colorado 45 Windsor, Colorado 46 Woodland Park, Colorado 41 SERVING OUR COMMUNITY To engage with positive civil dialogue, provide the highest quality innovative and efficient municipal services, steward the natural environment, and support a healthy and sustainable community for the benefit of future generations with respect for the work of our predecessors. M I S S I O N Ensure Aspen is an attractive, diverse and safe city to live, work and visit year-round. This includes opportunities to access childcare, healthcare, housing, transit, parks, recreation and technological connectivity. Ensure that policy decisions, programs and projects manage impacts to the environment, climate, and public health and well-being. Promote economic sustainability of the Aspen community by advancing a healthy, diverse local economy while responsibly managing revenue streams, community investments, and financial reserves. Ensure a trusted dialogue and relationship in the community that encourages participation, consensus building, and meaningful engagement. Provide value to the community by continuously improving services and processes based on feedback, data, best practices, and innovation. S T R A T E G I C F O C U S A R E A S Protect Our Environment: Community Engagement: Fiscal Health & Economic Vitality: Safe & Lived-in Community of Choice: Smart Customer Focused Government: We serve with a spirit of excellence, humility, integrity, and respect. V A L U E S Service: Partnership: Stewardship: Innovation: Our impact is greater together. Investing in a thriving future for all by balancing social, environmental, and financial responsibilities. Pursuing creative outcomes, grounded in Aspen’s distinctive challenges and opportunities. 42 Take meaningful action by reducing Aspen's greenhouse gas emissions to scientifically proven levels that limit global temperature change, while also supporting community resilience against climate change and natural disasters. Protect Our Environment To create a sustainable and thriving affordable housing community, the Council will assess, plan, partner, and allocate resources for development and upkeep, ensuring high quality and affordability. Affordable Housing Community Building and Health Strengthen the quality of life and well-being of residents and promote commercial vitality of locally focused businesses. Improve and expand our efficient, multi-modal, and integrated transportation system to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and air pollution. Mobility To continue to provide efficient and reliable water, stormwater, and electrical services; safe roads and bridges; and ADA-accessible pedestrian improvements for the community, the city commits to prioritizing and advancing infrastructure projects. Prioritize Infrastructure and Maintenance for Aging Facilities To provide essential services, the city of Aspen prioritizes maintaining strong relationships with residents, businesses, and visitors, striving for continuous improvement in customer service and processes. Customer-Focused Government CITY COUNCIL GOALS 43 44 45 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Jenn Ooton, Senior Project Manager THROUGH:Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager MEMO DATE:September 16, 2024 MEETING DATE:September 23, 2024 RE:U.S. Forest Service Administrative Site Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL:This is a work session to update City Council about a conceptual partnership affordable housing project for the 2.13-acre Forest Service Administrative site located at 806 W. Hallam. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen, along with Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Colorado Mountain College, Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Hospital, and Aspen School District since 2022 have been collaborating with local White River National Forest staff on a potential redevelopment project for the USFS site at Hallam and 7th Street. Authorized by the 2018 Farm Bill, Forest Service Administrative sites can be leased for fair market value long-term in order to meet local needs. The lease payments can be for cash or through in-kind considerations such as the restoration of existing Forest Service facilities or upgraded Forest Service facilities. The first lease of this kind was signed for a 162-unit affordable housing rental project in Summit County in 2023 and work to bring a similar lease agreement to fruition is underway in Steamboat Springs. Potential redevelopment of the Aspen site is envisioned to deliver affordable housing for students and essential workers while still maintaining critical functions for the Aspen- Sopris Ranger District. The Forest Service is a steward of the landscape and wilderness areas surrounding the city of Aspen, and the site currently includes administrative offices, a visitor’s center, two residential structures, bunk house units and a maintenance facility that supports the Maroon Bells and other wilderness operations in the upper valley. To develop the potential partnership project, partner agencies engaged a consultant team, Design Workshop and CCCY Architects, to assess the development potential, taking into consideration the ongoing needs of the Forest Service and also the site’s development constraints (including the Si Johnson Ditch, slopes in excess of 25 percent, 46 and major utilities). The initial review found that the parcel could accommodate up to 78 units, while still meeting the USFS operational needs. Further analysis of the site considering the site constraints and surrounding neighborhood resulted in two less dense development scenarios: A high-density option, which includes 57 individual housing units, 36 bunkhouse beds and Forest Service administrative offices. In this option, the maintenance/workshop facility and visitor’s center would need to be accommodated off-site. No site for the maintenance/workshop facility has been identified. A low-density option, which includes 38 individual units, 36 bunkhouse units, Forest Service administrative offices, a maintenance/workshop facilities which provides the storage, tools and other operational necessities required for the Forst Service to operate throughout the district. This option also anticipates that the visitor’s center is accommodated off-site. The attached Housing Vision Plan provides additional detail. Farm Bill Extension The 2018 Farm Bill, which initially authorized the leasing of administrative Forest Service land for affordable housing, had an expiration of Sept. 30, 2023. That authorization was extended one year, which allows programs to continue through Sept. 30, 2024. The continuation of this redevelopment project is contingent upon a renewed Farm Bill that includes the leasing provision or a separate bill that extends it. In addition to the extension of time for lease negotiations through 2029, this project is also reliant on two legislative changes that the city has been advocating for with the Congressional delegation: Lease Length. Currently there is concern among our partners that the Forest Service is limited to only a 30–50-year land lease. Off-site consideration. Allow credit for off-site accommodation of Forest Service needs. The most recent version of the Farm Bill includes a provision allowing a term of lease not greater than 100 years and allows consideration of services occurring off the administrative site that benefit the National Forest System and the administrative site. Land Use and Process Considerations This work session will provide an overview of the project and also is designed to determine next steps for the project. First, staff would like direction related to the review process for the project. Options include following steps for a major public project, processing the application as a Location and Extent, or allowing the project to proceed through the federal leasing steps and then proceed to building permit. A first step for local review could include a non-binding sketch plan review. The federal government is not subject to municipal zoning requirements or land use processes, and first the Forest Service would need to sign off on any land use application for the project. For that to happen, a memorandum of understanding would 47 need to be negotiated among the entities including how the project would approach local review and timing of the leasing process itself. Additional design and civil engineering would also need to be developed to bring the project through the leasing process and also for review in a land use context. The leasing process includes a first right of refusal to lease being issued to a municipality or county in which the site is located, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a National Environmental Policy Act review, and appraisal. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Staff is working through understanding the costs for the next steps in design and bringing the project through a sketch plan review. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: 48 U.S. FOREST SERVICE ASPEN PARCEL HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES ANALYSIS Prepared by 22860 TWO RIVERS ROAD UNIT 102 BASALT, COLORADO 81621 970.922.8354 49 Prepared by: Design Workshop and CCY Architects Prepared for: Project Partners listed above 50 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S. Forest Service Aspen Parcel project is a collaborative effort to explore opportunities of the 2.13-acre site situated at 806 W. Hallam Street in Aspen, Colorado to provide affordable housing. The project presents a significant partnership between large local institutions - Aspen School District, Aspen Valley Hospital, City of Aspen, Colorado Mountain College, Pitkin County, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, and the United States Forest Service. The project has the potential to deliver affordable housing for essential workers and students within the City of Aspen municipal boundaries. The goal of the project is to understand the site’s potential for housing units within the current and potential zoning designation, while responding to the needs of the partners. Any new development on the site will need to accommodate the needs of the local U.S. Forest Service district, particularly around operations. Supported by the 2018 Farm Bill, the project facilitates public-public partnerships that will meet U.S. Forest Service and community needs. There are many variables that influence what will ultimately be developed on the site, including which partners desire to move forward and the ultimate housing need partners have for this particular parcel of land within their overall housing strategy. Additionally, existing site constraints, including the Si Johnson ditch and major utilities, must be considered in any design. The project included an initial analysis and work with partners, showing that the parcel could potentially accomodate up to 78 housing units, in addition to bunkhouse units and U.S. Forest Service operations. However, the partners agreed that refinement for fewer units would be more appropriate for the neighborhood. This additional analysis identified two different potential development options that accomodate 38 to 57 new units, in addition to bunkhouse and U.S. Forest Service operations site. A “Low-Density” option includes U.S. Forest Service warehouse operations and administrative offices, while a “High-Density” option replaces the warehouse use with additional housing units. In both options, the U.S. Forest Service Visitor Center is assumed to be located off site. Table 1 and Figure 1 identify the different development statistics and site plans for these options. This report details the process to arrive at an initial site design and unit count. Moving forward, each partner will need to evaluate their interest in participating in a coalition to develop housing on the site through a long-term lease with the U.S. Forest Service. As each entity has these discussions, it is likely that the number of housing units and related infrastructure will change. Executive Summary | 3 51 Table 1: Preferred Scenario Project Dimensions Preferred Scenario Project Dimensions Affordable Housing Units Alt A (Low Density Plan)Alt B (High Density Plan) Building Height 25 ft 32 ft Studio 10 14 1-Bedroom 18 29 2 Bedroom 10 14 Total Units 38 57 Total Bunkhouse Beds 36 36 Total Beds 84 107 Parking Spaces Residential 38 spaces 38 spaces + 30 subgrade U.S. Forest Service Administration 9 spaces 7 spaces U.S. Forest Service Visitor Information Center Off Site Off-Site U.S. Forest Service Fleet 7 spaces 7 spaces U.S. Forest Service/ City of Aspen Bunkhouse 18 spaces 18 spaces U.S. Forest Service RV/ Trailer 0 spaces 0 spaces Total Parking 74 spaces 70 spaces + 30 subgrade U.S. Forest Service Programming Administration 3,600 sq ft 3,880 sq ft Visitor Information Center Off-Site Off-Site Warehouse 2,000 sq ft 0 sq ft Bunkhouse 10,300 sq ft (36 total units) 10,300 sq ft (36 total units) Total U.S. Forest Service Square Footage 15,900 sq ft 14,180 sq ft 4 | Proposed Site Plan 52 Figure 1: Proposed Site Plan - Alternative A (Low Density) 1 3 33 33 3 5 4 4 5 5 W SMUGG L E R S T N 8 T H S T W FRANCI S S T N 7 T H S T LEGEND Bunkhouse USFS Office Housing Pathway Bridge Trash Area USFS Fleet Parking USFS Truck & Trailer Parking USFS Employee Parking USFS Warehouse Park/ Open Space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 STORIES 21 UNITS 2 STORIES 3 UNITS 6 6 6 8 10 USFS: Bunkhouse Units: 36 Office Square Footage: 3600 SF Warehouse Square Footage: 2000 SF Parking: 74 (47 surface + 27 tuck-under) Bunkhouse: 18 USFS Fleet: 10 USFS Trailer: 2 USFS Employee: 5 Housing: 39 Housing Units: 38 25% Studio (10 Units/ *6,250 sf approx.) 50% 1 Bedroom (18 Units/ *15,750 sf approx.) 25% 2 Bedroom (10 Units/ *11,250 sf approx.) * sf calculations are high level and asume 25% of the sf will be for common circulation. Asume minimum unit sizes by APCHA Trash Area: 500 SF Snow Storage: 7,234 SF (30.6% of hardscape area) 100 20 40 FT 7 10 11 11 2 STORIES 3 UNITS 2 STORIES 3 UNITS 2 STORIES 3 UNITS 2 STORIES 5 UNITS 21 7 9 9 W FRANCI S S T W HALLA M S T Proposed Site Plan | 5 53 1 3 5 5 3 4 W SMUGG L E R S T N 8 T H S T W FRANCI S S T N 7 T H S T W HALLA M S T LEGEND Bunkhouse USFS Office/ Potential Housing Housing Pathway Bridge Trash Area USFS Fleet Parking USFS Employee Parking Courtyard Park/ Open Space 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 USFS: Bunkhouse Units: 36 Office Square Footage: 3880 SF Warehouse Square Footage: 0 SF Parking: 70 + subgrade (44 surface + 26 tuck-under + 24 subgrade) Bunkhouse: 18 USFS Fleet: 10 USFS Employee: 5 Housing Units: 37 + 24 subgrade parking Housing Units: 57 25% Studio (14 Units/ *8,750 sf approx.) 50% 1 Bedroom (29 Units/ *25,375 sf approx.) 25% 2 Bedroom (14 Units)/ *15,750 sf approx.) * sf calculations are high level and asume 25% of the sf will be for common circulation. Asume minimum unit sizes by APCHA Trash Area: 435 SF Snow Storage: 6,802 SF (30.3% of hardscape area) 6 6 6 27 2 STORIES 20 UNITS 3 STORIES 34 UNITS 2 STORIES 3 UNITS UP P E R LEVEL 100 20 40 FT 8 9 10 10 78 9 9 8 Figure 2: Proposed Site Plan - Alternative B (High Density) 6 | Proposed Site Plan 54 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE LEASING The 2018 FARM Bill grants the U.S. Forest Service the authority to lease qualifying administrative sites for cash or in-kind considerations. While a typical lease term is around 30 years, the partners agreed that a longer lease term of around 70 years would be desirable in order to achieve the goals for the project, enable the use of different funding mechanisms, and ensure a strong partnership for the coming decades. PROPERTY OVERVIEW The site sits at the western end of the City of Aspen at the S-Curves. Currently, the site only includes U.S. Forest Service uses. These uses include an administrative building, workshop and storage building, a single-family home, a bunkhouse, and parking for visitor and USFS vehicles. Table 2 outlines the existing square footage for these spaces. The property is currently accessed from 7th Street and includes a large central parking area. The property runs from Smuggler Street on the north to Hallam Street on the south and runs the entire length between these streets along 7th Street. A small portion of the property is located along 8th Street. Two alleys and Francis Street were originally platted on the property, but were never improved. These were vacated in 1939 by City Council action. The Si Johnson Ditch cuts through the site at a south- western diagonal, from Smuggler Street to Hallam Street. The eastern and southern edges of the property have public sidewalks on the periphery. The eastern sidewalk exists outside of the property line in the public right-of-way, but the southern sidewalk intrudes upon the property line and is surrounded by trees that are of high importance to be preserved. Figure 3: Existing Conditions EXISTING U.S. FOREST SERVICE PROGRAMMING SQUARE FOOTAGE Administrative Office Space with Visitor Information Center 2,500 sf Warehouse 2,000 sf Bunkhouse 4,800 sf Table 2: U.S. Forest Service Existing Programming Square Footage Existing Conditions | 7 55 Figure 4: Bus Stop Figure 5: Si Johnson Ditch The site is well connected to transit, with a RFTA bus stop along the southern edge of the property and a WeCycle station on the southeast corner of the block. The 8th Street bus stop is a major stop providing in- town service and direct service to the entire Roaring Fork Valley. There is only one major grade change on the site that exists on the western edge along 8th Street adjacent to the Si Johnson Ditch. The first 40 feet of the property along 8th Street sees a 12-14% change in slope up to the ditch, creating an almost story difference in height from the ditch down to 8th Street. SI JOHNSON DITCH An irrigation ditch known as the Si Johnson Ditch sits on the property. It is managed by a Ditch Company, which is controlled by the City of Aspen who operates the ditch. The water in this ditch is free flowing and exists on the site in a forested environment. There is a required 20-foot easement setback (10-feet on each side from the center line of the ditch) where no development should be located. The city requires that ditches remain open and free flowing. However, a portion of the Si Johnson ditch that flows under the alley and a parking area for the adjacent 832 W Hallam housing project is covered. There is potentially an opportunity for a small portion of the ditch on the U.S. Forest Service parcel, if required for site access or to address the grades, to be pipped. Significant piping of the ditch is not likely to be approved. There are several mature trees throughout the site that the City would like to see preserved. The majority of these trees are clustered around the Si Johnson Ditch on the western side of the property and along the Southeast corner around the administrative building. 8 | Existing Conditions 56 UTILITIES The site has major utilities that cross from west to east including a main water line, a main electrical feed line and two single-phase electrical lines. A vista switchgear, which helps to regulate the overall power grid and prevent electrical overloading, is located along 8th street. A transformer is located at the dead end of the alley. Each of these utilities have existing easements that need to be considered when developing site layout alternatives. The two single-phase electrical lines that cross on the north and south sides of the property require a 16-foot easement (8 feet on each side of the line). There is a single-phase transformer that connects to the electrical line on the south end of the property bordering the alleyway for the neighboring property. These lines could be relocated to accommodate development, but would add a cost to the project. There is also a main electrical feed for a 500 KCMIL line in the middle of the property that extends through the property from 7th Street to 8th Street and connects to a vista switchgear. The switchgear connects to both the 500 KCMIL line and a 750 KCMIL line. These lines would be difficult, if not impossible, to relocate and are assumed to need to remain in place in any development scenario. A 12-inch diameter water main line is located adjacent to the 500 KCMIL electric line. The water line is a main utility that provides redundancy for a large portion of the surrounding neighborhoods and is assumed to need to remain in place in any development scenario. The easement setback for the water line is 25 feet which also covers the required setback for the electric line. FRANCIS STREET AND ALLEY VACATIONS In 1939, Aspen City Council vacated and abandoned Francis Street and the two alleyways to the north and south of Francis Street for the block of the current U.S. Forest Service site. These were never developed on the site but had been platted. The vacation only applied to this block and did not impact roadways of surrounding blocks. The City of Aspen Land Use Code requires that the lot area of these abandonments and vacations be deducted from the calculations to determine the maximum allowable floor area for Medium-Density Residential (R-6) zoned properties. However, these deductions are not applicable to the Residential Multi- Family (RMF) zone district. Existing Conditions | 9 57 Figure 6: Overall Site Constraints 10 | Existing Conditions 58 PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO Following additional partner conversation, the group requested the design team re-evaluate the potential development options, with a focus on a lower unit count to ensure consistency with the neighborhood while also meeting partner goals. The result are two different concepts, each including the following key site and development assumptions. Table 13 identifies the key programmatic characteristics of each development alterative. •Meet the City of Aspen’s Residential Multi-Family (RMF) zone district dimensional allowances to the greatest extent possible •Meet City of Aspen adopted Building and Energy Codes, as well as any specific requirements for Federal buildings. •36 bunkhouse units for U.S. Forest Service and City of Aspen •An affordable housing unit mix of 25% studio units, 50% 1-bedroom units and 25% 2-bedroom units •US Forest Service Visitor Center and RV parking are not accommodated on-site and are assumed to be located elsewhere •New site access from N 7th Street to generally align with the existing alleys and W Francis Street •A continuation of the alley behind the Poppies housing project to provide improved east-west connections •A park space along N 8th Street and integrated walking paths throughout the site •Sidewalk and interior path access to the existing 8th Street bus station and We-Cycle station •Parking at approximately 1 space per unit and 0.5 spaces per bunkhouse unit •Preservation of large trees along the Si Johnson ditch and W Hallam Street •Major utilities, including the water line and large vista switch gear remain on-site and are not relocated •Trash, recycling and snow storage areas that meet City of Aspen requirements Alternative A Alternative A is the “Low-Density” option and includes 38 affordable housing units with U.S. Forest Service space. This option is lower in density because it includes the U.S. Forest Service Warehouse and administrative offices. This option includes primarily two story buildings and a maximum height of 25 feet. This option includes five new buildings along W Hallam Street, following the scale and building footprint of the Poppies housing project at the corner. A center housing building would include some tuck- under parking spaces, but the remaining spaces are surface spaces. In order to accommodate the Warehouse space, the Bunkhouse is divided into two different buildings – one in the middle of the site and one along the northern property line. This will potentially require two common cooking and laundry areas for these residents, which is a design detail to be completed in future phases of work. Trailer / RV spaces are included in this option to ensure adequate vehicle facilities associated with the Warehouse. Parking for the USFS Administrative function are also provided in a mix of surface and covered spaces. Alternatives | 11 59 Alternative B Alternative B is the “High-Density” option and includes 57 affordable housing units with U.S. Forest Service space. This option is higher in density because the Warehouse is not on site, though the administrative offices remain. In order to achieve the desired parking, this option includes a one-story subgrade parking garage in the center of the site, surface spaces, and tuck-under parking. Additional design of the parking garage is required in the next phases of work. This option includes a mix of two and a half story buildings, with a maximum height of 32 feet. This option includes a single Bunkhouse facility along the north property line and two larger affordable housing buildings along W Hallam Street and in the middle of the site. The Administrative office space and associated parking spaces are located near the middle of the site. Figure 7: Alternative A ‘Low-Density’ Concept Figure 8: Alternative B ‘High-Density’ Concept Architecture and Construction Considerations An important focus of this project is that it blend with the surrounding context – it is not meant to feel like a change to the community, but rather an extension of it. One way this can be articulated is through the architectural design of the site. The partners expressed a desire for any development along Hallam Street to reflect the scale of affordable housing development on the southwest corner of the site at the old Poppies building. It is anticipated that either option would include green roofs and on-site solar panels to promote the overall sustainability of the project. The general architectural style would include standing seam metal roofs and wood and metal siding with exposed timber for porches and building entries to match the existing west end development pattern. Additional cost estimation related to anticipated construction characteristics is anticipated as part of a future phase. 12 | Alternatives 60 Figure 9: Alternative A ‘Low-Density’ Perspective - South View Alternatives | 13 61 Figure 10: Alternative A ‘Low-Density’ Perspective - North View 14 | Alternatives 62 Figure 11: Alternative B ‘High-Density’ Perspective - South View Alternatives | 15 63 NEXT STEPS Moving forward, each partner will need to determine if they are going to remain part of a group pursuing development of housing on the site. A number of factors could influence this decision, including the final range of units anticipated for the site, the availability of on-site parking, and the terms of a land lease with the U.S. Forest Service. It is important to understand that as partners drop out of the project, there may be more flexibility for other partner needs to be addressed. This will directly impact the number of units and parking spaces that can be accommodated on the site. Near Term Next Steps •The U.S. Forest Service needs to identify their lease terms for each of the partner organizations. •Complete an updated existing conditions survey •Each partner organization will review the Housing Vision Plan with their governing board and will then decide if they wish to move forward as an official partner of this development. Longer Term Next Steps •Once the partners that are moving forward are identified, a more detailed conceptual site plan can be developed. •More detailed cost estimates will need to be developed. •A finalized property appraisal will be conducted by the U.S. Forest Service to meet their federal requirements. •Each remaining partner will need to enter a formal agreement with the U.S. Forest Service. •A land use review will be conducted by the City of Aspen for the project.Table 3: Preferred Scenario Project Dimensions Preferred Scenario Project Dimensions Affordable Housing Units Alt A (Low Density Plan) Alt B (High Density Plan) Building Height 25 ft 32 ft Studio 10 14 1-Bedroom 18 29 2 Bedroom 10 14 Total Units 38 57 Total Bunkhouse Beds 36 36 Total Beds 84 107 Parking Spaces Residential 38 spaces 38 spaces + subgrade U.S. Forest Service Administration 9 spaces 7 spaces U.S. Forest Service Visitor Information Center Off Site Off-Site U.S. Forest Service Fleet 7 spaces 7 spaces U.S. Forest Service/ City of Aspen Bunkhouse 18 spaces 18 spaces U.S. Forest Service RV/ Trailer 2 spaces 0 spaces Total Parking 74 spaces 70 spaces + subgrade U.S. Forest Service Programming Administration 3,600 sq ft 3,880 sq ft Visitor Information Center Off-Site Off-Site Warehouse 2,000 sq ft 0 sq ft Bunkhouse 10,300 sq ft (36 total units) 10,300 sq ft (36 total units) Total U.S. Forest Service Square Footage 15,900 sq ft 14,180 sq ft 16 | Next Steps 64 COST INFORMATION: While detailed cost estimating is not included as part of this initial phase of conceptual design, it is important to understand as a basic level what construction cost might be. Using recent project cost information from other public projects in the Aspen Area, a basic cost of $700,000 - $1,100,000 per housing unit could be assumed. This does not include anticipated costs to construct U.S. Forest Service facilities or the bunkhouse. Costs of approximately $400,000 - $1,000,000 per sub-grade parking space could also be assumed. Table 12 outlines the current cost estimates for the Lumberyard, Burlingame Phase 3, and the potential childcare facility at Burlingame. Burlingame Phase 3 and the Lumberyard each include figures based on the proposed housing units, while the Burlingame Childcare Facility is based on square footage for essential public facility space and parking. Factors that will have a significant influence on the ultimate costs include •Amount of sub-grade parking developed; •Number of major utility lines relocated or upgraded; •Inflation related to material and labor costs; •Total units and floors to be developed; and •Amount and type of renewable energy systems incorporated into the design. Cost Information | 17 65 Cost Estimates of other Affordable Housing Development Projects Lumberyard*Burlingame Phase 3**Burlingame Childcare Facility - Streetside Option*** Land Sq ft Units 277 79 Bedrooms 467 170 Building Square Feet 158,650 sq ft 84,285 sq ft 22,708 sq ft Subgrade Parking N/A 14,315 sq ft Historic costs $29,500,000 $10,823,279 N/A Construction cost estimate $293,481,323 $54,700,000 $25,764,742 Total estimated costs $322,981,323 $65,523,279 $25,764,742 Price per unit, not including historic costs $1,059,499 $692,405.00 N/A Price per bedroom, not including historic costs $628,440 $321,765 N/A Price per sq ft, not including historic costs $1,135 $649 $1,205 Price for Subgrade parking, not including historic costs N/A N/A $6,120,739 Price per unit, including historic costs $1,165,998 $829,409 N/A Price per bedroom, including historic costs $691,009 $385,431 N/A Price per sq ft, including historic costs $1,249 $777 N/A * Source: City of Aspen, Lumberyard Cost Estimate Based on 2022 with NO PHASING ESCALATION INCLUDED, shared August 15, 2022 (estimated based on Schematic Design) **Source: City of Aspen, Burlingame Ranch Phase 3 Affordable Housing - Project Cost - Updated to Include Additional Budget for 2023, shared August 15, 2022 (estimated baed on construction detail design) *** Source: City of Aspen, Burlingame Childcare Center Conceptual Design Cost Estimate, shared August 12, 2022 (estimate based on Scematic Design, does not include project soft costs) Table 4: Density Options Yield 18 | Cost Information 66 DW LEGACY DESIGN® Legacy Design is the defining element of our practice. It is our commitment to an elevated level of design inquiry to arrive at the optimal solutions for clients. The process ensures that our projects reflect the critical issues facing the built environment and that they deliver measurable benefit to clients and communities. It is the foundation of the firm’s workshop culture and guides all projects. www.designworkshop.com 67