HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20250224AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 24, 2025
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Short Term Rental Program Update
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81787607043?pwd=ROPw7497aoAXcZVABtDfCDNcvQPDFn.1
Passcode:81611
Join via audio:
+1 719 359 4580 US
Webinar ID: 817 8760 7043
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kbGxND9apH
Memo_Review of the STR Program_2.24.25.pdf
Exhibit A_Ordinance #26, Series of 2021.pdf
Exhibit B_Memo_Second Reading of Ordinance #09, Series of 2022.pdf
Exhibit C_Ordinance #09, Series of 2022.pdf
Exhibit D_Resolution #106, Series of 2022.pdf
Exhibit E_Memo_STR Tax Polling Results and Next Steps.pdf
Exhibit F_Memo_STR Run out Work Session.pdf
1
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Emmy Oliver, Lodging and Commercial Core Program Manager
THROUGH: Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: February 18, 2025
MEETING DATE: February 24, 2025
RE: City Council Work Session
Review of the Short-term Rental (STR) Program
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The purpose of this work session is to review Short-term Rental (STR) Program data, respond to
Council’s questions about the STR Program, and to introduce policy topics for which Council may
wish to explore Land Use Code (LUC) changes. Staff requests consensus Council direction for
any STR program changes the Council desires for staff to pursue.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In December of 2021, following an unprecedented expansion of the Aspen STR market during
Covid-19, City Council passed Ordinance #26, Series of 2021, which instated a moratorium on
the issuance of new STR permits (Exhibit A, Ordinance #26, Series of 2021). The moratorium
was a direct response to escalated community concerns about the proliferation of STRs. Lasting
approximately ten months, the moratorium provided space for staff to closely engage with the
community and Council in the development of new regulations governing STRs in Aspen.
At the beginning of the moratorium, five “problem statements” were identified by Council
(Memo_Second Reading of Ordinance #09, Series of 2022). These problem statements guided
staff’s work in developing the new STR policy:
1) STRs are a land use distinct from residential and lodge uses. Yet land use regulations
do not make that distinction. This results in a variety of inequities and community
impacts which our current system fails to address.
2) Aspen has not sought to mitigate the impacts of STRs on employee generation and other
infrastructure and service demands.
3) The community has not established review criteria to ensure basic health and safety
standards for individual STRs, or to provide common expectations related to property
management and guest behavior standards.
4) The scale and rapid expansion of STRs are changing the nature of important aspects of
neighborhood and community character in ways that we are just beginning to understand.
It is clear that some STRs are operating as commercial uses in dedicated residential zone
districts.
5) STRs, particularly in multi-family developments, have accelerated the transition of many
housing units that previously were owned or rented by working locals into de facto lodge
units. The displacement of locals from these units over time is not a new trend, but STRs
have brought a new scale and pace to this challenge.
2
2
On June 28, 2022, Council adopted the new set of STR regulations in Ordinance #09, Series of
2022 (Exhibit C, Ordinance #09, Series of 2022). Ordinance #09 established definitions for STRs,
a three-permit system, caps on STR-C permit availability, permitting requirements and fee
structure, occupancy and operational standards, active enforcement, and a non-transferability
clause. Staff began operating under the new regulations on October 1, 2022.
In addition to the new land use regulations, City of Aspen voters approved excise taxes on STR
revenue as codified in Resolution #106, Series of 2022 (Exhibit D, Resolution #106, Series of
2022). The following excise tax rates became effective for all STR stays commencing on or after
May 1, 2023:
• STR-C (investment properties): 10% excise tax
• STR-OO and STR-LE (primary resident and lodge properties): 5% excise tax
Council requested periodic updates about program functionality. Up to now, staff have provided
those updates in the form of information-only memos. This will be the first Council Work Session
to discuss performance and policy topics since the launch of the program.
Essential Program Data
Figure A. Annual STR Excise Tax Revenue by Permit Type
Figure A shows STR excise tax revenue collected in 2023 and 2024. It is important to note that
that 2023 figures only reflect eight (8) months of collections, and that December 2024 figures
reflect unaudited collections and are still subject to change. STR-OO and STR-LE figures are
combined because the tax rate is 5% for each of those permit types.
STR excise tax revenue collected in 2023 totals $3,393,571. STR excise tax revenue collected
in 2024 totals $6,937,942. STR excise tax revenue collected to date totals $10,331,513.
$2,383,903
$1,009,668
$4,853,907
$2,084,035
$0
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
STR-C STR-OO & LE
2023 2024
3
3
Figure B. Allocation of STR Excise Tax Revenue (2023-2024 combined)
Aspen voters approved at least 70% of the STR excise tax revenue to be allocated to affordable
housing development, and the remaining 30% to be allocated to environmental initiatives and
infrastructure maintenance and repair. Of the remaining 30% of revenue, 75% is allocated to the
Asset Management Plan Fund and 25% to the General Fund. Figure B illustrates the allocation
of combined tax revenue from 2023 and 2024 to these City funds to date.
Figure C. Annual Administrative Fee Revenue
Figure C illustrates the administrative fee totals collected in 2023 and 2024. Administrative fees
are paid by the applicant at the time a STR permit application is submitted.
Asset
Management
Plan Fund
$2,324,590
General Fund
$774,864
Housing
Development
Fund
$7,232,059
$422,120 $377,698
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
2023 2024
4
4
Figure D. Allocation of STR Administrative Fee Revenue (2023-2024 combined)
Figure D shows how the administrative fees are allocated within the City organization. Revenue
is split between Community Development, Finance, and the City Attorneys for staff labor.
Administrative fees also offset the cost of the permitting and tax collection software utilized by
customers and staff.
Figure E. Number of STR Units from 2023-Present
Figure E depicts the number of STR unit types from 2023 to present. A slight decline in all property
types can be seen from 2023-2025, culminating in an 89% renewal rate for Classic properties, a
97% renewal rate for Lodging Exempt properties, and an 83% renewal rate for Owner Occupied
properties. Overall, there has been an 8.9% decline in the total number of STRs since 2023. The
decline can be attributed to some of the following factors:
• Switch to long-term rentals,
• Forfeiture of permits due to property sales,
• Attrition of permits in capped zones, and
• Decisions to stop renting on a short-term basis.
City
Attorney's
Office
$142,648
Finance
Department
$206,139
Community
Development
Department
$451,031
740
392
76
698
385
72
658
379
63
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
STR-C STR-LE STR-OO
2023 2024 2025
5
5
STAFF DISCUSSION:
During a November 2024 Council meeting, Councilors posed a series of questions to staff about
the STR program. Answers to those questions follow.
Question 1: In response to the Frias Properties representative’s public comments about
the HOA signoff required for annual permit renewal, is there a way to simplify that process?
Language requiring HOA approval was adopted in Ordinance #09, Series of 2022: “Permit
applications for residential properties which are in a Homeowners Association (HOA) must include
HOA approval for the applicant to operate an STR in the form of a signed letter, including
telephone and email contact information for the HOA, with the permit application.” (Exhibit C,
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022)
Currently, a signature from an HOA representative is required with each new permit application,
and updated signatures are required for annual permit renewal. Annual HOA signoffs are required
by staff because HOAs have been known to change their STR permissions from year to year.
Certainly, if Council directs staff to adjust the HOA signoff for renewal applications, staff could
explore paths to ease the burden on HOA managers and simplify the permit renewal process.
Question 2: Regarding outstanding applicants in the different zone districts, help us better
understand what the STR market and those seeking permits that aren’t able to get them
mean? Review the caps and outstanding applicants in different zones. What happens to
people who apply but permits are unavailable?
Ordinance #09 established limits on the maximum number of STR-C permits available in 14 of
Aspen’s residential-serving zone districts (Exhibit C, Ordinance #09, Series of 2022). The purpose
of the limits (AKA “caps”) is to curtail neighborhood impacts of STRs, limit conversion of long-term
and owner-occupied housing to STRs, and distribute STR uses within appropriate zones
throughout the community. Caps do not apply to STR-OO or STR-LE permits.
Figure F: Permit Cap Analysis (as of 2/14/25)
0 0 0
46
0 5 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 00
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
AH MU NC R/MF R/MFA R-15 R-15A R-15B R-3 R-30 R-6 RR SCI SKI
Permit Cap # Active Permits # Applications on Waitlist
6
6
Figure F illustrates the numbers of active and waitlisted STR-C accounts in all 14 (fourteen)
capped zones, alongside the cap for each zone. There are currently waitlists for STR-C permits
in 4 (four) of the fourteen (14) capped zones. Waitlist totals are shown by the numbers along the
horizontal axis in Figure F.
In 6 (six) of the 14 (fourteen) capped zones, the number of active permits is equal to the permit
cap. When an STR-C permit application is received for a property in these zones, it is placed on
a waitlist for the next available permit, which would be issued when an existing permit is
relinquished by the owner. In 5 (five) of the fourteen (14) of capped zones, the number of active
permits is less than the permit cap. STR-C permits are currently available to applicants without
a waitlist in these zones.
In 3 (three) out of fourteen (14) zones, the number of active permits is greater than the cap. In
these zones (R/MF, R-30, and SCI), permits that predate the moratorium have not yet been
reduced to the caps through attrition. Applications for STR-C permits are placed on waitlists in
these zones, and new permits will be available once the number of active permits falls below the
caps.
Figure G. STR-C Waitlist Sizes, 2022-2025
Figure G illustrates the fluctuations in waitlists for STR-C permits. The R/MF waitlist, indicated by
the line climbing steadily at the top half of Figure G, is the obvious outlier. Staff received twenty-
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Oct-22 Jan-23 Apr-23 Jul-23 Oct-23 Jan-24 Apr-24 Jul-24 Oct-24 Jan-25
R-6 R-15 R-15B R-30 R/MF
7
7
two (22) applications for STR-C permits in R/MF zone within the first two (2) months of the
program, and the waitlist has increased to forty-six (46) applications since 2022. The R-30 waitlist
has also only increased in size since 2022; there are four (4) applicants on this waitlist currently.
Due to the slow rates of permit attrition in these zones, no new permits have been issued in R-30
or R/MF since 2022.
Dips in the lines, as shown for R-6, R-15, and R-15B zones, indicate reductions in the waitlist size
at points when permits became available to applicants in the top positions for those zones.
Question 3: Regarding STR violations, how many have been issued, what are the nature of
the violations, where were they located, and were they licensed?
Staff follows the City’s policy of progressive enforcement in responding to STR issues. In
alignment with this policy, staff must first validate any alleged compliance issue before proceeding
through enforcement steps. When an issue is validated, staff works with owners to educate them
about how to come into compliance through a series of courtesy contacts and, if necessary, formal
warnings. If the issue is not corrected after outreach and a formal warning, only then will a Notice
of Violation (NOV) be issued to the property owner. The NOV is the last step in the enforcement
process before a summons to court, fines, and/or jail time is imposed.
Figure H. STR Compliance Summary, 2022-2025
The purpose of progressive enforcement is to encourage compliance through education rather
than to impose punitive measures. As shown in Figure H, only 6% of alleged compliance issues
at STR properties have resulted in NOVs. A total of three (3) NOVs have been issued to property
owners for STR issues. While all the subject properties have subsequently come into compliance,
details of those NOVs are as follows:
• Two (2) for unpermitted STR use (R-6 and R/MF zones), and
• One (1) for improper waste disposal that resulted in a wildlife intrusion at an STR-
permitted property (R-6 zone).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
# Issues
Identified
# Courtesy
Outreach
Contacts
# Warnings
Issued
# Notices of
Violation
Issued
8
8
Figure I. Number of STR Compliance Issues Reported, 2022-2025
The public can report STR issues directly to City staff through the Aspen 311 Connect app. Staff
also utilize active measures, such as reviewing internet advertisements, to detect issues at STR
properties. As shown in Figure I, of the fifty-three (53) total compliance issues identified since
2022, 26% of those issues were nuisance-related (noise and smoke).
Figure J. STR Compliance Issues by Zone District, 2022-2025
Figure J depicts the number of compliance issues reported per zone district. 81% of all issues
were reported to have occurred in zones that are capped for STR-C permits. The majority of
issues were reported for properties in the AH zone, however it should be noted that reports in AH
were primarily for lighting- and nuisance-related issues at free-market properties.
Question 4: How do STR tax collections compare to 2022 estimates?
As mentioned previously, Aspen voters approved the STR excise tax in 2022 (Exhibit D,
Resolution #106, Series of 2022). While estimating potential revenue for the first full year of the
proposed tax, staff in 2022 were required to make many assumptions of the 2024 pool of STR
permits, including:
• The average nightly rental rate in 2024,
14
12
11
8
3
3
1
1
Nuisance
No Permit
Wildlife Intrusion
Lighting
Renter Complaint
Waste Container
HOA Approval
Snow Removal
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
AH R-6 L R/MF MU R-15 R-15B R-30
9
9
• The distribution of STR-LE, STR-OO, and STR-C permits,
• The number of permits in uncapped zones,
• The pace of permit attrition in capped zones, and
• The economic conditions that would exist in 2024.
Staff added a buffer to the estimate of revenue to reflect these and other unknown factors, as well
as to limit the need to seek additional direction from voters if collections surpassed an estimate
that was too low.
The 2022 estimate of 2024 STR excise tax collections combined from all three permit types was
$9,140,000. The 2024 actual STR excise tax collections totaled $6,937,942.
Question 5: Should we have an equal tax rate across all rentals of less than 30 days? Could
the program be more successful if we rethought some initial assumptions about tax rates?
Council considered the following factors when landing on differential tax rates for the three types
of STR permits:
• Community sentiment,
• Delta in property taxation between residential and commercial properties, and
• Delta in housing mitigation fees paid at time of development of commercial lodge
properties.
Prior to the 2022 STR tax ballot question, Frederick Polls conducted voter polling to understand
voter acceptance of a new tax, the preferred taxation rate(s), and possible supported uses for the
revenue. Of the 322 registered voters polled, 65% wanted investor-owned rentals (STR-C
permits) to be taxed at a higher rate, while 35% of respondents wanted all STR permits to be
taxed at the same rate.
This community sentiment aligned with staff and consultant recommendations for STR-LE
properties, which were historically used as lodge properties and had already paid affordable
housing mitigation, to be taxed at a lower rate than properties with STR-C permits. STR-OO
permits, which are intended for full time residents as an occasional source of supplemental
income, also fell into the lower tax category since their community impacts would be less than
those of the STR-C permits.
Question 6: What are we learning about what's falling through the cracks? There's a way
to create 31-day lease; is there any way to evaluate how much of that is happening? What
are people doing to get around our regs?
Short-term rentals are differentiated from long-term rentals by the length of stay. STRs are defined
by stays of 29 days (or less) at a time, while rentals of 30 days (or more) at a time constitute long-
term rentals. Long-term rental income is tax exempt, and while the City requests that long-term
rental income is reported, the number of rental days per year is not a requirement for reporting.
Long-term rental business licenses have increased overall in recent years, however it is difficult
to assess whether the increase is due to an increase in long-term activity, an increase in reporting
frequency, or an increase in compliance with licensing requirements. It should also be noted that
some STR accounts hold long-term rental business licenses and STR permits at the same time.
For these reasons, it is difficult to conclude that owners are scheduling long-term rentals in lieu of
STRs.
10
10
Staff have received reports from members of the public about properties being rented as STRs
without permits, however without definitive evidence that an STR is occurring (such as an
advertisement for rental of less than 30 days), staff is unable to successfully pursue enforcement
in those instances. As mentioned previously, staff have validated two instances of STRs occurring
without permit. Those two properties were issued NOVs and have since come into compliance.
Question 7: Is there empirical data to show how the program is preserving or generating
housing for primary residents? It was an initial goal of the program. Can we demonstrate
any results?
In many communities pursuing STR regulation, the clearly stated desire has been to try to protect
housing for locals. Due to the nature of Aspen's real estate and residential markets, it was clearly
understood at the time Ordinance #09 was passed that the intentions were not to preserve actual
housing units, but instead to reduce and mitigate the impacts of the STR as a growing land use
type on the community. From problem statement 5,
“STRs, particularly in multi-family developments, have accelerated a transition of many
housing units that previously were owned or rented by working locals into de facto lodge
units. The displacement of locals from these units over time is not a new trend, but STRs
have brought a new scale and pace to this challenge.”
Data to understand correlation from problem statement number 5 is hard to draw conclusions
from, however staff would reference the low number of enforcement cases against STRs as
evidence that community impacts are being mitigated. Though the program does not directly
preserve or generate housing for locals, 70% of STR excise tax revenue is allocated to funding
affordable housing for locals ($7,232,059 to date). These funds are direct contributions to the cost
of housing stock for primary residents.
STAFF OBSERVATIONS AND REQUESTS FOR DIRECTION
Over the last two years of program operation, staff have identified several recurring and potentially
problematic themes within the STR regulations. The following topics are the primary sources of
concern for program participants (and in some cases, staff). Staff requests Council majority
direction as to Council’s desire to explore code updates for the following topics.
Non-Transferability Language
STR permits may only be issued to one individual owner with at least 10% interest in the STR
property. Permits are non-transferable to other individuals or properties and are terminated and
revoked upon a property sale. Non-transferability provisions support the attrition of permits in
capped zones and subsequent movement of applications on waitlists, and they give new property
owners a chance to obtain a permit where they may otherwise be monopolized if transfers were
allowed between owners.
Non-transferability of permits is a major concern for permittees engaged in estate planning. Many
married couples rely heavily on income from STR properties, and if a spouse who is named on
an STR permit passes away, the surviving spouse must apply to obtain an entirely new permit
and could be subject to waiting periods for such permit. Staff have received frequent requests for
the ability to transfer an STR permit to the surviving spouse in the event of the death of a
permittee.
Question 1 for Council: Does Council desire to update non-transferability language so that
a permit may be transferred to a spouse in the event of death of the permit holder?
11
11
Permit Cap in R/MF Zone
The R/MF zone has the largest waitlist of any capped zone (see Figure G). Due to the slow rate
of permit attrition in R/MF, staff estimates it may take up to two more years until a STR-C permit
becomes available to the first applicant on the waiting list for permits in R/MF.
Staff often receive questions from real estate professionals and potential buyers about whether
the limits on the number of STR-C permits will be raised or eliminated altogether in the R/MF zone
due to the slow rate of attrition and related large waitlist size.
Question 2 for Council: Does Council wish to adjust or eliminate the cap on STR-C permits
in the R/MF zone district?
Permit Application Requirements: Public Notice and HOA Affidavit
To help mitigate the impacts of STRs on surrounding properties, all new STR properties must
complete a public notice prior to approval of the permit. Notices are posted on STR properties
and mailed to surrounding neighbors.
Staff has received feedback that the mailing of notices produces excessive paper waste, and that
notices should be sent virtually instead of through paper mail (though virtual notice is not permitted
by the land use code). Property owners receiving notices in uncapped zones, where STR activity
is heavily concentrated, have indicated that notices are entirely unnecessary because STR
activity is both assumed and widespread. STR code does not delineate between sending notices
in some but not all zone districts.
Question 3 for Council: Does Council desire to revise the public notice requirement to
exempt properties in zones where caps on STR-C permits do not exist?
An HOA affidavit is a required submission with any STR permit application. The affidavit notifies
an HOA that an owner is applying for STR permit, and it absolves the City of interpreting or
applying HOA rules. If a property is subject to an HOA, the signature of an HOA member is
required on the affidavit. Staff and Council have heard requests that this requirement be adjusted
or removed altogether as it produces a significant burden on managers of large HOAs during the
annual permit renewal process.
Question 4 for Council: Does Council wish to eliminate the need for the signature of an
HOA member on STR permit renewal applications?
Tax Filing Requirement
STR owners must demonstrate that they have utilized their STR permit at least once per calendar
year to be able to renew their permit for the following year. Permit use is verified via an account’s
tax filings when an owner applies to renew the permit, and accounts with $0 in tax filings are
ineligible to renew the permit. This policy encourages owners to obtain permits only when
necessary, and helps ensure that attrition of permits occurs in zones where permits are limited,
and waitlists may be in effect.
Some STR owners have expressed frustration at the inability to utilize their permits while their
property is under construction for renovation. These owners have requested exemptions from this
rule, so they do not forfeit a permit due to upgrading the property and being unable to take rentals
during that time. The STR code does not provide any exemptions for tax filing requirements.
12
12
Question 5 for Council: Would Council like to revise the tax filing requirement to exempt
permitted properties that are under construction and unable to engage in short-term
rentals for an entire calendar year?
Advertising Platform Accountability
The majority of staff’s active enforcement work involves the attempt to identify illegal STRs in the
community. To achieve this, advertisements on internet rental platforms are reviewed to verify
that the properties are permitted. To aid in the identification of permitted properties, STR operators
are required to post STR permit numbers in all ads of the property.
STR permit numbers are absent from approximately 40% of online STR advertisements in Aspen.
Also absent from many of the same ads is identifying information for the property owner or
address, which makes verification of the legality of the STR extremely difficult. Even though the
property owner is responsible for compliance with these requirements, in many cases, staff cannot
identify the owner to hold them accountable.
A handful of Colorado municipalities are combatting this issue by holding advertising platforms
accountable for publishing only compliant advertisements on their websites. In these instances,
when a municipality finds an STR ad that is out of compliance with its regulations, staff contact
the website directly to request that the ad is either brought into compliance or removed from the
site. Staff are confident that the overall compliance of internet advertisements (and illegal STR
advertisements) would increase dramatically if Aspen adopted a similar approach.
Question 6 for Council: Is Council open to revising Aspen’s requirements to hold STR
booking platforms accountable for posting only ads that clearly show valid STR permit
numbers for the STR property?
“Run Out” Period for STR Bookings
Non-transferability language in Ordinance #09 states that STR permits are forfeited upon the sale
of a property and may not be transferred to a new owner when a property transaction occurs. One
issue noted consistently by the rental community is that when a STR property sells, and the seller
has pre-existing binding contracts for rentals that begin after the sale of the property, there is no
mechanism for the new property owner to honor the contracts made by the previous owner. Rental
professionals have often asked for a “run-out” period or permit type to allow new property owners
to honor contracts from the old owners.
Potential consequences of these situations for the seller and new buyer include financial liability
to their customers, damage to the reputation of rental agencies involved, and compliance issues
for new property owners choosing to honor the existing rentals before a permit is rightfully
obtained.
This topic was presented during a Council Work Session in 2022 at the request of the lodging
community (Exhibit F, Memo_STR Run-out Work Session). A Council majority decided that the
City should not be the arbiter of such situations involving property transactions and contracts
that the City is not a party to. Staff continues to believe that regulating these “run-out” instances
puts the City in a difficult situation to evaluate the unique circumstances of each situation, and
that offering a “run-out” period for each permit would raise equity issues for applications that
have been on waitlists for permits.
Due to the frequency with which these “run-out” questions are received, staff is noting this issue
purely for Council’s awareness.
13
13
POLICY / REGULATORY TOPICS IN SUMMARY:
Staff desires a Council majority position on each of these topics for further staff exploration and
possible future code amendments:
1. Does Council desire to update non-transferability language so that a permit may be
transferred to a spouse in the event of death of the permit holder?
2. Does Council wish to adjust or eliminate the cap on STR-C permits in the R/MF zone
district?
3. Would Council like to revise the public notice requirement to exempt properties in
zones where caps on STR-C permits do not exist?
4. Does Council desire to eliminate the need for the signature of an HOA member on
STR permit renewal applications?
5. Would Council like to revise the tax filing requirement to exempt properties that are
under construction and unable to engage in short-term rentals for an entire calendar
year?
6. Is Council open to revising compliance requirements to hold STR booking platforms
accountable for posting only compliant ads that show permit numbers for the STR
property?
Are there any other topics not listed here that a Council majority would like to explore further?
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Ordinance #26, Series of 2021
Exhibit B – Memo_Second Reading of Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Exhibit C - Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Exhibit D - Resolution #106, Series of 2022
Exhibit E – Memo_STR Tax Polling Results and Next Steps
Exhibit F – Memo_STR Run-out Work Session
14
15
16
17
18
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020
Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 1 of 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner
Phillip Supino, Community Development Director MEMO DATE: June 20, 2022
MEETING DATE: June 28, 2022
RE: Second Reading, Proposed Amendments to the Land Use Code:
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 – Short-term Rentals
__________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff requests City Council review and approve the proposed ordinance regulating short-
term rentals (STRs).
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In December 2021, Council passed Ordinance #26, Series of 2021, addressing the City’s
existing vacation rental program. Ordinance #26 extended existing Vacation Rental
Permits, issued as of December 8, 2021, through September 30, 2022. Pursuant to
Ordinance #26, Series of 2021 and Ordinance #27, Series of 2021, no new Vacation
Rental Permits were issued after December 8, 2021.
Council’s action in December of 2021 came in response to the rapid expansion of the
STR market over the previous decade. As of December 8, 2021, there were 1,319 valid
Vacation Rental Permits. Consequently, Council stopped the issuance of new Vacation
Rental Permits and directed staff to amend the Land Use Code (LUC) to further regulate
the STR market in Aspen.1
Two considerations have been central to staff’s thinking and work in response to the
moratorium. First, that Aspen’s Climate policy goals are central to our analysis of the
problems and the development of regulatory responses. Secondly, the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP) remains as the City’s primary guidance and vision as we work
towards solutions to the issues identified in Ordinance #26 and Ordinance #27. These
two policy frameworks form the basis for staff’s work under the moratorium to date.
In response to these grounding policy frameworks, at a January 11, 2022 work session
Council identified a set of problem statements to guide staff in setting goals for the work
under the moratorium. With respect to STRs, Council agreed:
1 It should be noted that the City previously referred to the market and permits as “Vacation Rentals.” The
currently accepted term is Short Term Rental (STR). This memo will refer to the program as STRs.
19
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 2 of 8
“Aspen’s Land Use Code does not provide adequate regulations related to short-
term/vacation rentals in managing the impacts to neighbors, ensuring a balance of
land use types within the community, ensuring the use covers its costs to the
community, and ensuring that rentals are safe and provide a quality product to our
visitors.
Council further directed staff to employ some basic principles to underpin the process.
These basic principles were designed to ensure the work product delivered to Council
and the development of regulations responded to community capacity, the scale of the
issues, and Council direction as described in Ord. 06.
“Identifying effective, practical, and defensible responses to these issues. Taking
a realistic approach to the scope and scale of the work that can be accomplished
during the time constraints of the Moratorium. Engaging in an open and honest
conversation with the community on the nature of the problems we are responding
to and the solutions that will eventually be presented for consideration.”
In work session on February 1, Council supported five ‘problem statements’ to further
direct staff’s work on the development of new STR regulations:
• STRs are a land use distinct from residential and lodge uses. Yet land use
regulations do not make that distinction. This results in a variety of inequities and
community impacts which our current system fails to address.
• Aspen has not sought to mitigate the impacts of STRs on employee generation
and other infrastructure and service demands.
• The community has not established review criteria to ensure basic health and
safety standards for individual STRs, or to provide common expectations related
to property management and guest behavior standards.
• The scale and rapid expansion of STRs are changing the nature of important
aspects of neighborhood and community character in ways that we are just
beginning to understand. It is clear that some STRs are operating as commercial
uses in dedicated residential zone districts.
• STRs, particularly in multi-family developments, have accelerated a transition of
many housing units that previously were owned or rented by working locals into de
facto lodge units. The displacement of locals from these units over time is not a
new trend, but STRs have brought a new scale and pace to this challenge.
These problem statements formed the basis for staff’s research and inquiries into how
best to approach new STR regulations for Aspen’s unique social, economic, and
environmental context. The statements provided staff with clarity about the problems to
solve and guided research into best practices in comparable communities.
Another essential piece of the policy puzzle assembled by Council to support moratorium
work and drive regulatory responses was the AACP. Policy Resolution No. 43, adopted
on March 22, identified nine AACP statements related to STRs:
20
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 3 of 8
1. VIII.2. Create certainty in zoning and the land use process. (pg 27)
2. II.1. The housing inventory should bolster our socioeconomic diversity. (pg 41)
3. We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character. (pg 20); and
4. I.1. Achieve sustainable growth practices to ensure long-term vitality and stability
of our community and diverse visitor-based economy. (pg 24); and
5. We must pursue more aggressive measures to ensure the needs of the community
are met, and to preserve our unique community character. (pg 20); and
6. IV.1 Minimize further loss of lodging inventory (pg 25); and
7. Zoning and land use processes should result in lodging development that is
compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood, in order to:
a. Create certainty in land development…
b. Protect small town character community character…
c. Limit consumption of energy and building materials,
d. Limit the burden on public infrastructure and ongoing public operating costs,
e. Reduce short- and long-term job generation impacts, such as traffic
congestion and affordable housing demand.
8. VII.1 Study and quantify all impacts that are directly related to all types of
development.
9. VII.2 Ensure that new development and redevelopment mitigates all reasonable,
directly related impacts.
The Policy Resolution, combined with the problem statements, moratorium goals, and
legislative rationale for the declaration of the moratorium form the basis of staff’s work
with the community over the intervening seven months. The contents of Ord. 09 are a
direct response to this direction from Council, the community, and the AACP. Throughout
the process, staff has diligently and transparently sought direction from Council, informed
and learned from the community, developed and proposed solutions, and worked to
ensure the effectiveness of future regulations.
Community Engagement
Early in the process, Council directed staff to conduct in-depth, meaningful,
comprehensive, and innovative community engagement to help shape the outcomes of
the moratorium process. Staff took that direction and continues to bring the community
in on its terms, listen, and respond to their feedback. The STR regulations have
significantly shaped by community input. Some of the decisions and regulatory
responses resulting from the engagement process include:
• Creating three permit types for the different STR operations in the community;
• Developing in-unit educational materials to inform visitors and support community
values;
• Providing greater support for and enforcement of wildlife and public nuisance
regulations;
• Favoring taxes over impact fees to mitigate for community STR impacts;
• Requiring permittees be a natural person to increase accountability by STR owners
and operators;
21
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 4 of 8
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) played a central role informing the process and
shaping staff’s thinking about the issues. Staff would like to extend our sincere gratitude
to the TAC members who have been essential to this process to date:
Donnie Lee, Gant Aspen Wendalin Whitman, Whitman Properties
Tricia McIntyre, Aspen Luxury Vacation Rentals Joshua Landis, Aspen Real Estate
Joy Stryker, Resident Ben Wolff, Frias Properties
Valerie Forbes, Sotheby’s Realty Alain Sunier, Resident
John Corcoran, Aspen Alps Tracy Sutton, Aspen Signature Properties
Michael Miracle, Aspen Skiing Company Ginna Gordon, APD
Included as Exhibit B is the public engagement summary describing the results of the
STR public engagement process. Staff work has relied heavily on input gleaned from the
engagement process to develop our work product. Staff presented the engagement
summary to Council in a work session on May 9th. It demonstrates that public
engagement was central to our process and outcomes included in the ordinance. It is a
clear statement about this Council and community’s commitment to engagement as being
essential to good community self-governance.
Following the adoption of Ord. 09, staff will continue to inform the public about the new
regulations through the Communication staff and support compliance with the onboarding
on a new STR program manager. Public information and feedback will remain central to
the management of the STR program and post-moratorium work.
Process & Review Criteria
There are several steps prescribed in the LUC for amending the Code. The STR
amendments were initiated by City Council in the language of Ordinance 027 and
Ordinance 06. The LUC requires approval of a policy resolution to initiate the formal
amendment process. That resolution was passed unanimously by Council on March 22,
2022. It includes extensive AACP citations which form the policy basis for the draft
amendments developed by staff. The policy resolution in included as Exhibit C.
The LUC further requires that the Planning and Zoning Commission serve as an advisory
body for City Council, reviewing and commenting on LUC changes before they are
presented to Council. Ordinance #09 was presented to the Commission on May 17th.
Staff provided an overview of the P&Z presentation to Council on May 24th, including their
advisory recommendations.
When reviewing LUC amendments, there are three review criteria to guide Council’s
consideration. The following Review Criteria apply to all Amendments to the text of the
Land Use Code:
22
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 5 of 8
26.310.050 Amendments to the Land Use Code Standards of review - Adoption.
In reviewing an application to amend the text of this Title, per Section 26.310.020(B)(3), Step
Three – Public Hearing before City Council, the City Council shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title.
B. Whether the proposed amendment achieves the policy, community goal, or objective cited
as reasons for the code amendment or achieves other public policy objectives.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the community character of the City
and is in harmony with the public interest and the purpose and intent of this Title.
The draft ordinance was developed in close consultation with industry-leading planning
and legal consultants. Economic Planning Systems (EPS) led the fee study and
recommended the fee and tax approach for the regulations based on extensive local
analysis and national experience. Design Workshop reviewed the ordinance for best
practices alignment, clarity, legal justification, and coordination with other chapters of the
LUC and city policy. White & Smith, LLC reviewed the ordinance for legal sufficiency,
coordination with other LUC chapters, and best practices alignment. Each has assisted
several other communities in the development of STR regulations and brought significant
relevant experience and expertise to bear.
These industry leading professionals have determined that the draft ordinance is not in
conflict with applicable portions of the Land Use Code. They have also determined that
the draft ordinance meets the criteria in B – that is a measured, appropriate response to
Council’s mandate and supports adopted City policy. Staff finds that the proposed
regulations will support community character as articulated in the AACP and by Council.
It is for Council to decide whether each of the review criteria is met by the draft ordinance.
Staff finds that all review criteria are met.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
Included as Exhibit C is the staff memo from the May 24th first reading. That memo
describes in detail the contents and effect of Ord. 09. Staff has not reproduced that
discussion in this memo, focusing instead on changes to the ordinance since first reading
and putting the work of the last seven months into context.
Response to First Reading
Administrative Fee
At the first reading hearing, Council directed staff to exclude affordable housing impact
fees from the permit fee assessed on STRs. Council favored putting a tax question to
voters which would include affordable housing as a component of the fee. This left
administrative costs as the basis for the annual permit fee.
23
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 6 of 8
EPS took this feedback and finalized their administrative cost analysis to arrive at two
permit fees. The fee study, attached as Exhibit E, provides the analysis and supporting
narrative for how they arrived at the recommended fee amounts. Since first reading, the
administrative fee was revised from $268 (STR-C, STR-OO) and $204 (STR-LE) to $393
and $149 respectively. The rationale for these changes is explained in detail in Exhibit
E. In summary, since first reading, EPS further refined their analysis of the cost to the
City to administer the program with more attention paid to the future cost under the new
regulations, as opposed to the current cost under the current regulations. The increased
differential between the STR-C/OO and STR-LE accounts for the reduced regulatory
obligations STR-LE requires, as they are managed on-site and require lower levels of
service.
Assuming that the affordable housing impact costs from the STR market will be covered
in the upcoming tax ballot question, staff supports the administrative fees as proposed.
The nexus fee study supporting the fee proposals is based on in-depth analysis and
industry best practice for the development of fee nexuses. Revisions to the proposed
fees would require further analysis and an updated study. With the July 8th deadline for
the 30-day effective period of ordinances, the opportunity to further study and amend
these fees is extremely limited.
Occupancy Limits
In response to Council comments, staff revised the occupancy limits for STRs. The new
limits are three occupants for studio units (two occupants plus one) and two occupants
per bedroom plus two for all other unit types.
In-Unit Messaging & STR Program Guidelines
Council requested to review drafts of the in-unit documents and STR Program Guidelines.
While the drafts included as exhibits to this memo are near final, as the program is new
and untested, staff anticipates minor changes may be required before the permit
moratorium is lifted and new permit applications are accepted on October 1. Ord. 09
requires that the Guidelines be adopted by Council resolution, similar to the Commercial
Design Guidelines document. This allows the document to evolve and respond the
administrative needs of the program while not requiring an amendment to the Land Use
Code. Therefore, staff will bring the final version of the Guidelines to Council for approval
via resolution, as prescribed by Ord. 09, later this year.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
Should Council pass Ord. 09 on second reading, the new regulations would take effect
on July 29th. That is well in advance of the September 30th deadline for the expiration of
the permit moratorium instituted by Ordinance #26, Series of 2021. With new regulations
in place, staff will continue to develop the internal program and systems needed to
administer the new regulations. This includes a permitting system, inspection system,
public and participant communications program, enforcement system, tax and fee
collections, and several other elements necessary to support the new program.
24
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 7 of 8
Depending on future revisions to the STR program Guidelines, staff will return to Council
with a resolution adopting those guidelines prior to October 1, 2022. With January 1,
2023 as a major milestone for the renewal of existing permits and the issuance of new
permits, staff anticipates returning to Council for a work session in the first quarter of
2023. Staff will discuss the roll-out of the program, identify opportunities and constraints
to the successful management of the program in the future, and hear from Council about
community and Council reaction to the new rules.
Moratorium Process
Council’s decision to impose a moratorium on new STR permits was a direct response to
community impacts from an under-regulated land use. The moratorium was a necessary
tool to create space for engagement, analysis, policy development, and decision making.
To those ends, the moratorium has been successful. The community, Council, and staff
have developed a leading-edge set of regulations, tailored to Aspen’s economic and
community context, and responsive to the interests of the community, industry, and
Council. However, the success of the new regulations developed in Ord. 09 will need to
be assessed on a far longer timeline.
Staff research, and a quick scan of regional newspaper coverage, demonstrate that
destination communities choosing to regulate STRs do so on an ongoing basis.
Communities are forced to adapt to changing industry practices. Regulatory fine-tuning
helps to ensure the regulations, over time, support community policies and needs. Fees
are adjusted, permit caps moved up or down, life-safety requirements modified, and
administrative processes evolve to meet community and industry needs. The newness
of the STR industry necessitates this adaptive approach. The effectiveness of Ord. 09
should similarly be judged on the health of the community and STR market over time,
having given sufficient time for the community to adapt to the regulations and for the
regulations to adapt to the community.
Similarly, the moratorium was a tool to achieve Council’s ends, not the end in itself. Staff
strove to wield that tool as precisely and diligently as possible. The long history of
community planning in Aspen lays bare the complexity of regulating the use of land for
competing interests. The AACP is an essential tool guiding Council, staff, and the
community through these complexities. It adds structure to the community narrative and
prioritizes outcomes through aspirational policies. The AACP does not identify an end to
this community conversation, nor should it. The often-competing interests defining
Aspen’s community conversation in the ski town era cannot be resolved with an
ordinance. The Land Use Code is an essential tool for mediating this community
conversation through land use controls. But it cannot resolve many of the larger themes
– development and tourism pressures, community and commodity, environment and
growth, just who is Aspen ‘for’? In that way, the success of the moratorium should be
judged on thoroughness and thoughtfulness of process, not relative to an undefined
community end.
The moratorium brought out passions on all sides of these issues. For some it was
perceived as being opaque, confrontational, damaging to their individual and collective
25
Staff Memo Ordinance #09, Series of 2020 - Short-term Rental Regulations
May 17, 2022
Page 8 of 8
economic and community interests. For others it was a needed line in the sand, an
important and obvious push forward on matters of existential importance to the future of
their community. It is staff’s conclusion that, for the majority, it was another seven months
in the decades-long drama of the evolution of our community. Regardless of one’s
perspective, the resulting ordinances will not resolve the larger challenges facing Aspen.
They are a step in the direction set by Council last December – working to preserve Aspen
as a ‘community, not a commodity’, better integrating environmental policy into land use
regulations, and continuing to require that development mitigate its impacts to the
community, economy, and environment. Over time, those ends may be used as the
yardstick for success of this process. And the larger themes defining our community’s
evolution will remain.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A.
ALTERNATIVES: Should Council choose not to pass Ord. 09 at the 6/28 second reading,
Council could direct staff to make amendments to the ordinance and return for another
public hearing at a later date. Given the time necessary to develop the program prior to
the lifting of the moratorium on new STR permits on 9/30/22, additional hearings will
create time constraints to staff’s ability to respond to that deadline.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council approve Ordinance #9, Series
of 2022, on second reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Exhibit B – STR Engagement Summary
Exhibit C – May 24th First Reading Memo
Exhibit D – Ordinance #09 – First Reading Redlines
Exhibit E – EPS Nexus Study Report
Exhibit F – Permit Cap Analysis
Exhibit G – AACP Statements & Policy Responses Graphic
Exhibit H – STR In-unit Form - DRAFT
Exhibit I – STR Program Guidelines - DRAFT
Exhibit J – ACRA and CoA Good Neighbor Guide - DRAFT
26
ORDINANCE NO.09
Series of 2022)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
AMENDING THE VACATION RENTAL REGULATIONS IN THE CITY OF ASPEN
LAND USE CODE.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City") is a legally and regularly created, established,
organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the Constitution
of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the "Charter"); and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently regulates land uses within the City limits in
accordance with Chapter 26.104 et seq. of the Aspen Municipal Code pursuant to its Home Rule
Constitutional authority and the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as
amended, §§29-20-101, et seq. C.R.S; and,
WHEREAS, Aspen is a tourists destination, attracting tens of thousands of visitors a year in
all seasons, visitors which require transient tourist accommodations and participate in and support
Aspen's tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS, a variety of tourist accommodations at varied sizes, quality, and price points is
essential to supporting the City's tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS, a tourist -based economy such as the City's requires a sufficient number of
employees to provide the services required to serve such an economy. Without adequate
workforce housing, a tourist -based economy cannot thrive; and,
WHEREAS, to allow for a sufficient number of employees to be hired to provide the
services necessary to sustain a tourist -based economy there must be an adequate supply of
workforce housing; and,
WHEREAS, historically, the long-term rental of residential property, or at least the
long-term rental of space within a residential property, has been an important means for
providing workforce housing within the City; and,
WHEREAS, in addition to the required workforce housing, it is also essential to the
continued vitality of the City's economy that adequate short-term housing be made available to
the many tourists who visit the City each year; and,
WHEREAS, short-term rentals are extremely valuable to the City's economy and exist
in various locations throughout the City; and,
WHEREAS, the operation of a short-term rental in the City is the operation of a
business; and,
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 1 of 14
27
WHEREAS, without regulations and limitations on their operation and extent, short-
term rentals also have adverse impacts on the character of residential neighborhoods and the
availability of long-term housing options; and,
WHEREAS, tourists visitation, the operation of tourist accommodations, the goods and
services demanded by tourists, and the transportation systems required to move tourist to and
throughout the community have environmental impacts, measured as Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; and,
WHEREAS, in keeping with the goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan to preserve
small town character while maintaining livability, the City desires to minimize the negative
impacts of short-term rentals on Aspen's neighborhoods, housing supply, economy, and
environment; and,
WHEREAS, during the moratorium, adopted Ordinance No. 26, Series of 2021, City
staff engaged in a robust public engagement process which included two online surveys
regarding community perception of short-term rentals and feelings toward specific regulations;
an open house at City Hall which included story boards and an opportunity for feedback; a public
work session to discuss the online survey results and expand further into certain topic areas;
and research into how other municipalities in Colorado regulate short-term rentals; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission received and considered the
information gathered through the public engagement process, as well as comments from the
public, during a Meeting held on May 170', 2022, and voted 4 to 0 to recommend approval of
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 to City Council; and,
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2021, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 26, Series of
2021 enacting a temporary moratorium in the issuance of new short-term rental permits until
September 30, 2022; and,
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting on May 24, 2022, City Council by a 5 to 0 vote, approved
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022, approving at First Reading a Code Amendment to Vacation Rental
Regulations; and,
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting and properly noticed public hearing on June 28th, City
Council by a 5 to 0 vote, approved Ordinance #09, Series of 2022 on Second Reading; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for
the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1.
Section 26.104.100 "Definitions shall" be amended as follows:
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 2 of 14
28
Condo -hotel. A condo -hotel is a lodging property which meets the definition of Lodge in
26.104.110, Use Categories and in which ownership of individual lodge units has been
condominiumized in accordance with The Colorado Condominium Ownership Act, C.R.S. § 38-33-
101, et. seq.
Hotel. See definition of Lodge, 26.104.110 Use Categories.
Motel. See definition of Lodge, 26.104.110 Use Categories.
Natural Person. A living, individual human being, as distinct from a "legal person" for the
purpose of assigning certain legal rights.
Owner Occupied. A residential property that serves as the primary residence of the title owner of
the property.
Owner Occupant. For the purposes of permitting specific types of short-term rentals, owner -
occupant is a natural person whose principal residence is the City of Aspen residential property or
unit for which a short-term rental permit is sought.
Pillow. A unit of measure for assessing affordable housing generation and occupancy of lodge
rooms/units per bedroom in a short-term rental. Each lodge and short-term rental unit shall be
considered to have two pillows for each bedroom. For calculating occupancy in short-term rentals,
sleeper sofas, murphy beds, and similar sleeping accommodations shall be considered as two
pillows. Studio units shall be considered to have two pillows.
Primary residence. The permanent residential address, as demonstrated by acceptable legal
documentation described in this title, of an Owner- Occupied Short-term Rental Permit holder.
Qualified Owner's Representative. A natural person who is legally designated on the permit
application by the permittee to apply for and maintain compliance with a City of Aspen Short-term
Rental Permit. For each short-term rental property, there may be only one qualified owner's
representative. All qualified owner's representatives must have a business license through the City
of Aspen.
Short-term Rental (STR). The use or occupancy of a residential property or dwelling unit, in
whole or in part, by the general public for a fee, primarily for tourist accommodations, and for a
period of less than 30 days. Timeshare, hotel, motel, and bed and breakfast uses are not short-term
rental uses.
Vacation Rental. See short-term rental.
Section 2.
Valid 2021-2022 Permits. 2021 Vacation Rental Permits (2021 VRP) issued pursuant to
Section 26.575.020 "Vacation Rentals" on or prior to December 8th, 2021, shall be deemed to be
valid 2022 STR Permits and shall be valid until December 31, 2022. Valid 2022 permits may be
renewed annually thereafter, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this chapter until
they are abandoned or revoked in accordance with this chapter. Valid 2022 permits which are
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 3 of 14
29
renewed after December 31, 2022, may not be transferred to owners or properties other than that
listed on the 2022 STR permit. Upon renewal, 2022 STR permits issued to a corporation,
partnership, association, or company must update the permit application information to comply
with the requirements of Chapter 26.530. The number of Short-term Rental -Classic (STR-C)
permits as of January 1, 2023, may exceed the cap for zone districts, as defined in Chapter
26.530, until such time as they are revoked, abandoned, or otherwise eliminated. Owner -
occupied Short-term Rental Permits and Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental Permits may be
issued with the requirements of Chapter 26.530 beginning October 1, 2022.
Section 3.
Section 26.575.220 "Vacation Rentals" shall be deleted in its entirety.
Section 4.
Chapter 26.530 "Reserved" shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Chapter 26.530
Short-term Rental Regulations
Sec.26.530.010 Purpose
Sec.26.530.020 Applicability
Sec. 26.530.030 Permitting Requirements
Sec. 26.530.040 Permitting Procedures and Standards
Sec. 26.530.050 Occupancy and Operational Standards
Sec.26.530.060 Enforcement
Sec.26.530.070 Fees
Sec.26.530.080 Appeals
26.530.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to regulate short-term rentals (STRs) as a land use within the City
of Aspen. STRs are an important component of the City's lodging bed base, support a vibrant
tourist economy, and provide real property owners with STR permits significant financial
benefit. STRs influence property value and occupancy patterns of residential dwelling units.
STRs influence neighborhood character by introducing commercial lodging uses in residential
neighborhoods. STRs require services and infrastructure to operate. STRs further reduce the
potential availability of long-term rental housing to support the local economy and community.
STRs require regulation as a distinct land use to ensure the health, safety, peace, and welfare of
the community through the application of zoning police powers. The following regulations
support the operation of STRs balanced with community policies related to housing,
development, growth management, and a sustainable economy as described in the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
26.530.020 Applicability
A. This chapter applies to all STRs in the City of Aspen. STRs are required to obtain a
permit in accordance with their type and operation as defined in this section. STRs
operating without a permit are subject to enforcement as defined in Section 26.530.060
Enforcement.
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 4 of 14
30
B. It shall be unlawful for any person, whether a principal or agent, clerk, or employee,
either for him or herself, or for any other person for anybody, corporation or otherwise, to
lease or operate an STR without first obtaining an STR permit in accordance with the
provisions and procedures of this section.
26.530.030 Permitting Requirements
A. Permits.
Any property rented as an STR shall require a permit to operate. Permits shall be approved,
approved with conditions, or denied by the Community Development Director based on the
following criteria:
1) Permittee. Permits shall only be issued in the name of one natural person who has an
ownership interest in the property for which the permit is issued ("Permittee").
2) Permit Number. STR permits are issued a unique permit number. That permit number
shall be clearly displayed in all advertising and listings of the STR, including but not
limited to all digital and print advertising. The permit number must be listed in the STR,
along with permittee and/or qualified owner's representative and emergency contact
information as part of the in -unit Community Messaging Program described in the STR
Program Guidelines.
3) Permit Application Contents. The following information is required for STR permit
applications: the owner(s) of the property, the name and contact information of the
proposed permittee; if title to the subject property is held by a corporation, partnership,
association, or company, the name and contact information of any officer, director or
stockholder holding ten percent (10%) or more of the interests in the corporation,
partnership, association, or company; the property address, Pitkin County parcel
identification number; Pitkin County owner name; number of bedrooms and pillows in
the unit in its largest configuration; size of heated area of the STR residence, and all
previous notices of code violations or complaints filed against the property.
4) Licensing. STRs are required to maintain a City of Aspen Business License and are
required to remit lodging and sales tax in accordance with Municipal Code regulations
and Finance department policies. The STR- Program Guidelines include details about
licensing and tax compliance standards and procedures.
5) Non -Transferability. Commencing October 1, 2022, STR permits shall be granted only
for the property for which it is issued and solely to the permittee to whom it is issued.
The permit shall not be transferable to any other person, legal entity, or residential
address. If the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, association or company, a
transfer shall be deemed to occur if the permittee transfers his or her interest in the
property to a third -party individual or entity or if more than ten percent (10%) of the
partnership, corporation, association, or company is transferred to a third -party individual
or entity, even if the permittee retains an ownership interest in the property. Upon such
transfer of ownership, the permit shall be deemed terminated and revoked and the new
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 5 of 14
31
owner of the property shall be required to apply for a new STR permit if it wishes to
continue the use of the property as a vacation rental. The STR permit shall include a non -
transferability clause and notice that the permit shall be deemed terminated and revoked
automatically upon the sale or change of ownership of the property for which a permit
has been issued, as described herein.
B. Permit Types.
STRs shall be eligible for one of three permit types: Short-term Rental Classic, Owner -Occupied
Short-term Rental, or Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental. The ability to obtain an STR permit is
conditioned upon the permittees consent of the eligibility, requirements, and standards for each
permit type as follows:
1) Short-term Rental Classic (STR-C) — this permit is issued only to residential units
located in eligible zones and the approved use of which is not a Lodge use. (Condo -hotel
properties must apply for a Lodging -Exempt STR permit.)
a. STR-C permits shall be renewed annually and are assessed an annual
permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees.
b. STR-C permits are subject to the life -safety standards and the operational
standards described in this chapter and the STR Program Guidelines.
c. There is no annual limit on the number of nights an STR-C permittee may
operate the STR unit. Bedrooms, lock -offs, or portions of the residential
unit, in addition to the whole residential unit, may be rented. Occupancy
for the unit is limited by the standards described in Section 26.530.050.
2) Owner -occupied Short-term Rental (STR-00) — this permit is issued only to owner -
occupied residential units, where the property is the primary residence of the permittee.
Part 700 of this Title describes the zone districts where STRs are a permitted use.
a. STR-00 rental permits shall be renewed annually and are assessed an
annual permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees.
b. STR-00 are subject to the life -safety standards for STRs described in this
chapter and the Program Guidelines, and who must have two (2) of the
following valid documents indicating that the STR is the applicant's
primary residence:
i. valid Colorado driver's license;
ii. valid motor vehicle registration;
iii. voter registration;
iv. Federal or state tax return; or,
V. other legal documentation deemed sufficient by the Community
Development Director which is pertinent toward establishing
principal residence.
3) Lodging Exempt Short-term Rental (STR-LE) — Lodges and condo -hotels which meet
the definition of Lodge are eligible for STR-LE permits.
a. For eligible properties, only one permit is required for all units under
management.
b. In addition to the limitations of the definition of Lodge and/or Condo -
hotel, Lodging Exempt eligible properties must offer STR units under a
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 6 of 14
32
unified brand and marketing model where individual ownership of units is
secondary to the central brand of the property.
c. Lodging Exempt permittees must submit an affidavit attesting to their
eligibility.
d. STR-LE permits must be renewed annually and are assessed an annual
permit fee in accordance with Section 26.530.070 Fees. To ensure
ongoing eligibility for the STR-LE permit, permittees are subject to the
Lodging Occupancy Auditing regulations in Section 26.575.210.
C. Zoning Limitations.
STR-C permits are limited by number in residential zone districts. Refer to Part 700 of this title for
permitted uses by zone to assess where STR-Cs are permitted. In zones where STR is not a
permitted use, it is a prohibited use.
1) STR-C permits are limited by number in specific zone districts as follows:
a. RR: 2 permits;
b. R-3: 1 permit;
c. R-6: 81 permits;
d. R-15: 47 permits;
e. R-15A: 8 permits;
f. R-1513: 12 permits;
g. R-30: 1 permit;
h. R/MF: 190 permits;
i. R/MFA: 12 permits;
j. AH: 9 permits;
k. MU: 39 permits;
1. NC: 1 permit;
m. SCI: 2 permits;
n. SKI: 2 permits.
2) There is no limit to the number of STR-C permits in the following zone districts:
Commercial (C-1), Commercial Core (CC), Lodge (L), Commercial Lodge (CL), Lodge
Overlay (LP), Lodge Preservation Overlay (LO).
3) STR-00 are not limited by number in any allowable zone district. Refer to Part 700 of this
title for zone districts where STR is a permitted use.
4) STR-LE are not limited by number in any allowable zone district. Refer to Part 700 of this
title for zone districts where STR is a permitted or prohibited use.
26.530.040 Permit Procedures and Standards.
Prior to the issuance of an STR permit, the permit application will be reviewed for compliance
with the following standards.
A. Zoning Compliance.
All STR permits must comply with zoning regulations for the zone district in which they are
located. STR permit applications shall include the Parcel Identification Number and residential
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 7 of 14
33
address including unit number for the property to ensure compliance with underlying zoning.
Zone district STR regulations, including permitted uses and cap limitations, may change over
time per City Council action. Possession of an STR permit does not supersede compliance with
zone district STR regulations.
B. Life -safety Compliance and Inspection.
1) Required Noticing. All new STR applicants shall comply with neighborhood noticing
requirements per Section 26.304.060.E.3.b-c, Manner of Notice.
2) Inspections. By signing and submitting an STR permit application, and subsequently
being granted a permit, the owner(s) of the property shall consent to inspections of the
property by City of Aspen personnel and their agents for the purpose of determining
compliance with City Codes, Regulations and Laws. No inspection will be made without
first giving the permittee and, if applicable, the qualified owner's representative, 48
hours' notice of the inspection.
3) Life -Safety. STRs are required to comply with all applicable life -safety standards in
Municipal Code Title 8 and the STR Program Guidelines, as amended from time to time.
Life -safety standards including: fire suppression, occupancy limitations, mechanical
codes, emergency contacts and procedures, and inspections.
C. Qualified Owner's Representative.
Permittees who cannot meet requirement for regulatory compliance, in -person service,
emergency response and other regulations in this title may designate a qualified owner's
representative. A qualified owner's representative shall be a natural person residing in the
Roaring Fork River Drainage area situated in Eagle, Pitkin, Garfield or Gunnison Counties, or
within the Colorado River Drainage area from and including the unincorporated No Name area
to and including Rifle. The qualified owner's representative is designated by the permittee who
is the property owner as the point of contact for the permitted STR. For permittees that designate
a qualified owner's representative, the qualified owner's representative shall be responsible for
responding to tenant and City inquiries, complaints, enforcement actions, and other on -site
needs.
1) If a qualified owner's representative is designated for an STR, the qualified owner's
representative must have a City of Aspen business license. The qualified owner's
representative shall be listed on the STR permit for the property including the qualified
owner's representative's name, entity or company name, telephone number, email
address, and physical address.
2) STR permittees who designate a qualified owner's representative are liable for
compliance with applicable Land Use Code and Municipal Code regulations. The
qualified owner's representative is not legally liable for violations of this section or
compliance with applicable Municipal Code regulations but is responsible for notifying
the permittee when a violation has occurred.
3) The name, address, and telephone number(s) of the qualified owner's representative, as
shown on the STR permit, shall be made available to the Community Development
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 8 of 14
34
Department, the Aspen Police Department, and the Aspen Fire Protection District. Any
change to the qualified owner's representative or permittees' contact information shall be
promptly furnished to the City of Aspen via a revised STR permit application within ten
10) days. Failure of the permittee to provide or update the qualified owner's
representative contact information to the City shall constitute an enforcement violation
subject to actions and penalties as described in Section 26.530.070 Enforcement.
4) The permittee, or if designated, the qualified owner's representative, shall be available 24
hours a day, year-round to ensure that the property is maintained and operated as required
by Land Use Code standards and the STR Program Guidelines. The permittee, or if
designated, the qualified owner's representative, shall respond to service or compliance
inquiries from occupants and City officials, and shall be available to be at the property
within two (2) hours in an emergency. Failure of the permittee, or if designated, the
qualified owner's representative, to respond to a call from a tenant or the Community
Development Director within 24 hours shall result in an enforcement violation subject to
actions and penalties as described in Section 26.530.070 Enforcement against the
permittee.
D. Permit Application, Fees, Issuance, Renewal, Revocation, and Abandonment.
1) Application. Permit applications shall be received and processed on a first come, first
served basis. The Community Development Director shall deem applications complete
based on the requirements of this Chapter and the standards in the STR Program Guidelines.
Only complete STR permit applications shall be accepted and reviewed.
2) Fee Payment. Permit fees shall be remitted at the time of permit application and cover the
cost of processing the application. Application fees are nonrefundable.
3) Neighborhood Noticing. Upon application for a new STR-C or STR-00 permit, the
applicant shall provide neighborhood noticing in accordance with Section 26.304.060.E.3.b-
c. Manner of Notice. Permit renewals do not require neighborhood noticing. Permits shall
be approved, approved with conditions, or denied following the notice period. STR-LE are
exempt from this provision.
4) HOA Compliance. Permit applications for residential properties which are in a
Homeowners Association (HOA) must include HOA approval for the applicant to operate
an STR in the form of a signed letter, including telephone and email contact information for
the HOA, with the permit application.
5) Issuance. Permits shall be approved, approved with conditions, or denied within 21
working days of the closure of the notice period described above. The Community
Development Director may issue permits with conditions based on review of the permit
application and public comment. The review and issuance period for individual permit
applications may be extended at the direction of the Community Development Director.
6) Waitlist. Once the permit limit is reached for each zone district, applicants will be placed
on a waitlist for the next available permit in the order in which the application was received.
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 9 of 14
35
A waitlist applicant shall be a natural person. The residential address included in the waitlist
application must match the residential address for which the subsequent permit is issued.
Applicants who sell the property for which the permit is sought shall be removed from the
waitlist. As permits become available, waitlist applications shall be reviewed and approved,
approved with conditions, or denied. If the property has been found in violation of this
Chapter during the waitlist period, the application shall be denied.
7) Renewal. STR permits shall be renewed annually in accordance with the procedures in the
STR Program Guidelines. Failure to renew a permit within fourteen days (14) of the permit
expiration date shall result in the abandonment of the permit.
8) Tax Filing. STRs must be occupied by a short-term renter a minimum of once per year,
as shown in tax filings to be eligible for renewal. Permits with one year of zero tax
filings from the date of permit issuance or renewal will be considered abandoned and be
processed in accordance with the standards in this chapter.
9) Abandonment. STR-C and STR-00 permits shall be valid for one year from the date of
issuance and shall be renewed annually. Failure to renew a permit in accordance with the
STR Program Guidelines will result in the abandonment of the permit. STR permits may
be abandoned by perrnittees at any time by notifying the Community Development Director
of the intent to abandon the permit. Abandoned permits will be made available to the next
applicant on a first -come, first -served basis or the next applicant on the waitlist for that
zone district in accordance with the STR Program Guidelines. STR-LE are exempt from
this provision.
10) Revocation. STR permits may be revoked by the Community Development Director for
any of the following reasons: three violations of the requirements of this chapter and
applicable Municipal Code standards as described in the STR Program Guidelines, failure
to rent the property during the term of the permit, failure to pay STR taxes and fees, or
violations of the requirements of this section.
26.530.050 Occupancy and Operational Standards.
Prior to the issuance of an STR permit, the permit application will be reviewed for compliance
with the following standards.
A. Occupancy Limits and Unit Size.
STRs are limited to a total occupancy of two occupants per bedroom plus two additional
occupants, studios are limited to a total occupancy of two occupants plus one additional
occupant. Permit applications are required to list the number of bedrooms in the unit at its
largest configuration. STRs may be inspected for accuracy of bedroom count on the permit
application and for compliance with these occupancy requirements. For the purpose of
establishing unit occupancy, a studio shall have an occupancy of two occupants plus one
additional occupant. Occupancy for each STR shall be included in all STR advertising, the in -
unit messaging, and permit on display in each permitted STR. Bedrooms, lock -offs, or portions
of the residential unit, in addition to the whole residential unit, may be rented.
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 10 of 14
36
B. Annual Rental Night Limits.
STR-00 are limited to 120 short-term rental nights per year from the date of permit issuance.
There is no annual limit on the number of nights per year an STR-C can be rented. There is no
annual limit on the number of nights per year an STR-LE can be rented.
C. Good Neighbor Guide.
STRs are required to operate in accordance with all applicable Municipal Code regulations
protecting the health, safety, and peace of the community and supporting the maintenance of
community character and values. STR owners and permittees are required to assist STR
occupants in being `good neighbors' by recognizing their obligation to following the rules and
customs of the community. To support these community goals, the Community Development
Department maintains the Short-term Rental Program Guidelines, Good Neighbor Guide, and
collaborates with non -governmental organizations to promote good neighbor behavior by
visitors.
1) STR-C and STR-00 permittees, and if designated, their qualified owner's representatives
must comply with the policies described in the City of Aspen Good Neighbor Guide and
provide that information at all times to occupants of the unit.
2) In -unit messaging is essential to assisting STR occupants in supporting the City's good
neighbor policies, ensuring STRs in neighborhoods support community character, and
assisting in the promotion of Aspen's community character. The following notices shall
be posted in a conspicuous location inside the rental unit:
i. A copy of the STR-C or STR-00 permit,
ii. STR license and business number,
iii. The name, address, and telephone number(s) of the permittee or qualified owner's
representative,
iv. A statement which reads: Occupants shall comply with the City's Noise
Ordinance,
V. The location of the required parking spaces,
vi. Wildlife protection policy,
vii. The location of the fire extinguisher,
viii. Information on the trash, recycling, and composting programs including:
a. Solid waste pickup schedules;
b. Guidelines on living with wildlife and instructions for operating wildlife
containers; and
c. A notice that trash and recycling containers must be stored indoors except
between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM on the day of scheduled trash or recycling
pickup, where they may be placed at the curbside or in alleys.
ix. City of Aspen emergency services information and contact information,
X. The City of Aspen's Good Neighbor Guide
D. Adoption of and Compliance with STR Program Guidelines.
The City Council hereby adopts the Short-term Rental Program Guidelines. The Community
Development Department shall keep on file and make available to STR permittees, and if
applicable, qualified owner's representatives. These guidelines set forth the standards, procedures,
and supplemental information necessary for the operation of an STR within the City of Aspen. The
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 11 of 14
37
Community Development Director may use the guidelines as a basis for enforcement actions in
accordance with the requirements of this Chapter. The Guidelines may be updated, amended, and
expanded from time to time by City Council Resolution.
26.530.060 Enforcement.
The City of Aspen actively enforces its STR regulations through inspections, citizen complaints,
audits, and permitting. These measures ensure that STRs reinforce, not undermine, community
policies and character. Active enforcement ensures that visitors who choose to stay in STRs are
informed of the unique qualities of mountain living and enhance our community culture by being
good visitors and acting as neighbors and community members during their stay. STR permittee,
and if applicable, qualified owner's representative, play an essential role in supporting and
advancing these policies and supporting the City's enforcement activities.
A. Complaints.
Any valid complaint received regarding the STR property will first be referred to the permittee,
and if applicable, qualified owner's representative for response and correction. The Community
Development Director will follow up with any complaining party, the permittee, and if applicable,
qualified owner's representative, for compliance or resolution. The permittee or qualified owner's
representative must respond to all complaints or inquiries from City officials within 24 hours and
occupant complaints within two (2) hours. The City of Aspen is not responsible for complaints
against a HOA, hotel, or condo-hotel's own guidelines outside of the City's code, rules and
regulations. Failure to respond within 24 hours shall result in a notice of violation and demand to
cure. All valid complaints will be recorded and kept on -file including the address, permittee,
permit number, business license number associated with the complaint, and the complainer's
name and contact information.
B. Enforcement and Penalties.
Upon receipt of a compliant, the Community Development Department shall investigate and if it
is determined there are grounds to believe a violation of this Chapter or any STR rules and
regulations may have occurred, the Community Development Director may issue an
Administrative Notice of Violation to the permittee. The Director shall revoke the STR permit
of any permittee who receives three (3) Administrative Notices of Violation within the one (1)
year permit cycle, effective upon mailing notice to the permittee's address on file. The permittee
may appeal the decision to revoke the STR permit by providing notice of appeal to the
Community Development Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision to revoke
the permit. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall hear appeals brought pursuant to this
section (B). Appeals shall be governed by the procedures set forth in Section 26.316.030.
1) Penalty. Any permittee that violates or allows another to violate any section of this Title
shall be subject to prosecution in Municipal Court and upon conviction subject to the
fines and penalties set forth in Section 1.04.080. A first offense shall be punishable by a
fine of no less than five -hundred dollars ($500). Each day of any violation of this section
shall constitute a separate offense.
2) Civil Remedies.
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 12 of 14
38
a. The City Attorney may institute injunctive, abatement, or other appropriate action
to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove a violation of this Title when it occurs. The same
right of action shall accrue to any property owner who may be especially damaged by
violation of this Title.
b. In addition to the penalties and remedies set forth herein, an STR permit shall be
automatically revoked by the Community Development Director upon the third
conviction of a violation of this Title by the permittee of the property subject to the
permit within the one (1) year.
C. Until paid, any delinquent charges, assessments, or taxes made or levied by the
City pursuant to this Title shall, as of recording, be a lien against the property on
which the violation has been found to exist. If not paid within thirty (30) days from
the date of assessment, the City Clerk may certify any unpaid charges, assessments,
or taxes to the Pitkin County Treasurer to be collected and paid over by the Pitkin
County Treasurer in the same manner as taxes are authorized to be by statute together
with a ten percent penalty for costs of collection. Any lien placed against the property
pursuant to this Chapter shall be recorded with the Pitkin County clerk and recorder.
26.530.070 Fees.
STR permits are assessed an annual fee per unit, remitted at the time of permit application, in
accordance with the following table.
Annual Administrative Fee
STR-Classic: $394
STR-Owner-occupied: $394
STR-Lodaing Exempt: $148/unit
Table 1: Fee Schedule
26.530.080 Appeals.
Permittees may appeal decisions made by the Community Development Director in the enforcement
of this chapter. Appeals will be heard by the Administrative Hearing Officer in accordance with
Section 26.316.020.D. Appeals shall be processed in accordance with Section 26.316.030.
INTRODUCED AND READ, as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the
20 day of May 2022.
ATTEST:
Nicole Henning, City Cler
794ee=
Torre, Mayor
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 13 of 14
39
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 28th day of June 2022.
ATTEST:
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J es R. True, City Attorney
Torre, Mayor
Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
Short-term Rentals
Page 14 of 14
40
RESOLUTION NO. 106
Series of 2022)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT THE NOVEMBER 8,
2022, COORDINATED ELECTION A CERTAIN QUESTION IMPOSING A SHORT-TERM
RENTAL TAX FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE BALLOT QUESTION.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to place before the electorate of the City of
Aspen certain ballot questions; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized pursuant to Section 5.7 of the Aspen
City Charter to, on its own motion, submit questions to a vote of the electorate; and,
WHEREAS, the members of the City Council of the City (the "Council") have
been duly elected and qualified; and,
WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR")
requires voter approval for any new tax, the creation of any debt and for spending certain
moneys above limits established by TABOR; and,
WHEREAS, TABOR requires the City to submit ballot issues (as defined in
TABOR) to the City's electors on limited election days before action can be taken on such ballot
issues; and,
WHEREAS, November 8, 2022, is one of the dates at which ballot issues may be
submitted to the eligible electors of the City pursuant to TABOR; and,
WHEREAS, the Council hereby determines that it is necessary to submit to the
electors of the City, at the coordinated election to be held on November 8, 2022 (the "Election"),
the question of imposing an excise tax on short term rentals in order to contribute to the funding
of workforce housing and infrastructure maintenance and repair (the "ballot question"); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.1 of the City Charter, all elections of the City
are governed by the Colorado Municipal Election Code unless otherwise provided by ordinance;
and,
WHEREAS, Section 31-10-102, C.R.S., contained within the Municipal Election
Code, permits any municipality to elect by resolution to utilize the requirements and procedures
of the Uniform Election Code which will thereby permit the City to participate in the coordinated
election being conducted by Pitkin County (the "County") on November 8, 2022; and,
41
WHEREAS, the steadily increasing activity in the short-term rental market
throughout all zone districts within the city has increased the pressures on the community to
provide essential services and affordable housing; and,
WHEREAS, taxation is an equitable means of recovering costs to the community
incurred through the delivery of essential services to residential and lodging exempt properties
used as short-term rentals, including community policing, utilities services, transit,
transportation, and pedestrian infrastructure, and affordable housing; and,
WHEREAS, affordable housing, community infrastructure, and a clean and
resilient environment are essential to maintaining a world -class, competitive, economically
sustainable tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS, a tax on short-term rentals within the City will generate revenue for
local government to fund affordable housing, community infrastructure, and environmental
initiatives for the benefit of the public and a sustainable community; and,
WHEREAS, in keeping with the goal of the City's Comprehensive Plan to
preserve small town character while maintaining livability, the City desires to mitigate the
negative impacts of short-term rentals on Aspen's neighborhoods, affordable housing supply,
economy, and environment; and,
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen depends on a lived-in community of year-round
locals to support community culture, provide labor and capital to support the local economy,
ensure public safety and peace through the presence of first responders, health care and essential
service workers in the community, and ensure the long-term viability of the community and
tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS, the availability of housing for local workers and residents including
first responders, health care workers, and other essential service workers is diminishing, the
system for delivering affordable housing is not keeping pace with need, and the housing market
in the region and state of Colorado are in crisis; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Area Community Plan includes policies directing the City
of Aspcn to address affordable housing in the cunnnunity; and,
2
42
WHEREAS, a functional residential housing sector is essential to sheltering
Aspen's populations, supporting a stable economy, maintaining the health, peace and safety of
the City of Aspen for its residents and visitors; and,
WHEREAS, Aspen is a tourists destination, attracting tens of thousands of
visitors a year in all seasons, visitors which require transient tourist accommodations and
participate in and support Aspen's tourist economy; and,
WHEREAS, a tourist -based economy such as the City's requires a sufficient
number of employees to provide the services required to serve such an economy. Without
adequate workforce housing, a tourist -based economy cannot thrive; and,
WHEREAS, to allow for a sufficient number of employees to be hired to provide
the services necessary to sustain a tourist -based economy there must be an adequate supply of
workforce housing; and,
WHEREAS, historically, the long-term rental of residential property, or at least
the long-term rental of space within a residential property, has been an important means for
providing workforce housing within the City; and,
WHEREAS, short-term rentals are extremely valuable to the City's economy and
exist in various locations throughout the City; and,
business; and,
WHEREAS, the operation of a short-term rental in the City is the operation of a
WHEREAS, tourist visitation, the operation of tourist accommodations, the goods
and services demanded by tourists, and the transportation systems required to move tourist to and
throughout the community have environmental impacts, measured as Greenhouse Gas
Emissions; and,
WHEREAS, the difference in property tax rates for commercial and residential
properties contributes to gaps in fimding for affordable housing, essential government services,
infrastructure, and a healthy environment capable of supporting a sustainable economy; and,
WHEREAS, the Council now determines it is necessary to submit to the electors
of the City, at the Election which will be held as a coordinated election with the County on
November 8, 2022, the election questions; and
3
43
WHEREAS, it is necessary to set forth certain procedures concerning the conduct
of the Election; and,
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the adoption of this Resolution is necessary
for the preservation of the public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. All action heretofore taken (not inconsistent with the provisions of this
resolution) by the City and the officers thereof, directed towards the Election and the objects and
purposes herein stated, is hereby ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 2. Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used herein shall have the
meanings defined in the Uniform Election Code of 1992, Title 1, Articles 1 through 13, C.R.S.,
as amended (the "Uniform Election Code").
Section 3. Pursuant to TABOR and the Uniform Election Code, and all laws
amendatory thereof and supplemental thereto, the City hereby determines that a special Election
shall be held within the City on November 8, 2022, and that there shall be submitted to the
eligible electors of the City the election questions set forth herein. Because the Election will be
held as part of the coordinated election, the County Clerk and Recorder (the "Clerk") shall
conduct the election on behalf of the City and officers of the City have been previously
authorized to enter into one or more intergovernmental agreements with the County for the
conduct of the Election pursuant to Section 1-7-116, C.R.S. Any such intergovernmental
agreement heretofore entered into in connection with the Election is hereby ratified, approved
and confirmed.
Section 4. The Council hereby authorizes and directs the officers of the City to
certify on or before September 9, 2022, the following election question in substantially the form
4
44
hereinafter set forth to the Clerk, which such question shall be submitted to the eligible electors
of the City at the Election:
CITY OF ASPEN — SHORT TERM RENTAL TAX.
SHALL CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE INCREASED NOT MORE THAN $9,140,000
COMMENCING MAY 1, 2023, AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE GENERATED
ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXCISE TAX OF NOT MORE
THAN 10% ON THE AMOUNT CHARGED ON A NIGHTLY ROOM RATE AT ANY
ACCOMMODATION OR BUSINESS THAT IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A SHORT-TERM
RENTAL PERMIT FROM THE CITY; PROVIDED HOWEVER THAT:
SUCH TAX SHALL BE APPLIED TO "LODGE EXEMPT PERMIT PROPERTIES"
AS HEREAFTER DEFINED IN AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT STR-LE AT 5.0%;
SUCH TAX SHALL BE APPLIED TO "OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS" AS
HEREAFTER DEFINED IN AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A
SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER OCCUPIED PERMIT STR-00 AT 5.0%;
AND 2ND HOMEOWNER, INVESTMENT PROPERTY UNITS AS HEREAFTER
DEFINED IN AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITH A SHORT-TERM
RENTAL PERMIT STR-CLASSIC AT 10%;
AND SHALL AT LEAST 70% OF THE REVENUE GENERATED FROM SUCH TAX BE
UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE FUNDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND SHALL THE
REMAINDER OF THE REVENUE GENERATED FROM SUCH TAX NOT UTILIZED FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING BE UTILIZED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND
REPAIR AND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES; AND SHALL THE CITY BE
AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, KEEP AND SPEND THE REVENUES FROM SUCH TAX
AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME THEREFROM NOTWITHSTANDING THE LIMITS
OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
Section 5. Pursuant to the intergovernmental agreement entered by the City to participate
in the Pitkin County coordinated election, the City Clerk of the City of Aspen (the "City Clerk")
has been appointed as the designated election official of the City for purposes of performing acts
required or permitted by law in connection with the Election.
Section 6. Pursuant to Section 1-11-203.5, C.R.S., any election contest arising out of a
ballot issue or ballot question election concerning the order of the ballot or the form or content of
5
45
the ballot title shall be commenced by petition filed with the proper court within five days after
the title of the ballot issue or ballot question is set.
Section 7. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all action
necessary and appropriate to effectuate the provisions of this resolution.
Section 8. If any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall for any
reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability of such section,
paragraph, clause or provision shall in no manner affect any remaining provisions of this
resolution.
Section 9. All resolutions or parts of resolutions inconsistent herewith are hereby
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revive
any resolution or part of any resolution heretofore repealed.
Section 10. The effective date of this resolution shall be immediately upon adoption.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the
29'' day of August 2022.
Torre, Mayor
I, Nicole Henning, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated.
Nicole Henning, City Cler
6
46
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Sara Ott, City Manager
Pete Strecker, Finance Director
Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE:August 8, 2022
MEETING DATE:August 16, 2022
RE:Short Term Rental Tax Polling Results and Next Steps
Request of Council: Staff seeks direction on whether the Council wishes to advance development of a
ballot question to tax short term rentals and/or lodging accommodations in the City; what are the uses of
any new revenues; what tax rate should be applied; and in which election the question should be placed
on the ballot.
This evening’s work session is structured to 1) present the findings from the polling by Fredrick Polling, 2)
provide a high-level refresher on the short-term rental employee generation and affordable housing fee
analysis by EPS, and 3) seek Council direction on if, when, and for what any ballot question may be placed
before the City’s voters.
Summary and Background: In December 2021, Council passed Ordinance #26, Series of 2021, addressing
the City’s existing vacation rental program. Ordinance #26 extended existing Vacation Rental Permits,
issued as of December 8, 2021, through September 30, 2022. Pursuant to Ordinance #26, Series of 2021
and Ordinance #27, Series of 2021, no new Vacation Rental Permits were issued after December 8, 2021.
These ordinances, combined with the problem statements, moratorium goals, and legislative rationale for
the declaration of the moratorium form the basis of staff’s work with the community over the intervening
seven months on land use amendments and secondly, the possibility to tax or set new fees for short-term
rentals. This work culminated in the passage of Ordinance 09-2022 on June 28, 2022 to amend the land
use code and establish the vacation rental permit fee.
Concurrently, the Council advanced the discussion of the demand for employees and services short-term
rentals generate in the City and the potential of a tax question to address these demands. This work
included several discussions and community engagement around the finances, tax equity, and impacts of
theshort-term rental products within the City, including in commercial and residential areas. This included
a specific Technical Advisory Committee meeting about taxation on March 17, 2022.
Additionally, at the April 11, 2022 and May 9, 2022 work sessions, the Council directed staff to advance
the analysis of taxation scenarios focused on possible tax rates, who should pay a potential new tax, and
what uses were most appropriate for a new tax. This direction included obtaining voter polling to
understand the voteracceptance of a new tax, the preferred taxation rate, and possible supported uses.
247
Discussion:
Keith Fredrick of Fredrick Polls will present his executive summary and be available to answer questions.
Attached as exhibit A is the polling executive summary, cross tabulations, open ended questions, and
survey questions. Please note that the sample ballot language appears on page 12 of the executive
summary.
Fredrick Polls bottom line summary states:
“A majority of Aspen voters consistently support some form of new STR tax with a hard
core of one-third of voters consistently opposed. That opposition could climb into the mid-
40s if this issue becomes a matter of "fairness" given STR renters already pay the same
sales and lodging tax as visitors staying in hotels.
However, if the focus of this propose STR tax becomes more about equity of private
property being used for commercial purposes paying the same rate as other Aspen
businesses pay, then support for the STR tax is in the mid-to-upper 60s, pushing opposition
to its core minimum.
Short-term rentals and affordable housing are clearly linked in the minds of STR tax
supporters. STRs are seen as contributing to the lack of rental units for residents, the
increasing cost of long-term rentals and the increasing price of buying a home in Aspen...
all undermining the fabric of community as well as impacting quality of neighborhoods
and life in the city.
To the extent this proposed STR tax ballot issue is connected to affordable housing both in
the rate charged and the use of funds generated, the more the majority constituency
supporting an STR tax concept are likely to become YES voters on the November ballot.
Also, it appears the less complex, more straightforward the ballot proposal can be – few
to no variable tax rates – the stronger support for increasing taxes on STR’s becomes.”
Key Policy Considerations: The polling results indicate voter tolerance for some level of affordable
housing mitigation to be incorporated into the tax rate. To support the Council in discussions, Rachel
Shindman of EPS Consulting will provide a high-level overview of the employee generation model for short
term rental properties, and the estimated range for a mitigation fee for each FTE generate. (This study
was originally presented to Council during the May 24
th regular meeting in the context of a possible STR
permit and AH fee.) Staff views this as critical information to understanding the relationship between
potential tax rates and the amount of affordable housing demand mitigated by an STR tax.
POLICY QUESTION #1: Does the Council wish to go forward with a tax?Does the Council wish to include
affordable housing mitigation in the calculation of the tax rate? If yes, how much?
DISCUSSION NEEDED: Doesthe Council desires to mitigate STR employee generation through a portion of
the tax? If so, based on the EPS generation study, what percentage of the generation should be mitigated
through the tax?
POLICY QUESTION #2: Are there other/additional intended uses of the tax to be levied?
348
During previous work sessions and included in the language of the moratorium, Council has expressed
the unfunded impacts associated with the robust short-term rental market that exists within Aspen.
Explicitly stated impacts and costs to affordable housing and childcare, transit and the environment were
all identified as not being mitigated and recovered from the STR sector, and unlike the realities for other
commercially licensed businesses.
Polling indicates all these uses are supported to varying degrees, with affordable housing being the most
supported use. Based upon Council’s discussion the draft ballot language will be adjusted to reflect the
final proposed uses.
DECISION NEEDED: Can Council affirm whether or not these impact areas are aligned with the taxation
question that would be presented to voters? Are there any areas missing or are some areas of higher
priority than others? Can the Council provide direction around an allocation for a STR tax to the desired
areas of impact to help steer a future ballot question? Would the Council like to memorializein the ballot
question or in the whereasclauses any minimum/maximum percentage of collections for a particular use?
POLICY QUESTION #3: What is the desired tax rate to be included in the ballot question?
Polling provided 5 possible scenarios for taxation, ranging from nothing, all the way to 20%. As the tax
rate rose, voter support declined. The consultant summary illustrates the likelihoodof some respondents
supporting a rate other than their indicated preference, grouping majority support at either the 9 or 13
percent rates.
DECISION NEEDED: What tax rate should be incorporated into the final ballot question?
POLICY QUESTION #4: Who pays the tax?
Polling indicated mixed views on if the tax should be for only certain types of vacation rental permits, all
permits, and traditional lodging product. The notable finding includes some tolerance for increasing taxes
on traditional lodging product. It is also evident that uniformity in a new tax – keeping it simple – is
preferred by voters.
DECISION NEEDED: Is there Council consideration about the property tax rate (residential/commercial) in
determining who and how much is included in the tax rate? Should the tax be limited to STRs or be
expanded to include traditional lodges?
POLICY QUESTION #5: What is the desired timeframe for approaching voters with a STR tax
question?
During the April 11 work session discussion, Council members proposed two possible dates for when to
approach voters: November 2022 or March 2023. During the May 11 work session, Council stated a
preference for the November 2022 election, pending the information from polling.
There are currently two state ballot questions – one for a state income tax reduction and second entitled
Natural Medicine Health Act regarding the regulation of phycobilin - that have been certified by the
449
Secretary of State for the November 2022 election. Additionally, Pitkin County has indicated the intent
to place a tax question for the ambulance district and Aspen City Council has indicated a desire for the ½
cent open space and trails sales tax renewal to occur in November 2022. Typically, the more tax questions
there are on a ballot, the less likely it is that all will pass. Based on past ballot contents, the contents of
the November ballot, as of now, do not create an obstacle to the question being fairly considered by the
public.
DECISION NEEDED: Does Council desire to place a question on the November 2022 ballot?
A ballot question will need to be formalized and adopted in two readings by the Council by the end of
August, and then the formal ballot question will need to be conveyed to the County by early September
for certification.
POLICY QUESTION #6: Are there any particular points the Council would like to see included in the
whereas clauses of the resolution for consideration placing the ballot question? Does the Council wish
to change any other portions of the ballot question?
DECISION NEEDED: Whereas clauses are considerations that outline the high-level policy rationale for the
actions of the Council to place a question before the voters. Is there any specific topics desired by the
Council in whereas clauses? Staff anticipate covering the fundamental information about the Aspen Area
Community Plan, land use regulations, and property tax equity. Which other topics, if any, would the
Council like to see?
Further the ballot language itself was tested in the polling questions. Staff is suggesting a slight
modification of the language around uses to list affordable housing first, and the addition of the words
“and repair” after infrastructure maintenance.
“Shall City of Aspen taxes be increased not more than $10.7 million commencing January
1, 2023 and by whatever amounts are generated annually thereafter by the imposition of
an excise tax of not more than 13% on the amounted charged to any person on a nightly
room rate at any commendation or business that is required to obtain a vacation rental
permit from the city;
And shall the revenue generated from such as tax be utilized for the purpose of funding
affordable housing, infrastructure maintenance and repair, and environmental
initiatives, with the rate of the tax being allowed to be increased or decreased without
further voter approval so long as the rate of taxation does not exceed 13%; and shall the
city be authorized to collect, keep, and spend the revenues from such tax and any
investment income therefrom notwithstanding the limits of Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution?”
Please note that with this language, it becomes a legislative act of the Council, through the adoption of
the annual budget, to determine the split of the revenue between the different purposes.
550
Finances:
City Council can anticipate a fee around $15,000 for Pitkin County to administer this ballot question. City
staff will update revenue estimates to match the desired final language.
As presented on May 9, staff estimate the each additional 1.0% of taxwill generate $826,000 in revenues.
This estimate is based upon 2021 taxable short term rental sales of $82,600,000.
Recommendations:
1. Staff recommends moving forward with a ballot question for November 8, 2022 for an excise tax
not to exceed 13%, generating up to $10.7 million in new revenues in the first year for affordable
housing, infrastructure repair and maintenance, and environmental initiatives.
2. Staff supports the following draft ballot language, subject to changes based upon the Council
discussion in the work session. The wording changed since polling is in bold.
“Shall City of Aspen taxes be increased not more than $10.7 million commencing
January 1, 2023 and by whatever amounts are generated annually thereafter by
the imposition of an excise tax of not more than 13% on the amounted charged
to any person on a nightly room rate at any commendation or business that is
required to obtain ava cation rental permit form the city;
And shall the revenue generated from such as tax be utilized for the purpose of
funding affordable housing, infrastructure maintenance and repair, and
environmental initiatives, with the rate of the tax being allowed to be increased
or decreased without further voter approval so long as the rate of taxation does
not exceed 13%; and shall the city be authorized to collect, keep, and spend the
re venues from such tax and any investment income therefrom notwithstanding
the limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution?”
If Council wishes to move forward, staff will bring back the necessary ordinance for first reading on August
23, 2022 and a special meeting on September 6, 2022 to meet the County Clerk’s filing deadline.
Exhibits
A: Polling Results by Fredrick Polling
B: Short-Term Rental Fee Analysis by ESP
C: Short-Term Rental Outreach Summary and Detail
D: May 9, 2022 Short-Term Rental Tax Packet Materials and Slides
651
POLL RESULTS:
Aspen Voters’ Opinions on
Short-Term Rentals
July 2022
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
752
SURVEY METHODOLOGY & SAMPLE DEMOGRAPHICS
2
Sample Demographics: n=322
Gender
Male 51%
Female 48%
Other 1%
Age
18-39 24%
40-64 51%
65-Up 25%
•Sample Size:n=322 completed interviews
•Eligibility:Voters in the City of Aspen
•Interview Method:n=280 Online through cell-text invite + n=42 live caller phone interviews
•Interview Dates:July 18-24, 2022
•Margin of Error:5.5%
Party Registration
Democrat 47%
Republican 16%
Independent 37%
Length of Residence
0-10 years 18%
11-20 years 27%
21-30 years 23%
30+ years/Native 31%
Home
Own 72%
Rent 28%
Own STR Permit 10%
853
1.Short-Term Rental (STR) Tax Concept .
•Aspen voters’ initial reaction to increasing taxes on short-term rentals is nearly 2:1 positive: 63% YES, 33% NO on a
generic ballot "to enact a new tax charged on short-term renters of Aspen homes that are licensed with a vacation rental
permit."
(Note: this question --sequenced 1st in the poll--does not give a specific tax rate nor detail on use of new revenues.)
•The STR tax is supported by 77% of Democrats but opposed by 63% to 35% among Republicans. Independent voters
support it 56% to 40%.
Also, 74% of renters support it compared to a smaller 59% majority of homeowners.
•Among the 10% of the sample who have a vacation rental permit, the STR tax is opposed by 75% to 25%.
•OPEN-ENDS on why vote YES and NO.
Ø YES voters feel STRs are negatively impacting neighborhoods, the sense of community, and the availability and price of housing in
Aspen. They also feel that short-term renters are not paying the full cost of their impact on Aspen services or their fair share
compared to other commercial business operations.
The vast majority offering a use for new STR money would prefer it go toward more housing for local residents and workers. Also,
some see an STR tax as a way to limit or discourage tourism.
Ø NO voters have strong anti-tax feelings, believe tourism is good / essential for the Aspen economy, don’t trust government to spend
new tax money wisely, or feel that STRs (and their property owners) already contribute a fair and sufficient amount of taxes.
The open ends suggest there is a great deal of emotion and intensity of feeling on both sides of this issue.
FINDINGS
3
954
FINDINGS
4
2. Use of New STR Tax Revenue.
Three options are tested both separately and in a "preferred option" format. Below are the % who "strongly
approve" and (total approve --strongly + somewhat) of new STR revenue used for that purpose when tested
separately.
•63% (81) --Affordable Housing --construction, purchase preservation of workforce housing.
•48% (77) --Environmental Programs --clean water quality, stormwater treatment and healthy streams,
wildfire mitigation or greenhouse gas reduction.
•36% (68) --City Infrastructure --pedestrian safety, bike lanes and affordable restaurant and retail space for
public benefit.
When forced to choose the TOP PRIORITY among these three, AFFORDABLE HOUSING is the clear winner.
•63% affordable housing, 20% infrastructure, 16% environmental programs.
1055
FINDINGS
5
3. Level of STR Tax Rate.
Three questions were asked about the possible level of a new short-term rental tax rate.
Option A. Equal to the commercial tax rate (close the $4.4 mil. revenue gap).
•63% Support, 34% Oppose. (equal to the STR "concept" ballot vote).
Option B. Cover part or all of the Affordable Housing Fee (that commercial and large-scale residential properties pay).
•61% support, 37% oppose.
Preferred STR tax rate --5 options given for forced choice of one.
Ø 26% --none / zero.
Ø 17% --5.4% tax... equal to the $4.4 mill commercial tax gap.
Ø 12% --9.6% tax... closes tax gap + 1/3rd affordable housing fee.
Ø 14% --13% tax... closes tax gap + 2/3rd affordable housing fee.
Ø 28% --20% tax... closes tax gap + all affordable housing fee.
Clearly, with a "5-option" choice, there is no voter consensus on how large the STR tax should be, but responses
above show that a majority of voters support some combination tax rate that covers the $4.4 million commercial tax
rate gap and some contribution to the Affordable Housing Fund... 54% pick an option that is 9.6% or one of the two
higher options (meaning those voters would likely accept 9.6%).
1156
4.Opinions on Variable STR Tax Rates.
When informed there are 3 kinds of privately owned residential properties permitted for short-term rentals…
•65% want investor-owned rentals taxed at a higher rate vs. 35% preferring all three types should be taxed at the same
rate.
•73% think condos in fully-managed buildings should be taxed at the same rate as other STRs vs. 25% saying they should
be taxed at a lower rate.
5. STRs vs. All Lodging.
When given a three-way choice on the broader issue of tourism and taxes...
•31% would NOT raise taxes on any Aspen lodging (this is a very consistent one-third who oppose any tax increase
throughout the poll).
•42% would raise taxes just on private residential property STRs.
•26% would raise taxes on ALL lodging including hotels and STRs.
6. Variable Rate Tax Increase –Comprehensive Proposal.
53% YES, 43% NO for a variable rate tax increase covering all lodging in Aspen –3% for hotels, 6% for fully-managed condos,
8% for owner-occupied STR’s, and 13% for investor non-resident owned STR’s.
FINDINGS
6
1257
FINDINGS
7
7.Big Picture Mood: Tourism and Taxes.
Three questions are asked to get at the underlying mood of Aspen voters that might impact their vote on upcoming ballots.
a) Tourism benefits... a 60-40 split against.
•40% agree "Aspen greatly benefits from the tourist economy and we should not do anything that raises the cost to visit
here or puts this vital economic engine at risk." (59% disagree)
b) Fairness in visitor lodging costs... 44% show sympathy to STR visitors.
•44% agree "Since visitors staying in hotels and those staying in licensed short-term rentals both already pay the exact
same sales tax and lodging tax,it is just not fair to impose another large tax on visitors staying at privately-owned
properties." (55% disagree)
c) Tax STRs as businesses... 69% say this okay to protect Aspen quality of life.
•69% agree "Aspen tourism has to be managed so it doesn't ruin the residents' quality of life and if requiring short term
renters to pay more taxes so these residential rental businesses pay what other Aspen businesses must pay, that is OK."
8.Ballot Language Vote... 55% YES, 42% NO.
See Q 17; the proposed ballot language is presented with details of a maximum 13% STR rate with revenues used to cover all
three possible options.
1358
FINDINGS
8
BOTTOM LINE.
A majority of Aspen voters consistently support some form of new STR tax with a hard core of one-third of voters
consistently opposed. That opposition could climb into the mid-40s if this issue becomes a matter of "fairness" given
STR renters already pay the same sales and lodging tax as visitors staying in hotels.
However, if the focus of this propose STR tax becomes more about equity of private property being used for
commercial purposes paying the same rate as other Aspen businesses pay, then support for the STR tax is in the mid-
to-upper 60s, pushing opposition to its core minimum.
Short-term rentals and affordable housing are clearly linked in the minds of STR tax supporters. STRs are seen as
contributing to the lack of rental units for residents, the increasing cost of long-term rentals and the increasing price
of buying a home in Aspen... all undermining the fabric of community as well as impacting quality of neighborhoods
and life in the city.
To the extent this proposed STR tax ballot issue is connected to affordable housing both in the rate charged and the
use of funds generated, the more the majority constituency supporting an STR tax concept are likely to become YES
voters on the November ballot.
Also, it appears the less complex, more straightforward the ballot proposal can be –few to no variable tax rates –
the stronger support for increasing taxes on STR’s becomes.
1459
Yes
%
No
%
Party
Democrat 77 18
Republican 35 63
Independent 56 40
Home
Own 59 38
Rent 74 20
Have STR Permit
(10% of sample)
25 75
63
74
SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAX INCREASE: CONCEPT TEST
Vote YES (63%)
Vote NO (33%)
DK (4%)
Would you vote YES or NO to enact a new tax charged on short-
term renters of Aspen homes that are licensed with a vacation
rental permit?
9
1560
OPEN-ENDS: Why STR Tax Increase Supporters “Vote YES”
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-term rentals?
10
Aspen has become a renters
and second-home paradise.
Local real estate that can be used for housing locals is
being bought up by people that only live in aspen part
time and are instead renting it out to high net worth
individuals.
Because all my friends
moved away and I
don’t feel welcome in
my own home town.
At least use this to
create housing and
community.
Aspen residents have a difficult
time finding affordable housing,
and short term rentals make it even
harder to live in Aspen anymore.
Any kind of restrictions on short
term rentals is a positive for Aspen.
Because our town is out of control
with growth and expansion, all is
impacting our infrastructure, roads,
water usage, utilities, air pollution,
police staffing, sheriff dept., public
health, etc.
Short-term rentals are
exacerbating the
housing crisis.
People are not local residents and do not work in
the city or surrounding areas. We should be
using the tax money from this to put towards
long-term housing for residents who work in
aspen and need housing desperately. This community will die without
affordable housing and short term
rentals are a major cause of livable
space being taken out of the
system.
Fairness. They should pay
commercial property tax rates.
Good for the city; might encourage longer
term rentals; might convince some owners
to sell to permanent residents.
Houses should be used for people who live here, but in
the case that they are used for short-term rentals, I think
money should go back into our community.
We shouldn't limit the number of
STR's, but tax them all, encouraging
tourism and giving us a larger tax
base.
Help to bring more balance to the
real estate market and most
importantly should be used to help
pay for employee housing.
Good way to create more revenue
off of home owners making a profit
off of their second homes.
Short-term rentals are changing
the fabric of our neighborhoods.
Property owners are going to run
their homes as a business then they
should be contributing to
commercial sales tax revenue.
Short-term rentals are a great
revenue source to pay for the
impacts they impose on the city in
terms of traffic and pressure on
affordable housing options.
Short-term rentals change
residential use in residential zoning
to commercial use in residential
zoning, becoming small hotels, with
more use and wear on community
infrastructure.
Short-term renters don’t appreciate
our local culture, don’t contribute
and overcrowd our town. We need
more long-term rentals for
employees.
Short-term rentals have killed any
available housing for locals. This effect
should be heavily mitigated. STRs are basically small hotels.
There is no reason from a policy
perspective that they should not
have to pay the same taxes that
hotels pay to cover the cost of
services provided by the city while
the visitor is in town.
These are commercial
rentals in residential
neighborhoods negatively
impacting those
neighborhoods.
The real estate market in
Aspen caters solely to
those renting at exorbitant,
short-term prices. There is
absolutely no reasonable
regulation taking place for
short term pricing, which
disrupts long term rentals
as well.
There’s nowhere to
live for regular
people.
The purchasing of multiple ST rental
units by non-residents are driving
up the pricing for locals both in
being able to purchase or we/they
are pricing out long-term rentals.
1661
OPEN-ENDS: Why STR Tax Increase Opponents “Vote NO”
Why would you vote NO? Why do you think it is a bad idea?
11
Already paying tax on our home.
Should be able to let others stay
at your home.
It will detract
people from
coming to
Aspen.
Short-term permits are already
supposed to pay the city a tax and I
would not support a new one or an
additional one.
For the economic
reason, more taxes
the rent increases.
STRs should be taxed
at the same rate as
hotels but not more.
City has plenty of sales,
lodging and RETT tax. It
would only make
lodging more
expensive for visitors.
We already pay so many
different taxes and so
many expenses and is not
going to help.
I have zero faith that revenues
raised will be spent productively.
I own a rental property. I already pay
tax on the income. My property
manager pays tax. My rental agent
pays tax on commission. I pay
property tax on my property. Do not
charge more tax on already
expensive cost of Aspen lodging and
doing business here.
I already pay license fees, property tax, City,
County and State Sales Tax every quarter and
income tax annually on what's left; why should
I, who live here, be penalized based on source
of income?
Government
overreach.
Going to make vacationing in
aspen just that much more
expensive for the average person .
It is very expensive to do repairs and
maintenance, pay property managers
and housekeepers ... we already have
an 11.3% Aspen City tax in addition to
other taxes... it is already very
expensive to rent.
Making the most of your property and renting
it out should not require you to pay a tax.
Short-term renters are bringing business to
the economy of Aspen so we are making
money off them from sales tax revenues.
Makes our community more
exclusive and expensive and creates
greater economic disparity.
People can barely afford to live
here as is. Why not let them make
extra income to supplement their
mortgages. We have no one to
work in this town because no one
can afford to live here. Give
people a break.
Reduces economic capacity of town
as a tourist destination, hurts locals
who need to rent primary residence.
Rental costs are too high-people will
just charge more to cover tax increase
and cause more problems with
affordable housing options.
Rental are good for a
resort/tourist community.
Sounds like a great plan for the
wealthy second homeowner but as
a resident if I need help defraying
the high cost of living here and
renting several times helps pay off
my mortgage.
You are discouraging
people with lower incomes
from coming to Aspen.
Will disincentivize people from doing it above
board and reporting to the city. Will create a
black market. Penalizes real estate owners who
may or may not actually be true locals who
depend on short term rental income.
We need
reasonable
priced short
term rentals
in Aspen the
hotels are so
expensive.
The rentals are
already paying
sales and lodging
tax and should
not have to pay
disproportionatel
y more than
other users of
labor and
services in the
city.
The city wastes tax dollars.
This is private enterprise and
brings in more tourist dollars
into the local economy with
a bigger spend. Why
discourage this?
1762
73
Yes
%
No
%
Party
Democrat 68 28
Republican 25
Independent 50 46
Home
Own 51 46
Rent 64 32
Have STR Permit
(10% of sample)
17 83
SHORT-TERM RENTAL: BALLOT LANGUAGE VOTE
Vote YES
(55%)Vote NO
(42%)
DK (3%)
Answer if you would vote YES or NO on the following ballot:
“Shall City of Aspen taxes be increased not more than $10.7 million commencing January 1, 2023 and by
whatever amounts are generated annually thereafter by the imposition of an excise tax of not more than
13% on the amount charged to any person on a nightly room rate at any accommodation or business that
is required to obtain a vacation rental permit from the city.
And shall the revenue generated from such tax be utilized for the purpose funding infrastructure
maintenance, environmental initiatives, and affordable housing, with the rate of tax being allowed to be
increased or decreased without further voter approval so long as the rate of taxation does not exceed
13%; and shall the city be authorized to collect, keep, and spend the revenues from such tax and any
investment income therefrom notwithstanding the limits of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado
Constitution?”
12
1863
SUPPORT FOR NEW STR MONEY USES
13
Next, depending on the level of tax charged on Aspen short-term rentals, it could generate $10 million a year or more. Answer if you
strongly approve, somewhat approve, or disapprove of this new tax money being spent for each of the following.
Total
Approve-Disapprove
%
81-18
77-22
68-38
63%
48%
36%
18%
29%
32%
Strongly Approve Somewhat Approve
Affordable housing –construction, purchase, preservation of workforce
housing.
Environmental programs such as clean water quality, storm water treatment
and healthy streams, wildfire mitigation, or greenhouse gas reduction.
Maintenance of city infrastructure including “lifestyle enhancements” such as
pedestrian safety, bike lanes, and affordable restaurant and retail space for
public benefit.
1964
PREFERRED USE OF NEW STR MONEY
Maintenance of city
infrastructure (20%)Environmental programs
(16%)
Affordable housing
(63%)
DK (1%)
Of these three, which would be your top priority use for money generated from a new short-term rental tax…?
• Maintenance of city infrastructure.
• Environmental programs.
--OR--
• Affordable housing.
14
2065
OPINION OF PROPOSALS FOR STR TAX RATE
15
Close Commercial Property Revenue Gap Cover Affordable Housing Fund Gap
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE setting the short-term rental tax rate to close
the $4.4 million tax revenue gap between what hotels and lodges pay at the
commercial property tax rate and what the 1,200 permitted short-term rental
properties pay at the residential property tax rate?
Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE setting the short-term rental tax rate to
cover the fee –in whole or in part –of what every new commercial or
large-scale residential property MUST pay into the city’s affordable
housing fund to provide housing to the service workers who provide
services to the guests renting these 1,200 permitted properties?
63%
34%
Support Oppose
61%
37%
Support Oppose
2166
DIFFERENTIAL TAX RATE BASED ON UNIT TYPE
All taxes at same
rate (35%)
Investors taxed at
higher rates (63%)
DK (2%)
Here is another factor with short-term, rentals. There are three kinds of privately-owned residential properties that are permitted for short-term rentals in Aspen:
Ø Homes the owners live in for all or part of the year;
Ø Homes owned by investors who are absentee owners; and
Ø Condos in a fully-managed lodge building.
Do you think…?
• All three types should be taxed at the same rate for short-term rentals.
--OR--
• Those rented out by investors should be taxed at a higher rate.
16
2267
FULLY-MANAGED CONDOS: DIFFERENTIAL TAX RATE?
At lower rate (25%)
At the same rate
(73%)
DK (2%)
Following up, do you think short-term rentals in condos in fully managed buildings that have full -time staff on duty just like a hotel
should be taxed…?
• At a lower rate than other types of properties.
--OR--
• At the same rate as the others.
17
2368
WHO TAX –STR ONLY OR HOTELS AND STR
18
Having heard this information about taxing short-term rentals and tourism, which option do you prefer…?
• Do not raise taxes on any Aspen lodging.
• Raise taxes just on short-term rentals of private property.
--OR--
• Raise taxes on all lodging including hotels and short-term rentals.
No tax increase on
any lodging (31%)
Just STR private
property (42%)
All lodging: hotels
and STR (26%)
DK (1%)
2469
PREFERRED STR RATE: 5-WAY CHOICE
None (26%)
5.4% tax (17%)
9.6% tax (12%)
13% tax (14%)
20% tax (28%)
Knowing that a 5.4% per night tax rate on short-term rentals covers the $4.4 million property tax revenue gap and 20% per night covers 100% of the
affordable housing fund fee plus the “tax revenue gap,” which of these five options do you support?
a. None –zero percent.
b. 5.4% --equal to the $4.4 million property tax revenue gap between commercial and residential rentals.
c. 9.6% --closes the tax gap and mitigates one-third of the affordable housing cost.
d. 13% --closes the tax gap and mitigates two-thirds of the affordable housing cost.
--OR--
e. 20% --closes the tax gap and 100% of the affordable housing cost.
19
2570
PRO-TOURISM SENTIMENT TESTS
20
Tourism Benefits Economy Not Fair to Tax STR’s More
Aspen greatly benefits from the tourist economy and we
should not do anything that raises the cost to visit here
or puts this vital economic engine at risk.
Since visitors staying in hotels and those staying in
licensed short-term rentals both already pay the exact
same sales tax and lodging tax, it is just not fair to
impose another large tax on visitors staying at
privately-owned properties.
40%
59%
Agree Disagree
44%
55%
Agree Disagree
2671
69%80%
48%
64%72%67%66%69%69%76%67%65%
30%19%
50%
35%28%30%33%30%29%23%32%32%
Dem Rep Ind 0-10 11-30 30+/Native Men Women 18-39 40-64 65+
AGREE DISAGREE
Total
(n=322)-Party-
BOTTOM LINE STR CONCEPT: OKAY TO TAX SHORT TERM RENTERS AS TOURISTS
-Length of Residence--Gender-
65%
80%
25%
95%
20%
97%
32%
13%
97%92%
35%
17%
75%
4%
79%
2%
66%
85%
2%8%
Own Rent STR Permit
Holder
Yes No Yes No None STR Only All lodging
-STR: Initial Concept-
-Age-
21
“Aspen tourism has to be managed so it doesn’t ruin the residents’ quality of life and if requiring short -term renters to pay more taxes so these residential rental
businesses pay what other Aspen businesses must pay, that is okay.”
-Home--STR: Ballot Language--Preferred Tax Increase-
2772
66
Yes
%
No
%
Party
Democrat 66 30
Republican 31 67
Independent 48 50
Home
Own 49 48
Rent 31
Have STR Permit
(10% of sample)
25 75
COMPREHENSIVE PROPOSAL: TAX ALL LODGING AT VARIABLE RATE
Vote YES (53%)
Vote NO (43%)
DK (3%)
Lastly, below is one last comprehensive proposed tax increase on ALL types of
lodging permitted in Aspen, but with variable rates. Would you vote YES or
NO for this proposal…?
•Impose a new 3% tax on hotel stays;
•Impose a new 6% tax on stays at fully managed condos;
•Impose a new 8% tax on stays at owner-occupied units; and
•Impose a new 13% tax on stays at units owned by non-resident investors.
22
2873
SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL “BALLOT VOTE” TESTS
23
Initial “Concept”
(No tax rate or $ use
given)
%
Ballot Language
(13% max + $$ used for 3
purposes)
%
Comprehensive
Variable Tax
(3%, 6%, 8%, 13%)
%
YES 63 55 53
NO 33 42 43
Don’t Know 4 3 3
2974
24
3075
Why would you vote NO? Why do you think it is a bad idea?
1
A portion of short term renters in the county are working residents who can't find housing, and are
using these rentals until they have a more permanent place to stay in the Valley as longer term leases
are getting harder and harder to find.
Already paying tax on our home. Should be able to let others stay at your home.
Bad tax
Because it’s going to take that need it
Because Aspen City Council is mismanaging the mitigation of Employee Housing for developers such as
Mark Hunt and the Gorsuch project, so will put the burden on those of us who live and vote here and
have “invested” in Aspen. And then give $4.5M
Because it will detract people from coming to aspen
Because the City of Aspen hasn’t shown how this money would be used…. And has shown in the last
years that money spending is not a concern. The city hasn’t listened to both sides of this issue and has
acted from their point of view always.
Because the city of aspen is just making things harder for anyone not owning employee housing to be
able to remodel or build. Always screwing the people that live in free market housing.
Because we already pay so many different taxes and so many expenses and is not going to help.
Because we are taxed to the max
Because you would just spend the money on studies and consultants
Because you’re going to end up taxing the demographic that isn’t super wealthy and that rents to
moderate income partial residents or tourists.
City has plenty of sales, lodging and RETT tax. It would only make lodging more expensive for visitors.
City has too much money. City can build that monster of a city hall but us long time locals, 5th
generation Coloradans are being regulated to death while Mark -money laundering Hunt is tearing to
town core apart.
Encourage use of space
Enough taxes already
Enough taxes already.
Everything the city is doing makes no sense, all the taxes over regulation is not solving anything you’re
creating a bigger issue. And you have a City Council that has no qualifications or experience and voting
on things that is not helping the city.
3176
Why would you vote NO? Why do you think it is a bad idea?
2
For the economic reason, more taxes the rent increases. I look the situation and I am an employee, I
don’t make too much money.
Free markets are best AND we need to enforce the worker housing rules
Government overreach.
Have no idea how the tax money will be used
I am not a piggy bank; I already pay license fees, property tax, City, County and State Sales Tax every
quarter and income tax annually on what's left; why should I, who live here, be penalized based on
source of income?
I am NOT adverse to a modest tax, say, a couple of points. However, the 13% level suggested in the
press is absurd, especially when there's no mutually agreed use by our community for the likely massive
amount of proceeds such a tax rate would g
I am SICK of TAXES.
I don’t think there should be a new tax. Short term permits are already supposed to pay the city a tax
and I would not support a new one or an additional one.
I have zero faith that revenues raised will be spent productively
I need to be educated with more information. the direction that's going to be taken once the tax is
approved.
I own a rental property. I already pay tax on the income. My property manager pays tax. My rental
agent pays tax on commission. I pay property tax on my property. Do not charge more tax on already
expensive cost of Aspen lodging and doing business here!
i think people should be allowed to use short term rentals when they have the capacity to do so.
I think short-term rentals make the city better, they bring life into the city
I think STRs should be taxed at the same rate as hotels but not more.
I work in the hospitality industry and want more people in town than less, it’s my livelihood
It is already taxed
It is their own home which costs SO much to own in Aspen, if they want to rent it out why would the city
get involved? The city will make money on the monies spent by the renters
It is very expensive to do repairs and maintenance, pay property managers and housekeepers … we
already have an 11.3% Aspen City tax in addition to other taxes… it is already very expensive to rent.
Would make me less likely to rent short term.
3277
Why would you vote NO? Why do you think it is a bad idea?
3
It’s a terrible idea, biased and unfair.
It’s going to make vacationing in aspen just that much more expensive for the average person .
It’s not as if Aspen’s tax coffers are not full enough, adding additional costs to the Aspen experience that
only benefits our local government is a travesty
It’s too high
It’s a vacation town!
Just makes our community more exclusive and expensive and creates greater economic disparity.
Less government
Locals who are benefiting from the income of STRs already pay a lot in taxes and need the extra income
to pay the skyrocketing rental prices being charged.
Lodging tax is already 11.3%. We now want to make visitors pay even more?
Making the most of your property and renting it out should not require you to pay a tax. Short-term
renters are bringing business to the economy of Aspen so we are making money off them from sales tax
revenues.
More taxes do not solve the problem. Limit short term rentals. That solves the problem. Let’s not turn
our town into a giant hotel. More taxes are not going to solve the overcrowding problem. More taxes
are just more government waste not solving the problem.
Need more research— not enough time & education before November
No more taxes
No more taxes!
No more taxing for the city’s coffers
No taxation without representation. Stomping individual property owner rights.
Not fair. To many variations
People can barely afford to live here as is. Why not let them make extra income to supplement their
mortgages. We have no one to work in this town because no one can afford to live here. Give people a
break!
Promotes black market. STR already pay taxes and license fees.
3378
Why would you vote NO? Why do you think it is a bad idea?
4
Reduces economic capacity of town as a tourist destination, hurts locals who need to rent primary
residence. I could support something that charged for peak season rentals of any type with exception for
primary residence.
Rent control has never worked in history and it won’t work now even under a tricky new name
Rental are good for a resort/tourist community
Rental costs are too high- people will just charge more to cover tax increase and cause more problems
with affordable housing options
Short term rentals are very useful attribute to the community, and should not be discouraged, or taxed
beyond current rate …. Instead, consider adding a 13% tax per bed to all hotels, the funds from that
going to mitigate employee housing needs
Short term rentals are not the problem or the issue at hand. City has plenty of revenue and penalizing
owners is a bad idea. Not everyone renting is a wealthy second home owner.
Should not tax on income I will already be taxed on. If I chose to rent
Sounds like a great plan for the wealthy second homeowner but as a resident if I need help defraying the
high cost of living here and know rent several times helps pay off my mortgage this becomes punitive
with unintended consequences.
Stop taxing everything. This government abuse has got to stop.
Tax doesn’t solve problem
Tax happy community enough is enough
Tax rate is so high we are not competitive with other destination markets and are often asked to lower
our rates so the total cost is lower to the guest.
Taxed enough
Taxes already too high
Taxes are already too high
Taxes wouldn’t solve the problem. Need to change zoning to restrict str in neighborhoods
TERRIBLE IDEA, numerous reasons. Will disincentivize people from doing it above board and reporting to
the city. Will create a black market. Penalizes real estate owners who may or may not actually be true
locals who depend on short term rental income.
The City cannot be trusted with more tax payer funds. They seem to waste the funds they are already
working with, presently.
3479
Why would you vote NO? Why do you think it is a bad idea?
5
The city does not need a new source of revenue. Many of the STR's will be by individuals. There is no
need to make the process more cumbersome for them and add to costs.
The City wastes tax dollars
The government does a bad job, why would I allow them to have more money from this tax?
The government mishandles tax money so poorly. Stop hiring companies to assess low income housing
and just build it. If you tax short term regardless then have a lower tax for units built on the mountain
that have been dedicated str from the start.
The homeowner is already paying taxes for the services in the City of Aspen. What additional services
would the renter be receiving for this tax? None. The homeowner is going to pay taxes to the state for
income earned on their rentals.
The question is unclear. Would the tax be on the homeowner that is renting out the property or the
rentee (renter) paying to stay in said home?
The rentals are already paying sales and lodging tax and should not have to pay disproportionately more
than other users of labor and services in the City.
There are already rental taxes for short term and an additional property tax on contents of short term
rental homes. Enough.
There is already a lodging tax in place that the con minimum hotels collect. And a tax is not going to
encourage owners to rent to locals… put in place rules around ADU and employers providing some
employee housing.
There is no need for additional general city revenue and there are no plans for this tax to be used to
offset any negative externalities from short-term rentals, e.g., a hotline to enforce noise complaints.
There wasn’t an I’m not sure or don’t know option - but it would depend on the amount of the tax.
There is some concern that additional taxes will just make it harder and more expensive for people who
want to visit and more exclusive.
They have a permit already
They’ll be charged for their permission and their income and I hear it’s going to be a huge tax and some
people need to rent their condos/homes.
This city council has already made a very significant impact on limiting short term rentals. There are
1001 unexpected consequences this city council does not have the foresight or experience to anticipate.
Aspen is also a destination, find balance
this is going to make the cost of everything go up... hotels are already expensive enough !
This is private enterprise and brings in more tourist dollars into the local economy with a bigger spend.
Why discourage this?
3580
Why would you vote NO? Why do you think it is a bad idea?
6
Too hard to keep track of and some locals need the extra income from these rentals.... If it goes to ballot
I would definitely vote NO
Too high
Too many taxes already in this town
Too many taxes? What will the tax supplement?
Way too much government interference on taxation, it won’t solve the problem
We already have lodging tax in the double digits, plus a fee for the business license. You’re trampling on
private property rights by limiting rental permits. And for what? More lawsuits??
we are already tax too much
We have enough taxes. Property taxes are up and up. It has become so expensive for locals. If you truly
want to help locals stop enacting more taxes. Aspen should be helping the locals.
We need more employee housing
We need reasonable priced short term rentals in Aspen the hotels are so expensive!
What are you trying to do make it so expensive only the billionaires and their friends can come here?
STOP not everyone is a Walmart! Normal people are going to be priced out of here in the summer and
the winter!
What is the proposed rate? It should be in line with existing hotel tax.
When you tax something you get less of it. I don’t think it is a good idea to discourage tourists or to
harm the owners and operators of short-term rentals. Also, the city already has too damn much money.
They should tighten their belt and waste less.
Why do you think another tax is a good idea ?
Why should there be additional tax to homeowners / residents in Aspen? Tenants already pay 11.3% tax.
You are discouraging people with lower incomes from coming to Aspen.
3681
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
A tax on short term rentals is a good start but we just need to ban short term rentals in general. Short
term rentals are just causing more and more issues with the local housing market. A tax will just be
passed along rather than act as a deterrent.
Absolutely!
Aspen residents have a difficult time finding affordable housing, and short term rentals make it even
harder to live in Aspen anymore. Any kind of restrictions on short term rentals is a positive for Aspen.
Aspen revenue needs.
Aspen should tax/fee owners making income on short term property rentals. Other income producing
businesses must pay taxes/fees doing any business in City/County
Because I think people don’t pay enough taxes, I don’t want to threat with traffic, they eat our food and
use our facilities
Because all my friends moved away and I don’t feel welcome in my own home town. At least use this to
create housing and community.
Because I own three businesses in town and I have to pay for all of them and it is a business for them
Because I think this is an area overlooked.
Because I would like to city benefit from individuals using their homes to generate more.
Because I’m against having 70% of the town as STR’s
Because is not for taxes, it’s because we have a long volume of tourists.
Because it has become a renters and 2nd home paradise
Because it puts a fair price on a very on-demand commodity and it needs to be regulated.
Because it raises cost of local employees
Because it seems to me there’s a lot of money being made on short term rentals in Aspen and because
of that reason I believe they should be responsible for paying taxes on the income they make
Because it will bring in revenue and these homeowner owe it to aspen
Because local real estate that can be used for housing locals is being bought up by people that only live
in aspen part time and are instead renting it out to high net worth individuals.
Because our town is out of control with growth and expansion, all is impacting our infrastructure, roads,
water usage, utilities, air pollution, police staffing, sheriff dept., public health, etc.
3782
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
Because overnight guests should pay the same taxes as people who are in hotel rooms. The owners are
just going to pass it on to the tenant and the city of Aspen has a right to collect that money
Because short term rentals are exacerbating the housing crisis
Because short term renters can afford it.
Because the influx of renters impacts local services negatively in addition to the basic property tax that
would be collected from that property.
Because there’s next to nowhere for hardworking locals to fucking live.
Because these people are not local residents and do not work in the city or surrounding areas. We
should be using the tax money from this to put towards long-term housing for residents who work in
aspen and need housing desperately.
Because they are ruining our town and to pay for employee housing we are losing because of rentals
Because they may help on finding long term rentals for other people.
Because they take away inventory from workers and create more traffic which impacts locals quality of
life.
Because this community will die without affordable housing and short term rentals are a major cause of
livable space being taken out of the system
Because vacation rentals should be penalized in favor of people who will ACTUALLY LIVE HERE. We have
a housing crisis. Let the people who work here live here
Because we have a housing crisis and we are not supporting our long term rentals.
Because we have a lot of short term rentals that don’t always benefit locals but the taxes will be used to
benefit both locals and visitors
Because we need more housing for full time residents versus rental income for ST housing
Bringing it up to the level of the hotels seems fair. As long as it is applied equally to all and is used for
the right things, not the change in parallel parleying, I think it COULD be a good thing.
Businesses should pay tax on their income
But not at such a high rate
Could deter people from renting their property if not making enough extra income
Create more revenue for the city and favor the construction of more employee housing
3883
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
Depends on the wording.
Everybody is renting out, needs to be controlled
Everyone should pay their fair share of taxes. Especially when they will be making money off of the
property.
Fairness. They should pay commercial property tax rates.
Finance affordable housing
For employee housing
For the private homes in residential areas, they should be subjected to a higher tax, as they have not
incurred lodging taxes in the past. Condo minimum hotels should NOT be included in this, as they have
always paid lodging taxes.
Fuck ‘em, make more money and hope that some of the landlords go back to long term rentals.
Good for the city; might encourage longer term rentals; might convince some owners to sell to
permanent residents
Help support the infrastructure
Hopefully the money could be used to fund programs to boost the vitality of the local community. The
town feels like it is dying.
Housing crisis, support affordable housing
Housing cross for locals
I believe all rentals, whether it’s a hotel, condo association, realtor or str, should pay a fair and equal
tax.
I don’t think the tax would really stifle business generation for rentals and the revenue should then be
used to offset the affordable housing that they absorb
I feel that private residences should have a higher tax, however condominium hotel properties should
not.
I hope a high short term rental tax will incentivize owners of rental properties to instead rent their units
long term to local employees. The more inventory of long term rentals, the better.
i might vote yes OR no, it depends on the amt of the tax and what it is used for
3984
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
I notice that with these rental unit owners, and renters there is somewhat of neglectful behavior
towards neighbors, and Aspen's infrastructure. Many are there to consume as much as they can without
giving or considering the repercussions. $ greed $
I own a hotel! Need I say more? Short term rentals are threatening my business
I think they need to pay their fair share
I think houses should be used for people who live here, but in the case that they are used for short-term
rentals, I think money should go back into our community.
i think it's a great idea, because I am a working class here on aspen and have lived here longer and have
been pushed out, of workers cannot afford housing
I think the taxes on short term rentals should be roughly equivalent to lodging taxes. I am not sure if
they are.
I think they need to be regulated so that we can have a better handle of the local communities housing
needs
I think we shouldn't limit the number of STR's, but tax them all, encouraging tourism and giving us a
larger tax base.
i would say yes mostly the taxes don’t affect me but I am also someone who is on the rental market so
having more rentals available would be more beneficial to me.
I would vote yes
I'm happy to have less tourism in town, I believe this is a way to deter a portion of it
I’m not liking how short term rentals are changing the fabric of our neighborhoods
If private homeowners are profiting from investment properties, while at the same time taking long
term rentals off the market and making local worker housing harder and less affordable, they should be
contributing to the tax base
If property owners are going to run their homes as a business then they should be contributing to
commercial sales tax revenue
If the money was used for employee housing I’d vote yes
I’m totally fine with a tax on STR, but really this is just punishing the renter, as the cost will be handed
down to them in the end. Aspen is already unaffordable to visit for most. IMHO the right solution is to
punish owners of multiple STRs
Income
4085
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
Income for city that does not affect locals
Individuals who are mostly wall-to-wall neighbors not renting out free standing property putting unusual
and unfair burdens to their neighbor resident property owners who did not buy their own units to live
next to constant revolving door of stranger
Inflated rent for residents. Residential areas are inundated with tourists, sense of community is lost.
It makes sense since the owners are making a bundle so they need to pay ip
It may be good for the city to get more money for affordable housing
It might deter tourists from coming
It should be a regulated activity. And therefore taxed accordingly to be fair and equitable with the
lodging community and associated taxes
It will help to bring more balance to the real estate market and most importantly should be used to help
pay for employee housing
It’s a good way to create more revenue off of home owners making a profit off of their second homes.
It’s a vacation tourist town, if it’s short term rental, it could help the city and maybe put it toward long
term local resident and affordable employee housing
It’s my inclination but really need more info. How much? How will funds be directed? What STRs are
licensed and subject, and what STRs are private and not subject?
It’s only fair
Keep it at 1/2% and you'll get support
Local goods & services should be taxed to generate funding for upkeep & vitality of community.
Long term resident with a young family. We are trying to leave because we cannot afford rent anymore,
STR licenses should be for owners of primary residence only, like everywhere else. We failed to make
that change, and this is better than nothing.
Match commercial lodging tax. Level the playing field, return tax to community not grow government.
Maybe you can use the tax money to build more employee housing since that is what Aspen really
needs.
Money, reduced crowds. Disincentives.
More revenue for affordable housing
4186
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
Multiple short term rentals should be monitored more closely and capped at no more than 2 a year in
residential areas (Cemetery Lane). I have experienced rude, aggressive, entitled rentals, who feel no
obligation to respect neighbors.
Needs more regulation
No housing for workers...(no rentals available anymore) it’s all rich people getting richer...i am not for
owner employee housing ... it’s too abused ... make all housing EMPLOYEE RENTAL UNITS...then there
will be turn over...
People are making income, should b taxed
Raise funds for affordable housing
Regulation and enforcement funding
Rental income is still income.
Rich people should pay taxes
Ridiculous market and rates at the expense of seasonal housing.
S-T renters have many impacts on the community and our quality of life. We need to fix traffic into and
out of town, etc.
Seems to make sense
Share the windfall
Short term rentals are a great revenue source to pay for the pacts they impose on the city in terms of
traffic and pressure on affordable housing options.
Short term rentals are an inconvenience to everyone and everything. Town is constantly filled with
“newbies” who do not understand or appreciate what Aspen is truly about, well at least what the locals
are about, without whom town could not survive.
Short term rentals are horrible for our community. If they must exist, they must be taxed.
Short term rentals change residential use in residential zoning to commercial use in residential zoning,
becoming small hotels, with more use and wear on community Infrastructure.
Short term rentals don’t face lodging taxes (is that right?) so we need to enact a tax to even the playing
field and to pay for the services their tenants use.
Short term rentals exacerbate the pressure and impact of the current housing crisis. By increasing the
taxes, hopefully the generated income could go towards offsetting this burden. Also, a tax increase
would not inhibit the typical affluent tourist.
4287
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
Short term rentals have a lot of wear and tear on the town. Seems appropriate to have them contribute.
Short term rentals have killed any available housing for locals. This effect should be heavily mitigated.
Short term rentals should always be taxed Only issue is what to do with the revenue Perhaps use it to
pay for cardboard pickup at the recycling center
Short term renters don’t appreciate our local culture, don’t contribute and overcrowd our town. We
need more long term rentals for employees
Short-term rental impacts on local infrastructure and government services are the reason we need to
increase taxes on short term rentals - plus we need to take care of the local workforce, who service
short-term rentals (and their housing needs).
Short-term rentals bring more people into town. The additional visitors use the town's resources so it
makes sense to charge additional taxes. On the flip side, locals of the town of Aspen should get tax
breaks on housing.
Short-term rentals create a lot of community impacts. They need to be treated like the commercial
lodging that they function as.
Short-term rentals need to be limited. Taxing will help do that.
Short-term rentals now seem to make up the largest bulk of tourist stays in Aspen. As such, they should
be taxed the same as lodges.
Skyrocketing housing costs are driving out locals who live and work in Aspen. On top of that, we’re
losing the tight knit fabric of our community when many folks are just visiting or coming in and out.
Taxing short-term rentals would hopefully help
Snowmass taxes on rentals are currently higher than Aspen
STR corrupts neighborhoods- are a de facto commercialization of neighborhoods & a back door increase
in our bed base putting more pressure on the availability of affordable housing year round residents ,
Str rob our community of local housing. I wish we could severely limit str.
STR’s are not paying enough tax to offset their impact on this community. City of Aspen did not plan for
the surge in STR’s in the last 10 years. Now working people-tourists and residents .
STRs are a blight on our community and we should limit the licenses available and tax them to the
maximum to encourage long term leases and/or provide a benefit for renting to locals
STRs are basically small hotels. There is no reason from a policy perspective that they should not have to
pay the same taxes that hotels pay to cover the cost of services provided by the city while the visitor is
in town.
4388
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
STRs are destroying our town, they need to be taxed on an equal scale to hotels at a minimum. Our
neighborhoods were not zoned to have a thousand mini hotels in them.
STRs benefit from lower employee mitigation costs and lower property taxes than other traditional
forms of lodging and yet they provide lower community benefits from such lodging. STRs have a
negative impact on the character of residential zones.
STRs have ruined my neighborhood.
STRs have turned Aspen into a free-for-all. They should pay for the myriad problems they create.
Summit County has a much more robust policy for short term rentals
Supply and demand. People will pay. $$ raised to go towards detox and mental health in our
community.
Support infrastructure to accommodate more visitors, lack of housing, trail use
Take money from people that don’t live here
Tax the rich. Bernie Sanders.
Taxes pay for the use that will occur
Taxes will add to the city revenue.
That well understand short rental, shortage rental allowed to be rented resident.
The customers are non-residents who can pay some tax to enjoy their Aspen time.
The housing market is crazy and we need some control-the races can go back to help the Aspen
infrastructure
The impact on the private rental market of short-term vacation rentals has been disastrous and should
be mitigated for.
The impacts are paid for by the citizens
The owners make a killing.
The people that own short rental properties make plenty of money and have plenty of money and they
can pay more for taxes.
The people who are making a lot of money on the City Of Aspen and it’s infrastructure should pay their
share of taxes.
4489
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
The purchasing of multiple ST rental units by non-residents are driving up the pricing for locals both in
being able to purchase or we/they are pricing out long term rentals.
The real estate market in Aspen caters solely to those renting at exorbitant, short term prices. There is
absolutely no reasonable regulation taking place for short term pricing, which disrupts long term rentals
as well
The short term rental market extracts from and “taxes” our community, the increased taxes will help
give back to our community
The strain put on local services, the loss of housing options and the leveling of the playing field with
traditional hospitality options such as lodges and hotels.
The tax should only be used to build more low income housing.
The taxes can be used for affordable housing IN ASPEN. Since there is none available for locals. Short
term rentals disrupt the community. I used to know my neighbors. Now I don’t because new ones move
in every few weeks and don’t care about anyone.
There is a shortage of affordable rental places in Aspen for full time employees . This might encourage
homeowners to rent full time.
There is not enough housing for the local workforce
There’s no denying the negative impact of short term rentals on the housing crisis. Using revenue
generated from increasing taxes to assist long term residents with their housing needs is a bona fide
good plan.
There’s nowhere to live for regular people
There’s not enough housing for workers Maybe it’ll make them think twice about how they rent out
their place / extra trim, etc.
These are commercial rentals in residential neighborhoods negatively impacting those neighborhoods.
These multi homeowners contribute little to nothing to the local economy. They benefit from the real
estate appreciation and rental income. They do not live here to spend that money locally. They are
adding fuel to the housing crisis.
These STR’s are directly competing with hotels, Ruin some neighborhoods,
They are charging a lot per night and making more $$$ so why should they be exempt from paying
taxes?
They are lodging businesses and should pay a much higher tax than they do now
They are running a business
4590
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
They just cause trouble. nothing
They need to contribute
They’ll break up neighborhoods, if not taxed adequately.
They’re able to make money on this service so the city should be able to increase taxes
This has become a new source of income for many & the community should realize some benefits.
Should be put toward affordable housing
This question makes little sense, how can I answer without knowing the rate? I would vote for a
reasonable tax, one that brought the tax rate in line with hotels for example, but not an unreasonably
high tax.
Those landlords should be fairly well-off to start, and can afford it. If they're getting into the lodging
business, it's only fair for them to pay if they're competing with hotels. The hotels shouldn't shoulder all
the burden.
Time to start collecting from all these people that are making tons of money doing these rentals. Make
the tax significant!
To deter this behavior
To encourage the idea that the towns well-being comes first ahead of peoples personal business
opportunities.
To fund more employee housing units for the town to continue to attract vital employees
To help pay for affordable employee housing.
To help with employee housing for those in need of long term rentals.
To make it a question whether short term is worth it or long term is simpler.
To offset impacts to the community.
To pay for additional services that the City of Aspen needs to take on to mitigate the impacts caused by
short term rentals
To subsidize employee housing
To use tax revenue to help offset additional challenges with renters, including adding some portion to
local housing initiatives.
Too many short term rentals contribute to the lack of community in Aspen 2nd home owners should
also be taxed to help pay for more affordable housing
4691
Why would you vote YES? Why do you think this is a good idea to increase taxes on short-
term rentals?
Town to busy, don't need short term rentals
Use greed to swallow greed
Use the $ for employee housing, childcare and to offer subsidies for restaurants that locals can eat at
We don’t have enough year round housing for locals. We don’t need more tourism until we figure out
the local housing situation.
We have to limit them somehow and we need more money to address the impacts they cause
We have too many people in Aspen now. Never seen it so crowded.
We live in a community with an ever increasing housing crisis and extremely over-inflated home values,
driven by 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th homeowners. Many of those owners only seek to purchase a property
for its “income potential.”
We need to tax these rentals so we can improve services of the city
Wear and tear on our infrastructure. Should be taxed at the same rate as a hotel
What would the tax be used for?
Why not! help with the streets trails etc.
Without details of the tax increase it is impossible to say how I would vote. I just chose one. Bad
question
Yes! Lived here for 48 years…Aspen has become a place that locals are starting to avoid. The town has
been taken over by people who don’t respect the reason it has become so popular. Really terrible. I’m
losing faith in our beloved community!
You have to increase this tax by a LOT. Enough to offset their value of investment in buying real estate
in this town. Maybe there needs to be a residency clause for newly purchased houses - i.e. you have to
live in a newly bought house for 6 months
4792
Toplines July 2022
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals Job 3189
Actual sample: 322 1
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
A. Registered to Vote/Party Registration.
Democrat 151 47%
Republican 52 16%
Independent 119 37%
1. Would you vote YES or NO to enact a new tax charged on short-term renters of
Aspen homes that are licensed with a vacation rental permit?
Vote Yes 202 63%
Vote No 106 33%
DK/Refused 14 4%
Next, depending on the level of tax charged on Aspen short-term rentals, it could
generate $10 million a year or more. Answer if you strongly approve, somewhat approve,
or disapprove of this new tax money being spent for each of the following. Here is the
first one.
4. Maintenance of city infrastructure including “lifestyle enhancements” such as
pedestrian safety, bike lanes, and affordable restaurant and retail space for public
benefit.
Strongly approve 115 36%
Somewhat approve 104 32%
Disapprove 101 31%
DK/Refused 2 1%
Total Approve 219 68%
5. Environmental programs such as clean water quality, storm water treatment and
healthy streams, wildfire mitigation, or greenhouse gas reduction.
Strongly approve 154 48%
Somewhat approve 94 29%
Disapprove 71 22%
DK/Refused 3 1%
Total Approve 248 77%
4893
Toplines July 2022
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals Job 3189
Actual sample: 322 2
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
6. Affordable housing - construction, purchase, preservation of workforce housing.
Strongly approve 203 63%
Somewhat approve 59 18%
Disapprove 59 18%
DK/Refused 1 0%
Total Approve 262 81%
7. Of these three, which would be your top priority use for money generated from a
new short-term rental tax?
Maintenance of city infrastructure. 66 20%
Environmental programs. 52 16%
Affordable housing. 202 63%
DK/Refused 2 1%
Next, a couple of questions about your opinion on how much the tax rate for new short-
term rentals should be.
8. Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE setting the short-term rental tax rate to close the
$4.4 million tax revenue gap between what hotels and lodges pay at the commercial
property tax rate and what the 1,200 permitted short-term rental properties pay at
the residential property tax rate?
Support 204 63%
Oppose 108 34%
DK/Refused 10 3%
9. Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE setting the short-term rental tax rate to cover the fee
- in whole or in part - of what every new commercial or large-scale residential
property MUST pay into the city’s affordable housing fund to provide housing to
the service workers who provide services to the guests renting these 1,200 permitted
properties?
Support 196 61%
Oppose 120 37%
DK/Refused 7 2%
4994
Toplines July 2022
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals Job 3189
Actual sample: 322 3
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
10. Knowing that a 5.4% per night tax rate on short-term rentals covers the $4.4 million
property tax revenue gap and 20% per night covers 100% of the affordable housing
fund fee plus the “tax revenue gap,” which of these five options do you support?
a. None - zero percent. 85 26%
b. 5.4% - equal to the $4.4 million
property tax revenue gap between
commercial and residential rentals. 55 17%
c. 9.6% - closes the tax gap and
mitigates one-third of the affordable
housing cost. 40 12%
d. 13% - closes the tax gap and
mitigates two-thirds of the affordable
housing cost. 46 14%
e. 20% - closes the tax gap and 100% of
the affordable housing cost. 90 28%
DK/Refused 6 2%
11. Here is another factor with short-term rentals. There are three kinds of privately-
owned residential properties that are permitted for short-term rentals in Aspen:
-- Homes the owners live in for all or part of the year;
-- Homes owned by investors who are absentee owners; and
-- Condos in a fully-managed lodge building.
Do you think?
All three types should be taxed at the
same rate for short-term rentals. 113 35%
Those rented out by investors should be
taxed at a higher rate. 204 63%
DK/Refused 5 2%
5095
Toplines July 2022
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals Job 3189
Actual sample: 322 4
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
12. Following up, do you think short-term rentals in condos in fully managed buildings
that have full-time staff on duty just like a hotel should be taxed?
At a lower rate than other types of properties. 81 25%
At the same rate as the others. 235 73%
DK/Refused 6 2%
Next, do you AGREE or DISAGREE with these statements. Here is the first one.
13. Aspen greatly benefits from the tourist economy and we should not do anything that
raises the cost to visit here or puts this vital economic engine at risk.
Agree 127 40%
Disagree 190 59%
DK/Refused 5 1%
14. Since visitors staying in hotels and those staying in licensed short-term rentals both
already pay the exact same sales tax and lodging tax, it is just not fair to impose
another large tax on visitors staying at privately-owned properties.
Agree 143 44%
Disagree 176 55%
DK/Refused 4 1%
15. Aspen tourism has to be managed so it doesn’t ruin the residents’ quality of life and
if requiring short-term renters to pay more taxes so these residential rental
businesses pay what other Aspen businesses must pay, that is okay.
Agree 222 69%
Disagree 96 30%
DK/Refused 4 1%
5196
Toplines July 2022
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals Job 3189
Actual sample: 322 5
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
16. Having heard this information about taxing short-term rentals and tourism, which
option do you prefer?
Do not raise taxes on any Aspen lodging. 100 31%
Raise taxes just on short-term rentals
of private property. 136 42%
Raise taxes on all lodging including
hotels and short-term rentals. 82 26%
DK/Refused 4 1%
17. Answer if you would vote YES or NO on the following ballot:
“Shall City of Aspen taxes be increased not more than $10.7 million commencing
January 1, 2023 and by whatever amounts are generated annually thereafter by the
imposition of an excise tax of not more than 13% on the amount charged to any
person on a nightly room rate at any accommodation or business that is required to
obtain a vacation rental permit from the city.
And shall the revenue generated from such tax be utilized for the purpose funding
infrastructure maintenance, environmental initiatives, and affordable housing, with
the rate of tax being allowed to be increased or decreased without further voter
approval so long as the rate of taxation does not exceed 13%; and shall the city be
authorized to collect, keep, and spend the revenues from such tax and any
investment income therefrom notwithstanding the limits of Article X, Section 20
of the Colorado Constitution?”
Vote Yes 176 55%
Vote No 135 42%
DK/Refused 11 3%
5297
Toplines July 2022
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals Job 3189
Actual sample: 322 6
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
18. Lastly, below is one last comprehensive proposed tax increase on ALL types of
lodging permitted in Aspen, but with variable rates. Would you vote YES or NO for
this proposal:
-- Impose a new 3% tax on hotel stays;
-- Impose a new 6% tax on stays at fully managed condos;
-- Impose a new 8% tax on stays at owner-occupied units; and
-- Impose a new 13% tax on stays at units owned by non-resident investors.
Vote Yes 172 53%
Vote No 139 43%
DK/Refused 11 3%
D1. Age.
18-39 77 24%
40-64 166 51%
65-Up 79 25%
Refused 0 0%
D2. How long have you lived in Aspen?
0-10 years 59 18%
11-20 years 88 27%
21-30 years 73 23%
30+ years/Born here/native 100 31%
DK/Refused 1 0%
D3. Gender.
Men 164 51%
Women 155 48%
Non-binary/Other 3 1%
Refused 0 0%
D4. Do you own or rent you current place of residence?
Own 232 72%
Rent 89 28%
DK/Refused 1 0%
5398
Toplines July 2022
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals Job 3189
Actual sample: 322 7
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
D5. IF OWN: Do you own any Aspen properties with a vacation rental permit
Yes 24 10%
No 208 90%
DK/Refused 0 0%
Survey
Online 280 87%
Phone 42 13%
5499
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals --PARTY-- -YEARS IN -GENDER- --AGE-- -HOME- -INDEP.- -DEM-
July 2022 ASPEN-
Job 3189 STR
Nat/ Permit
TOTAL Dem Rep Ind 0-10 11-30 30+ M W 18-39 40-64 65+ Own Rent Holder M W M W
A 1 322 151 52 119 148 73 100 164 155 77 166 79 232 89 24 75 43 64 85
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
A. Registered to Vote/Party Registration.
Democrat 47% 100% 0% 0% 46% 52% 45% 39% 55% 57% 46% 40% 46% 50% 47% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Republican 16% 0% 100% 0% 15% 16% 18% 15% 17% 10% 16% 23% 15% 19% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Independent 37% 0% 0% 100% 39% 32% 37% 46% 28% 33% 39% 37% 39% 31% 31% 100% 100% 0% 0%
1. Would you vote YES or NO to enact a new tax charged on short-term renters of Aspen homes that are licensed with a vacation rental permit?
Vote Yes 63% 77% 35% 56% 65% 58% 64% 60% 66% 66% 62% 61% 59% 74% 25% 54% 61% 75% 80%
Vote No 33% 18% 63% 40% 30% 37% 34% 35% 31% 24% 36% 36% 38% 20% 75% 41% 37% 17% 17%
DK/Refused 4% 5% 2% 4% 5% 5% 2% 5% 3% 9% 2% 4% 3% 7% 0% 5% 2% 8% 4%
Next, depending on the level of tax charged on Aspen short-term rentals, it could generate $10 million a year or more. Answer if you strongly approve, somewhat approve, or
disapprove of this new tax money being spent for each of the following. Here is the first one.
4. Maintenance of city infrastructure including “lifestyle enhancements’ such as pedestrian safety, bike lanes, and affordable restaurant and retail space for public benefit.
Strongly approve 36% 41% 27% 33% 39% 36% 32% 35% 36% 30% 39% 35% 36% 36% 25% 32% 35% 40% 41%
Somewhat approve 32% 31% 21% 39% 30% 34% 35% 33% 32% 29% 35% 31% 30% 38% 24% 44% 30% 24% 37%
Disapprove 31% 26% 52% 29% 30% 30% 33% 31% 32% 40% 27% 32% 34% 24% 50% 24% 35% 33% 22%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0%
Total Approve 68% 72% 48% 71% 69% 70% 67% 68% 68% 58% 73% 67% 66% 74% 50% 76% 65% 63% 78%
5. Environmental programs such as clean water quality, storm water treatment and healthy streams, wildfire mitigation, or greenhouse gas reduction
Strongly approve 48% 55% 25% 49% 46% 45% 52% 42% 54% 53% 44% 50% 48% 46% 25% 46% 57% 46% 61%
Somewhat approve 29% 28% 33% 29% 29% 30% 29% 30% 28% 23% 35% 23% 29% 31% 28% 27% 33% 33% 24%
Disapprove 22% 16% 42% 21% 24% 23% 18% 26% 18% 21% 21% 26% 22% 22% 46% 27% 11% 17% 14%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 3% 0%
Total Approve 77% 83% 58% 78% 75% 75% 82% 73% 82% 76% 79% 73% 77% 77% 54% 72% 89% 79% 86%
6. Affordable housing “ construction, purchase, preservation of workforce housing.
Strongly approve 63% 74% 35% 62% 73% 51% 57% 62% 65% 79% 62% 49% 57% 80% 41% 59% 67% 73% 75%
Somewhat approve 18% 15% 23% 21% 11% 30% 21% 21% 15% 9% 17% 30% 20% 15% 21% 24% 15% 14% 14%
Disapprove 18% 11% 42% 17% 15% 19% 23% 16% 20% 10% 21% 21% 23% 6% 38% 16% 17% 11% 11%
DK/Refused 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Total Approve 81% 89% 58% 83% 84% 81% 77% 83% 80% 88% 79% 79% 77% 94% 62% 84% 83% 87% 89%
55100
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals --PARTY-- -YEARS IN -GENDER- --AGE-- -HOME- -INDEP.- -DEM-
July 2022 ASPEN-
Job 3189 STR
Nat/ Permit
TOTAL Dem Rep Ind 0-10 11-30 30+ M W 18-39 40-64 65+ Own Rent Holder M W M W
A 2 322 151 52 119 148 73 100 164 155 77 166 79 232 89 24 75 43 64 85
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
7. Of these three, which would be your top priority use for money generated from a new short-term rental tax?
Maintenance of city
infrastructure. 20% 13% 46% 19% 19% 23% 21% 21% 19% 15% 20% 27% 24% 10% 26% 20% 15% 14% 11%
Environmental programs. 16% 18% 8% 17% 9% 18% 25% 13% 19% 7% 18% 20% 18% 11% 24% 16% 20% 13% 22%
Affordable housing. 63% 69% 44% 63% 71% 59% 53% 65% 61% 77% 62% 52% 57% 79% 50% 63% 65% 71% 67%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0%
Next, a couple of questions about your opinion on how much the tax rate for new short-term rentals should be.
8. Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE setting the short-term rental tax rate to close the $4.4 million tax revenue gap between what hotels and lodges pay at the commercial property tax rate and what
the 1,200 permitted short-term rental properties pay at the residential property tax rate?
Support 63% 76% 40% 58% 64% 58% 67% 61% 67% 63% 66% 59% 60% 72% 25% 58% 59% 71% 80%
Oppose 34% 20% 60% 39% 31% 39% 32% 36% 30% 33% 32% 37% 37% 23% 75% 39% 37% 24% 17%
DK/Refused 3% 4% 0% 3% 5% 3% 1% 3% 3% 4% 2% 4% 3% 5% 0% 3% 4% 5% 4%
9. Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE setting the short-term rental tax rate to cover the fee - in whole or in part - of what every new commercial or large-scale residential property
MUST pay into the city’s affordable housing fund to provide housing to the service workers who provide services to the guests renting these 1,200 permitted properties?
Support 61% 70% 35% 60% 65% 53% 60% 62% 60% 70% 58% 58% 55% 76% 17% 65% 52% 70% 71%
Oppose 37% 27% 65% 38% 32% 44% 40% 36% 38% 27% 41% 38% 43% 21% 83% 33% 46% 29% 25%
DK/Refused 2% 3% 0% 2% 3% 3% 0% 2% 3% 3% 1% 4% 2% 3% 0% 3% 2% 2% 4%
56101
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals --PARTY-- -YEARS IN -GENDER- --AGE-- -HOME- -INDEP.- -DEM-
July 2022 ASPEN-
Job 3189 STR
Nat/ Permit
TOTAL Dem Rep Ind 0-10 11-30 30+ M W 18-39 40-64 65+ Own Rent Holder M W M W
A 3 322 151 52 119 148 73 100 164 155 77 166 79 232 89 24 75 43 64 85
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
10. Knowing that a 5.4% per night tax rate on short-term rentals covers the $4.4 million property tax revenue gap and 20% per night covers 100% of the affordable housing fund
fee plus the “tax revenue gap,” which of these five options do you support?
a. None - zero percent. 26% 15% 50% 31% 24% 32% 25% 27% 25% 21% 27% 31% 31% 15% 63% 32% 28% 14% 14%
b. 5.4% - equal to the
$4.4 million property tax
revenue gap between
commercial and
residential rentals. 17% 17% 23% 15% 14% 15% 23% 18% 16% 10% 19% 20% 17% 17% 16% 16% 13% 19% 16%
c. 9.6% - closes the tax
gap and mitigates
one-third of the
affordable housing cost. 12% 11% 8% 15% 11% 13% 15% 13% 12% 14% 14% 6% 12% 14% 9% 14% 17% 14% 10%
d. 13% - closes the tax
gap and mitigates
two-thirds of the
affordable housing cost. 14% 16% 4% 17% 18% 14% 9% 10% 19% 17% 13% 14% 14% 15% 8% 13% 24% 10% 20%
e. 20% - closes the tax
gap and 100% of the
affordable housing cost. 28% 39% 15% 21% 30% 25% 28% 30% 26% 33% 26% 28% 24% 39% 4% 24% 15% 41% 36%
DK/Refused 2% 3% 0% 2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 3% 5% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 4%
11. Here is another factor with short-term rentals. There are three kinds of privately-owned residential properties that are permitted for short-term rentals in Aspen: Homes
the owners live in for all or part of the year; Homes owned by investors who are absentee owners; and Condos in a fully-managed lodge building. Do you think?
All three types should be
taxed at the same rate
for short-term rentals. 35% 32% 48% 33% 39% 33% 31% 40% 30% 26% 40% 33% 37% 30% 42% 35% 28% 40% 27%
Those rented out by
investors should be taxed
at a higher rate. 63% 66% 50% 66% 61% 66% 67% 58% 69% 71% 59% 66% 62% 69% 58% 62% 72% 59% 72%
DK/Refused 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 2% 1%
12. Following up, do you think short-term rentals in condos in fully managed buildings that have full-time staff on duty just like a hotel should be taxed?
At a lower rate than
other types of
properties. 25% 21% 27% 29% 25% 19% 29% 27% 23% 32% 22% 24% 25% 26% 13% 32% 26% 21% 22%
At the same rate as the
others. 73% 77% 71% 69% 73% 81% 68% 70% 75% 64% 77% 73% 73% 73% 87% 67% 72% 76% 77%
DK/Refused 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% 0% 3% 2% 1% 4% 1% 3% 2% 1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 1%
57102
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals --PARTY-- -YEARS IN -GENDER- --AGE-- -HOME- -INDEP.- -DEM-
July 2022 ASPEN-
Job 3189 STR
Nat/ Permit
TOTAL Dem Rep Ind 0-10 11-30 30+ M W 18-39 40-64 65+ Own Rent Holder M W M W
A 4 322 151 52 119 148 73 100 164 155 77 166 79 232 89 24 75 43 64 85
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Next, do you AGREE or DISAGREE with these statements. Here is the first one.
13. Aspen greatly benefits from the tourist economy and we should not do anything that raises the cost to visit here or puts this vital economic engine at risk.
Agree 40% 26% 73% 43% 37% 42% 41% 41% 37% 39% 39% 41% 41% 36% 71% 44% 39% 25% 25%
Disagree 59% 74% 27% 54% 61% 56% 58% 56% 62% 58% 60% 58% 57% 64% 29% 52% 59% 73% 75%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 0% 3% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 4% 2% 2% 0%
14. Since visitors staying in hotels and those staying in licensed short-term rentals both already pay the exact same sales tax and lodging tax, it is just not fair to impose
another large tax on visitors staying at privately-owned properties.
Agree 44% 34% 71% 45% 40% 53% 44% 41% 48% 34% 50% 42% 46% 39% 83% 41% 54% 32% 36%
Disagree 55% 65% 29% 52% 60% 43% 56% 57% 51% 64% 49% 57% 53% 60% 17% 56% 46% 68% 63%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 4% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 1%
15. Aspen tourism has to be managed so it doesn’t ruin the residents’ quality of life and if requiring short-term renters to pay more taxes so these residential rental
businesses pay what other Aspen businesses must pay, that is okay.
Agree 69% 80% 48% 64% 72% 67% 66% 69% 69% 76% 67% 65% 65% 80% 25% 66% 63% 81% 80%
Disagree 30% 19% 50% 35% 28% 30% 33% 30% 29% 23% 32% 32% 35% 17% 75% 33% 37% 19% 18%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 3% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 0% 2%
16. Having heard this information about taxing short-term rentals and tourism, which option do you prefer?
Do not raise taxes on any
Aspen lodging. 31% 19% 54% 37% 28% 35% 32% 33% 28% 25% 31% 37% 35% 20% 71% 39% 30% 21% 17%
Raise taxes just on
short-term rentals of
private property. 42% 47% 31% 40% 46% 37% 41% 40% 45% 48% 41% 39% 39% 51% 8% 41% 41% 40% 53%
Raise taxes on all
lodging including hotels
and short-term rentals. 26% 32% 15% 21% 26% 25% 26% 26% 26% 27% 26% 23% 25% 28% 21% 19% 26% 38% 29%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% 2% 2% 1%
17. Answer if you would vote YES or NO on the following ballot: BALLOT WORDING.
Vote Yes 55% 68% 25% 50% 57% 54% 53% 54% 55% 60% 55% 48% 51% 64% 17% 54% 43% 67% 70%
Vote No 42% 28% 73% 46% 39% 45% 44% 41% 42% 34% 43% 47% 46% 32% 83% 42% 52% 29% 28%
DK/Refused 3% 3% 2% 4% 5% 1% 3% 4% 3% 7% 1% 5% 3% 3% 0% 4% 4% 5% 2%
58103
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals --PARTY-- -YEARS IN -GENDER- --AGE-- -HOME- -INDEP.- -DEM-
July 2022 ASPEN-
Job 3189 STR
Nat/ Permit
TOTAL Dem Rep Ind 0-10 11-30 30+ M W 18-39 40-64 65+ Own Rent Holder M W M W
A 5 322 151 52 119 148 73 100 164 155 77 166 79 232 89 24 75 43 64 85
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
18. Lastly, below is one last comprehensive proposed tax increase on ALL types of lodging permitted in Aspen, but with variable rates. Would you vote YES or NO for this
proposal: Impose a new 3% tax on hotel stays; Impose a new 6% tax on stays at fully managed condos; Impose a new 8% tax on stays at owner-occupied units; and Impose a new 13%
tax on stays at units owned by non-resident investors.
Vote Yes 53% 66% 31% 48% 60% 46% 50% 49% 58% 60% 54% 45% 49% 66% 25% 46% 52% 59% 70%
Vote No 43% 30% 67% 50% 36% 53% 46% 47% 39% 34% 43% 52% 48% 31% 75% 52% 46% 35% 27%
DK/Refused 3% 5% 2% 2% 4% 1% 4% 4% 3% 7% 2% 3% 3% 3% 0% 3% 2% 6% 4%
D1. Age.
18-39 24% 29% 15% 21% 40% 7% 12% 21% 27% 100% 0% 0% 19% 35% 8% 16% 30% 33% 25%
40-64 51% 50% 50% 54% 51% 67% 41% 50% 54% 0% 100% 0% 51% 53% 55% 57% 50% 46% 54%
65-Up 25% 21% 35% 25% 9% 26% 47% 29% 19% 0% 0% 100% 30% 12% 37% 27% 20% 21% 20%
Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
D2. How long have you lived in Aspen?
0-10 years 18% 16% 25% 18% 40% 0% 0% 19% 17% 35% 17% 5% 14% 29% 13% 15% 24% 22% 11%
11-20 years 27% 29% 17% 30% 60% 0% 0% 26% 29% 42% 29% 11% 26% 33% 25% 27% 35% 30% 29%
21-30 years 23% 25% 23% 20% 0% 100% 0% 24% 22% 7% 30% 24% 24% 21% 38% 27% 9% 17% 31%
30+ years/Born
here/native 31% 30% 35% 31% 0% 0% 100% 30% 32% 15% 25% 59% 37% 17% 24% 30% 33% 30% 29%
DK/Refused 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
D3. Gender.
Men 51% 43% 48% 63% 50% 54% 50% 100% 0% 45% 49% 59% 50% 52% 45% 100% 0% 100% 0%
Women 48% 56% 52% 37% 49% 46% 49% 0% 100% 53% 51% 38% 49% 47% 50% 0% 100% 0% 100%
Non-binary/Other 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 2% 1% 1% 4% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
D4. Do you own or rent you current place of residence?
Own 72% 71% 67% 76% 63% 75% 85% 71% 73% 58% 72% 87% 100% 0% 100% 76% 76% 71% 71%
Rent 28% 29% 33% 23% 37% 25% 15% 28% 27% 41% 28% 13% 0% 100% 0% 23% 24% 29% 29%
DK/Refused 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0%
D5. IF OWN: Do you own any Aspen properties with a vacation rental permit
Yes 10% 10% 16% 8% 10% 17% 7% 9% 11% 5% 11% 13% 10% 100% 8% 9% 9% 10%
No 90% 90% 84% 92% 90% 83% 93% 91% 89% 95% 89% 87% 90% 0% 92% 91% 91% 90%
DK/Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
59104
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals --PARTY-- -YEARS IN -GENDER- --AGE-- -HOME- -INDEP.- -DEM-
July 2022 ASPEN-
Job 3189 STR
Nat/ Permit
TOTAL Dem Rep Ind 0-10 11-30 30+ M W 18-39 40-64 65+ Own Rent Holder M W M W
A 6 322 151 52 119 148 73 100 164 155 77 166 79 232 89 24 75 43 64 85
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Survey
Online 87% 89% 81% 87% 86% 89% 88% 83% 92% 83% 92% 81% 91% 78% 100% 85% 91% 86% 92%
Phone 13% 11% 19% 13% 14% 11% 12% 17% 8% 17% 8% 19% 9% 22% 0% 15% 9% 14% 8%
60105
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals -STR: -STR: -TAX ALL --PREFERRED STR RATE-- -STR “NOT -PREFERRED
July 2022 INITIAL BALLOT LODGING: FAIR” TAX INCREASE-
Job 3189 CONCEPT- LANGUAGE- VARIABLE
RATES- Total Total STR All
TOTAL Yes No Yes No Yes No None 5.4% 9.6% 13% 20% 13%+ 9.6% Agree Disagree None Only Lodging
B 1 322 202 106 176 135 172 139 85 55 40 46 90 136 176 143 176 100 136 82
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
A. Registered to Vote/Party Registration.
Democrat 47% 58% 25% 59% 32% 58% 32% 26% 46% 44% 52% 64% 60% 57% 37% 56% 29% 53% 60%
Republican 16% 9% 30% 7% 28% 9% 25% 30% 21% 11% 5% 8% 7% 8% 26% 9% 28% 12% 9%
Independent 37% 33% 45% 34% 41% 33% 43% 43% 32% 45% 44% 27% 33% 36% 38% 36% 43% 35% 31%
1. Would you vote YES or NO to enact a new tax charged on short-term renters of Aspen homes that are licensed with a vacation rental permit?
Vote Yes 63% 100% 0% 94% 24% 92% 29% 4% 65% 85% 94% 93% 93% 92% 31% 89% 5% 90% 90%
Vote No 33% 0% 100% 4% 71% 6% 68% 94% 24% 12% 6% 3% 4% 6% 63% 9% 91% 7% 5%
DK/Refused 4% 0% 0% 2% 5% 2% 3% 2% 11% 3% 0% 3% 2% 2% 6% 2% 4% 3% 5%
Next, depending on the level of tax charged on Aspen short-term rentals, it could generate $10 million a year or more. Answer if you strongly approve, somewhat approve, or
disapprove of this new tax money being spent for each of the following. Here is the first one.
4. Maintenance of city infrastructure including “lifestyle enhancements” such as pedestrian safety, bike lanes, and affordable restaurant and retail space for public benefit.
Strongly approve 36% 49% 14% 49% 18% 49% 19% 14% 33% 40% 52% 47% 49% 47% 21% 48% 12% 45% 49%
Somewhat approve 32% 34% 28% 34% 29% 35% 30% 24% 45% 37% 26% 35% 32% 33% 32% 32% 25% 37% 34%
Disapprove 31% 17% 58% 16% 53% 16% 51% 62% 22% 23% 22% 17% 18% 19% 45% 19% 60% 19% 17%
DK/Refused 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 0%
Total Approve 68% 83% 42% 84% 46% 83% 49% 38% 78% 77% 78% 82% 81% 80% 53% 81% 38% 81% 83%
5. Environmental programs such as clean water quality, storm water treatment and healthy streams, wildfire mitigation, or greenhouse gas reduction
Strongly approve 48% 63% 20% 64% 25% 64% 28% 15% 60% 57% 67% 57% 60% 59% 30% 63% 16% 57% 72%
Somewhat approve 29% 27% 35% 26% 35% 26% 34% 30% 33% 35% 22% 29% 27% 29% 35% 24% 32% 34% 18%
Disapprove 22% 10% 46% 10% 38% 10% 38% 53% 7% 8% 11% 13% 12% 11% 33% 13% 50% 9% 10%
DK/Refused 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 3% 0% 0%
Total Approve 77% 90% 54% 90% 60% 89% 62% 45% 93% 92% 89% 86% 87% 88% 65% 87% 47% 91% 90%
6. Affordable housing - construction, purchase, preservation of workforce housing.
Strongly approve 63% 81% 29% 82% 38% 80% 42% 24% 72% 72% 83% 80% 81% 79% 47% 77% 28% 79% 79%
Somewhat approve 18% 14% 25% 14% 24% 15% 23% 23% 18% 25% 13% 15% 14% 17% 22% 14% 25% 16% 13%
Disapprove 18% 4% 46% 4% 38% 5% 35% 53% 9% 2% 4% 6% 5% 5% 30% 9% 45% 5% 8%
DK/Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Total Approve 81% 96% 54% 96% 62% 95% 65% 47% 91% 98% 96% 94% 95% 95% 69% 91% 54% 95% 92%
61106
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals -STR: -STR: -TAX ALL --PREFERRED STR RATE-- -STR “NOT -PREFERRED
July 2022 INITIAL BALLOT LODGING: FAIR” TAX INCREASE-
Job 3189 CONCEPT- LANGUAGE- VARIABLE
RATES- Total Total STR All
TOTAL Yes No Yes No Yes No None 5.4% 9.6% 13% 20% 13%+ 9.6% Agree Disagree None Only Lodging
B 2 322 202 106 176 135 172 139 85 55 40 46 90 136 176 143 176 100 136 82
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
7. Of these three, which would be your top priority use for money generated from a new short-term rental tax?
Maintenance of city
infrastructure. 20% 13% 35% 13% 32% 12% 31% 42% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 25% 16% 35% 15% 12%
Environmental programs. 16% 17% 15% 18% 14% 18% 15% 15% 20% 13% 17% 17% 17% 16% 17% 15% 17% 15% 17%
Affordable housing. 63% 70% 50% 70% 53% 70% 54% 42% 67% 75% 70% 70% 70% 71% 58% 67% 47% 70% 71%
DK/Refused 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0%
Next, a couple of questions about your opinion on how much the tax rate for new short-term rentals should be.
8. Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE setting the short-term rental tax rate to close the $4.4 million tax revenue gap between what hotels and lodges pay at the commercial property tax rate and what
the 1,200 permitted short-term rental properties pay at the residential property tax rate?
Support 63% 91% 14% 92% 27% 89% 32% 7% 65% 85% 92% 93% 93% 91% 34% 89% 12% 90% 82%
Oppose 34% 8% 84% 7% 70% 9% 66% 92% 31% 15% 6% 4% 5% 7% 61% 10% 85% 7% 16%
DK/Refused 3% 1% 2% 1% 4% 1% 2% 1% 4% 0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 5% 1% 3% 2% 2%
9. Do you SUPPORT or OPPOSE setting the short-term rental tax rate to cover the fee - in whole or in part - of what every new commercial or large-scale residential property
MUST pay into the city’s affordable housing fund to provide housing to the service workers who provide services to the guests renting these 1,200 permitted properties?
Support 61% 84% 17% 86% 27% 83% 34% 13% 60% 80% 83% 89% 87% 85% 34% 82% 16% 81% 82%
Oppose 37% 15% 82% 13% 71% 16% 64% 87% 36% 20% 17% 9% 12% 14% 62% 18% 81% 17% 17%
DK/Refused 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 4% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 4% 0% 3% 1% 1%
62107
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals -STR: -STR: -TAX ALL --PREFERRED STR RATE-- -STR “NOT -PREFERRED
July 2022 INITIAL BALLOT LODGING: FAIR” TAX INCREASE-
Job 3189 CONCEPT- LANGUAGE- VARIABLE
RATES- Total Total STR All
TOTAL Yes No Yes No Yes No None 5.4% 9.6% 13% 20% 13%+ 9.6% Agree Disagree None Only Lodging
B 3 322 202 106 176 135 172 139 85 55 40 46 90 136 176 143 176 100 136 82
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
10. Knowing that a 5.4% per night tax rate on short-term rentals covers the $4.4 million property tax revenue gap and 20% per night covers 100% of the affordable housing fund
fee plus the “tax revenue gap,” which of these five options do you support?
a. None - zero percent. 26% 1% 76% 2% 59% 3% 58% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 49% 7% 78% 2% 4%
b. 5.4% - equal to the
$4.4 million property tax
revenue gap between
commercial and
residential rentals. 17% 18% 12% 14% 21% 13% 21% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 12% 12% 19% 22%
c. 9.6% - closes the tax
gap and mitigates
one-third of the
affordable housing cost. 12% 17% 5% 18% 5% 16% 9% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 23% 9% 15% 4% 19% 11%
d. 13% - closes the tax
gap and mitigates
two-thirds of the
affordable housing cost. 14% 21% 3% 22% 5% 23% 4% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 33% 26% 6% 21% 1% 24% 14%
e. 20% - closes the tax
gap and 100% of the
affordable housing cost. 28% 42% 3% 43% 9% 45% 8% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 67% 51% 10% 43% 3% 35% 47%
DK/Refused 2% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2%
11. Here is another factor with short-term rentals. There are three kinds of privately-owned residential properties that are permitted for short-term rentals in Aspen: Homes
the owners live in for all or part of the year; Homes owned by investors who are absentee owners; and Condos in a fully-managed lodge building. Do you think?
All three types should be
taxed at the same rate
for short-term rentals. 35% 30% 48% 26% 48% 27% 47% 49% 37% 15% 31% 34% 33% 29% 40% 31% 49% 27% 33%
Those rented out by
investors should be taxed
at a higher rate. 63% 70% 50% 74% 49% 73% 51% 49% 62% 85% 69% 65% 66% 70% 59% 67% 49% 73% 65%
DK/Refused 2% 0% 2% 0% 3% 0% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 2%
12. Following up, do you think short-term rentals in condos in fully managed buildings that have full-time staff on duty just like a hotel should be taxed?
At a lower rate than
other types of
properties. 25% 22% 31% 21% 31% 24% 26% 32% 20% 34% 19% 21% 20% 23% 27% 24% 30% 28% 13%
At the same rate as the
others. 73% 77% 66% 79% 67% 76% 73% 66% 78% 66% 81% 78% 79% 76% 72% 74% 68% 71% 84%
DK/Refused 2% 1% 3% 0% 2% 0% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2%
63108
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals -STR: -STR: -TAX ALL --PREFERRED STR RATE-- -STR “NOT -PREFERRED
July 2022 INITIAL BALLOT LODGING: FAIR” TAX INCREASE-
Job 3189 CONCEPT- LANGUAGE- VARIABLE
RATES- Total Total STR All
TOTAL Yes No Yes No Yes No None 5.4% 9.6% 13% 20% 13%+ 9.6% Agree Disagree None Only Lodging
B 4 322 202 106 176 135 172 139 85 55 40 46 90 136 176 143 176 100 136 82
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Next, do you AGREE or DISAGREE with these statements. Here is the first one.
13. Aspen greatly benefits from the tourist economy and we should not do anything that raises the cost to visit here or puts this vital economic engine at risk.
Agree 40% 16% 83% 15% 70% 17% 68% 84% 46% 27% 11% 13% 12% 16% 72% 13% 88% 18% 17%
Disagree 59% 84% 16% 83% 29% 83% 29% 14% 49% 73% 89% 87% 88% 84% 26% 86% 10% 81% 82%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 2% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1%
14. Since visitors staying in hotels and those staying in licensed short-term rentals both already pay the exact same sales tax and lodging tax, it is just not fair to impose
another large tax on visitors staying at privately-owned properties.
Agree 44% 22% 84% 22% 73% 23% 69% 82% 62% 32% 17% 16% 16% 20% 100% 0% 86% 19% 34%
Disagree 55% 78% 14% 78% 25% 77% 28% 14% 38% 68% 83% 84% 84% 80% 0% 100% 11% 80% 66%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0%
15. Aspen tourism has to be managed so it doesn’t ruin the residents’ quality of life and if requiring short-term renters to pay more taxes so these residential rental
businesses pay what other Aspen businesses must pay, that is okay.
Agree 69% 95% 20% 97% 32% 95% 35% 15% 73% 85% 96% 97% 96% 94% 40% 92% 13% 97% 92%
Disagree 30% 4% 79% 2% 66% 5% 63% 84% 27% 10% 4% 3% 4% 5% 60% 6% 85% 2% 8%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% 1% 0%
16. Having heard this information about taxing short-term rentals and tourism, which option do you prefer?
Do not raise taxes on any
Aspen lodging. 31% 2% 86% 3% 68% 4% 65% 92% 22% 10% 2% 3% 3% 4% 60% 6% 100% 0% 0%
Raise taxes just on
short-term rentals of
private property. 42% 60% 10% 62% 17% 56% 26% 4% 46% 65% 72% 52% 59% 60% 19% 62% 0% 100% 0%
Raise taxes on all
lodging including hotels
and short-term rentals. 26% 37% 4% 34% 13% 39% 8% 3% 33% 22% 26% 42% 37% 34% 20% 31% 0% 0% 100%
DK/Refused 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 3% 0% 2% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
17. Answer if you would vote YES or NO on the following ballot: BALLOT WORDING.
Vote Yes 55% 82% 7% 100% 0% 87% 17% 5% 45% 80% 85% 85% 85% 83% 28% 78% 6% 80% 73%
Vote No 42% 16% 91% 0% 100% 12% 81% 94% 51% 18% 15% 13% 14% 15% 69% 19% 92% 17% 22%
DK/Refused 3% 2% 3% 0% 0% 1% 2% 1% 3% 3% 0% 2% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 5%
64109
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals -STR: -STR: -TAX ALL --PREFERRED STR RATE-- -STR “NOT -PREFERRED
July 2022 INITIAL BALLOT LODGING: FAIR” TAX INCREASE-
Job 3189 CONCEPT- LANGUAGE- VARIABLE
RATES- Total Total STR All
TOTAL Yes No Yes No Yes No None 5.4% 9.6% 13% 20% 13%+ 9.6% Agree Disagree None Only Lodging
B 5 322 202 106 176 135 172 139 85 55 40 46 90 136 176 143 176 100 136 82
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
18. Lastly, below is one last comprehensive proposed tax increase on ALL types of lodging permitted in Aspen, but with variable rates. Would you vote YES or NO for this
proposal: Impose a new 3% tax on hotel stays; Impose a new 6% tax on stays at fully managed condos; Impose a new 8% tax on stays at owner-occupied units; and Impose a new 13%
tax on stays at units owned by non-resident investors.
Vote Yes 53% 79% 10% 85% 15% 100% 0% 6% 40% 70% 87% 86% 86% 82% 28% 76% 7% 71% 82%
Vote No 43% 20% 89% 14% 83% 0% 100% 94% 52% 30% 13% 12% 12% 16% 67% 22% 91% 27% 13%
DK/Refused 3% 2% 2% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1% 5% 2% 2% 2% 5%
D1. Age.
18-39 24% 25% 18% 26% 19% 27% 19% 19% 15% 27% 28% 28% 28% 28% 18% 28% 19% 27% 26%
40-64 51% 51% 56% 52% 53% 52% 52% 53% 57% 61% 48% 47% 48% 50% 58% 46% 52% 50% 52%
65-Up 25% 24% 27% 21% 28% 21% 30% 29% 29% 12% 24% 25% 24% 22% 23% 26% 29% 23% 22%
Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
D2. How long have you lived in Aspen?
0-10 years 18% 20% 15% 20% 16% 22% 13% 14% 15% 10% 20% 27% 24% 21% 15% 22% 11% 23% 20%
11-20 years 27% 27% 26% 28% 26% 29% 25% 27% 23% 30% 39% 22% 28% 28% 27% 29% 30% 27% 27%
21-30 years 23% 21% 25% 22% 24% 19% 28% 28% 20% 23% 22% 20% 21% 21% 27% 18% 26% 20% 22%
30+ years/Born
here/native 31% 32% 32% 30% 33% 29% 33% 30% 42% 37% 20% 31% 27% 29% 31% 32% 32% 30% 32%
DK/Refused 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
D3. Gender.
Men 51% 49% 53% 51% 50% 47% 56% 52% 54% 55% 37% 54% 48% 50% 47% 54% 54% 48% 51%
Women 48% 51% 45% 49% 48% 52% 44% 45% 46% 45% 63% 45% 51% 50% 52% 45% 44% 51% 49%
Non-binary/Other 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0%
Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
D4. Do you own or rent you current place of residence?
Own 72% 68% 83% 68% 78% 66% 80% 83% 72% 70% 72% 62% 65% 66% 76% 70% 82% 67% 69%
Rent 28% 32% 16% 32% 21% 34% 20% 16% 28% 30% 28% 38% 35% 34% 24% 30% 17% 33% 31%
DK/Refused 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0%
D5. IF OWN: Do you own any Aspen properties with a vacation rental permit
Yes 10% 4% 21% 3% 19% 5% 16% 21% 10% 8% 6% 2% 3% 4% 19% 3% 21% 2% 9%
No 90% 96% 79% 97% 81% 95% 84% 79% 90% 92% 94% 98% 97% 96% 81% 97% 79% 98% 91%
DK/Refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
65110
City of Aspen/Short-Term Rentals -STR: -STR: -TAX ALL --PREFERRED STR RATE-- -STR “NOT -PREFERRED
July 2022 INITIAL BALLOT LODGING: FAIR” TAX INCREASE-
Job 3189 CONCEPT- LANGUAGE- VARIABLE
RATES- Total Total STR All
TOTAL Yes No Yes No Yes No None 5.4% 9.6% 13% 20% 13%+ 9.6% Agree Disagree None Only Lodging
B 6 322 202 106 176 135 172 139 85 55 40 46 90 136 176 143 176 100 136 82
FrederickPolls 350 South 200 East, #722 (703) 801-9506
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Survey
Online 87% 91% 90% 93% 86% 93% 86% 91% 80% 90% 91% 90% 90% 90% 87% 89% 87% 90% 86%
Phone 13% 9% 10% 7% 14% 7% 14% 9% 20% 10% 9% 10% 10% 10% 13% 11% 13% 10% 14%
66111
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 1
T ECHNICAL M EMORANDUM
To: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director, City of
Aspen
From: Andrew Knudtsen and Rachel Shindman, Economic &
Planning Systems
Subject: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis; EPS #223033
Date: May 19, 2022
This technical memorandum summarizes the study supporting a
fee program to be applied to short term accommodation unit (short
term rental or “STR”) licensees in the City of Aspen. Economic &
Planning Systems (EPS) was retained by the City to determine a
reasonable fee for this program. The analysis outlines two fee
components, demonstrating a reasonable relationship between
guest spending from STRs in the city and the demand for local
employees and the corresponding housing needs, as well as
administrative costs incurred by the City in regulating STRs. The
study uses economic impact techniques to quantify the
relationships between guest spending when staying in STRs and
the number of jobs and employee-households supported in the
local economy by that spending. For the administrative fee
component, the analysis is based on the City’s estimate of fully
loaded personnel costs and direct expenditures that are necessary
to manage STRs.
Guests staying in STRs spend money in the local economy, and that
spending in turn creates local jobs. The employees holding these
jobs then seek housing units. Many of the jobs created are at wage
levels that do not pay enough for employees to afford housing in the
city. The basis of this fee is therefore the gap between what
employees can afford and the cost to provide affordable housing in
the City of Aspen (using recently updated fee calculations to
determine the financial gaps by income category within the City’s
established fee program).
The calculation also accounts for the possibility that a home used as
an STR could be occupied by a local resident, and the fee is further
differentiated based on this use. For this calculation, the fee reflects
the difference between the impact of guest spending in the local
economy and the baseline impact of local resident spending.
33067112
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 2
Rationale
This fee is needed to support the costs incurred by the City to manage STRs, as well as to
support the local labor force and City housing programs that sustain the tourism economy
in Aspen. Without an adequate supply of housing and housing support programs, the City
risks losing some of its labor supply that is essential to the quality of service and viability
of businesses in which STR guests spend money during their stay. This is important, as
tourism is a primary element of the City’s economic base. If businesses do not have an
adequate labor force and if workers do not have adequate housing, the guest experience
and the City’s economy are likely to degrade.
STR owners or hosts will pay an annual licensing fee under this program. The fee payers
receive benefits through investment by the City in housing for the workforce needed to
sustain the visitor economy. STR owners and operators are likely to benefit from the
supply of labor and from investments the City will make using the fee revenue on housing
for the local workforce. Having more housing options for the local workforce is also likely
to benefit the fee payers in better customer service through increased employee
retention and reduced employee turnover.
Administrative Fee
Methodology
The City of Aspen incurs costs to administer and regulate STRs beyond the standard costs
of government. Five departments in particular shoulder this cost: Police, Community
Development, Finance, Legal, and Administration. This analysis calculates a fee to be
charged to STRs to account for these costs.
Model inputs were provided by City of Aspen staff, reflecting current expenditures (staff
time and costs) associated with administering and regulating STRs. The new position
being added by Community Development to address STRs is also included in this
analysis. Given the increased level of cost associated with dispersed STR units compared
to developments that include a front desk and corresponding services (i.e., condo hotels),
costs are allocated proportionally.
Analysis and Fee Calculation
As shown in Table 1, the City of Aspen incurs $315,400 in annual costs associated with
STRs, including the new Community Development position. These include staffing costs
for enforcement, tax compliance, police calls (e.g., for trash, noise), and legal issues, as
well as software costs to manage licenses and revenue.
33168113
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 3
Table 1. City of Aspen STR Costs
The allocation of these costs is broken out between dispersed STRs and developments
with front desks that are fully staffed to service guests, shown in Table 2. As shown,
Condo Hotel units account for 34 percent of overall City costs, or $106,300 annually,
while dispersed STR units account for 66 percent of costs ($209,100 per year).
Table 2. STR Costs by Type
The last step in this analysis is to calculate the per-unit fee to be charged annually. As
shown in Table 3, Condo Hotel units account for approximately 40 percent of the City’s
STR inventory, or about 520 units. The total annual cost to the City of $106,300 results
in an annual per-unit fee of $204. Dispersed STR units account for approximately 60
percent of the City’s inventory, or 780 units. Annual costs of $209,100 result in an annual
fee of $268 per unit.
Description Total Annual Cost
Community Development
Enforcement $4,000
Non-enforcement $136,000
Police $10,900
Finance $102,200
Legal $50,000
Admin $12,300
Total STR Costs $315,400
Source: City of Aspen; Economic & Planning Systems
Description Share Cost Share Cost
Community Development
Enforcement 0% $0 100% $4,000
Non-enforcement 40% $54,400 60% $81,600
Police 10% $1,100 90% $9,800
Finance 40% $40,900 60% $61,300
Legal 10% $5,000 90% $45,000
Admin 40%$4,900 60%$7,400
Total STR Costs 34% $106,300 66% $209,100
Source: City of Aspen; Economic & Planning Systems
Condo Hotels Dispersed STRs
33269114
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 4
Table 3. STR Administrative Fee per Unit, by Type
Housing Fee
Methodology
This analysis uses a jobs-housing economic impact model to quantify the jobs supported
by guest spending in STRs. The analysis begins by quantifying the jobs supported by
spending. Next, several analytical steps are taken to translate the supported jobs to
employees by income level.
The IMPLAN model (Impact Analysis for Planning) was used to estimate the relationships
between spending and jobs supported. IMPLAN was developed by the Bureau of Land
Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the University of Minnesota and is widely used by
state and federal agencies, academic researchers, and local economic development
organizations to evaluate the economic impacts of proposed policies, new industries, and
land use changes.
Data Sources
Analysis inputs come from the following sources:
• Accommodation inventory: AirDNA (number of units, number of bedrooms, average
number of bedrooms per unit)
• STR occupancy rates: AirDNA
• Guest spending: Aspen Lodging Guest Survey, 2014-2016 (RRC Associates)
• Wages by Occupation: Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)
• Median household income: U.S. Census (ACS 5-year estimates, City of Aspen)
• Jobs per employee: 2019 Aspen Community Survey Results (EPS and RRC Associates)
Description
Total
Cost
Cost per
Unit
Total
Cost
Cost per
Unit
520 units 780 units
Community Development
Enforcement $0 $0 $4,000 $5
Non-enforcement $54,400 $105 $81,600 $105
Police $1,100 $2 $9,800 $13
Finance $40,900 $79 $61,300 $79
Legal $5,000 $10 $45,000 $58
Admin $4,900 $9 $7,400 $9
Total STR Costs $106,300 $204 $209,100 $268
Source: City of Aspen; Economic & Planning Systems
Condo Hotels Dispersed STRs
33370115
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 5
Guest Spending Analysis
• Guest spending – Guest spending was modeled on the average daily expenditure
across various spending categories, as reported in Aspen Guest Surveys. Primary
data was available from 2014-2016 and was brought up to current levels in line with
escalations in STR rental rates (lodging spending). The survey data provides per unit
expenditures by type; based on this data, current expenditures average $1,337 per
unit per day, including $472 on food and beverage, $305 on retail/shopping, $407 on
entertainment and recreation, $34 on service, and $120 on transportation.
• Jobs supported by industry – The spending associated with guests is applied to the
IMPLAN model as an “industry output” event for the five affected industries (NAICS
72 – Accommodation and Food Services, NAICS 44-45 – Retail Trade, NAICS 71 –
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation, NAICS 81 – Other Service, and NAICS 48-49 –
Transportation and Warehousing). IMPLAN applies industry expenditure flows through
its input-output model and estimates the spending and jobs supported in the 20
major industries in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
• Jobs to employees (multiple job holder adjustment) – An adjustment is made
to acknowledge that many employees have more than one job, such as two part time
jobs or a full time and a part time job. So as not to overestimate the number of
employees supported, the number of jobs is reduced using a factor of 1.40 jobs per
employee. This factor is specific to the City of Aspen, as reported by residents in the
2019 Aspen Community Survey (EPS and RRC Associates).
• Employees by industry to occupations and wages – A NAICS industry contains a
wide range of job types and wage ranges. For example, a worker in the retail NAICS
sector could be an accountant (for the retailer) or showroom employee (working the
retail floor). The range of wages and occupations supported is better represented by
the 21 Standard Occupational Classifications defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS). The National Industry by Occupation Matrix published by the BLS provides the
estimated distribution of occupations and wages for each NAICS category. The results
from the IMPLAN analysis are applied to the Industry by Occupation Matrix to
estimate the number of jobs by wage level supported.
• Tabulation of employees by income range – The last step involves counting the
number of employees supported by income range, expressed as a percentage of Area
Median Income (AMI). Given the breadth of need addressed by housing programs and
policies in the City of Aspen, all households earning up to 240 percent of AMI are
included for this analysis. The AMI definitions are based on the Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority (APCHA) 2021 income limits for the City of Aspen.
Local Resident Household Analysis
The last component of the analysis involves isolating the difference between guest
spending and local resident household spending. To do this, the same steps outlined
above are undertaken for a resident household earning the local median income of
$78,292 (as reported in the U.S. Census ACS 2019 data for Aspen) to document the jobs
supported from household spending in the economy.
33471116
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 6
This household income is input to the IMPLAN model, which applies an expenditure profile
(including savings) specific to the household income range. The model then estimates the
spending and jobs supported in the 20 major NAICS industries. The same steps to
determine need by AMI range are completed, and this housing need is then subtracted
from that of guest spending, resulting in the needs associated with guest spending above
those generated by a local resident household.
Analysis
Guest Spending
Guest spending was modeled on the average per-unit expenditure across food and
beverage, retail/shopping, entertainment and recreation, service, and transportation.
Within the IMPLAN model 1,000 accommodation units were modeled in order to establish
an appropriate scale of analysis. Per unit and per bedroom adjustments are made later in
the model to calibrate the fee.
As shown in Table 4, an average daily spending rate of $1,337 per unit per day results in
1,000 units’ total annual spending of $488 million. Note that at this point in the analysis
100 percent occupancy (365 days of spending) is used. The average annual occupancy
rate adjustment is applied later in the analysis.
33572117
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 7
Table 4. Guest Spending
Description Factors Guest Spending
Program
Units 1,000
Guest Spending (per unit per day)
Food & beverage $472
Retail/shopping $305
Entertainment/recreational activities $407
Services $34
Transportation $120
Total $1,337
Annual Guest Spending (per unit per year)
Food & beverage 365 days (100% occ.)$172,121
Retail/shopping 365 days (100% occ.)$111,209
Entertainment/recreational activities 365 days (100% occ.)$148,474
Services 365 days (100% occ.)$12,358
Transportation 365 days (100% occ.)$43,879
Total $488,042
Total Guest Spending
Food & beverage 1,000 units $172,121,492
Retail/shopping 1,000 units $111,208,817
Entertainment/recreational activities 1,000 units $148,474,421
Services 1,000 units $12,358,242
Transportation 1,000 units $43,879,342
Total $488,042,314
Source: RRC Associates; Economic & Planning Systems
33673118
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 8
Jobs, Employees, and Households
As shown in Table 5, the spending associated with 1,000 accommodation units supports
4,218.48 jobs. The industries with the most jobs are those with direct spending impacts –
specifically accommodation and food services; arts, entertainment and recreation; and
retail.
Following total jobs, the next step is to translate jobs to employees. In today’s economy
it is common for people to hold more than one job. To step down from jobs to employees,
jobs are divided by a factor of 1.40 jobs per employee. As shown in Table 5, the
4,218.48 jobs supported by 1,000 accommodation units results in 3,013.20 employees
after the adjustment for multiple job holders.
Table 5. Jobs and Employees by Industry Supported from Guest Spending
Guest Spending
Description
Jobs by Industry
(IMPLAN Results)
Employees by
Category
Jobs to Employee Conversion Factor 1.40
Industrial Sectors
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 11.28 8.06
21 Mining 1.57 1.12
22 Utilities 2.46 1.76
23 Construction 13.62 9.73
31-33 Manufacturing 4.00 2.86
42 Wholesale Trade 20.46 14.61
44-45 Retail trade 444.79 317.71
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 298.72 213.37
51 Information 16.86 12.04
52 Finance & insurance 57.54 41.10
53 Real estate & rental 117.05 83.61
54 Professional- scientific & tech svcs 99.97 71.41
55 Management of companies 38.30 27.36
56 Administrative & waste services 87.13 62.24
61 Educational svcs 11.29 8.06
62 Health & social services 38.40 27.43
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 989.28 706.63
72 Accomodation & food services 1,743.21 1,245.15
81 Other services 215.74 154.10
91-99 Government & non NAICs 6.81 4.86
Total 4,218.48 3,013.20
Source: IMPLAN; Economic & Planning Systems
33774119
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 9
Employees by Income
To translate employees to occupations and their related income levels, the jobs by NAICS
classification are converted to more specific occupation categories to obtain a detailed
distribution of wage levels for the new jobs, since using the average wage for an industry
masks the upper and lower wage levels. The BLS National Industry by Occupation Matrix
provides the estimated distribution of occupations for each NAICS category. The wages
for each occupation in Pitkin County are estimated by indexing the national wages by
occupation and industry to the average wage in that industry for Pitkin County.
Target Income Ranges
The last step in the guest spending analysis is to tabulate the employees at income levels
of 240 percent of AMI or less. For guest spending in 1,000 accommodation units, there
are 3,007.3 employees generated below 240 percent of AMI, as shown in Table 6. Of the
3,013.2 total employees, 99.8 percent are at incomes of 240 percent of AMI or less; the
balance of 0.2 percent are compensated sufficiently to afford market rate housing. In
total, these are the employees needed to support spending in the economy from 1,000
STR units.
Table 6. Households by AMI Supported by Guest Spending
Guest Spending
Total Employees Generated per 1,000 Units 3,013.2
Employees by Income Range
50% of Median 589.7
85% of Median 2,121.8
130% of Median 181.8
205% of Median 109.7
240% of Median 4.3
Total - Target Income Ranges 3,007.3
Percent of Employees Generated 99.8%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
33875120
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 10
Employee Housing Needs
In 2021, the City of Aspen updated its Affordable Housing Fee-in-Lieu. This fee program
is calculated to account for the full costs of building employee housing, including land,
soft costs, hard (construction) costs, and employee ability to pay (as a revenue offset to
costs). These fees reflect the gap between the cost to provide housing and what
employees can afford to spend on housing, based on their income.
As shown in Table 7, fees range from $408,054 per employee earning up to 50 percent
AMI to $250,375 per employee earning between 205 and 240 percent AMI.
Table 7. Affordable Price and Gap by Income Range
Local Resident Spending
To isolate the effect of guest spending on housing need, a similar methodology was
followed to determine the relationship between a local resident household and housing
need. This was then subtracted from the guest impact.
Local resident spending was modeled based on the median household income in Aspen of
$78,292, as reported in the U.S. Census 2019 American Community Survey. As with
guest spending, 1,000 households were modeled and per household adjustment is made
to calculate the final fee. As shown in Table 8, a household income of $78,292 results in
a disposable income of $57,001 after accounting for payroll tax. Based on these figures,
the total disposable income for 1,000 households is $57.0 million.
Fee Category AMI Upper Bound Fee per FTE
Category 1 50% $408,054
Category 2 85% $376,475
Category 3 130% $345,691
Category 4 205% $302,879
Category 5 240% $250,375
Source: City of Aspen
33976121
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 11
Table 8. Local Resident Household Income
Description Factors Local Spending
Program
Units 1,000
HH Income [1] (Aspen median)ACS 2019 5-Yr Estimate $78,292
Minus Payroll Tax
Federal $12,104
FICA $4,854
Medicare $1,135
State $3,198
Total Deductions $21,291
Net Pay / Adjusted Household Income $57,001
Total Annual Household Income 100%$78,292,000
Total Annual Payroll Rax 27%-$21,291,000
Disposable Income 73%$57,001,000
Source:US Census; Economic & Planning Systems
34077122
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 12
This income was input to IMPLAN, which then calculates the jobs supported by household
spending. As shown in Table 9, 1,000 households earning the median income support
172.87 jobs. Applying the multiple jobholder factor of 1.40 jobs per employee, this
spending results in 123.48 employees.
Table 9. Jobs and Employees by Industry Supported from Local Spending
Local Spending
Description
Jobs by Industry
(IMPLAN Results)
Employees by
Category
Jobs to Employee Conversion Factor 1.40
Industrial Sectors
11 Ag, Forestry, Fish & Hunting 1.71 1.22
21 Mining 0.15 0.11
22 Utilities 0.32 0.23
23 Construction 1.81 1.29
31-33 Manufacturing 0.62 0.44
42 Wholesale Trade 3.88 2.77
44-45 Retail trade 25.76 18.40
48-49 Transportation & Warehousing 3.93 2.81
51 Information 3.13 2.24
52 Finance & insurance 12.84 9.17
53 Real estate & rental 25.56 18.26
54 Professional- scientific & tech svcs 8.27 5.91
55 Management of companies 1.49 1.06
56 Administrative & waste services 7.90 5.64
61 Educational svcs 3.37 2.41
62 Health & social services 25.21 18.01
71 Arts- entertainment & recreation 5.76 4.11
72 Accomodation & food services 21.11 15.08
81 Other services 19.07 13.62
91-99 Government & non NAICs 0.98 0.70
Total 172.87 123.48
Source: IMPLAN; Economic & Planning Systems
34178123
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 13
These employees were then categorized by occupation and wage following the same
methodology for guest spending. As shown in Table 10, local resident household
spending supports a total of 123.5 employees, 99.8 percent (123.3 households) of which
fall at or below 240 percent of AMI. The costs associated with providing affordable
housing for these employees are determined using the same methodology outlined for
guest spending.
Table 10. Households by AMI Supported by Local Spending
Local Spending
Total Employees Generated per 1,000 Units 123.5
Employees by Income Range
50% of Median 28.7
85% of Median 66.4
130% of Median 22.8
205% of Median 5.2
240% of Median 0.2
Total - Target Income Ranges 123.3
Percent of Employees Generated 99.8%
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
34279124
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 14
Fee Calculation
This section outlines the calculation of the accommodation unit license fee. There are four
key components to the fee calculation:
• Employees Supported – The number of employees at or below 240 percent of AMI
supported by guest spending form the basis of the fee, as these represent employees
needed in the community who cannot otherwise afford housing.
• Occupancy Rate – The impacts of guest spending were determined assuming 100
percent occupancy (i.e., 365 days per year) for modeling purposes and needs to be
adjusted for annual occupancy rates. An occupancy rate of 37.7 percent is applied to
the housing demand, based on the occupancy data for properties in the city from 2019
through 2021.
• Affordability Needs – The housing gap per employee and AMI range described
earlier ranges from $408,054 for employees earning up to 50 percent of AMI to
$250,375 for employees earning between 205 and 240 percent of AMI. The number
of employees in each AMI category (after accounting for the occupancy rate) are
multiplied by the need per employee to calculate the total housing cost. This is
calculated for both guest spending and local spending. Based on this calculation,
taking the total housing cost divided by the 1,000 units modeled, the gap per
accommodation unit is $428,933 and the gap per local household/housing unit is
$46,202.
• Adjustment for Local Households – To isolate the impact of guest spending above
the impact of a local household, the gap associated with local household spending
($46,202) is subtracted from the gap associated with guest spending ($428,933).
This results in a net gap per accommodation unit of $382,731.
This fee is then adjusted to reflect a per-bedroom figure (rather than per unit). EPS’s
analysis of the City’s STR inventory indicates that STRs have an average of 2.48
bedrooms per unit. This is then annualized over 30 years (divided by 30), which is a typical
financing period for a long-term housing investment. Based on this analysis, the
maximum fee per bedroom is $5,139, as shown in Table 11. This maximum fee amount
is the annualized cost of providing housing to the local workforce supported by guest
spending.
34380125
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 15
Table 11. Fee Calculation
Local Spending Guest Spending
Employees Generated (per 1,000 units)A
50% of Median 28.7 589.7
85% of Median 66.4 2,121.8
130% of Median 22.8 181.8
205% of Median 5.2 109.7
240% of Median 0.2 4.3
Total per 1,000 Units 123.3 3,007.3
Per 1.0 Units 0.12 3.01
STR Occupancy Rate B 37.7%
Net Employees Generated (per 1,000 units)C
50% of Median A x B 28.7 222.6
85% of Median 66.4 800.7
130% of Median 22.8 68.6
205% of Median 5.2 41.4
240% of Median 0.2 1.6
Total per 1,000 Units 123.3 1,134.9
Per 1.0 Units 0.12 1.13
Fee per Employee by AMI Range D
50% of Median $408,054 $408,054
85% of Median $376,475 $376,475
130% of Median $345,691 $345,691
205% of Median $302,879 $302,879
240% of Median $250,375 $250,375
Total Fee E
50% of Median C x D $11,701,673 $90,818,313
85% of Median $25,008,937 $301,455,717
130% of Median $7,877,755 $23,716,677
205% of Median $1,571,697 $12,533,460
240% of Median $42,159 $408,972
Total $46,202,221 $428,933,138
Gap (Fee) per Unit F
E / 1000 -$46,202 -$428,933
Net STR Gap per Unit (minus local spend)-$382,731
Avg. Number of Bedrooms 2.48
Net STR Gap (Fee) per Bedroom -$154,165
Annualized Fee per Bedroom 30 years $5,139
Source: Economic & Planning Systems 34481126
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 16
Final Fee
The fee outlined above represents the maximum reasonable fee to be charged under this
program. Communities will generally apply a mitigation rate to this fee to determine the
final fee to be charged.
As shown in Table 12, a mitigation rate of 30 percent (aligning with the City’s current
residential program) would result in an annual per bedroom fee of $1,540, while a 65
percent mitigation rate (aligning with the City’s current commercial/lodge program)
would result in a fee of $3,080 per bedroom annually.
Table 12. Mitigation Rates
Description Fee Per Bedroom
Maximum Annual Fee $5,139
Mitigation Rate
30%$1,540
65%$3,080
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
34582127
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Page | 17
Owner-Occupied Short Term Rentals
There is a desire in the City to create a separate licensing program for owner-occupied
properties, with a limit to the number of short-term rental days allowed per year. A unit
rented for a maximum of up to 90 days per year represents a maximum occupancy rate
of 24.7 percent, and thus justifies a separate fee calculation.
Additionally, since these units are occupied by local residents the impact of guest
spending occurs in addition to the impact of local spending. Thus, the impact of local
household spending is not netted out of the guest spending impact attributed to the STR.
As shown in Table 14, this results in a maximum annual fee per bedroom range from
$1,254 (30 days per year) to $3,763 (90 days per year).
As with the standard fee, a mitigation rate would be applied to determine the final fee to
be charged. Examples of the per-bedroom fee at a range of mitigation rate levels and
rental night maximums are shown in Table 13. For example, a 30 percent rate (aligning
with the City’s current residential program) and a maximum of 30 rental days per year
would result in an annual per bedroom fee of $380, while a 65 percent mitigation rate
(aligning with the City’s current commercial/lodge program) and a maximum of 90 rental
days per year would result in a fee of $1,510 per bedroom annually.
Table 13. Mitigation Rates – Owner Occupied Units
Description
30 days/year 60 days/year 90 days/year
Maximum Annual Fee $1,254 $2,509 $3,763
Mitigation Rate
30%$380 $380 $750
65%$820 $820 $1,510
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Fee Per Bedroom
34683128
Memorandum: Short Term Rental Fee Analysis
Page | 18
Table 14. Fee Calculation – Owner Occupied Units
30 days/year 60 days/year 90 days/year
Employees Generated (per 1,000 units)A
50% of Median 589.7 589.7 589.7
85% of Median 2,121.8 2,121.8 2,121.8
130% of Median 181.8 181.8 181.8
205% of Median 109.7 109.7 109.7
240% of Median 4.3 4.3 4.3
Total per 1,000 Units 3,007.3 3,007.3 3,007.3
Per 1.0 Units 3.01 3.01 3.01
STR Occupancy Rate B 8.2%16.4%24.7%
Net Employees Generated (per 1,000 units)C
50% of Median A x B 48.5 96.9 145.4
85% of Median 174.4 348.8 523.2
130% of Median 14.9 29.9 44.8
205% of Median 9.0 18.0 27.0
240% of Median 0.4 0.7 1.1
Total per 1,000 Units 247.2 494.3 741.5
Per 1.0 Units 0.25 0.49 0.74
Fee per Employee by AMI Range D
50% of Median $408,054 $408,054 $408,054
85% of Median $376,475 $376,475 $376,475
130% of Median $345,691 $345,691 $345,691
205% of Median $302,879 $302,879 $302,879
240% of Median $250,375 $250,375 $250,375
Total Fee E
50% of Median C x D $19,779,292 $39,558,584 $59,337,876
85% of Median $65,653,946 $131,307,893 $196,961,839
130% of Median $5,165,248 $10,330,495 $15,495,743
205% of Median $2,729,658 $5,459,317 $8,188,975
240% of Median $89,070 $178,140 $267,209
Total $93,417,214 $186,834,428 $280,251,642
Gap (Fee) per Unit F
E / 1000 -$93,417 -$186,834 -$280,252
Avg. Number of Bedrooms 2.48 2.48 2.48
Net STR Gap (Fee) per Bedroom -$37,629 -$75,257 -$112,886
Annualized Fee per Bedroom 30 years $1,254 $2,509 $3,763
Source: Economic & Planning Systems
Local Resident STR
34784129
OUTREACH SUMMARY
MAY 9, 2022
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL UPDATE
21
9
85
13
0
DATA ANALYSIS
INITIAL DATA FINDINGS
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
DATA FINDINGS
INITIAL DRAFT POLICY IDEAS
POLICY DRAFTING
POLICY DRAFTING
In December 2021, Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 26, Series 2021, a temporary moratorium on the issuance of new vacation rental permits (also known as short-term rental permits). During this time, and again in April 2022, an additional moratorium was instated on the issuance of residential building permits (Ordinance 27, 2021, and Ordinance 6, 2022). The moratorium on residential building permits is scheduled until June 8, 2022, and the moratorium on short-term rental (STR) permits extends until September 30, 2022.
While residential building and short-term rentals are intertwined, the City facilitated two unique outreach campaigns, one for each focus area. Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment is an overarching outreach campaign that dives deep into STR and residential building activity in Aspen.
This report is specifi c to STRs.
Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment was in response to the moratorium and explores solutions that will improve regulations and respond to specific themes that correlate with STR activity, specifically in mountain communities throughout the United States. These themes include:
PROJECT PLANNING
JAN
2022
ENGAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT
FEB
2022
TECHNICAL ADVISORY MEETINGS BEGIN
1X1 INTERVIEWS BEGIN
APR
2022
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS
MAY
2022 CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONS
STR MORATORIUM ENDS
OPEN HOUSE
ADOPTED ORDINANCES PROPOSED
DATA FINALIZATION AND POLICY
UPDATES
SEPT
2022
The chart below illustrates concurrent project planning eff orts and data analyses with arrows indicating where data,
information, outreach results and community discussions are informing project components.
1
PROJECT PHASING AND DATA ANALYSIS FLOW CHART
OUTREACH SUMMARY: PROJECT PLANNING AND SCHEDULE
• Zoning• Good Neighbor Policies• Operational Standards & Enforcement
• Life Safety• Permitting• Financials
PROMISE TO THE PUBLIC: Utilizing values and ethics from the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) - which defines the development context, promise to the public, and how feedback would be put into action – the project team drafted a public engagement plan outlining goals and objectives, as well as anticipated stakeholders, engagement levels, and how best to communicate with them. The engagement approach focuses on:
• Informing the community-at-large (public) of the project by providing balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the “problem”, what alternatives may be appropriate, and what opportunities and/or solutions there might be to address change to current City policy.
• Consulting with internal and external stakeholders to obtain feedback on current process successes and barriers, data analysis, policy alternatives, and involve them throughout the process to ensure their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.
• Involving technical advisors on specific discrete policy questions that can further the data analysis and proposed code changes.
PUTTING FEEDBACK INTO ACTION: The project team identified the need to work diligently to summarize engagement initiatives and findings in real-time to provide for a continuous information loop in and out of the policy development process to:
• Set clear expectations with stakeholders and the community on engagement activities and how their feedback will be considered or incorporated in the policy development process.
• Provide status updates through Aspen Community Voice and make engagement summaries readily available to the public.
ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY #1
22
0
86
13
1
Public engagement focused on facilitating dialogue about an aspirational vision for the community. A variety of mechanisms and tools were used to share information including one-on-one discussions with community members, focus groups, questionnaires, and public drop-in events. The project team created a webpage on Aspen Community Voice that hosts project information, outreach opportunities, key project dates, events, meeting registrations, and documents for review.
Through a series of online tools on Aspen Community Voice and questions developed for technical stakeholders and community members alike, the project team gathered data points to assist Aspen City Council and staff in furthering project discussions around our STR themes:
• Zoning• Good Neighbor Policies• Operational Standards & Enforcement• Life Safety• Permitting• Financials
These discussions, held both in-person and virtually, began with the launch of Aspen Community Voice on February 8, 2022, and continued with focus group sessions and publicly available questionnaires between February and April, and an Open House on April 6, 2022. Each tactic offered a different style of discussion with the project team:
• Questionnaires (Consult) – Gauge public interest and concerns,as well as obtain public feedback on the direction of policydevelopment.
• 1x1 Discussions (Consult) – Intentional meetings with passionate,invested, and/or expert parties to better understand existingconditions, opinions, and trends, as well as concerns andaspirations, and provide feedback on the process.
• Focus Groups (Collaborate) - Data- and values-driven conversationswith technical advisors based upon initial data fi ndings and policyquestions pertaining to discussion points outlined above.
• Open House (Consult) - Information sharing and values-basedconversations based upon community members experiences livingand working in Aspen.
OUTREACH SUMMARY: SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITIES
ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES COMPLETED TO DATE
2
The activities listed below illustrate distinct engagement activities that included technical stakeholder meetings, one-on-one interviews, two questionnaires,,
an open house and presentations between January 25 and April 30, 2022. In total, there were approximately 760 participants across Aspen Community
Voice (656), one-on-one interviews (11), technical stakeholder advisory group members (12), Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) and the Aspen
Board of Realtors (ABOR) technical stakeholder meeting (~15), and the April 6, 2022 Open House (70).
1
2
3
MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2022
Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR
activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate
industry.
4
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2022
Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR
activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate
industry.
5
TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2022
Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss short-term rental
activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry.
6
7
8-18
19
20
21
THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022
Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR activity
in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry.
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2022
Public Open House event at City Hall from 4-6pm to collect feedback
about the future of STRs in Aspen.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022
Community Development Director presented to ACRA on the
status of the moratorium and collected feedback from ACRA board
members.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022
Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built
Environment: STRs and online engagement activities.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022
The Technical Advisory Group is comprised of 12 community members
that represent their technical area of expertise in the community.
Members gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as
it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry.
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022
Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment:
STRs Questionnaire #1.
FEBRUARY-APRIL, 2022
Stakeholder interviews (11) to learn more about the current state of STRs,
as well as concerns and recommendations for potential solutions.
APRIL 19-29, 2022
Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment:
STRs Questionnaire #2.
22 TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022
Community Development Director presented on the status of the
moratorium and collected feedback from ACRA and ABOR members.
22
1
87
13
2
OUTREACH SUMMARY: COMMUNICATIONS AND PARTICIPATION
3
In order to meet the goals outlined by the project team, it was important to employ a variety of tactics to inform the public about how they could get involved in the engagement process, share their voice, and shape the future of STR activity in Aspen. Communication channels included: Aspen Community Voice (AspenCommunityVoice.com), Aspen Daily News advertisements, Aspen Times advertisements, Twitter (@cityofaspen), Facebook posts, events, and advertisements, Instagram, newsletters (ACRA, Colorado Conversations, and Community Development Updates), targeted email invitations (200+), Aspen 82 interviews, CGTV advertisements and media releases.
Engagement activities and events included two (2) presentations to ACRA, one (1) Technical Stakeholder Meeting (ACRA and ABOR), eleven (11) one-on-one interviews, five (5) Technical Advisory Group meetings, one (1) Open House, two (2) online questionnaires on Aspen Community Voice, and receipt and response to 35 emails and inquiries.
This coordinated communications and outreach initiative was intended to maximize information shared with the community and clearly identify opportunities for community members to engage with the project team both in-person and virtually. In total, there were:
1 50
11x17 Posters
placed in venues
between Basalt and
Aspen
6 ,4 0 4
Targeted event
mailers for the
April 6, 2022 Open
House
1 4 1 DAYS
Continuously
running digital ads
in Aspen Times and
Aspen Daily
News
1 59 K+
Digital ad
impressions between
Aspen Times and
Aspen Daily
News
21 4
New registrations
on Aspen
Community
Voice platform
56 2
‘Engaged’ Visitors to
the Shaping Aspen’s
Built Environment +
project page
2.8K
Visits to the Shaping
Aspen’s Built
Environment + STR
project page
322
Largest number
of visitors to ACV
project pages in
one day
~760
Total participants
across surveys,
interviews, advisory
groups, and the
open house
7 0
Participants at the
April 6, 2022
Open House at
City Hall
12
Technical Advisory
Group members
that attended five
(5) meetings
656
Project
questionnaires
taken on Aspen
Community
Voice
22
2
88
13
3
OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
ZO
N
I
N
G
THEME KEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.
RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE
TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN COMMERCIAL
AND LODGING DISTRICTS WHEN
PERMITTING LOCATION OF STRS.
1
ALLOW MARKET DEMAND TO DETERMINE
HOW MANY STRS ARE PERMITTED PER ZONE
DISTRICT.
2
ALLOW MARKET DEMAND TO DETERMINE
WHERE STRS ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT
ASPEN.
3
In the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, 227 participants ranked their preference on where STRs should be permitted based on zone district. Most respondents felt that STRs should first be permitted in the Downtown Core, then lodge districts, then West End neighborhoods, then East End neighborhoods, followed by Cemetery Lane residential neighborhoods, then finally, residential neighborhoods outside of the roundabout.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL ZONE DISTRICT PREFERENCES
4
DOWNTOWN CORE
LODGE DISTRICTS
MIXED-USE DISTRICTS
WEST END RESIDENTIAL
EAST END RESIDENTIAL
CEMETERY LANE RESIDENTIAL
1
( THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT ALL)
7
(THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED)
654 32
OUTSIDE THE ROUNDABOUT
Below is a summary of high-level findings from discussions (Aspen Community Voice, Interviews, Focus Groups and an Open House) on STR activity in Aspen.
General engagement opportunities were presented in various mediums, such as virtually and in person, to aid in access for participants to engage in the process. Of note was the availability of technical experts to have rich and intentional conversations with participants in order to attain high-quality qualitative and quantitative data to support ongoing analyses and case study work.
Key findings do not represent consensus but rather indicate either a majority response or important discovery through conversations with technical stakeholders and community members.
Regulating STRs in commercial and lodge zones differently from residential zones can create certainty in zoning and the land use process, as well as ensure that lodging development is compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood.
Allowing market demand to determine where and how many STRs are permitted per zone district increases the likelihood that residential zones will become increasingly attractive for STRs, impacting community character and livability. For example, in Park City, Utah, only 32.6% of all housing units (10,440 total) are occupied. Vacant seasonal and recreational housing units have nearly doubled since 2000 to 6,750 units, and Park City is the only city in Utah where the number of jobs (11,000) out numbers the population (8,500).
Zoning regulations and affordable housing policies can help mitigate some of the impacts STRs have on housing, infrastructure, and other community impacts. In Durango, Colorado, only 39 STRs are allowed in residential zone districts to keep the majority of STRs in the commercial core. STRs are permitted in the central business, mixed-use, and selected planned development zones. The intent in having a small cap in residential zones is to focus on neighborhood preservation, quality of life, and housing preservation.
Questionnaire #1: Rank your preference for where you believe short-term rentals should be permitted based on zone district:
22
3
89
13
4
77 22
45
99 55
5871
99
17
68
Traffic and Parking
Trash and Wildlife Safety
Neighborhood Impacts
(ex: Noise, Crowding)
Over Tourism
Tax Fairness (Ex.:
Property Tax Increases,
Loss of Local Housing
Competition to
Traditional Lodging in
Town
Other (please specify)
GO
O
D
N
E
I
G
H
B
O
R
P
O
L
I
C
I
E
S
STRS OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANIES
SHOULD USE IN-UNIT MESSAGING ABOUT HOW
GUESTS CAN BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND SUPPORT
COMMUNITY VALUES.
4
HAVE ONE STANDARD SET OF GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
POLICIES THAT ALL STRS ABIDE BY. POLICIES WOULD
INCLUDE RULES ABOUT NOISE, TRASH, WILDLIFE,
PARKING, TRANSIT, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP,
AND RESPECT FOR THE COMMUNITY.
5
WHEN VISITING ASPEN, RESPECTING AND
EMBRACING OUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER,
ETIQUETTE, AND UNIQUE MOUNTAIN STYLE IS
WELCOMED, APPRECIATED, AND NON-NEGOTIABLE.
6
In the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, more than 200 participants ranked their areas of greatest concern regarding STRs in Aspen. Loss of local housing was ranked #1, neighborhood impacts such as noise and crowding was ranked #2, and traffic and parking followed in closely at #3.
The landscape of Aspen is changing, and it is a priority for our community to invest in maintaining our mountain views, small-town community character, and historical heritage. When visitors come to our area, the community appreciates when visitors invest in our community and embrace all that Aspen has to offer, our mountain town values, culture, and lifestyle.
A group of technical advisors knowledgeable about best practices in lodging and STR industry, particularly in mountain towns, has met regularly with City of Aspen staff to discuss the future of STRs in Aspen. The group emphasized the need for good neighbor policies that all STR owners and renters abide by to solve for some of the nuisance complaints submitted by community members in regard to STRs. Those policies would also help visitors be a part of the community.
For example, visitors often don’t know how important it is to lock their trash. In 2021, Aspen Police received more than 300 reports of bear
OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
THEME KEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.
GREATEST AREAS OF CONCERN
5
activity, mostly because bears were getting into trash or other food sources that weren’t properly stowed. This is a 20% increase from the year prior. The Aspen Police Department also responded to nearly 200 calls for disorderly conduct and harassment.
In Salida, Colorado, STRs are only granted to ‘bona fide residents’ or their designated agents who are certified Chaffee County residents. A ‘bona fide resident’ means the applicant must show two of the following: a valid driver’s license or Colorado identification card, current voter registration, valid motor vehicle registration, or a document designating a primary residence for income tax purposes. The hope is that the concerns posed by STRs will be mitigated and neighborhoods and quality of life will be preserved since those operating businesses in Salida are those who live and invest in their local community.
Questionnaire #1: Please check your three areas of greatest concern regarding short-term rentals in Aspen? (Other please specify):
22
4
90
13
5
INITIAL OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
S
T
A
N
D
A
R
D
S
&
E
N
F
O
R
C
E
M
E
N
T
THEME KEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.
ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF STR REGULATIONS IS
NEEDED. 7
RESIDENTS AND STR OPERATORS SUPPORT PENALTIES
FOR FREQUENT VIOLATIONS OF REGULATIONS. 8
STRS MUST HAVE QUALIFIED, LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY
FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF UNIT. 9
The 245 participants who responded to the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice provided more than 400 comments related to STR activity in Aspen. Nearly 10% of these comments and questions were related to enforcement, with some participants remarking that regulations without enforcement will be broken and the City’s current resources, specifically the Aspen Police, should focus on local needs rather than responding to nuisances from STR visitors. Further, those who do not adhere to established regulations should have their STR permit revoked.
Noncompliance to STR regulations can lead to issues with responsiveness in emergency situations and a lack of clarity on the owner of the unit if nuisances occur during a visitors stay and a compliant is made. In Aspen, lodges generally have 24-hour, seven days per week, on-site management. STRs, however, are typically managed or rented by off-site entities including property management firms or real estate agents. The reduced availability of services and longer response times create burdens for service providers and increase the likelihood of safety and regulatory compliance issues from STRs.
ADHERENCE TO REGULATIONS
6
OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
Prior to the adoption of Santa, Fe, New Mexico’s current STR policy, 40% of STR owners were noncompliant with the previous policy. In the new policy, Santa Fe responded to these issues by adopting policy that requires STRs to have a local operator who can arrive at the rental within an hour to response to issues and daily fines against violations.
The Town of Crested Butte, Colorado, has a full-time staff member dedicated to overseeing Crested Butte’s STR permitting process, financial compliance, and enforcement. Part of their enforcement includes revoking permits for STRs that are noncompliant and issuing liens on the properties until compliance is met.
22
5
91
13
6
LI
F
E
S
A
F
E
T
Y
INCLUDE A PERMIT NUMBER AND LOCAL CONTACT
OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE IN STR LISTINGS, AS
WELL AS POST THEM ON THE PROPERTY.
10
STR OPERATORS AND OWNERS WANT TO COMPLY WITH
LODGING APPROPRIATE LIFE-SAFETY STANDARDS. 11
LIMIT UNIT OCCUPANCY. 12
When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice if the City should make a distinction between lodge (condo-hotel) properties and residential properties or units, participants stated that residential properties should primarily serve our local community and exist in residential districts for the wellbeing of our community and character. Since lodges operate under certain regulations and operational standards to monitor noise, wildlife, safety, service concerns, STRs should do the same.
More people are coming to Aspen to visit. In a report provided by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA), paid occupancy rose in the summer months (May-October) from 44.2% in 2020 to 65.6% in 2021. When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice what respondents viewed as the greatest benefits to having short-term rentals in Aspen, more visitors in town was the least beneficial outcome.
With more people comes more responsibility to keep our residents and visitors safe. Instituting occupancy restrictions can help manage the number of visitors coming to our community, as well as ensure proper safety measures are met for those who are visiting. Occupancy restrictions also reduce neighborhood nuisances and impacts from STRs.
In Breckenridge, Colorado, occupancy restrictions are a key tool for managing STR impacts. There is a two person per bedroom occupancy limit and STRs cannot advertise for more than what the occupancy maximum is. Through the financial regulatory tool, LODGINGRevs, the City can enforce these restrictions.
Under current regulations in Aspen, the requirements for lodges to ensure the safety of their guests, provide for a quality visitor experience, and contribute to Aspen’s efforts to facilitate a sustainable economy and maintain sustainable community infrastructure, are significantly more rigorous than those required of vacation rentals. For example, traditional lodges are required to mitigate for job generation and affordable housing, support transit systems, offer parking for all visitors, and meet higher building code life safety standards.
INITIAL OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
THEME KEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.
THREE GREATEST BENEFITS OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS
7
OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
EXPANDED AND DIVERSIFIED LODGING BED BASE
REVENUE FOR PROPERTY OWNERS
INCREASED TAX REVENUE
INCREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
MORE VISITORS
OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)
0 60 80 1004020 120 140
Questionnaire #1: What do you view the three greatest benefi ts of short-term rentals to be in Aspen?
22
6
92
13
7
PE
R
M
I
T
T
I
N
G
CREATE DIFFERENT PERMITS TO DISTINGUISH
BETWEEN DIFFERENT PROPERTY TYPES. 13
COLLECT RELEVANT UNIT AND OWNER DATA ON
PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO PROVIDE IMPORTANT DATA
TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS, SUPPORT GREATER MARKET
UNDERSTANDING, AND REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT.
14
EXISTING PERMITS SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED TO
CURRENT PERMITTEES AND ATTRITION SHOULD BE USED
TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PERMITS.
15
When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice if the City should make a distinction between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied STRs and have different regulations for owner-occupied than for nonowner-occupied, 42% of 243 participants responded “yes”, while 58% of participants responded “no”.
Per the City of Aspen’s Land Use Code, the use of STRs is allowable in all lodging, commercial, and residential zones. This is to say, there are few restrictions or regulations on where STRs can be located and no restrictions on the number allowed in the lodging, commercial, and residential zones.
The number one way that mountain communities around the country are regulating STR operations is through a permitting system.
Those in favor of instituting different regulations commented that non-owner-occupied STR permit holders tend not to be residents and are less invested in the wellbeing of the Aspen community. In addition, those who operate their homes as a business should be subject to the same regulations as a commercial lodge.
Those against differentiating permits between non-owner-occupied and owner-occupied STRs expressed that property owners should be able to manage their properties without government oversight and subsize the cost of the property by renting it out for additional income. Further, regardless of regulations, respondents felt neither owner-occupied homes nor non-owner-occupied homes are likely to be affordable housing options for locals but do offer additional opportunities for tourism. Also, the distinction could affect the resale value of a property and be difficult to enforce.
In the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, the City asked participants if they think it best to grandfather existing permits and use attrition to arrive at the capped limit of issued permits OR use a lottery to arrive at the capped limit. 61.2% of respondents chose attrition.
OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
THEME KEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.
TYPES OF PERMITS AND ONGOING TRACKING
8
LOTTERY
030025020015010050
ATTRITION
Questionnaire #2: Q1 - Do you think it best to grandfather existing permits and use attrition to arrive at the capped limit over time OR use a lottery to arrie at the capped limit?
22
7
93
13
8
OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK
FI
N
A
N
C
I
A
L
S
THEME KEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.
ASSESS A PERMIT FEE THAT ALIGNS WITH
STR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COSTS AND
COMMUNITY IMPACTS.
16
PREFERENCE FOR A TAX (WHICH IS SCALABLE PER
UNIT) OVER AN IMPACT FEE (WHICH IS A SET COST).
17
When asked in the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice whether respondents thought that Aspen City Council should approve a new short-term rental specific tax to mitigate for community and environmental impacts, 60% of partcipants said “yes”.
Prior to Santa Fe, New Mexico adjusting its STR regulations and tax structure, only 60% of its 1,444 active whole-unit STRs were registered with the City, which cost the City $1.6 million each year in missed revenue. On average, research demonstrated that the owners of STRs were making over $80,000 per host per year.
Santa Fe has since instituted regulations and enforcement for STRs that are noncompliant, making them subject to a fine of $100 per day for a first violation, increasing up to $500 per day for further offenses.
In Aspen, there are currently 1,246 registered STRs. Prior to the moratorium, STR permit holders were not required to pay a fee with their annual application. However, all lodges, including STRs, are subject to a 2% lodging tax that is used to support destination marketing (75%) and local transit services (25%).
When asked in the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice what community benefits could be supported by an STR tax, affordable housing rose to the top, followed by infrastructure and then the Climate Action Fund.
SHORT-TERM RENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION
9
No
40%
60%
Yes
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INFRASTRUCTURE
CLIMATE ACTION FUND
EARLY CHILDHOOD
COMMUNITY POLICING
OTHER
02402001601208040
Questionnaire #2: Q5 - Should Aspen City Council ask Aspen
voters to approve a new short-term rental specifi c tax to mitigate
for community and environmental impacts?
Questionnaire #2: Q6 - If yes, what community benefi ts should the new tax revenue fund?
22
8
94
13
9
APPENDICES LISTING
APP A STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY
APP B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP SUMMARY
APP C APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
APP D ACV QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
APP E STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
1
2
13
22
74
22
9
95
14
0
APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY
1
APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY
The team interviewed residents, resident property owners, resident aff ordable housing occupants, property managers, real estate brokers, STR owners, former elected offi cials, lodge operators in Aspen and summarized key fi ndings below:
I. KEY FINDINGS
A. Positive Impacts
• STRs diversify and expand the lodging bed base by off ering more unit sizes and diff erent product types than traditional lodging. STRs are off ered at diff erent price points, which makes Aspen available to more and diff erent visitors.
• STRs provide income for property owners, supporting the economy.
• STRs help locals stay in their house with supplemental income.
B. Negative Impacts
• STRs undermine community character and the sense of a lived-in community.
• STRs have contributed to the movement of workers from the “public” service economy to the “private” service economy.
• STRs have unmitigated impacts on community infrastructure and character, such as over-dependence on private vehicles taxing roads and parking capacity.
• STRs do not suffi ciently mitigate their job generation and aff ordable housing demand.
• STRs have reduced the availability of free market rental housing.
C. Preferred Regulatory Options
• Limit the over-all number in the community.
• Treat STRs more like lodging than residential uses.
• Assess and permit fee on STRs that is commensurate with their value and cost.
• Help STR occupants be better visitors and reinforcing community culture and character.
• Implement stronger life-safety and compliance regulations.
• Take the speculation out of the real estate market by limiting the ability to short-term properties.
23
0
96
14
1
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
2
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
The City of Aspen short-term rental staff team organized 12 community professional and citizen members who are subject experts or who personally have experience in short-term rentals. This working group of 12 met every other week for a total of fi ve meetings on data sharing, information gathering, and policy recommendations for the City’s short-term rental ordinance. Their time, feedback, community engagement with constituents, and input towards the policy drafting process has been essential to staff throughoutthe moratorium.
I. TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND MEETING DATES
Donnie Lee, Gant Aspen
Tricia McIntyre, ALVR
Wayne Stryker, Stryker Brown
Joy Stryker, Stryker Brown
Valerie Forbes, Sotheby’s
John Corcoran, Aspen Alps
Michael Miracle, SkiCo
Wendalin Whitman, Whitman Properties
Joshua Landis
Chuck Frias, Frias Properties
Tracy Sutton, Aspen Signature Properties
Ginna Gordon, APD
Meeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3 Meeting #4 Meeting #5
2/17/22 3.3.22 3.17.22 3.28.22 4.28.22
II. MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES
A. Meeting #1 Summary
• The fi rst meeting gave staff the opportunity to hear from the group what their personal interactions were with STRs to better understand the diff erent ways individuals or businesses work with STRs. Staff gained valuable knowledge on the economics of STRs and how some types of STRs may profi t or be fi nancially diff erent from others. Market functions and fi nances were a great topic of discussion, and it gave staff data around how homes with STRs market diff erently than those without and what those implications for the owner may be. The group decided to think about ‘what needs to be managed’ to help guide the conversation around the second meeting.
B. Meeting #2 Summary
• The second meeting focused on how zoning and permitting contribute towards STRs and how the regulation of both can help set better operating standards for the City. The group agreed that the ‘right number in the right zones makes sense’ and that having STRs in the core and in traditionally
short-term rental buildings should be top priority when thinking about limitations to zoning. The priority for zoning was having the core and lodging/commerical zones have the majority of STRs and as one moves out from the core, have decreasing density and increased limitations of STRs. The group also focused heavily on ‘whose accountable’ and emphasizing the recommendation that a local owner or local managing group should be solely responsible for STRs in the community due to the unique community character that is Aspen. The group was asked to give their detailed opinions on how zoning and permitting can regulate the STR market for their homework.
C. Meeting #3
• Pete Strecker led the third meeting on accounting and fi nances. The group was asked their opinion on having fees and taxes. There was consensus that a tax, possibly in addition to a fee, made sense as there is scalability for a tax based on the size, number of beds, and number of nights a guest will stay in a STR. This has greater mitigation than a one-time-fee ‘for all’. The group thought that housing was a logical nexus to the tax question but also decided that turning STRs into long-term local housing will be viable. This discussion also brought up the need for a good neighbor policy that all STR owners and renters abide by that might help solve for some of the nuisance complaints by neighbors. Staff asked as homework ‘what are we solving for’
D. Meeting #4
• The fourth meeting focused on the question ‘if there are caps then what’. The group looked at the number of STRs broken out by zone, location and density and answered questions on how to fairly and equitably decease density and intensity of STRs. The group agreed that if there is a cap on STRs, grandfathering all existing permits and decreasing that number over time via attrition was the preferred method. The group also explored the idea of diff erent permit types based on the use of the STR. There was consensus on the ‘3-strikes and your out’ policy for STRs who violate code or who have three complaints on the property within a permit year. There was also discussion on data points the City should be collecting when re-doing the permitting process that can help clarify some questions around current STR use in Aspen.
E. Meeting #5
• The fi fth meeting of the TAC focused on draft ordinance and guidelines. Staff looked to TAC for specifi c recommendations on how the caps by zones should be established, what should defi ne a qualifi ed owner’s representative, and their preference on how STRs are capped in residential zone districts. There was strong consensus on grandfathering in all permits and letting ‘natural attrition’ take over to help regulate the market, and then followed by non-transferable licenses. There was productive conversation and clarity on ‘who’ should be the property manager and who may qualify to be a representative of the property when applying for a STR permit. Specifi c questions and comments that came out of the work session that staff will apply to developing guidelines and the ordinance include: a recommendation for September 30 as renewal date rather than December, determining what’s the timeline for the ‘3 strikes and you’re out’, a HOA compliance document from the HOA president to ensure that STRs are allowed, having an occupancy of 2, confi rming that inspections will help with compliance, having a permit fee be assessed based on the number of bedrooms, determining if permit gets revoked does the owner get it back after a certain number of years or do they loose it indefi nitely.
23
1
97
14
2
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
3
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
I. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #1
A. AGENDA
• Introductions
• Background, Purpose, Objectives, Process
• Industry Discussion
o How do you interact with the STR market?
o Describe the industry
o Describe the economic ecosystem
o What do regulators need to know that we don’t know?
• STRs in Aspen
o How does the local/regional STR market function?
o Are there diff erences between in and out of town?
o What share of real estate market activity is attributed to STRs?
• Regulating STRs
o Do STRs in Aspen require additional regulation and oversight?
o If no, why? If yes, in what ways?
o What level of regulation is appropriate?
o What would happen in the community if?
• Wrap and Next Steps
B. Meeting #1 Notes
23
2
98
14
3
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
4
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
I. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #2
A. AGENDA
• Introductions
• Summary of Purpose
o Council direction
o Goals for meeting #2
o Previous meeting summar
• Council Work Session Overview
o Summary of staff presentation and Council direction
• STRs in Aspen
o How does the local/regional STR market function?
o Are there diff erences between in and out of town?
o What share of real estate market activity is attributed to STRs?
• STRs in Aspen - Permitting
o Summary of Council direction
o Group discussion of permitting options
o Group preferences for permitting23
3
99
14
4
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
5
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
MEETING #2 NOTES
23
4
10
0
14
5
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
6
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
I. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #3
A. AGENDA
• Introductions
• Summary of Purpose
o Outreach Updates - Open House Invite for April 6th 2022
• Homework Review
o Summary of comments received from members
• Financial Discussion – Pete Strecker
o Council’s thoughts on STR fi nancials
o What Council has expressed interest in
o Staff ’s actions
o Questions to contemplate:
o What do you think about taxes in the context of property zoning?
o What do you think about both fees and taxes in the context of community impacts (aff ordable housing, transit, etc.)?
o What do you think about a fee for the vacation rental permit? It is currently $0.
o Some communities have done fee schedules based on bedroom counts – any thoughts around that?
o STRs remitted in 2021 data
• Wrap and Next Steps
B. Meeting #3 Homework Responses
• STRs are a land use distinct from residential and lodge uses. Yet land use regulations do not make that distinction. This results in a variety of inequities and community impacts which our current system fails to address. I think it makes sense to create an additional tax on short term each rental that goes directly into a fund to work towards addressing the inequities and community impacts, whether it be employee housing or otherwise.
• Aspen has not sought to mitigate the impacts of STRs on employee generation and other infrastructure and service demands. Same as above.
• The community has not established review criteria to ensure basic health and safety standards for individual STRs, or to provide common expectations related to property management and guest behavior standards. Frias would of course support a more stringent review process by the City when applying for a permit to verify that each STR has a licensed and insured property manager available to assist the guests for emergencies or otherwise. We also support a standard fl yer that could be prepared by ACRA, the City, or both, that all STRs must provide to their guest and have in each rental unit. Perhaps education is the fi rst step prior to regulation when it comes to guest behavior.
• The scale and rapid expansion of STRs are changing the nature of important aspects of neighborhood and community character in ways that we are just beginning to understand. It is clear that some STRs are operating as commercial uses in dedicated residential zone districts. This seems to fall into the conversation we have been having about certain restrictions for residential neighborhoods, such as the West End, but I do not think this pertains to the condo buildings that have always had STRs. I still think it would be interesting to learn about owner comments or concerns as it relates to STRs in
residential neighborhoods and do a majority of these owners want restrictions?
• STRs, particularly in multi-family developments, have accelerated a transition of many housing units that previously were owned or rented by working locals into de facto lodge units. The displacement of locals from these units over time is not a new trend, but STRs have brought a new scale and pace to this challenge. I think this is true, but I also don’t see this new ownership base renting to locals at aff ordable or even semi-aff ordable rates if they aren’t allowed to rent short term. When an owner sees how much money they can make renting short term or even seasonally long term, it no longer makes fi nancial sense to rent the unit to a local for 6 months or a year as that makes the unit unavailable for their own use. An owner may rent long term for July and August and then use the unit in June and September, which they could not do if it was rented to a local for 6-12 months. I honestly don’t know what to do about the displacement of locals from units that they rented in the past. I remember renting a very average unit at the Scandia on West Hopkins in 2012 for $2k/month and while I believe it is listed for sale now, the most recent advertised rental rate was $5,500/month because the market supports that even though the unit was not updated at all in the last 30 years.
• In regards to transferring a valid STR license. Should it be transferred?
• From one broker comment - I think this needs to be explored more not really thrilled with any of these options below.
• A) Owner to Owner
• Yes
• B)With the property until the expiration date
• (2 out of 4 responses said YES)
• C) Tied forever with the property
o Yes
• In regards to the price of the annual permit, the consultants will give us a range that will help cover the cost of the STR program administration by the city.
• What would be an appropriate price of annual permit?
• A)$150
• (2 out of 4 responses said YES)
• B)$150 + $50 per bedroom
o Yes
• C)$500
o Yes
• D)$1,000
• E) A % based on the tax amount received in 2021 from the rental property
• F) Another Amount ______________________
• General comments from one broker on STRs are here:
o Aspen and Snowmass are resort communities that exist but for the grace of tourism. Limiting short term rentals limit the more aff ordable sector of our lodging pool, which personally I think is a shame. In terms of our rental business specifi cally, most of our rental listings prefer to rent for 30+ days, so limiting short term rentals there simply cuts the tax revenue that would have come in from the 7-10 day rentals that happen usually over the holidays, President’s Week or spring break. Originally, the STR permit was so the city could track how many beds were available in the community and to ensure compliance with lodging taxes. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with cancelling permits for non-compliance or
23
5
10
1
14
6
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
7
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
“nuisance” rental properties. However, dreating an artifi cial limit on permits will constrain supply and drive up prices, which seems incongruent with the city’s goals. It “feels good” to feel like you have control over your community, but care must be taken to remove the emotion and consider the consequences of any government action.
• I think the problem statements outlined in the council memo adequately summarizes the LEO specifi c concerns. Additionally I wanted to fi ll you in on a recent encounter that the APD responded to. It is mainly just informational, but I wanted to highlight this your for awareness as you continue to aggregate an approach to STR units in the City.
• A local Air BnB owner seems to bait and switch incoming visitors. They come expecting to stay in one unit, but for what ever reason that unit is not available when they arrive, so he off ers them another less appealing unit, renters are left to fend for themselves to fi nd another place to stay during busy seasons or accept his lesser unit. He does adjust the fee, but this practice is still shady for many reasons.
• Additionally in this instance, Offi cers are more routinely called upon to be the enforcement arm for this property owner. Here is where it gets challenging. The owner has requested police escort a short term tenant off of his property. The tenant (or short-term renter) has some, although possibly limited rights, and any dispute about the lease or rental agreement is a civil issue. There are some distinctions, if the allegation is that the guests activity is breaking the law – we can investigate it the same way as any other crime – however, the end result will be either arrest or a ticket, the Police do not have authority to kick someone out of a short term rental.
• All of this is a roundabout way of explaining that violation of a contract in these cases is a civil issue. The DA explained that short term rentals provide certain rights (evictions and such) that hotels don’t and to simplify it, we are the Aspen Police not the AirBnB Police.
• Without any context, I have to say the heat maps suggesting limiting STR’s to a hundred per zone is very concerning. Our market is like other resort communities, but also totally diff erent. To go from 1000+ STRs to just a few hundred is way more extreme that we’ve seem to be talking about the fi rst 3 meetings.
• It does appear the “non-transferrable” is a theme, and maybe that’s the case to get the city to a number their more comfortable with for STRs.
• I fully support our discussions of rolling this out in phases. Phase I – educate, get the permitting system and fee in place, and cleaning up the actual STR numbers. Those that apply do so for rentals less than 30 days. Just from our rentals here at Sotheby’s, I know many are shooting for 30+ days, and we have a lot of long term rentals too, that currently have a permit. So cleaning up the program and language would be very helpful.
• Just this week, I had an owner in Pitkin county, and they were approved an COA STR. This has since been corrected, but surprised that this far in the process, that they were approved in the fi rst place.
• Thanks for all your hard work on this and I look forward to coming to an amendable solution for the fi rst phase. It would set an awful precedent to have all the time and feedback and then city council just go ahead and put the hammer down anyway.
• You asked us to give our thoughts on what the problem is that the city trying to solve with the new STR regulations. Why does City Council think there is a problem in Aspen? Why has the pressure we all feel bubbled over and become palpable in the last couple years to the point that the newspapers are fi lled with opinion columns and letters to the editor about it almost daily?
• I started a letter the night after our meeting two weeks ago but honestly I didn’t know where to start or stop and my heart got heavy and I put it aside. I spent the last two weeks asking my friends, family and acquaintances what they thought.
• I feel like three main themes emerged.
• Cultural Shift (also commonly described as “Aspen losing its soul” and more recently boiled down to “Aspen Sucks”)
o There has been a major culture shift and the people who live and work here no longer feel included in the joy and spirit of Aspen. The homeowners, visitors and full-time residents have changed. The homes being built and remodeled are not like homes twenty years ago. There are “smart” systems, air conditioning, heated year-round pools, hot tubs, snow melt, and every other luxury imaginable. The people who live in these homes have no tolerance for any level of discomfort or things not working. The end result is a lot of property management and service calls up and down the valley that did not used to exist. A few weeks ago I saw a listing in the Aspen Times classifi eds for a private home looking for a butler.
o The gradual change was accelerated in the last two years with the large amount of people who moved here full time and part time. Rising commercial rent and an infl ux in out of town restaurants opening Aspen locations and longtime restaurant owners taking the opportunity to retire, which resulted in what felt like a whirlwind of changes to local businesses, though this is not a new phenomenon:
o https://www.aspendailynews.com/the-past-is-showing-our-future/article_6e758160-c728-59c9-bba7-0be21afdeaa0.html
o Inexplicably one of the community’s largest stakeholders dumped gasoline on the smoldering class war being perpetuated by some, by choosing the worst time possible (if ever there was a good one) to explicitly divide us into insulting categories based on our net worth.
o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-skiing-co-launches-a-new-luxury-division/
o Unsurprisingly causing no shortage of backlash and general thoughts and introspection about the cultural shift (I won’t even get into the Gorsuch situation):
o https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/roger-marolt-aspen-sucks/
o https://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/parrott-if-you-can-t-duct-it/article_15766ed0-a655-11ec-9909-4f25bfbb828a.html
o https://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/brandon-duct-tape-darlings/article_06a5d0c4-a599-11ec-ae49-6f18d5197337.html
o https://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/whiting-vail-doesn-t-suck-anymore/article_68ac1eba-ab0a-11ec-8feb-47019c172dee.html
o https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/roger-marolt-learn-to-say-no-or-kiss-this-place-goodbye/
o The true spirit and joy of Aspen was that everyone, locals, both seasonal workers, ski bums, the local middle class and everyone in between, partied together, skied, ate, drank and played together with second homeowners and visitors. Cloud Nine used to be a fun place to have a fondue lunch. On-mountain picnic spots and parties that used to be free or impromptu now require reservations and cost hundreds or thousands of dollars to be a part of. Locals and visitors used to mingle at Little Annie’s and The Red Onion. Visitors and second homeowners used to want to hang out where the locals hung out. Restaurants knew that “hooking up” locals at the bar with some discounted food and drinks was good for business because the fun energy drew in visitors. The people who lived and worked here enjoyed interacting with our visitors and second homeowners. These days most locals just feel disgusted, excluded or simply uninterested in joining in the contrived excess and hope that the few remaining local gathering spots don’t disappear.
• I’ll add an important sub-category here: More People
o There is a higher demand live in the valley there does not seem to be any limit to what people will pay to buy or rent homes. This is true from Aspen to Carbondale (and throughout Colorado and resort communities everywhere).
o This pretty much sums it up: https://www.aspentimes.com/news/
23
6
10
2
14
7
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
8
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
basalt-mayor-says-urban-exodus-is-game-changer-for-towns-in-roaring-fork-valley/
o The truth is that many of the new full or part-time homeowners and guests are not here for the traditional Aspen spirit that used to attract people and draw them into the community. This culture shift is taking its toll on everyone.
o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/new-marketing-plan-for-aspen-will-back-off -on-shoulder-seasons/
o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/acra-midway-through-journey-to-destination-marketing-plan/
o The sacrifi ces we make to live here always seemed more than worth the gain of living in a beautiful and joyful place where most people got along most of the time. But many locals simply don’t feel like they can thrive and enjoy their town and the community anymore.
• Lack of Aff ordable Housing. Not new, getting worse, no one can seem to agree on the solution.
o It has also become a more heated issue at the heart of the above mentioned “class war” narrative.
o https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/elizabeth-milias-aspen-vs-the-worker/
o https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/high-brow-and-tone-deaf/
o As a side note, and just based on people I know and anecdotal evidence, I think the real estate boom in Snowmass and Basalt probably has had more impact in terms of people losing housing than what’s happened in Aspen, that ship had, with a few exceptions, pretty much already sailed.
• Questions about the Effi cacy of City Regulations
o Infi ll, penthouses, not enough pillows, more density, more aff ordable housing, Lift One Lodge, view planes, the art museum, vacancy tax, no more penthouses, too many rentals, too many people, not the right kind of people, Gorsuch Haus.
o https://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/aspen-council-not-all-there-with-vacancy-tax/
o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-city-council-advances-aff ordable-housing-eff orts/
o https://www.aspendailynews.com/council-passes-lodging-incentive-ordinance/article_c56f5939-72d1-53c9-89fb-bdae5527291d.html
o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/city-softens-infi ll-plan/
o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/views-on-infi ll-all-about-views/
o https://aspenjournalism.org/frame-by-frame-how-the-aspen-art-museum-was-approved-by-the-city/
o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-councils-concerns-leave-lift-one-lodge-in-limbo/
o https://www.aspentimes.com/news/hotel-boom-hasnt-off set-pillow-drain/
o It has been a long 20 years with a lot of changes. It is easy to look back and criticize when things backfi red, had unintended consequences or just fl at out didn’t work. My very off the top-of-my-head list is not a fair or exhaustive summary nor in historical order and it does not acknowledge positive things that happened along the way, but when you talk to someone who has been around for long enough it just feels like we bounce from shore to shore like a rudderless ship, reacting to the issue of the day, losing a piece of our collective soul every step of the way. I hope that this process and all of the work and community involvement will go beyond the individual matters at hand and help the city and community fi nd our North Star.
o I appreciate your time and energy on this issue and the bigger issue of doing what is best for our city and our community. Public service is not for the faint hearted, I know your job is not easy and you and your team will be criticized no matter what you do. You have my thanks any my support and hope that
we can all move forward together.
II. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #4
A. AGENDA
• Introductions
• Updates
o Open house April 6th 4-6 @ Pearl Pass
o Work Session April 11th 4pm @ Council Chambers
o Pre-review Council work product
• Discussion from last meeting
o “Problem we are solving for”
• Permitting
o Discussion of how to manage the permit system with limited supply
o Eligibility, Lotteries, Transferability, Caps, Noticing
o Process for diff erent permit types: condo, owner-occupied, non-owner occupied
• Wrap and Next Steps
23
7
10
3
14
8
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
9
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
I. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #5
A. AGENDA
• Introductions
• Caps By Zone District
o Review of Data and Maps
o Thoughts on Cap Percentages by Zone District
• Ordinance and Program Guidelines - Topics of consideration:
o Qualifi ed owner’s representative
o Grandfather v. Lottery
o Details of permit application content
• Wrap Up and Next Steps
B. Meeting #5 Ideas on Ordinance and Guidelines
• Is is possible that we could incorporate the zone in the permit number? Ex R6100 Might help or hurt the cap per zone idea. I mean in the actual permit license number Example Bob Jones – 100 Aspen Way – His license number would be R6-089703 (identify the zone in the permit license number).
• Thank you for the detailed report. I have reviewed it and have the following concerns and comments. I promise I am not trying to be sassy. I am completely blown away as the suggestions of who are the representatives. Also, I will be handing you the keys to my business if this goes through as written. Corporate Monsters like Sotheby’s are swallowing me whole as we speak. In fact, it is mere website for leads and reservationist.
• A Rental Agency is the following: A property management company that has the following. 1.) Strict contracts with the owner to manage their calendar, give expert advice as to the rates, use a modern reservation system to store data and give data and pay taxes, on call 24-7 Maintenance person who knows how to fi x anything, pre-arrival guest services, a front desk to ask questions, concierge services to assist in the pre-arrival planned of rental cars, taxis, grocery shopping etc., and is responsible for all aspects of the property as a full-service business. A lack of a better word, Hotel. There are professional policies, staff , and procedures in place to protect the guest, the property, and the community around them. This costs money, education and is a real commitment to the business of STR’s. Real Estate Companies have none of this nor are they willing or will ever put a penny into it because they don’t want to be known as a Rental Agency they want to be know as a Real Estate Company. They have had (10) years to do so and have done nothing. 2.) You do not need a License to be a property manager. Also, you do not need a license of any kind to do short term rentals. This will change over time but right now this is what we are working with. Continued...I read in the paper today that the following would be a qualifi ed representative: A license real estate broker – why not say Plumber or Attorney here? As Plumbers – Realtors have absolutely no business doing STR’s especially in a Resort environment. Please explain to me why they are even on this list? True Rental agencies do not do RE SALES, so they are not a threat to Realtors. Realtors can still book properties (Frias-I trip – SAS ) with the PM and get their commission. The Russian Oligarchs and the bookkeeper somewhere else are working with Real Estate Brokers! There are no rules here. AIRBNB is more accountable than Realtors as the owners must be. To be on the platform there are rules, requirements, and protocols in place. They have a system of vetting the guest, vetting the owner and have a review section to voice any complaints. AIRBNBs are being managed by boots on the ground they must be, and they must be trained or the whole thing falls apart. Real Estate companies have none of the above. After a sale,
the company gives the rentals to a broker who is new to the business or one broker - a one man show and they 100% cater to the owners. The contracts are written as I mentioned before which states the broker could set the house on fi re and would not be liable anything, so whatever accountability we think they have – they don’t. They have contracts with the owner that not worth the paper they are written on. Real Estate companies don’t have a reservation system (MLS is not a reservation system and they all know it) or have a handle on rates. They pull pie in the sky rates ( they have no technology behind anything) and availability and then (here it comes) check with the owner to see if those dates are available and the rates are ok AFTER they have already presented it to the guest. This is unethical. But they won’t get in trouble because they are not overseen by ABOR or the CDOR. Then they add a service fee to the reservation of 3% to 7% - for what? Absolutely nothing. Pocket change for their welcome baskets that they order from AMEN WARDY. They add no value to the STR business , in fact they are the cause of the BLACK HOLE. They will do whatever the Russian Oligarch wants, where a professional will force them to honor their rates and their availability or there will be fi nancial (big fi nancial consequences). Brokers do not put these kinds of restriction on because they don’t want to lose the relationship with the owners – ever. This is a tragedy. Wait until every STR is Listed and marketed (NOT MANAGED) because that is NOT what they do – they LIST and Market only with realtors, because that is what is happening right now. You have 400 or more properties managed by 100 or more diff erent brokers who have their ideas of what an STR is. Well, it is a mess. There are lawsuits. You won’t see them in the paper because they are settled out of court because the Russian Oligarch’s don’t want their name in the paper. Giving this power to Licensed Real Estate brokers is the biggest mistake – they have no reservation system – so no data (everything is on an EXCEL Spreadsheet), no protocols, no training, no requirements for the owner to deliver the product in a truthful manner, educate the guests on anything.. I could go on and on. Real Estate Brokers are the “bad actors” in all of this. I am shocked. I would prefer you put down elementary school teachers here as they would do a better job and have more compassion for the guests. Frias, Alpine Properties, Sky Run, Itrips, McCartney properties, North of Nell, The Gant or the condo-tels are professional Rental agencies. They put the time and money into it. They have all the tools in place to be a legit business that caters to the guest and make the owners income. They are all local. Believe it or not “out of town companies” don’t really exist here because the brokers will not work with them because they don’t want to lose control of the real estate asset. True Rental Agencies make the owners honor the availability, honor the rates, honor the guest with the correct insurance, maintenance and cleaning that is required to be even close to being fair on what we are charging these poor people. How did the realtors get to you? If you took them out of the equation, there would be a more organized STR business’ and all the issues you are trying to combat would be solved. I can 100% guarantee it. I would ask Joshua Landis how he feels as a realtor and realtors doing STR’s- he will be honest.
• I’d like to commend you on your work so far. Although I have missed the past couple of meetings, I’ve been paying attention and watching council meetings, etc. This is a complicated task and many of my own positions and opinions have evolved throughout this process, interactions with group members, etc. I plan to join you at 2:00 today but wanted to send over of few of my thoughts and opinions ahead of time. 1. I like the idea of grandfathering with attrition and I’m happy to learn that you don’t plan to make STR permits transferable if you are going to put a limit on the number issued. It sounds like those who purchase a condo or TH in the downtown core that currently allows STR by Declaration will generally be allowed to get a permit without a waitlist - I think that’s great too. 2. I’m happy that you are addressing who is managing the STR’s for property owners. I’d like to learn more about what constitutes a “qualifi ed” owner’s rep. and how they will be allowed to market a property. A licensed Realtor typically markets through the MLS and the Broker to Broker network while a “professional AirBnb host” / property manager utilizes the online, consumer to consumer platforms. If a Realtor causes problems for owners, neighbors, etc.. they can be held accountable through their brokerages, DORA, ethics boards, etc... The same is not true for professional hosts / property managers. How will they be regulated? I think it’s great that you are requiring the property owner to hold the permit in their own name and pay their own taxes rather than allow these management companies to control the permits for absentee / investor owners. This will hold the owners more accountable for the actions of their managers and tenants. The online platforms are powerful tools that are designed to be used in a consumer to consumer way. The
23
8
10
4
14
9
APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
10
APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP
game changer in Aspen seems to be the use of the Consumer to Consumer platforms in a Business to Consumer way. Some of these professional hosts do a great job at maximizing revenue because they have learned how to optimize these online platforms. This has led to national corporations and/ or new residents with little connection to the Aspen community maximizing profi ts for absentee investors. There is no doubt that these professional host have created a better business model and they often do a much better job than the realtors because they have the benefi t of the online platforms. 3. I would suggest only allowing renters in the number of 2 per bedroom plus 1 (at least in a small condo). Some of the problem that I have encountered as the head of my association have been caused by owners packing 4 adult guests in to a small 1 BR unit (440 ft.2) with only one bathroom and sensitive plumbing. This creates much higher occupancy than intended in a small complex and many of the utility bills are shared. 2 per BR seems to be a common standard in multi family. Perhaps you could allow more in larger condos where it may be appropriate. And perhaps allow an exception for immediate family (2 adults with up to two children). https://www.wmfha.org/news/occupancy-standard-of-2-persons-per-bedroom-challenged4. As part of the permit process and management selection for a condo, I think it would be a good idea to require a “sign off ” from the home owners association just as someone would for a building permit. I’ve seen some of these outside managers refuse to provide the building rules to tenants as required and refuse to work in harmony with the association. While this can and should be handled at the association level, it would go a long way toward alleviating management problems if all rental managers were required read the governing documents and emergency protocols of the association and agree that all tenants will be provided with a copy of the rules and regulations of the building. If there are any emergency situations in a condo, common elements and neighbors will likely be aff ected, and it is critical that that rental manager have a relationship with the association manager and the HOA board and that they know who to contact to represent the association in the case of an emergency.
• I’m sure you will want to confi rm all of this but I spoke with the fi re marshal today to see if there was a limitation on the number residents that could occupy a small rental unit. As I mentioned, I’ve seen an airbnb host marketing a 440 square foot 1BR for up to 4 occupants. Common sense makes this type of density seem inappropriate, and the neighbors have been complaining about the level of impact caused as a result of having this many residents in a tiny 1/1 condo, which barely seems to accommodate 2 residents comfortably. In this case, the 2 per bedroom +2 formula seems like it would not work. The fi re code and IBC code seem to say the same.
• Please reference the table in section 1004.1.2 that shows that for “business residential use” the limitation would be 200 gross square foot per resident. That would make 440 ft2 appropriate only for 2ppl.Perhaps 2 plus one child could work, but it seems that an owner could only market this property to a party of 2, not a party of 4. This may or may not hold true for a residence, but since a STR is licensed as a business, the fi re marshall believes that this code limit would apply.
• Great. More people may be appropriate if a unit is larger. I think it would be important to clarify that a 1br or studio under 600 ft. could only be MARKETED to parties of 2, but a third (overnight guest or additional family member) may not be a violation. Same for a 2br under 1,000 ft as 5ppl under 1000 may be a fi re code violation. They probably should not be marketed to 3 and 5 - only to 2 and 4.IMHO I think we should specifi cally state that we do have sidewalks in Aspen - so no one should walk in the middle of a traffi c lane while talking on their phone.
• If I understand the reduction of STR permits for consideration by council correctly then I prefer council to consider permit reduction through attrition with a goal for a cap rather than a permit reduction by percentages. I do realize that is not the direction council has voiced. If they choose reduction by percentages I suggest they will start with 75% as a pilot program to see how it goes. In time they can always reduce by more but it would be diffi cult to go the other direction.ACRA’S ‘GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDE’: At a glance it seems good. Perhaps in referring to “black bears” a
comment should be made that refers to the type of bear in this area not their color as we know they can be black, brown, beige etc. Minor detail.I learned to ski wearing jeans and duck tape on the toes of my Lange ski boots. Not to sound like a Karen but I would prefer the last sentence suggested not to wear a microwave one piece. Thank you and your fellow staff members for all the research, time, eff orts, drafts, teeth mashing etc that takes place to achieve a workable solution. I hope you can get to Moab when this is all over.
23
9
10
5
15
0
APPENDIX C: ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES
11
APPENDIX C ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES
I. AGENDA
• Presentation of Issues
• Discussions with Council to Date
• Overview of Research - Comparable Communities
• Response to Questions for Council on 4/11
• Addition of Questions and Discussions
II. PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF MATERIALS
• Looked at 12 diff erent mountain west communities
• What are common themes/practices that work well
III. 6 MAIN TOPICS - BEST PRACTICES
• Life Safety
o Need building inspection
o Public notice of new permits
o Display of permit #s
o Good Neighbor guidelines, standardized
• Permitting
o Distinguish the diff erence b/w nonexempt & exempt STRs
o Diff erentiating lodges vs. residential etc.
o Owner occupied
o Non-owner occupied
o Condo-hotel
o Creating a primary resident STR permit
o One year cooling period
o Any new purchase has to wait one year before applying for STR
o Cap vs Attrition
o Non-transferable licenses
o Unlimited Licenses vs Primary Residence License
• Operational Standards
o Occupancy restrictions
o STR Holders must have representative who is able to be reached 24/7, and within 2 hour reach
o Set diff . max. caps for diff erent permit types
o Live & public document of all STRs & waitlist
o Live waitlist, queue check
• Enforcement
o A dedicated full time employee for enforcement
o Issuing Liens on non-compliant properties
o “3-strike” complaint rule
o 3 strikes in one year, loose license for 5 years
o Having conversations up front
o City being more transparent
• Financials
o Occupational Lodging tax
o Applies to STR & hotels
o Prove STR owners are remitting lodging tax
o Standard for renewal of permit
o Tax spreads better across price ranges
o Tax has to be brought to public vote
o Charging an annual fee on each STR bedroom
o Benefi ts local housing programs
o Per room per night fee is not recommended
• Zoning
o Creating Buff ers
o Worked better than a cap, GWS used 250ft buff er
o Residential Restrictions
o Some towns restrict STRs in residential
o Consider limiting STRs w/in multi-family units
o R/MF is not being used as designed
o Municipalities use % Ratio
o Zone specifi c % ratios for limiting STRs
IV. MEETING NOTES
• Permit types is supported, helps to identify STR types
• Helps support all types of STR rentals
• Big goal should be information collection
• Good neighbor laws could control the “loosing neighborhood” feel
• Guest vs. paid guests isn’t a big diff erence
• West end etc isn’t truly occupied full time anyway
• STR is diff erent use than long term use
• Reality is that owner occupancy is up
• Feedback is happening because neighborhoods are not empty anymore
24
0
10
6
15
1
APPENDIX C: ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES
12
APPENDIX C ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES
• Owner occupancy of second homes is upping the stretching of city resources
• Community has gotten bigger, can’t shrink it
• How do we defi ne property rights, regulation makes sense, not prohibit people’s property use
• Local representation, local enforcement, solves a lot of problems
• Good neighbor policy is a great addition, should solve a lot issues
• Think about layers of regulation, more than 1 person to call for emergencies
• Whatever is set up will be trial and error, make practical decisions
• Do not want to see # or % restrictions
• STR should be transferrable by property
• Already used to rules, activity usage. Only if not renewed is STR lost.
• Lottery makes it hard to plan year over year
• Will not address neighborhood concerns
• Attrition is better limiting factor
• Should have clear objective of long term goal
• What problem are we trying to solve?
• Aspen is a little bit behind the times when it comes to STRs
• Add regulation, management, oversite to STR
• Occupancy regulations
• Council does not seem to be listening, not seeing council representation at open houses etc.
• Data driven regulation vs. limitation. Pro regulation now, limitation later based on data
• The decisions made here aff ect the whole valley. Non-constituents livelihoods based on what happens in Aspen. Community diff erent then voters
• HOAs already do STR limitation.
• HOAs must give approval for STR permit
• City has good count of what is being rented out
• Not a good tally of occupation/pillows etc.
• Real Estate community contribute to metrics for monthly reporting - Destimetrics
• Willing to do it if it will help greater community
• What do we do with data?
• Great data to have for all versions of rentals
• Long-term vs short-term rentals
• Better report metrics for week by week capacity totals
• Fees/taxes not very limiting as a regulation tool
• Layered approach to regulation
• Permitting is not an issue: capping days, permit amount etc will be an issue.
• Need to be able to rent houses, not just lodges/hotels
• With increase in STR, is stretching capacity beyond community ability to handle. Peak is increasing, council is aware of this.
• Demand will not decrease
• Need to decide what the point/goal is.
• Additional Questions and Discussion
• Enforcing display of permit #s and ability to remove fraudulent listings
• Enforcement trip is city code
• Point of contact for each residence, local, in valley.
• One year cooling could present tax issues with people who buy and sell property
• Tax fee is preferred over per night per bed fee
• Financial incentive for long term rentals could potentially work for smaller condos/homes
• Enough of an incentive to change it from STR to long term
• Might be more viable the building new employee housing
• Could increase tax to fund a program to manage an incentive program
• Could help contribute to solving housing issues
• Multi-family limits could cause lots of issues
• Not all locations got a lodge overlay
• Multi-family is more dense near the core, better for visitors not as great for long term residents
• Very complicated zone to regulate
• Current STR are 16% roughly
• Stuff the core, smaller percentage in the outer zone districts
• 16% is not high, why is there a problem?
• Most of the neighborhoods are only around 8%
• Could be slightly higher if no moratorium
• Market changes could aff ect %
• STRs are not transferrable from one owner to the next, reduction via attrition
• Other options include lottery system
24
1
10
7
15
2
13
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
Community Development staff hosted an Open House from 4-6pm on April 6, 2022, to offer the opportunity to the community to engage with technical experts around the topic of STR activity in Aspen now and into the future. The goal was to facilitate an understanding of the engagement process and the direction of the project, as well as collect input to present to Council to help in the decision-making process.
More than 70 participants attended the Open House, engaged in conversation, and responded to questions highlighted on display boards throughout the room. Each display board question was introduced with background data and summaries to give content to the questions.
While the data collected on the display boards during the event is not considered to be an accurate representation due to some attendees taking the liberty to “double-dot”, the feedback is essential to consider for the success of the development of regulations for short-term rentals. Comments made by attendees were also collected and transcribed into this report for further reference.
24
2
10
8
15
3
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
14
APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
24
3
10
9
15
4
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
15
APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
24
4
11
0
15
5
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
16
APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
24
5
11
1
15
6
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
17
APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
24
6
11
2
15
7
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
18
APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
24
7
11
3
15
8
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
19
APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
24
8
11
4
15
9
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
20
APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
24
9
11
5
16
0
APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
21
APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS
25
0
11
6
16
1
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
22
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
! "
#$ %
& #$##
"' &()
#
8
!"" #
$ %%$&
'( "$&
) $
* )11 " '' )
332
9
* :&5 8 :
; : %
:5
; : ) 68 :
:< +
: 1 ; +
; :
+ :<
:
; : ':
$ 33/=4>?
=>?
$ %%$&
'( "$&
) $
*')% , " '' )
33/
6 :5:
6 :
$
" 6 : ::
: $ @ "
*
:%< *
:' * *
:,
A *
; : = ** :?
$ /3
=
49>?
=>?
$ %%$&
'( "$&
) $
+0 '' )
B3
: *
$
B3
* 8
25
1
11
7
16
2
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
23
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
! "
#$ % & #$##
*#
+
,
-
,
.
/ 0-
-
1 2
2 /
*$ 344/%56 3!/756
3!/756
839/956
%3#/!56
! 3 /%56
# 3$/856
# 3$/856
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
3$/!56
!" #$%% & '(% '
%) !" &*+,- %!) $ . !" &*
/, 0&1. 1 / 2$%% 3 .4.4 ,)% '1 ) 5 .
6%% 7 4&'1.% 1.1'*8)% 9 &' 2) # 5. '% 3,% '1
%%$) *1&0 #$%% &
+
! "
#$ % & #$##
#*#
25
2
11
8
16
3
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
24
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
+#&2
3$/!56
4 3#/*56
8* 39%/956
*4 39*/%56
7 3#$/856
) ) 5 + '5 1.+*5 &.+ * & :
+
! "
#$ % & #$##
9 *#
+9:
$8 3!!/%56
9! 377/!56
;%<"%
+
! "
#$ % & #$##
!*#
25
3
11
9
16
4
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
25
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
#=
! "
#$ % & #$##
7 *#
+ & ' - &
2
-
&
1
.
' .
;
1
< --
2
-
-///
$9 3!#/!56
!$ 374/%56
=
+
! "
#$ % & #$##
%*#25
4
12
0
16
5
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
26
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
'>'4>'.''.
* ;
(8 $)8 ! $) $ ?$$
8""$ , % $)$"@$"$-$ /$$"A
8 " )8)
'>' >'.''.4
.4;
"!
8 " )8)
'>' >'.''.'
' ;
, 8%%$ , /%) , ") !
8""$ B/$8B 8% 8A /$,$%$ %$!$/ /
% 8"$ ) / A " A $/
""A
8 " )8)
1>.&>'.''
1 ;
% $ ,8"$ 8"")$ !+88$)
$A /$ ) $ % $"8$ 8$CD%$ %$A
!+88$)% %! ,$) !/ !+
88$)% % 88$%%)A
8 " )8)
1>.&>'.''.
. ;
, % )$8 $ / $) 88$) %$
/%
)) / ) @ $8" , /$ $ "
)$) ,!/ /)%"%8%AAA /)
!,?8$%
8 " )8)
1>. >'.''.*
4 ;
!+88$) /+"% ,$ / ,$
" @ ) $%,% /"!!/
)$8%%A / %%!%>$" !
8%$" 8$ ))8$!/$% / $ !)E ) %8%
@ ) ), $8 " "$8>""
@ )8$$ ) % B$8B $) F +
)!/ 8/ $ %) $ 8D%$ .1 +@+))
@8/ + / B! $%% )B $8$% % $$A
,$ %%!) $$)$%- / /%) , )
%$G,$ )D$) "$$ /$$"8A
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.'' '
.*;
H8%$) %$$ 8"$8%% $ @$
"%% ! " ,)% ) / @ $8" "!/+"
% /$/"8/A 8/ %8%$) $%
"$$$ 8""$ ) ) $ A (
8 $!/ , % % $ " $
// /+"% $)$ 8A
+#=
! "
#$ % & #$##
4 *#
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''.*
* ;
%%$"$)!/ 88$%% /$/" $%% 8$,
/ $%$ / $/,/) ) / 88$ / /
$/,A / $"8 / $/,/) $ %!A 2$ /
/ $ %!) $ 8"%% )$ " ,$$
8 " " $$!$/ 88$ /
$/,/) ) 8!///$$ ) $8 $
)$,$ /$) ) /"A % )$%8 "$% /
8%) , %$$ $ / %% $" ,$%)$ 88$ /
8""$A
8 " )8)
1>. >'.''.5
&5 ;
" / , %8 /)!
,$)$-/$$)$8%% @$ "!$/ /"
% / , $A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.&
* ;
$ ,$ ,$ / / $% / /)%)
) / " ) 8) ) /" / $$
!%) / %8 A /$,%"!$/ / 8
$A / 2% $)8%$!$/ / /"%
$)A %C,%% )!/$%C !%% $8 /
" 8">$$%$G / /$ ) A
(/ ,$ 8$ $$ !/ ) " / %8%
8"!/$8/ /% "%!G8A0)C ) "
%$A ! "$/ ) %%$ / /% $)$/
% / $% )A / ,) %G) / 8A
0$/ %% / )% ) %8%% ,)$ / /% $)
!/ /$G , )%$!/ 8 , )%) , / 8$
I
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.
& ;
!!$%% /" /$$/,$/) 8)8 A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
&& ;
!88$) 8%% ) $" $ / 8""$ /%%
)$ / " ) / ) 8$,$ / 8""$A
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' '
.5;
$) , / % %G D$8G $ !$/ $$ $ /
8""$ + "G$ )$$8$ 8%) $% ) !$/
/ ! !/ ,) %$ %!G % $ / "
%$G%!C $ // , / !/C $$$A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.
. ;
/ !88$)%!%) , % $,% !G$
%8%A / !88$)% $%% 8%) , %8%
!G/$A
! "
#$ % & #$##
8 *#
25
5
12
1
16
6
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
27
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' '
' ;
!88$) ,$ / 8""$A ,%$ /
/" 8 / $ 88$) $"$% , $)
%$"$ / $"8 /% %$G$8 $ $/,/) )
$) , %8% % // /A
$)8 / !88$) ) %%!G
/%%! / % $/,/)A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.'
1& ;
" !+88$) )) / " $8"A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.1
.5;
)C/$G / ) , )$%$ $% ,
/ /%) , 8 8/ A %!/ %$ /
" / "/ / " %$G% "$)$
/ 8""$ ) / "G!%) , +8$$8
$ 8/ !$%)%$ $8$ )8$ $%A !%)
, " 88$ / / $
/% +)A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.5
. ;
!!/ /"% %$ /" / "/ /
%% / " 88$ / 8""$ ) "
G$$ $ 8/8
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.
&' ;
/ )$$8$ $!//>- $ $"$%$)$%
,$A %%!$ ,$E!+
88$)F $ $)$% 8 /$ )$)
$ / $ " % $ ) $8A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.1
&1 ;
!+88$) C " / % $"8 /$
)$ $/,/) $ / %) )$8%%A
!+88$) C 8 , %$G "$$ /% !/$8/
$ $)$% $/,/) $A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.&
.;
!+88$) /" ) , $)$$) ) / ,%$8
) G!!/ / % / G ) /
/$ "GA % %$G%% %
8"$ ) /,$ ! $ ) /
G ) / /$ "G )$ ) $) ,
8/$ / $ )$ ) %$ /" )
/"G$ $ B$"$,%B %8% $% % "$%$ )
$ %$ ) , / 8""$ / /
!G $ " / %$) $ %% /$%$ ) 8A /B)B "
! "
#$ % & #$##
**#
" /% 8"$ % ) /
,$ !!/ // / 8%) G )
/$%%!8$$- )$ / )"$8 ) /%
"G " %!/ ) /$ $ )$$A /$)8$%
8$ / , ) )% $)%$ )%$
) , $ %8 $"")$%A /%) , 8$" )!/
/ / )A $ $ %% $" $"$)8 /
%$ $ % "/ / / $ /%) ,
8$)) % ) ) 8/A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.&
'* ;
<" % @$8 /!$) / +!88$)
/+" ) / / "8 ) 8 /
/ $!A% /$%
8""$!/ % $ $/,/) ,$%)$ $
!)A %$ $ 8) ,$%)$!$/ $ )
8% / $ /"% +!/$8/ )
,%$ / "$ $%8%% /"A 8% "
/$) $ / / , $% % $ / $/!/$8/
%) $ 8%% / %$8 8%" /" )!A / 8))
$$/ !)$ /!,8 ) )
)") / / ,A !/$8 $%) )G %
$ /" % $/ %G$ %)% ) ,D% $
$ $/!/$8/%) $ % %%$ ) %""$ )A
/$ / %% /)!$/$ / '!GA /$ $
)$$ / % / "$)8!/ %$ )
!G /A 0 / "$%$ ) ?, G8)
$ %% $/A C 8$ A %$ / )$$%
, $% $"8) , / %$$ /"%A
8 " )8)
1>'.>'.''.1
& ;
2) !/ " , +!88$)A 6 "
$"$)8E$$ 8) /"
,$ !/$ $% ,$% ) /">%I 2
)$8 ,! B/"B , $ $"8))/
">8$% B,$BA / %/ $$$8 $"8
$/,/) /%) , "$) $$)$%- ) $
%%!) /%) ,%) > "$$ $"8 %$G /%A
8)"$$" $ "$@) >$)$%-! %! $))
, ) /" ,$A )"$$" /"%$G%
)8%$) )"$8%%$8"% .>4.C )%" , $ !
$8$ ) #()"G 8/A
%$>"$$$ / /"% /%)
8/A " % 88)!$/ /$/ >/$/$8
$%$-$ /" $$)$%-A
8 " )8)
/ J!88$)% 8 $ ) /
! "
#$ % & #$##
$*#
25
6
12
2
16
7
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
28
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
1>'.>'.''.
*& ;
$)A %$!$%% /%% )% " ,$ /
% %8%A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.'
'' ;
!88$) / 8$, 8""$A
88$% KGA !88$) " ,
$" $A / %% )K8$,
8""$ ) )8 " / $/,/)A %
%% $) $ $ $/,/)!$/ 8A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.'
.&;
(8 $" $ /!"%!/ 8
)$ )$8) ) $%% $ $" /",
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.
&5 ;
) 8""$ A 8$% 8$ /%A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.4
&* ;
/8$ $ $)$$)% )C8/
/">$ /% $A 0%) / /$,%
/$ /)) %8% / %8 %$A /$
$ % %$G% /!$/ !88$)% % /
$$8$ ) 8A 0)" /$
"%A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.4
&* ;
"$ /%)K8% / /$ "G /!/$8/ $!/
!%) / $ /$)$$8$A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.4
'1 ;
!" 88) / ) / 8""$ )
? $ "G "
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.
5 ;
!88$)$)8 % %,% / )
8""$A / G8 ,) / 8""$ ,
% " %A / % "G ),% %$$ $ % %$G%A
/ "$/!%/ $) 8" /
$ ,$ / % $ /$8$$- /!
, $$% $,$ 8""$ "", %$ /A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''
.';
!88$) /" $,)/
!G>$A !/ %$ /" $ $! /% /$
,%" $ A
8 " )8)
,)$/,/) ! /%) )8 /"A
! "
#$ % & #$##
*#
1>'1>'.'' '
. ;" "88)!$/ /"!!/ $8"
"$$ /$/"E) "G $ $,% /" G $F /
%!/ ! /" $" $ %A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
1* ;
0 " ) / 8/$ /" %%
/ $ /" $ %% $" /"% $8"
$A % $) / " ,$%$ /"/$
$ , $ ! $ %% $" "% $8/
$ !/ , / $ @ ,$ ) %
8$$ %A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.*
*' ;
!88$) %%) ,8 / !$
/%) / 88$,% ) 8"%$!$/ 8$
%$ 8A %$ "%$G%,)/) , /
!/ / !$ A @ 8%%8) ) $)!/
/ !/ 8% / 888A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.
* ;
K%)A %8% !$ /$)!%%$!/$%
/K!'"/8$$/"8"
/ / "%$% /%)$ / G$ %%$ %
$!/ / $" $$/A 2!8!/ )!%%$
8 1G ! "/ / , )/ "
$)%$ 8"!$/ "%$% /%)$$ '.G
!GI
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.'' '
& ;
) , )$$ ) $"A K/$
$ !$ !/$% !A K
/$ ?$ "G " 8/!$/ $"
A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.'' '
& ;
= !/%)$$$-! %$$ $ /$$A
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
* ;
!88$) $ )% $% "%
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
& ;
,8 / / G$%$ /A
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
.1;
!!/ $)8 ,$ /%) , 8"%%
) L /! / /%) , ,?8 / " @ )
%$ / /% A
! "
#$ % & #$##
#*#25
7
12
3
16
8
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
29
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1>' >'.'' '
*& ;
!+88$) /"!C$) % " /$ %8%
/ /%)C,$8) )$ /"%!/ /
C $ $A )C/$G / +!+88$) /" /%) ,
$8) $/, $ " %$G / ! 88A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.
* ;
(8 $ " +!88$) %8 ,8" /"/
!$%% , /$ % ),% % "%A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.'
&' ;
8G$ /!/" $%$-) ) ,$$A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.&
.1;
!88$) $ $%% /"/8$,$ / %8%
8""$ ) 8"A 8" "% /% "
) @ %$$ /!/$8/ "$" 8K , "!$/
"% $8"A 8) /" ! )$ $ $"
) ,$ /$$"$)8 / $ ?)
,$ ,% "G " "/$ $"$%A%%
%8% / " 8/) /$$)8!/$8/!%) %
, 8$)) /"% , $K 8%% ,$8$% ,8 $
,) % %$G %!G
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.&
' ;
!88$)!$%% %$G% ,) % ) !%)G!/ !
" $/,A
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.4
1 ;
!+88$) $ / 8""$A +!+88$)
$ % G" / 8""$A 2% 8""$ )
8% / / )C 8$,
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
& ;
$ 8""8$% ,$ $ $)$% $/,/) $
0 M $ ! ,$ $ $)$% $/,/)
/ 2 % ) ,$ %$8 %$G %% /
,$
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
1& ;
)C/$G $,, 8A /%) , %%!) !+
88$)%A /$ $ /!! $ /$ ),% /$
"A +! )HH 8/$ $ ) /$
/" N'' ...; 2" $ G A
8 " )8)
!%) %$"$ / 8%$ -
! "
#$ % & #$##
9 *#
1>1.>'.''.1
&1 ;
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
&5 ;
H % / 8) /" % % % "
% $8" %$ /"/$"A0/ C" )
/ $ / % $" $ ) 8G) %%
$ $/%A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.*
;
+!88$) /" 8 %) ,G$!/$8/ $8
% )% / @ %!/
8/ %$ )!G /A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
'.;
/ !+88$) /+"% @ ) / ,
,%" A 2 / "G " ) /
% % ,%$ $/,/) 8""$A 3
6A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
' ;
/$"8/% ) %8 % %$$ )!G$
/
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
'* ;
0$/ !+88$)% /%% / % $ /
//%)!$%% , 8""$ % /% /
) /"% !/ / 88 " %$G% )
/ % $ $ 8""$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.&
'1 ;
!)$ $$ !88$)!%) , %)
!/ !88$)!%) , $ %% 88 $)$%
/%A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''.5
1 ;
;$8 +!88$)% %% ,
"" 8"$ / @% "/
L 8""$ 8%$ %)8$ 8A / $/,/)
" %8G % " 88 ) 8)$ %8G
8""$A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
.4;
/ /%) , )$$8$ $" $A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' '
1 ;
/ " 8$ ) %8% /"%A
/ !" ,$)$!$/$ /% /" / $
)$$$ ) )$$$8$A $$ "$/
! "
#$ % & #$##
!*#
25
8
12
4
16
9
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
30
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
, / !) $) $ / /" , /%$)8 $
88$) , /$ /"$% "", ) / /" $ 88$%%
) /"/%G ) "$$ / %)8A
/ 8) $$ " , 8$)) !88$) ,
)$$$ , "$/ , 8$)) ) )$%$A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' '
.1;
+! /%%! 8""$ , $ $/,/) $
/%
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.'
* ;
(8 / ) )$%A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.1
1' ;
!88$) $ )$ / ,$%$ %+"H8%
) / /$/O$8 ),%$ M
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
*& ;
/$G! /%) )$$$/ ,! / $ )"%%
) %)$ ,$EAA "/1. .) %
F ) /" / $ %% 88$) ,$) !$/
$D% "@$8"/"A
" % %" )) D8 88
!///$ $ $ ,$!$/ " $$$8 $"8
/ 8""$A !%) % , $$$8% $ %$8P
" $! %%!%% ! %$"$) ,$%$ E 1.)F
!$/ ,% ) !+88$)E / & 1.
)F )8$% %$8E/ %$"$) %$)F +
!+88$) /!$/ "/1.)FA
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
14 ;
! "$$ /"% / /%) % , %
!/ 8%% %$ /"/$8A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
' ;
(8 $ !$ /% ) $)%$ %$G%
, "$$)
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
*' ;
% / / 2"!/ /$/ )$ / $" /
/ /A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.5
'' ;
/ $((/"% "G /G$%%) /% "G
%8%A
8 " )8)
%8% /% & "!$ ) ,/
! "
#$ % & #$##
7 *#
*>.&>'.''
.&;"G 8) $ !$/%/"$"$"
$"!/!!A %%!$ /$! !/ ") $
$,% ) "G8)$A2$/$
,$%$ /" G ! " ,$%$ "$$
8) $ $ ?)A 0$/ /% $8 $8$
)$8%% // / %% /$ / ,$%$ $
!/ ! 8%) 8 / % / %%A /%) , /
8) !$/ /$$ )) $ 8$%C$/
)8$) $!88$A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
. ;
" 8) ) /" ) ,$ $"")$% ) $
/"% $D$$)$% A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.'
.;
+!88$) /%) / $8%$ / ,$ /
8""$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.'
1' ;
$"$)8 $$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.1
& ;
(8 !+88$)% %$ $ ) )) /
8""$!/ +!88$) %% $"
$ / /%%! 8""$A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
'4 ;
!88$) $ / 8""$A !88$) /
/ % $">$8" $
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
;
!+88$) " %$G%!%) )8 "$,$%$
)8 / 8" )8$$ ")A !,,% %
" $) $ / 8""$ ) / "A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
. ;
$ / /$/ 8 %$$ / " !88$)E%8%F%
/ $8" ) "$ /$/"!/ %%$
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' .
* ;
!!/ 88 /$/" % /% / "%$G
%% $"$) ) $ / 8""$ ) 8$,$$"
! / +$)A / % " / ")$8"
/ $"$) ) $ $"% $ /
$" /$8%A
8 " )8)
/ $/,/) / %%!+88$)%"
! "
#$ % & #$##
%*#
25
9
12
5
17
0
APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
31
APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
*>. >'.''.*
&1 ;/%%!/ / /
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
&& ;
C8- @$ %$ / ) % / 8)
"$ 8""$$ ) ? %$A / !$%%$
)%!$/ / $8$8 /$ $/$8%
/" /% ,)" C )"$/ / /%)
, %G) )$% / "">$"
8" / $ $/ $ ,$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.5
4 ;
!8 $) $)8 %% "8/$
@8)$ "/$ %$G 2CD$" "$$
/$ / /%) , ) )$% , $>8$$8$
/$ ) / $ "%>$%% $ $ /
8""$A +!/%) , ) )$% /$ $
% /$8% ) / " $ %$G% $ $ /
8""$A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.
'4 ;
! ) / $" $ / 8""$
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.
&' ;
! / $" $ / 8""$
8 " )8)
*> >'.'' '
1 ;
/!/ %$ $ ) / /" /$$"$)8
G!/$ 8""$ ) 8 , )8 /!/ $$A
/ % "$/ ) / ))$$% %$$ $
A /!/ )C%$$%+" " / /
" %$ ,/ $ ) $) 8""$ ) C
%$ %"% $8" /$$"$)8A 2$
8) /" $ @ + 8A % 8) /"
$" $ ? / + $" + )
/%) , ) )$% / $"$)8A
8 " )8)
'>'&>'.''.
'' ;
$ $" 8 $8"
>
E 'EF 1 G$)F
+
) $
+9 =
! "
#$ % & #$##
4 *#
8 " )8)
'>' >'.''.
'.;
)$8$"$)!A
8 " )8)
'>' >'.'' .
14 ;
$ 8% "!///$ )$$8$ $"8 " "$ 88
!$/ /"%Q )%$ $ %$ 88,$%$ )
$%$ $/,/)A
8 " )8)
1>.'>'.''.
1 ;
0,/ ) 8) //! ,%
"/ "8/ !!%) %$G A 2$ $) / $ ,/
$$! / 8""$ // $)$ ?, /
!/ G88) !%% @ 8A " !+
88$) $A 0!%) / 8)
% % "%A 0 )K)$!$ %% /
D!8/G$ A
8 " )8)
1>.1>'.''.
&1 ;
$2#%$)$%%$"$8 545 "H /
;$ #%% / G $ 551 ) $%% $$)
$8 55 A 0 !!G $) ,
" @$8!$/ / B$"B / , / / / "
" /G %!)%!$ % /
$"8 ! $ %" / "!$/ $ / %$ /A
/ # /) 8"%$ $ " $/,/) "
$/, /" $ % $"%
,GA/ H= 8"%$ 8$%%8$) " $/,
! $ %)/" $ ;A #%% / ) ,8/ %8%
!G!/ ,) / G$ $$ / ) ",
% $ / /A / $/,8%%) / /$AAA
8 " )8)
1>.*>'.'' '
'1 ;
K % )$$8$ ) $% $/
8 " )8)
1>.*>'.''.4
*1 ;
(8 $ $ $ A /%) !$/
$) 8$ ",) )$%++/
@$ ++/ $ /%) , ,/ ,%$8
8"" ) )$8$A /$ /%) , ) $ / ))
$/E$$% G$F %$G / 8 "$"A C
) $ " $$ $%%%A
8 " )8)
1>. >'.''.'
*& ;
/) )$$$/ ,! ) ? )) /)8/ !/
$ G)!$/ 8$ /%A
8 " )8)
/ $ / " ? / " $") $ )$A
! "
#$ % & #$##
8 *#
26
0
12
6
17
1
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
32
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
1>.4>'.''.4
*.;
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''
'' ;
8$C,$/! !8/ /$/"A
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''.1
.;
(8! ) % " 8/A
8 " )8)
1>.5>'.''.'
*4 ;
/ " +$"$)!/ !/%/)%
$) $ ) / !) $ / 8$ )
E* )8) $ 8F!/% / ,$%$ 8%%8
$8" " )$ / "/ / /8/$
@A %%!/ ! /$ %$G%
"%A 0$/ / $8" " / % $"
B!+88$)B $)!%) , ,% )G$
/$/" $ !/$8/!%) , )$ $8$%% )
"$%%A ; !+88$) !,%
%$ $ %%+$"E "/ ">F /$
,$>!G ) ) / %@A / ! /%)
, %$-) /A /$,$%$ G /$8/$/) %+$"
/" $ $ )) $8) $8" 8
@A </" $ % %%+$" B!+88$)B $)
!%%!) /" ,$ /!%) , "8/
" $8$ / %8 ! ))% /$ 8% ,$
+$"$) "G" "!$/ ! 8$
/A /$ $ ,) 8 ",%" $ / A 0/
/ )8$$ / ! !//%%+$" +$"
!/ !) $ / 8$ $ /$ "$" $ $
8 $ 68", '.' /%) , )/) $ ) @8%))
" $$ / "$$%A 8/
/%) % , %$) !/$ $ $% $/
$ $)>!!/ D%% / 8$))
/$/"A
8 " )8)
1>.5>'.''.1
&* ;
"$% / !) $ *. ) /
%$) / $"A / ,$%$ ! )" 8$
!/ / %%!) !/$/$ %8A 0$/ /$ $
!!%) , 8) %%A $ /"E % "F %%!
/ %@$,$%$ $%% ? / ) !%%A )C
,%$ !+88$) C /%) , %$-)
,$ ,% $) / %%+$"A % !+88$)$)8
!%%!) / C /!/!%) /" " %$$
%!/ %%$" ) $%%$ /$ I(/
+!) !88$)$)8 / / , !)
$ / 68",'.' "$"/%),,%$ /$
$/ ) @8%)) " $% $$ /
! "
#$ % & #$##
**#
"$$%A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
.5;
$ ! / ) / ,$ , ) ,
$"A 2% ) $ "$%$ $)% %8 8$A <"$%$
) 8 )! 8"" 8/ %$$" $ /
G$8/A 0/!8$! $8%% /"
/! 8 , 8",% ,8 /%" ? ) $
/ " /$ ) $ / %A /$G , )$$$/$
,! / ! ) $$8$ / /!$%%
%$"$ % $" !/$8/ $!$%% / / "%% ,$A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
4 ;
!/A % %%!8""$% /
$)% 8A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
'* ;
$) ,) / 8"$ $ / 8""$A
@ / %8% " ) )K! , %) /! "
%$A " ) 8""$ "",) )K $
8D8 $ " /"!/ " $ $A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
&* ;
0/ /%) $ "I ; ! 88 /$"EG$
*/ 3% ) ", / /%$) @"% )
! //$"!/ /C/A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.&
4 ;
0/ $)$$)%E!/ ) /@$/!
%%+$"$)F )!$/ /$$ $ /$,$ )
/$,$ % ,?8 8"" %!%$"$$E$ 8FA
% @%$!/ ,%" $ %I "
" / /"% "G $ $ ,%"$8
$C! G / 8$ $,A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.
;
$ "/!"8/ $" $)$!
A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.4
&* ;
$ % % %8% "$ G$ 8/
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.5
*.;
8" !G /"
8 " )8)
!/%), )!/ /!!$/$8$A /$
! "
#$ % & #$##
#$*#
26
1
12
7
17
2
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
33
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
1> >'.''.&
.';$!/ " % %$G% 8/) $ / $ %8 )
!/ "G / "G !/$A % / 8
"!$/ 8% " /!R8%) ,)S !/$8/ G
! ,$ " / %8% "8/ ) / / %8% 8"A
/ % " ! ) %%!! % /$$
/ "G $ / / %8% 8" ) / $ / / %8%
/ ! /G "GTA /
% ")% / !/!G,%8%M
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
1.;
0/ $ / )$8I !
!) @A % $ %A )C/!$
"/!% !%$ / /!!%)G
8GA
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
* ;
0 %$ $ 8 ) /%) , %%!) !"
)/% / @$)!/ 8/) / )
, ,$$% $/) ,8 / 8""$ !/% 8
8" !$/ %$ / 8 %$$A $C " % )
)C $/ "A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.*
*.;
/"% /"%A
8 " )8)
1> '>'.''.4
'.;
/ 8$ "!%) % , )$ /$ "%%
", %!/!%) ,$A /!%) , / $8/A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.1
'4 ;
/ /%) , )$8 ,! !888 )
888A 2!!%) / )$ 888 , 8$")I
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.
;
" % ) ! /$/"A / /$/" %
" % ) "$) A /!$/
,% /$/" /" ,$ !!G//
/ A /$ /%) , "$)A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.4
*1 ;
$/! / !%) ) , ") / " G
$ $8
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.4
&4 ;
G ! $/A
! "
#$ % & #$##
# *#
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.
* ;
/ %% !)% / " $" /
,% ) /A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
..;
(8 /! / ) %$ $ %% $" /
!)% / 8""$A / "$/!$"
@ 8A /$/ "$/ / ? $ "
)!/ ) / 8/$I
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' .
1& ;
/"!$ $ / , 8$ %
@ 8A $ / /%) , $%) $,% //
$%% ,G $"!/ "% %$8) )
$) ,GA
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.'
*4 ;
/$%%)!$/ )$8$"$$ /!
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.
1 ;
! / $" $ /$$A / /%) , ,%
G / $" $ / 8/ )%
! ) /A !!/ $8$$-) G
"$8 /$ /8$ / C% !/$8/
% /8 / $/,/)C %A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.
** ;
$ 8""$ )) $
8%%8$ %$%$/)L /% $$)8 ? "G
AAAA $8%% $8 88$% % !
88) , /$G$ ,) , " 8% "%% /%A
))$$%% $ C $ ,$8 $/A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.'' .
*1 ;
% %A )% $ , $%,% $ )
/$A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.
& ;
/$!%) )% $ $ 8") 8%A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.4
.&;
/ /"% $ $/,/) 8%$" , !
88$) , $K A /%%$ 8 ) $%% 8
,%"A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.4
*.;
%% /"% / / " $"8 $/,/) )
/%) ,%) / "
! "
#$ % & #$##
##*#
26
2
12
8
17
3
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
34
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1>''>'.'' '
1 ;
0/// !$ / / /%) , )$8A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.*
11 ;
$ D% "A6C"G @8$ / 8%)
8 ",%"A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
..;
)C )) / $A $ $ ,/$) $"8
$/, ,% ) 8" "8/$" $ %8A C
% 8 $,% , %$8) / )$%
,) /!" "/ " %$ /A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
;
0/ $ / )$$$ !88$)I $">$8$%$) +
" %% $"$) C,%"G /$/" $%,% )
%) 8$ ,$A 6 !88$) 8')
/" !!/ /$$)8 /,!
@II C $"% !A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.
&5 ;
/$ $ $% / 8""$ ) )K)$8% %
/ ,%" / 8$ 88$% 8%$" @$A / $ $ $%%) $/!A
% / 2 %%!/"% )K/8$
/%) , $ $%)A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.'
*.;
0!A % / /$$8%% 8/) /
/ ') /" ) $$!/ /$8/)% %%!A /%
8 ?, ) $8" / !A
"" ,G ) @A %$"$ $ $"
/"!!$%% %$"$ / ", ?, $ %) )$$8%
!$)!G
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.&
&& ;
/ $ )$$8$ $ 888)%!/ $$)$ $ /
A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.5
. ;
,8 $ /!%) 8 "C% %A %$
/$/!$) ""A ")!/ %% /$ 8)
$)/%$G / / 1 & $ $ " 8"%@
" 8)!$%% % $% ,A " ? ,$ /A
8/) % ) ,8 / $!)$) $$/ /
%$8$ // / $%) / @ %E
%FA 8/ $ ) % /%)
%$- / / )$) / A " %G$ %% ,
! "
#$ % & #$##
#9 *#
", .+'." ! "$/A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
. ;
(8 $ "G ,%% )$8 !///
/" $ 88$) 1 & ) &)A "
! /$/" /" $ $ /$, A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
& ;
$ $%$ K 8$$%$/ )!/ /
!!$/ /$$ A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
&1 ;
" % 8"%$8) % ) )$A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.'' .
'* ;
% )K /$G / 8$ /%) %% /"
%A ) /$G /8%),! "G /%$ "
$ %$!$/ / $K%$ 8""$A <@"% /
%$ 8%) " 8%$ $ / %
"G !>$$ /!$%% % /
$" /"% $8"A /$ /! ,
%$" 8) /"! / /$$ %
A $ / / $ /! ) / 8
88$$ " / /"!!%) @)
/ " 8"G $% $"" % / 8
/"% $8" / )A /!)
,%$ / ", /"! ,/ $"$)
) /!$ / ) , 8$)) $ /$ 8 ) /$
,$%$ /" $ ) $8" ) /$
$ ) 8$ ) ? /"A ) ,%$ /
, /"!!$/ %$"% /$$ $ /
"% ,$A $ @"% $" 8$)/$
,8 " $!/"?8$%$"" ,8"
; ) 8/ /" / ! " ,
8)!$/ % $ / 8 /"A <$$
8%$ $ /%) ) )) / !
) "G/8$$E8 %$8 %)$ @ 8AF " 8% $
8/ 8A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.1
1& ;
,%$ !/%),,%)!/ / %!$/
/$ % / $/@)$$
"A)/$G C ) !G ,!/
(G ;" $8 $ $%)A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.*
&* ;
$C$/A $ / $) "$8 /%) , ,% )
!/ !!A
! "
#$ % & #$##
#!*#
26
3
12
9
17
4
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
35
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.&
1 ;
"8/ /$G $!%) , $8 )! )$$8$ /$G $
!%) , )$$8% 8 /$A
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.4
.&;
$/ 8/ D% +
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''
* ;
/+"% $ /+"%A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.'' '
'4 ;
" /$$ $) "$% ) /$!/"
!%% % $A
8 " )8)
1>'4>'.''.
'.;
)) /%$ , / "!88$) 8
8$
8 " )8)
1>'4>'.''.
'* ;
%$ /%) , 8$ ) D%%
)% !//$ $ $"$)8 A
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.5
;
(8!!!/ / , 8"$ *.:
) 8$ 8""$ %$ $ A 0 )C
%$ /$@"/ ,!$"$%
$>8""8$%% "$) )!%)/ , )
!$/ /!/ A / //8$$ / /%) ,
)$$) 8/ "%$%+$ !/$ AAAAI
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.1
& ;
,,% / "?$ /"! / 8) /" /)
" , / "/A $%%!)! ))
/ /"! @ ) %8% 8/ "G
! $$$8)$) ?, %$A
))$$ /$ % / !88$) /" 8
!$%% ,,% 8 8$ " / /"!
/ 8%) ) / / )!%) %%A $ / %) /
/" $8!%) 8" )! / "/%8%
!G,,%),$G$ /"A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.4
4 ;
0 ,/ 8$ /" $ !" )!$/ ,$ ,%
!!$%% / %%A ; % $ / " , /
8"!$%% 8/ $ " #$%%M
! "
#$ % & #$##
#7 *#
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
'4 ;
!88$) $ /%) , ,% /"$
$)$% $/,/) %%A $)$% $/,/)!
)$) $ 888A /!)$)%
%$ /$ 8""$A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
* ;
,%$ / /!B!88$)B $)8 /
/"A /$G / ",$D$ "%% ) //$G
/%$ /%) HH /"! !//$C')
/" $" /"A % /$G / )$$8$!%) , /)
8P %$8A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.
14 ;
/%) / / ,$%$ /$$ /
%A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.'
1.;
/ 2 /%) )$$$/ / %% %$A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
11 ;
/ /%) , % +!88$) $A
; / / ) 8$% // /
% / %"$A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.4
;
/$ $ / ,%"A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.
&5 ;
0)! )$% !88$) A !
88$)A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.5
* ;
/"," $%,%!$%% ,$ " %
// /
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.'' '
;
<$ ) /$G / !%$$ $ "/'
"/ $ $ "G )$8 $!/ $
88"%$/A %C % 8/ 8% ) /$8$
! )$$8% 8$- /$ 8$A !!/ %$ $
"/ )/88$%%8%))8$)"
2!$$ ) %% $" ) % 8/$A /$ $ ?
@"% !/ 8 "G )$$8$A / $ )
/ A /$) $ ) %8$A %% /
88$$8%A
! "
#$ % & #$##
#%*#
26
4
13
0
17
5
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
36
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.''.&
.;
) "A / $ /%) %% %!/ / 8 )
!$/ /$% % / 8"%$!$/
) %8%%P%$A
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.''.5
* ;
!!/ "$%%$ )%%/$ )
/% @ /%) / /$/ )!//
!!$/ /$ %$)C $"8 /A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
&.;
!/$/A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
.';
0/ ) $ "I % / $/ /$ /!
/ $!// / %$ /A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.4
*.;
!/$%% %%) / " 8 , %$)
$"%
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
..;
0/ % )!/$ $ /$,$
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
;
+!88$)$)8 /% / 8""$ 8"$8%% ,
$)$ /$ 8$% "% ) )A
0$/ / /$ 8/$8 $ /)8$/$%%/
) $$ "$ ) 8$% / /%)$A
/$ $ $" / 8""$A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''
*.;
)KG!!/ / )$$$ !88$) $A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' '
'5 ;
,%$ $ "GA 8%) / ))%$$
) %%$ ) %$ %% $" $ /) , ,% ) /
")$" %/% !$%%
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''.
.4;
/%) , ) D%%A !88$) $)
"$,8 / 8$ ,$ "/!88$)
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''.
'4 ;
/%) , ) / " + ) %$G?)$8 "A
)C /!/ $ )$8 ,!!!/ $ %$$ $
/$$)8 "/ % ) " %!/ " ,
%$$ $ /$$)8 % / "/A 2!8 $
! "
#$ % & #$##
#4 *#
/ // 8$-$ /"!I 2"! / + /
0 /$/" ) / /%) , ,% )!//!
!$/ /$/"A 8 /!/$ $ 88 / 8$ /!
/ 8$ /$G / 8 %%% )$8!/ /"!)!$/
/$! /"M </" /$ "" $8
) " /" $ %% / "
!$ $,, /$/"A $,, ) "
/" / ?8$$8 !$)
$A / !$%% ) " /$! /"
/ 8/
/$/ ) $,% / ,8 / /
% $ $!/ $ $ /$/"A 1)
"" $8 $ %% % $) $G$ /$
$) )A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' .
*4 ;
(/ )@8$8 %8%!G / "GA
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' '
. ;
K$" !" !
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.
' ;
(8 $ $ ,$% /$$"$)8 ) $ $%%$
/ $8A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.&
&& ;
/ "/% $ %$8,%A / % , "/
BB !A ))$8) $!$%% % , &.)
A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.
*5 ;
0/"%$%/"
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.
&* ;
!$ /$/" / /%) ) $ /
%$ @)) $) $" / 88"")$%
1.) %AC%$$8 " /+"%
/" + $ % //"$,$ !/$8/ $!/!
$ $)A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.'' '
1 ;
(8 $ C! /%) / /$/ %
8)>/" ) $"%% !/$A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
' ;
U / "
! "
#$ % & #$##
#8 *#26
5
13
1
17
6
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
37
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
14 ;
/$% "!/ 8 " /%
,/ !
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
&& ;
$"% $8" %%! % !$
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
& ;
(/ /%) %% )/ "$8$ )%$
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
. ;
0/ $%$$%)I
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
;
%$$ $ 8$$- /"!/$! $ )$8$"$ )
8$8$ )$8$"$$ /%) , $ 8$% )$A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
' ;
0 /) 8) &. $ // /
A"$% / $ %% * , 8$% $@
"/ A!%) , $8$ 8) /" !
/ 8"%!$/ "$8$%$A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
*.;
/ $ )$$8$ ,! 8) /" !) %
) /" !) $" A / "
/ % "% 8G / %A / "
%% $D ) /% !/$ 8A /
%D ) ,$ %A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.&
*4 ;
$$$8 8" / /$ $ / $ <G #%% $
)) % $8" ) 8$% $ $$A
" /% $8" 8" $!$%% $$,%)8
)") ) %% %A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.
*1 ;
/$G /"!/ /$/ /$ $ )
/ / $ @ $ / $ <G #%%
A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.*
& ;
F K / 8$K ,$ /!% 8/ /$$
(F ))K ,) ,!/$8/ ,% /
8"$8 8$$ 8"A 6K "$ /
! 88 /" A
! "
#$ % & #$##
#**#
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
.*;
$ %!/ %$ $ / A / %8
!//!88$) "G % / 8 ,
)) , /!G8A % " ! " / 8)
/" // / %% , " , ,%
"/ %A 0/ /%) / , %%!) G
$" 8 / 8 / I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;
"$,% )8A $)) 8D8A ;))%"
" /%) %K %$A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;
/ ! )$ ,A !88$) $ /
) 88$% $ %$) $ /"!$/ "$% / )
% $"A !88$) $ $ 8"$!$/ /
$8) /% $ / %%!$ % ) % "
/ " 8 ) 8$, 8" !/$8/ %!
$ "$% )$ , $A / ) %8 A 6!
! )$ $$!/! 8" G$ , 8
) /H$% %%I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
&& ;
; ! ) / $8" G /$/"A ;
! 8 % )%$$$",$ /$
/" $"A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
14 ;
/$)$8 ,! !+88$) ) !+
88$)A (/ 8 / ! / A / ! /%)
, ) D%%A / ,/ @ / / 8$
A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
&' ;
!%) , /%% $ )$) / , " $ /D$A
"$ / / !" , $ / $!/$%$ /
)$!$/ /$A ; $$8""$! )
/$! 8 ) /$%$G/%A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.5
;
$)$8$"$$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.'' .
&' ;
!88$) $ 8%% 8 % "$8$%
8 ,8 % ) %$ $ 8""$ %% $"A /
!) 888 " , %% )$ G , % / %%
$" A
! "
#$ % & #$##
9$*#
26
6
13
2
17
7
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
38
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
&4 ;
% "%$ $ 8"%@ !88$) ) /
2% /% / @ !/$8/ / 8""$!%) %$G
A / 2 /%) / $8AAA
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
&4 ;
% % %%+$" ! )$8 @
$ /+"% $ ) 8/$/"
@ /))$$% $8"!/$% / %!$/ /$
"$%$ ) ) $ )$$$/$ ,! / !A (/
!+88$) ) !+88$) / " " $
@ $ 8 8 A /"A !$%% % %)
" % 8%$"$ /$%%+$"$)8 $ )
) /!$%% 8/ $ ,!/$8/ 8%) / "
$)) 8D8A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.'' '
'* ;
/$!%) %$- "$%$!///)/"$/%%
" " "$%!G 8$ ) /$ $
$ % 88$%% /% 8/ @A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.1
'* ;
8%) ,8" )$8$"$ 8%) G! )" )$/
/ ? ! %8$8"8 8/
8/ !$/ #6 "$% 8 ) 8%) )% $"8
%8% ?, /%/ )!%%+,$ / 8""$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.*
&5 ;
(8 ) /"% / %8G /%
88"")$A % " %"$%$% /$ G$8/
" /" "% 8$%% $8 8%
)K / / $8 ) " %% !D$
"/ $ )8 ,G$ ,%A % ) ) /$
"$%$ $!GAK8$8% ) ,) /
8 %8G )$$ $ /%A /K!/!
/ 8) ) /" $ ))$$ ,$!$/A "$
/ "$%$ % /%8% "$%
% %$ $8G G$ % )
D$"%A / $ % 8",$) % ) @
" ) % $ /%$ /% A H%
,$ /"%!$%% % / ),% /$
)$%"" $ $ "%$"$%%$ )%%$
$)8 ),% /$ !G "$ / 8%
%,% $ !/$8/ "8/ 8 "$ % )
@ $%@ !$%% $"% $ " ) +$%$-)A 6 ;
%$- / / @ /% ) /$
/$,)$$8""$ 8%) D
"?$ / )$ /D$ ,$%) ))$$%
),% /$I(8$ I 2K 8%% "$$ / ,
! "
#$ % & #$##
9 *#
) /%) , ;A /$ %$G 8$
$ 8 %$8A 6K"G ) $K,,$
%$ 88"")$ 8,$%$$A / /!$%% %%
/) #$% $)A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
.4;
/%) "$8 " /$ %% )$%A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
.;
C %% / " $%%A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
1& ;
0/ !/$/"8 8 %8$ 8 !
88$) ) !88$)A %% /$/ 8% /$/D%$
"$8 ) $A $ )$ / " /
/ 8A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.5
.*;
B!888B $ $$$8 $ $ %$"$$
$8%% $ / $ $ ,$ ") 88 /$ $
%
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.5
'& ;
$ $%A " " %$ $ %%+$" ) / !
!A " " %$ /$$" ,! )
"!/ %A " " ) "8/ $" / 8 $
A 0/ / !) $ 8"%% $%A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' .
.5;
,$ ", ) $ / /" , / !
/%)C)"$ /%$A @$ ) )$$8% "$
) 8 "A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
.';
(8 / % / 8" %$ $ ) %%
) % / /%G$$ ) /$ 8 "
/"A / )) " " )K8 /$A /
/ / 8"!$/ "$% 8$ %%!/
%A6%%//$/) / $ /!/$8/
"G %$$ )$$8% ) @$ ) $%,%A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
'' ;
0/I / %%% / )/ )$8$ /
!A %%!) / /%) , %%!) %%A K/
" $"8
) 8$ ) / ,) $ /$ $
8"%% $ 8"A ,) %8% +!/%8%
$A
! "
#$ % & #$##
9#*#
26
7
13
3
17
8
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
39
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.1
&.;
" $C $ 8%$$ !/$ $ , / 8
8/ $A $ 8$ / $8 % "% 88
@%)A !!$%% 8/ " " $% %+"
/$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.&
* ;
) "G)$8 $ $ !
88$)A / ) / ) / " /) $ ,) "G
P /%/ %8% 8" %% %%
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.4
'5 ;
% /%) , ,% )!/ /!!$/ /$A
/%) , 8%%)A 0/ $ / 8/ /$"$) /!%
/%$$/$I
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
1* ;
!/$/)$$$!+88$)A !!/ ) &
"/ /I $/)$$8$!+88$)
"!/ )C " / .) III
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''
*.;
+!+88$) /" $ 8E//
B%8%BFA (%%!$ /" $8$$/ $ )))
% / 8" $ @ ?, 8A !) %%!
/" $8$ /!$%% / 8$, ,%% /$
8"A E;%$G!) 8FA $ /$/% %$G% / /$
8/!%)% $ " %+" % / %8%A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.
&' ;
)K!/ )$8 $ /%) "GA (/ $) $% /$
$$A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.'
' ;
,%$ $ )"88 ) "G 8"$8++ ) /$/
!/$ )$ /! $ )A / $ / "$8!
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.1
* ;
(8!/ )$8 ) $ "GI
8 " )8)
*> >'.'' .
&1 ;
"! $)8 1' $ A / "
$$/ /$A <"%$%!$/8/ 8"%$8) , ,$%
)! /$ A )C / )D % 2%
8 ) /$G )%$ / $ ) $) ,) /
)%" ! 88"") / %G!/ 8" ) )
!$ $) @" 8A 'A 6 %%! / )G)
! "
#$ % & #$##
99 *#
,8 /" !!/ $$)8 $
,%!"G 8/ G$$8 G$)
E" $/,/)! "8/ )$ $ 5 5 !/ /!"
$/,AA / !)$)C " /$!%% , 8C,8G
/$ $ AA %$F 1 0)C ) " )" $% 8/$
"% ) )C! % "G 8)
,$%)$ / ,/ ) )%) /"% ,
/ //) / " / "$") ) /$
!$/ %% %G!% "%/$ $ !A C$,% /
, $G!, ) / %G ,$ /$A *
=%)//),$%)8$/
; 6 8 $ $% @ ) @
" "% ,$%) ) )% "),),%
/$ $ &A " / /1' /
"$" "/ $" , / " %G
) )!$ $) @ " 8/$"AA $% $
) %@% %G/,$ "$%%$ )%%$/
8"A ) )C/" / $8 /
8" $ ) ) )!$ $) 8A / ,%"A
$ / !C"G$ , !!$/%G//
!) ) ,$8$$% @$$ /"
!)C%% % /$ , 88 ",%" )
/% @$A / ) )%"!/$8/
%% )$ / ,$%)$ % 8) $ !)/$!$%%
8 ,%"A
>
E 1 EF *G$)F
+
) $
! "
#$ % & #$##
9!*#
26
8
13
4
17
9
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
40
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
+! & ' - &
2
-
&
1
.
.
;
2 3
6
7$ 3% /#56
*7 398/856
=
+
! "
#$ % & #$##
97 *#
8 " )8)
'>'4>'.''.
* ;
$)$% $ /%) $"$% %8% 8""$A
H) $$ ) %8)!$/$ / $ 8A /"
% /%) % , %%!) $$)8!/ / %8%
% %$$A $/,/) $"8) , %!/ /
B)$"B)$) $ 8""$A $ )
% 88 $ /"%A H) %)
D$) "$/ $A $) /"% )
8 , / $ % , /$ $"A
8 " )8)
'>' >'.''.'
' ;
/A "/%) ,D$) ))
"8$ $/ $/,/) $"8A
8 " )8)
'>' >'.'' .
14 ;
= / /%) , )$$8$ , /"% /%) ,
@) / " 8""8$%A
8 " )8)
1>.1>'.''.
&1 ;
0! ) ,%$ / 8 $ B%)$B
-A $)$% $/,/) 8%) / ", 8%% $ /
$ %) 8"%$)$ G$ $ 8A $
" $/,/) !$) , 8%%$ / %$8
/$ )$ $ " )$ B $B BHAB %
% % @ / $8! ?A = "$/
8$)H$ / !/ 88 " ,
,%$/) 8"%$ $ $)$% $/,/)A
8 " )8)
1>.*>'.'' '
'1 ;
/ )$% $8) ) $) )$ "$$A )8$
!$%% $8 /% $8A
8 " )8)
1>.&>'.''
1 ;
;$)$% $/,/) $ % $"8) , / 8
,$ $ * 8" / % A 8
A / / ) 8 "8/ " $ /
D$ $/,A 0 / / ) G /
% ,D$A
8 " )8)
1>.&>'.''.
. ;
,8 / ) , $"$% / 8 /
)$ / % " "G%!/$8/ $!/
" )% ) 8 / 8" ? " 2
" ," ) $)$% , "
,$%)$!$/ )$ $- ) $8$!$/ $%$
+7=
! "
#$ % & #$##
9%*#
26
9
13
5
18
0
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
41
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
" / , % "% %% $" %8%A 0/
$)!/ / , $% / !G) G$ 1&8
$)$ % "% !%! /) !%%G!$ $
,8 / / /" %$A ) %$ $ $)$%
- 8) ,$%)$ ,$ , + )$ % $ 8$
$ 8%A H )$$ $ D$- ) ' ,%8G
" 8$ "GA
8 " )8)
1>. >'.''.'
*& ;
/ %% )$ $$ ) $!)C"G )$$8$
%% $ $ !$%% 8$ /%A
8 " )8)
1>. >'.''.*
4 ;
) /% $ / 8$ /! ,$% ,8G $
/ .C ) % 4.C ! )$) 88"") / A
/ / "$$ ) 8%$)) $8A ; /"
%8) $ / )!! 8""8$% 8 8% /$ )
8$$$A /$$8 %!G $ ! ,$%)$
// /%$ %% !A
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.'' '
.*;
%% / 8$) , $ / $)8$ /$D$A
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''.*
* ;
0%% C "") $ !%% %)A 0/ $)$%
$ -) $)$% $/,/) )
$ )$%8 "$% / 8%) %$ / $) 8 $ )
$8 $ / $/,/) ) 8$% 8$ 8""8$%
,$A /$ $!/! /-$ + 8 /D%$ %$ $
$)$% $/,/)A
8 " )8)
1>. >'.''.5
&5 ;
/ / ,$ ,$ ) /%) , /%) /
" @ )-$ %! /A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.&
4 ;
$ / 8) $ A ! $ "$% ,,% /
"/ $8%% / G$ A $ $ $! $
// / $ $ $)% / "/ ,! G$
!/ ,$ $ $ I " $8" " $ @) / %
$ $ " 8) @ ) / / $8 / /
" $%$$8A 0$/ /
!%) , %$"$) ? /% ,)A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.&
* ;
/$G /%) /%,) / %) $)
// "G$" )$$8% / 8$% A
" $G / /% $)/!$%% !/"
! "
#$ % & #$##
94 *#
% )%$ %%!A/!$%% % ) $C"/$$
/ "$ ,/$) / /% / /"%
"G B / %$ $%)BA /$ $ ,A /
/ /% $ $ / )") $$A /$ $!/
/ /"% "G 8" $ %A / "G %%!
))$$% $$ 8" ) 8) /" )
) /$"A= )C! " ,$ %,% /% $ A
0/!%) /"A ))$$% /%!%) 8/ /
8/8 / !A / /"% $) "% %
@ ) $ ))$$% 8"$8 )$/ !A !/
!%) !8/ / , ))$ !8
%$I
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.
;
$% !)$)8 8""8$% $A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.4
&* ;
$ ,/ D%%!%) ) ,) $)$%
!A ; ! / /"%A H)
/ %">8 ) / % ,$ " @ @"$
/ $)$$)% !",$ "A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.
& ;
8)!$%% / +$ ""A +!+88$) /"
!$%% A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
* ;
/$G "$ ,)" $ !G $" $
)$ / / /% %) / $ %% $" / ,$A
/$C / /$ $ $ ) / $8" $
,% / 8/ 8 / $ !A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
&& ;
H) / 8$ ) $8 /$
,G$ 8%$ 8A 0/$% "$)$% $
/$ / " ) ) ) / ,$ " /% ,/$)
/" ,8G $A ; $ , ,% $$ %$ $ /
"G $ $8$%% $,%A 2% ) $) /$A
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' '
.5;
%) $ ,)" !,)" $ %%
!) 1." ) % /" .%" + $
!$%% ,,% )) 8)$ /% %)!$%% )) % 1.
.8A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.*
*.;
/ )$ !$/ )$ @8$ "
A % $)$% $ %% !) ) "$$)
! "
#$ % & #$##
98 *#
27
0
13
6
18
1
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
42
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
, $)$$)%!/ ) / / $8$% 8"$8 %,,$
!/ 8 ! /A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.4
*1 ;
$)$% $ ?/AK$)8A /
%8)$8""8$% ) /%) , @) 8""8$%
$A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.4
&4 ;
(8 / )$ !/$ 8A 8 /
)$A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.
. ;
=)8$$ , $ " ) + $8 G$
)G $8 8A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.
* ;
/ ')$ %AA ;, /" / !)
, ,$ ) ) % % /%) , ) %$G %)
, $)$$)% !$ /$/ /%) , %%!) $)
/ ) % , ,% $ A / %$"$ / " $"
/" 8%) ,) AI
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
..;
(8 / )$
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.'
1& ;
</ ) , 8$%%
H) %%
%8)$ / 8$E- )$$8F / $)) )
)$) $) / $"8 8""8$% 8/
$ ) G$A #8$% / $$)$%
,$%)$ $/,/) %8) $ / 8
!$/) / $"8 /%!$/ ,)$ $/,
K$8A @ %) ,)
8""8$% @ A #8$% ,$ %8) $$)8
/"8/%! @ ,)A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.'
*4 ;
%) 8""8$%A /" $)$%
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.
1 ;
%$ ) @ /+"% /%)D$/
%%!$/,/)%A ! /%) /D$)
@A
8 " )8)
<%% / %$) $ / @%$ , $8%% /
! "
#$ % & #$##
9**#
1> 5>'.''.5
. ;88 / %) D$) ) ""$$/$$"8
/ )$ A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.
** ;
$)$% $ / $$$8% ! / %)
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.
&' ;
$)!/ !$$)$% / @8$ /
/$$/,/)!$%%"$$)$%A $8) /+"
%%$ " 8/% 8/ %$G$(P(8
D$ "$% $/,/) $ ,$ )$$8A
8 " )8)
1>'.>'.''.1
& ;
2$/ >/$/$8$)$% $ /%) , "$)
$$)$%- ,%) %$"$ /" )
"$$ $"8A " % $$ %%$)$%
B"$$+/%BA 8 "%%8 $)$%
$ ) @$ /"%A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.'' .
*1 ;
/ )$8 , "G A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.'
'' ;
) /% ?/ /%A/$!/ / $))
,A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.4
*.;
</ ) ,)$ +$ "" ) /
"$D$" /% ) %)A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.'' '
1 ;
(8 / %$8C% ,$ /% / $$)$%
$ /%$ / , $ %8 %A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.'
.&;
""8$% @ /%) , ..O $ $
" $8"A /$8/
F
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.*
11 ;
/ $"8 $ "8/ "$$)$% /"
%A / %)$ ) 8""8$% )$$8 / ,-) )
)$) 88 /$ $8 !/$$)$%- / @
/"% )C 8" / /
$"8 $ 8 / 8% )D$ $" /!
-) A
! "
#$ % & #$##
!$*#27
1
13
7
18
2
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
43
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.
&5 ;
9$A " $/,/) /%) ,$)$% " 8 ,
%)$A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.4
'1 ;
)$8 ,
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.
5 ;
/ / " ) / )$ $"8 / 8""$A
( /$ +$ "" $ $/,/) 8
% / 8 ,/ /!/ %!$/%
8D8A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''
.';
%) 8$8%% $ /" $$A $)$%
$$ /!8 ) /%) , ) / % / %$
)!G /A / $ /!G/ ) / %8G
),% /$ $!! 8$ / /%
")$8% ) /!G / "/$ ) , )A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
. ;
(8 / C @8% / " /$A C)"G /" % "
D% $ " /% / / ! 8/"G$ /"
$,% "$$$ ) @$ /" %$G 8""8$%
, +)+ ,$ !%)C /" /
"A H$G!%)CD$ " /$/) $ % /
%E? $ /F 8""8$% ,%$/"A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
1* ;
/"% G$%%$ $/,/)A $/,/)
$/, # H
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.*
*' ;
)C ,%$ / !88$) C /
", $/ / /% 8) /%A ) / "G
/ / /% "GA = $8/ "
$8 $$ /!%)//%) )!
88"")$ 8!/$% @$8$ C8$ )$$
) /$A /$ $ ")$$ $ !C A
C/" )$,% / 8""$ %I
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.
* ;
$ % ) A H) ,$ !$
/$)!%%$ 8 /")$ / $ A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
. ;
(8 8%% /$)$8A 0%G$ , !
8"%% )$ $$A
! "
#$ % & #$##
! *#
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.'' '
& ;
" % ) '*>4 /$ ) $"A 8$%%
8%$% / $$ /A/$G $K" / %)
" / G$8/ ) /$8 / /% 8KA
$ "!G !%% " , %%A
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
* ;
) /% ,$%$)$% $ / 8/
"% )%$ $) %
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
& ;
" $ %)
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.4
.&;
8 -$ + ) 2% $ 8""8$%
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
.1;
=+,>8/"%$G% 8$ $ / $)8 $ ,$ )
% / $" ) / !$ $ / /
/$"A /$ $ $$$8 )$$8$%$ %)A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''
* ;
(8$)$% $ $"8!G$ %!/ )$)K
/$ 8$$ %% / $ /$
$/,/)A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.'' '
*& ;
/ )$8 !$/ / $"$%$$A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.
* ;
(8 %% / /$ ) ,
8 " )8)
1>'4>'.''.
'.;
H) $" G
8 " )8)
1>'4>'.''.
'* ;
#$$!/ 8/ $ /+"% %% "$%$
!$/G$)!/!>) "%$% ,)" $ $ ) % /$
%$$" %@A % " "$%$ ) G$8/ )! /
,$%$ 8G// "%A
%) 8!)) / ) /)$ $$
$ $ 8) ) / / / ))) ,$ +
$$ A
! "
#$ % & #$##
!#*#
27
2
13
8
18
3
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
44
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.&
.1;
2% ) %) ") / / 8 /
$8!$/ /"A @ $)$% %$G /% $
?$)$8% 8$)$ / %" $$
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.&
' ;
)>/% $%% ")A $)$% $
B")B , %!/ %% )C8 , /$$/,A
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.4
1 ;
)$8 $-$ ) $ @A
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.5
;
$8%) )$$8$ "G A )$ / $
$>)$$ !%% G$ $ $/,/) !
8$ "@$"" 888 ",A
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.1
& ;
%)E8) /%F " %% ) / " / 1
,)"A $ /" 8 , %@)) "$%%A
H) )$ /" 8)% %% /
" ) 8 , $8/) $%A $ /" 8 /
B)B / "$%$ A % $ / %/" ,$
" $ 8""$ A / )
"$8 ) /)8$A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
'4 ;
$)$% $ 8""8$% ,$ ) /%)
,A /! ,$% ) )$) $/,G!8/ /A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.'
1.;
/ ! )$ / 8$A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
14 ;
) /% / "" $ %% '*>4 " /
$"A $)$% $ %% / "" / 8 ,
A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
&5 ;
$"8 / $$)$% $/,/) ) "G $ %$,%
%% $"$)A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.*
;
$)$% $ -) 8""8$% $ )
8 8 /8 $/,
8 " )8)
) /% %% ") ")A = "
! "
#$ % & #$##
!9 *#
1>1.>'.''.4
;)$!/ ;) " $ / 8@ /D$A 8)
% $%% ") ) A /$ $ /
,%"A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.
&5 ;
0! %) $ 8 %)A
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.'' '
;
/$D$ $ )",A /$H6= )$$8$ ,!
%) $ )% $ )!$%% H0= ,A %
/ % ,%% $ $8)$,% $88AAA B )8
%$ /D$" %) / /$
$) D%$ $$@$8 ) 8$,
K 8$%$ 8$$ 8" ) "$$
$,% " $8 $$$8% "$
/ /D$) 8$%AB /$ " $
0 M #8$% 8$, ) 8$%$ 8$$
8"A /$% ) /!$ / %)$
$B$$$8% "$ / /D$) 8$%AB
2 (MM A 0/ $"8 / /"% $"8
/ %%!$ $-$ / 8$,$ ) 8$%$$
$,% 8"
+/G+;?$ /G
/ " ) /$! 8"A +" 8%+;A#8
/P 8A A + "+ % / " %
!G$ / ; 8" +!%!$ $8 +/ $8 +
/ , $8 8" +%8% 8/ ) 8 +%$ +
88$ 8" / %$ ) M
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
'.;
$ ) /%) $ %)>8)>/%
$/,/)A ; @$8 $ / / @ )
!%8" %!/ % ) %) )$8 / %8% )
8,)!$/)A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
' ;
H) ) /% $ ""8$%- , $) $
88"")$ ) $8 $
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.4
*.;
/ , / )$8 /! / ,$/
$- ) /$// 888 C/" /",% %)
", A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''.5
1 ;
$)$% $/,/) ) / 8$ ) !%% ,$
/$% % " $/,8) , $" /$ )
/"%A
! "
#$ % & #$##
!!*#27
3
13
9
18
4
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
45
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
.4;
) + /% /$$8%% /"%
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' '
1 ;
!$/ )$8% $ )!! $
/% %) $ ) $ %%% 8A =
"$%$ ) / $ / "%% %) ) G!/
%) ! %$ 8""$A /$G /$)$%
% 8 $) / 8""$ / $$!/
%$G8D$ /"%!$/ " %8%$)A /"
% /%) )$$% ))$$% 8$ 8 @E
@ 8% $) $ " $8F ) %%!%$
!$/)G$ $ ) $/,/)%A 2! $
/ %$8$ ) @ ,8" /$/ / $ $
,)" $!$%%)/ /% " A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''.
'4 ;
" + $%I /$C /$"8 $)$%
!/// !$ 88$ / A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' .
*4 ;
(8 %) $ ,$% / $ 8/ /" "8/
!A )K /%) , 8$)) %)A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' '
.1;
$/,/)!$)) 8$
) /%
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.'
* ;
(8 /H)E ) 2%F ) $)$% $ /
)$ $"8A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.1
1' ;
" ! $ $ D$M
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.
&* ;
H) $ ") , $$!$/ ""
)$$$A ;$)$%% ") ,% ,G
!/ ) "A/$$!//$%$+
!"$8$)$% /+"%A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.'' .
.&;
$ $ ,$ %) $ /%) , @) 88)$%A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
14 ;
!!$/$% " , ,% 8"%!$/ /
D$"A
! "
#$ % & #$##
!7 *#
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
& ;
$$)$% $ )$ $"% / 8""8$% A
/ /%) , 8$)) )$% $$!/ $ 8"
%$
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
;
8/" $ /% ) $))% //
A ( $ % 8""8$% 8$$8 , % $ "
A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
*.;
H) $!-) ) "$) /"%A
/ /%) 8$ $ / "!$/ %$"$$
D8 %A " , /$8$ $)$%
$ " , $A <@"% %$"$$ / ",
!G$)$% 8 ,) /" " ,
$A %$ /%) , )$) )/
"% " / % "% %A 8) /"
, )$$$ /%"% %A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.
*1 ;
/% )$ / $% !) $A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.*
& ;
/ $)) )$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
*& ;
<" @ 8$ /$G $ / $"$%
%)$ ,$ !//8) /% $)$% $ /%) 8
/ " @ ,)A <" ) $/,/) $"8
8$ $)$% $ / %$/% )$ $"8 )
@8$ ! ) ) , " 8)%$ )
$)$$)% $ $ $/,/)A <@"% D )
G$ $"8 8 , )! /%) 8$)% /
D$ %%/ %$"$ % $ $) D$
+$ + G$A 0 /%) "G! %$,%
)$$ 8) $/,/),EAA $8G "
/ %$8 @8 $ 8$ /%) , 8-
@$FA / //) $ $ $"8$8% $% $
/ %%+$" $%,% '*>4A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
.*;
""8$% %)$ $)$% %)$ $"$%, )$A
(/ )%) )$% , $"$%%A)K /$/
@ $)$% %)$ $ , / @ )
/%) , "G) !G8 /$ )A /
! "
#$ % & #$##
!%*#
27
4
14
0
18
5
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
46
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8%) , ) ,$)$- !G8A %
" $8$$-! /!G8 8 , ))
" /$/@ A ""8$% %)$ )$)$% %)$
/%) / $ "$$$ )! 8% ")
%$GA $$) ) 8 , $$/%) ,
$,% ) /%) $8$ $! "$$$A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;
</ ) $ /D$A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
14 ;
H) " $
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
14 ;
H) ) /% 8""8$% A / )$)
% )A $ /" ) 8) / "
8""8$% A %% / $)) )
) ) %),/!A / / %
8/) / $ $ /!8/)!$/ / $
" $8$% /% / 8 !/$A 8/
/ 8!!%) , )$ " $ $
!A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
*' ;
$ ,$) " / '!G /$
/%) , 8$)) 8""8$% A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.5
;
)$$)% /"! /%) , ,?8 8""8$%
%$ ) @$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.5
'' ;
(8 / $"8 /"% $ /$)$%
8 / %$ $/,A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.'' .
&' ;
= 8 "G )$$8$ ) ,/ 8 8+@$A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
.&;
" / % , % / "G 8) /% ) /
"% $A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
. ;
U $)$% D$ $ ,$ %) )
/%!/ ) / $8 ) $
! "
#$ % & #$##
!4 *#
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
&4 ;
= /!-)H) / $)) $
) /+" /%) / ))$$% $
) / @ A1O %) $ %8A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.'' '
'* ;
/ $%% )$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.'
.;
) /% )$ "8/ )" / 8""$
$)$% $ ) $A ) /% / %! ,
/+"% $ / /$%$ $)
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.'
1' ;
$-
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.1
& ;
(8$)$% $ 8$ "$$+%) $
,8 /$$- ) / /%) , ) 88)$%A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
.;
/%$!$/H)A C//+"% $
/" 8A / "?,%"A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
'4 ;
H "$) %$ $$)$% $ ) $"8) ,
/"% / /%) , 8)A % /%
8""8$%!/$%$)$% !$ /$$
) / / 8/
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.5
.*;
""8$% %) $) $8 ,) / $)$%
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
;
(8 / )$ ) / /%) , ) )$%M
" $$!/ 8" ) 8/ 8$%
" %G$ )$G$) @$8//
$ $8% /%A /! % B /"B //
8""8$%% /%!$/ , %,, ) '*+/$%%8A
/!/ $ /$/" /%) ,$% /
$)%$ %%! / %) )!$/ #( ) / %$G ,
))$$% $8 $>"%$A ; 8$
% ") , /$%8% !!/G!/$!
$/, ) $/,/) ,M0//$
/% 8$ %% " $!$%% )
$ ) )A 0/// $ $ %
$E@$ < , ,F ,
8 %% 8$$$ 8$,$ 8$$ 8"
! "
#$ % & #$##
!8 *#
27
5
14
1
18
6
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
47
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
$ %% ,$ $ !M @ /$//$
"$ / OD$) , #( ) / /
*A*O /8$A;!%$ ?
"G ) " "$ $ ) "% / ))$$%
$8" 88$% $%A ""8$% ,$
8$% $ @ @"$M
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.4
&.;
/$G$)8 / " / "O /%) , )")
%) 8""8$% 8$$$ / /$,$) $$)$%-)
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
. ;
)$8 % , !+88$) $ ))$8) ,$
)) / % $"8 / %8% $8A 8/
/ /%) , ) )$%
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.5
'& ;
2 /%) , @) / ) %) /%) , @)
8""8$% $A H) ) ) $ / "
/$A 2 " , %) $" A
%%8$ % ) %)$ @ % / $ /A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' .
* ;
H)$ /%) , %8) $% $ -) 8/
$8%)$ )!! A $)$% $/,/) / C
-) %)$ 8""8$% $ $$
%)$A C)$ $/,/) "%$ "
!A 0/! %$ @ /!/ $ )
$ /!%%,$ / $/,/)I / G %% /
$)!%G )C/%8$ $ 8A /
8A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
.';
(8 $ /) $) %8 %$ $ %A
"$ /A 0",,%$,,
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
'' ;
=A / )$ , +$8%%
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.1
&.;
= 8C 8/ / %8$ $)$% /"% $
/!) G /" / $/,/) ) 8%$)
/" $ !A / $ / ,$ /% $ / /
%%G / $!/! 8""$! /"
,$ $)$% $/,/)A
! "
#$ % & #$##
!**#
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
1* ;
/ <2 / 8% $" A / "$ )
"(GE%%$"F / 8$ / @ E A1OF 8%%8)"
%A <2 / /) 8"%$ " /$/,
" $ " /$ A 8)!/$8/ /
8"" A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.5
4 ;
/ )$8 $ "" 8 @$ )-$ 8
,$)$$8$//%),8G!%))!$/$ / @8$
)D$" $ ,/ A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''
*.;
2% B%)B "8/%$ + ,/ $ ,$ )
$ /$8% $-> A = 8 $% @8
"%%$)$% /" /%)/ B"B %$
/ B%)AB "$% & 8/8G$$$/
!// " B $ $"8B / 8""$ )
/ 2 66E/)F % 8/8G$ $> /
%) 8/ ) )A/C/%$
8 , ))A / $"% 8 , $!) D%
8""8$%%$A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.'
' ;
H) $ / ,%$8 )"$ $%,% % ,%$8
8"$ 1 & ) AA $)$% /$) , !
$) / !C)$8$ ) $ $%,% 1 & )
A
8 " )8)
*> >'.'' .
&1 ;
; ! ' ,A ) /% 8% $
!/$8/ )$ / $8 8) )A %% )C! "
/% $ A 0/ $)!$/ / A /
%% /"%AA / $ )!AA !/ ) % )
/!) )$$$/ /A HG %% ) 8 $
),% /$ ) " $ ; 2 ,A=C),,
!8) /% %$"$$ / " !G / 8 , /%)
/"%
8 " )8)
'>'4>'.''.'
4 ;
/D$! "$%)$L!!
$/,/)!/$% $)$% %%G$) ,G$) )
8% $/,L /D$ $% $$ )$$8$
>
E ''EF '1G$)F
+
) $
+% =
! "
#$ % & #$##
7$*#
27
6
14
2
18
7
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
48
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
,! ) %)$!/$8/ ) ?$$)
8 " )8)
'>' >'.''.
'.;
/ ,?8$ / $$!/$8) )
) )$ /$ ) / " 8%% $ 8
$ $ ) $)A 2! $ , /$ /!
! ) "G$ "! "$A <$% + % /%
/ B%)C $ ! ) / '* /)G $8 + "
%) / )$"+% A /%$ %! ,
8)$$ + $
"$ ,$%)$ 8)
" ")"G ) ' )8 8 8A ;
/% 8%) % ,+$8) %$8) // /%
"$ %$8$ 8A / " ,-)/
$ $$$ /A (H6 "$ / / $ )
, ) $H) ) 2% !/$8/8 ) + G
" + $ / / ) !,$/%)
%) ) , /) $ $$)8A = ;
8G!%) / 8/$ ) ) %)8
8""$$ ) / 8 ,$ / , $ ) A
/)/$ " /% / $) $8 )
88,$%$ / ) / %$G 8 $% , ") ,
/% ,G ) "" 8""$$ $
/ !A 0/@8%%,G$)$ /$/ %% $8
) "" $") 88$ 8"$ $
,G$8 ) 8" $%) @$8!/$8/ !
" $ )") / / %) 8/% $) %) %) )G!$/%!
,!)G 8%G / )CG!"8/ , / !8 ,
$)$ / @ %% $8A ) /$,$$ /$ $
8"$8 "/! $% / "$% 8""$
E!/$8/ 8" "%8%$) / = 2
6 = F $) / $8 ) 88,$%$ /
/ %G$ A
8 " )8)
1>.'>'.''.
1 ;
$)$% $ ) /"% /%) $ %
/ 8"%!$/ / "% 8) /%A / " ,
" )$8 8/ +$ $ "$)$%
$ 8 , / 8 , )%!$/ !$/%$ /
$ ) 8/$,%A 6K/! / ,,!$/ / ,/
!A
8 " )8)
1>.*>'.''.4
*1 ;
<$$ $A" %$8"" !%) %G / ",
)) / "$ $8G++$A
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''.4
*.;
/ $"$ , $ ..O 88 ) ) %8 /
/ $$A
! "
#$ % & #$##
7 *#
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''
'' ;
/+"% $8$ )A " "$/! "
$8 % "$$ ) / % 8A C$/ /
8$ )"$!/C,/ % ,%$8A
8 " )8)
1>.5>'.''.'
*4 ;
;G$ )$$8$ ,! %) )$)$%!%) , %%
,% %) !/$8/ $ 8"%% $$)$%
!!/ /%$) /$ $8" /%
$%% 8/ @"% /$/ 8 !/$ $ / 8$A
8$ / " %)$ ) 8$ @ )D$$
,$ %$8 ,/$)$% !P %) $ 88,%
)!%8"A $"8 / 8$$8 $/,/) $ / 88
8$)% %%!$ "$ /$)$%
$ %8) $ 8""8$%- "$@) - ) %)$
-A 6 $% $/ !!/! , ,%
? /$ /"%!/$% % ,$ ,% )/
8 /$A 6$%%!$$)$% $ / ,$%$
/ $8) /"%!$%% % ) 8$ !
!$/ /%>%) "% )$$" G/$/P!$%% $%
8 " % $" !!%% $$!/
/ 8" $)$% A
8 " )8)
1>.5>'.''.1
&* ;
,8 /$!%) , $%% ,$8$% %)
) $)$% !/% /$ $8" $%% 8
/ 8 !/$ $ A $ %)$ ) 8$ @ )
,$ %$8 ,/ %) )$)$% $ $
)),%A -$ $ / "$ 88 / / %$"$$
"$ $)$% $ $ "$@) ) %)$-
!%) $8A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
.5;
/ %$"$) %) ) 8) $ / 8 88"")
% "$% !A (G$ ! /% /" " %
!$%% /G$A /$G!$/ / / !!$%%
$""%A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
' ;
=" , 88 88$ /"
%A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
'* ;
,) $ ,))% !/ / !$A
8 " )8)
/$!/% $8 $$)$8%A (!!! $ !
! "
#$ % & #$##
7#*#
27
7
14
3
18
8
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
49
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
1> .>'.''.*
&* ;
$$) % $" 8/ !) 8%!G
$"A /$ $ ! !$/ / 8 %% / %
!/! $$ $ $ $A 0)/$)$ 8$
) %% / /$ / "G %8 %! $
) /+" A "$" %! /%"
) "$" / "! " 8$ $ 8)A
% / " $$$ ))$ !/// 8
8/ $8%$$ ,
G$+$>L %8$ $/
"" 8AC ? 8$ $"8 ! )%
8"$!$/ /G$) )$$8$ / )C " $$A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.5
*.;
6 $% $/ !!/! , ,% ?
/$ /"%!/$% % ,$ ,% ) / 8
/$A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.'
1 ;
)8$ / $%,$%$ % $!$%% 8,$"/
$% $"8$ ,$ // / 8""$!/
% ++!$$ $ /$$A 0 $%% $
/ $"8 "% / ,$!/!%) , 8)
% / /$$8"!A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.&
.';
H) @$ / % 8 $8/ %A /
8""$ ) , ? / $8/ / $ !
G$%% / 8""$A % %%!% " )$ 8"$8
,8G) 8" "G$$8/ ) )$
8""$A % /"% "G!" ,) ) /
$" / $ 8" , $%%$ %8% ,%$/" !/$8/
@ ) $8" %8%A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
1.;
%%% /%) ,,% , $ / " @A ( $C
/ 8""$E/ 8) 8$$ 8F $ /! %%!
% ) /%)%A ) / "G )$8 / $8
$))A
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' .
. ;
$)$% 8$ $ $!) ) ) , $ /
" /%>%)A
8 " )8)
1> '>'.''.4
'.;
/ %) / "8/ /$/)$ % ) /
6 , @) /$/ ) / "8/
/$/E8""8$%F ,$%)$ ))A / 8$%!
88$) , ! ' "/ / / $"8
$/,/)!%) , )$ / $ / $!
! "
#$ % & #$##
79 *#
)A < % / G$ ) $ $ $$8$
/ $ $ % %$A 6$%%!$%!$%%
% / ,%"A H$G!$ ) GA
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.1
'4 ;
; /R$)$%S $! ,$% , /"
%A <@"% / % / A / /
$" ,8" "$)8 % "%A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.
;
0%$$)/8/$%)A 0/ 8$$ ! %"
%! /"A /$ %%!%%%@ ) ) ?
"$% $" /%$ ,) " 8G$ / )
"A 2% ) %%!/$ ) 8$8% 8$$
"$%$A ; "$%$ ?$ /" $ !/ 8"$
$$ A /%) 8 /$ $ "$%$
? /$8$ $ A 0 %$ "H ) /
8/%%!$/ $/,!/ /$/"
/" ,$A G$ 88 " %) $ )
$) G$ /$A 8 !/)$) /
D ) /!%) B$) / /$
8AB
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' .
1& ;
)% /-$ !/ 8/ !$/ /
$ /%) ,$ %$8 ) %)$ @
88)$%A ;$"% !!/ "% ,G)
" /% /%) ,D$)
%8% ""E"$ "% ,) $
$G$>$%)>% $F //PC/
2> %%!) 88)$%A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.1
.5;
/$G /$)$% $ ) , $ / " %%
8)>/% $ / "$) , +
8""$ $"8A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.1
&1 ;
)) /D$ 88%A /$G$)$% $
,$ ) %%+$" C /%) , ) 8""8$%
$ ) @) )%) 8/A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.&
.;
H) $ $)$% $ ) /"% $
/%) %% , 8$)) / " ) %% )/ "
%$ ,8 B %) $ )$$B )
/%) , ) 8/A
! "
#$ % & #$##
7!*#27
8
14
4
18
9
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
50
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.&
'* ;
/+"% ,8"$ "?,$ $ /$ !A
% ,$ $ ? / $ ) /
$$ %$$ %% $" $ /"A / /%) %% )/ "
%$ ) 8""8$% @ A / /%) ,D$)
/ /$ $) D%$ $$
@$8 ) 8$, K 8$%$ 8$$
8" ) "$$ $,% " $8A <
) %$ /"% /%) $) /
$"8 8""8$% 8/ $ ) G$ )
"$$ / $"8 /%!$/ ,)$ $/,
K$8A
8 " )8)
1>'.>'.''.
*& ;
/C)/ " /$ @ /%) ,$ / 8$ )
) 88)$%A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.4
.&;
/ ,$ ,%" /"% $ $8) $8
8""8$% 8"$ ) 88,% ,/$A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.4
&* ;
/C ,/ 8""8$% $ ) /%) ,/ , )
8/A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.4
&* ;
$)$% $!/ ,)" /!/% / $
) $ /%) , ) / " %)A G
! /$ %!/ %$ )!G /A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
..;
@ ,) !// "! A ;G /%
"$ " @$A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
;
$)E1 : F )% ,GE : F ) /"
!E1.:F / /)8$8"8!/
! BB !$BD%$ $$
@$8B ) / $8 8$, B8$$
8"A /) " /" > " $/,E)%@F
88$%% /$ /" + ) 8
$/,/) ) /"%E "HFA/$
; %8% 8"E"% $8%))F!/$8/%$/
$8" " /% %$%$/)A 2$ $ " /
!! $ / !/ / ) !
$,% %$ /%$%$/)!/$8/ "G %$$ $ /$
@$ ! > %% $,%A ; = <
AAAA# (U
! "
#$ % & #$##
77 *#
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.'
*.;
%% ! /%) / D%$/ )%$A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.&
&& ;
% %M
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.5
. ;
!/ %$- % "A 8" $ $8"AAAA "G / @ / "A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
& ;
/$ $ % $ ) $ $ ,$A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
&1 ;
/$ $ /)D$ !,8 $%% )) !/
/%$!$%% , !/ $ $ 8$) /
$"$%$$ )$8A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.1
1& ;
/$G / /D$$ )!/!/
$ ") 8$% /!$ $-)A (G!/!G
!$/ %!8%$ ) / ", % $ $
/ /"A 0 ) 8G /"!$/ % ,G $ ' %
"A 0$/ / "%$ "$%%$ )%%/" 8$G
"G/!%% / $G $ )
8)$$ !)$%!%G // ) G//
)8" / 8)$$A %% % D$) /
") $ 8 "8 )
/ 88 $"$ ! $%,% '* /)$
/$ ,$A !%) % / / $8$/ $
"8/ $)D /)% / ! G 88$ 8
"%% $ $ /!%G$ "%%!/ / !" $ @)A %
/$)$% / $ +8G) / /%) , $
!$/ / @$$ $8A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.*
&* ;
!$ !A " $ " % ,$8 )
$$ / !/ ! ) %8% !GA
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.&
1 ;
K%% " /" 88$%%!/ " $ ! 8$
) % %$G ,$ ,?8 / "%$ %)!%)
"G / $8$% ,$ $ " %8A "
% / "$$ ) % !/ //
$8 ) $)$$)%$ / /"% /" A
8 " )8)
8) B/"B $ / "!$/ / " %$8$ $ /$
! "
#$ % & #$##
7%*#
27
9
14
5
19
0
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
51
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
1>' >'.'' '
'4 ;
%" $8" $) ) "$% $
!A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.'
&' ;
$$)8 /$ /"% 8 %$G %)A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.4
4 ;
$ / "G!$%% 8/M
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
* ;
/$G %% $>/" ,$ ) $)$% )!%%$
!// $$$ $ /" !$ $ /" $)
!$ $ / $ / %%D$ $"$%" $8A
)C ,%$ ') /"!%$ "8/ )$% /
!%) $ / " A ! $%%D$
"" $ G$ $ / %$ $) / 8
%8 /G 8% 8A $ /$G /
%$ /%) ) / %% ,) 8" %% )$
$//A H8% %$ $ / 8 /! )
) , "% $% % $$8
%% $" //$G /%$ /%) / B $8
<$ ) $/"AB ,%$ ! /%) , )
)/$8 $ "?$ " % 8 /
8) /% ) /" / !$/A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
& ;
,%$$)$% $ ) $ /%) , /%) / "
))D$) %)
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
11 ;
$8!/ )$)$%% $) D%$ $$
@$8 + % 8) /% 8/$ /$II / ,/ )%!$/ /
" $ ) "" " / 8) )
">,G>!!$%% $) $!$/ %
/$ $ $"8 / 8""$A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
&1 ;
(8$) / ,/ /$/" ) /%) , ,%
$A 6 / / /%" ) / $8
$ $ /$/
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.5
* ;
%) 8$, R 8$$ 8"S $ $$A $
% "A $)$%% ,$ $ !A K
/ $ /G 8$$ )G)/
!G8%,%A
! "
#$ % & #$##
74 *#
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.''.&
.;
0/$$8%% / /) "%% /% ) %) $
$/,/) %% $) ,%8G $8%)$ /
/)!;$H) ;%% $, ) A ;$- "
!A$/,/) $ "$@) 8) $ /% $
"% /$ ) $%+"$%$)$%A /!
$/,/) $-) %% / I
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.''.5
* ;
$ ! /%) , ,% )!/ /!!$/ /$
$$$8 $" $ 8$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
&.;
!/$/ ) /%) 8$ / / $
)!/ /!A ! %)$ @A % $$%$G
/ $ ,) /% !/$8/ %% $8A H$"$$
$!$%% "G % 88$,% / %!%//%
!$%% 8$%$ $ % 8"$$ $"A %
/% > %) 8 88"") % "$% !/!
$ / %% /A!%) , /" 8 /$ $
"$%$!/! /$ A !%) $%% %$"$ /
@$8 /!/ 8 ),/"/ !/$8/ $
"%% %$8 / %$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
'* ;
/"$)$%% /%) , ) / "!
%) $A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.&
'1 ;
/ ,/ % %% $" / / $" )!/ /
)$% $8%)$ A "$ $)$%
%!$/"G8, "@$) )8I
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
.';
/ @) / " ) / ,$) , / " G$
)) )>2%A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
..;
/ "$8$ / % )$,% $$ $ %
,8"A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
;
/!%) " %$G)$8$"$$ ?)$ 8/ A/$G
/ 2 8/ ,$%)$ /%) / /$% % $ /
$ 8 / A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''
*.;
(8 % / / ,%!,8G /"% $ ,$ )$
, %) ) / ) % , / "%A
! "
#$ % & #$##
78 *#
28
0
14
6
19
1
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
52
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' '
'5 ;
/ , -$ ,) & ) )) /
8 8"%%A ! 8% $ $ %$,$%$ $ )
, ) ,% )%$ %%%!//$ ,
/% $,,%A ; % ) ! /% $$
$8%% $ C8"$!$/ 8/$%) ) ) /%
$C ? !G,%A / $$ $ $) $ $
/ 8 , ") %8% %% ) ,%" 8 , ")
, $"$ %$ / "" !A % %$
$ $/,/) / C" / "% ) /
,%" $ / $/,/)A / %) ! "
//$/8/%)$ / !8/$%)A ($)%A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''.
.4;
(8 / ,/ %)$ / 8$
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' '
. ;
! " $ /%% $" ,$ ) ! /
$ $8 " 8$% 8$ $8"
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.
' ;
8) ) /%$A ) ) /% / " )
/%) , ) /A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.&
&& ;
% 888 @ ,$ $) ,/ /%) A
/ $%% )$ ) %A ; B$)$%B $
%%/ 8) /%A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.
*5 ;
(8!8$))$ "88 ) %% /%)
, $%,% A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.'' '
1 ;
/%) , 8$!/!G$8$%$$8
8""$ $ )$ $8$ )) % A C!/
/$ 8 $ ,) A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
' ;
U "
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
&& ;
)K"G)$8 / /"!$ " )$
K/ "
8 " )8)
" %8) $ / 8)) , /
! "
#$ % & #$##
7**#
*>.*>'.''.*
. ;) /,$D% $A 0%%$$
D%$ @$8 ) G!%),% 8 %!
)$ /$A 0%$) '*>4 $8 ) / $
"E) +$ F G8$ $ /%) /
$A K /") $ '& ) /
/) $ 8" /! $"")$ 88A / "
$ $ $ %! /! /A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
' ;
% / 88) / / ,
) /+" . &.%$ A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.&
*4 ;
/ ,/ $) )) $8 / $ ) $$
%$A H) ) !G !%% "$%$!$/ 8/$%)!/
) ) ! / "$$ @)) '!GE:>+
F ) ,$%% " 8%A / %$ $) 8$ %
! / "$$ ) , %) ) !$%%$ /"A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;
/ " ", % 8 $ $!//$ $ / !
A2!) /$ 8/ $8 $"8I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
&& ;
) !/ / $% "$% / ) 8) /%) ,
) )$%A H / 8) 8$$ $" /$!%
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
' ;
/ /%) , 8$)) / " + )8$%
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
&' ;
2% / "8/ )$>,) ) / )
G$>8%A ; $8% / G$$8$ )
8$ 8 $ $ !%%A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
&4 ;
$ /$G / )$$8$ /%) , ,! $% "$%$)8 )
"%$ $ $A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.1
'* ;
6$$ $ $" / 8/8) 8%/! )
8""$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.*
&5 ;
(8 $K)$8$"$
! "
#$ % & #$##
%$*#
28
1
14
7
19
2
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
53
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
.4;
(8 "! )
2 /%!/$8/ $ )$ $ ) /%) ,
) 8/
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
1& ;
)8"") /! )$$ ,! 8""8$%
%8$ )E@ %8) $ ;( #$%% ;
)FA ( #$%% $ G$ % 8"$ )
$ )% G$ ) ,$88%% 8A
"%% 8$ / 8$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.*
&1 ;
/ $ 8 %$G %)>/% / ) %%!/ "
%% ) %!//%
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.&
* ;
!%) , %" $"$,% % /$A ))$$ 8$%
!/$ / " !$ ) " $" %
)"!G A=!%) ) /) ,$
%$8V 8/ A /$!%) , $,% $ " $$A
% / 8)% ) ,$ %$G%/%A )
%$-!/ ! G$/
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
&& ;
) /"% $ ? /A 0//$C )%
"$% /" 8) $ ,$%)$ + $C 8""8$%
"C /"A @ $ %$G//"8""8$%
%)$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.4
'5 ;
(8 !/%),,%! /$ )
/ $ 8%%) , A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.
&' ;
) , /"! 88) 8""8$%
$ ) $% )$ )$"$ 88$ )
"" / 8)+/% $A 2" %% )K ?
8"$ 8% 8$%8)A %$G %) $
$ %$,%W,$K ! /$/" ) 88
)D$ "$$$ )) $$) ) $)$
@8%% $D %$$ @$8 ) $8 )>
"$A 2$ 8""8$% 8$$!%) $ " $!
G8G ", $%,% /" %!%) ,8"
8"$8A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.1
* ;
/ , ) )$8 $/)$$ ? %$
$88A )!%%$ $ )!%%$ $ )!%%$A "$ !
! "
#$ % & #$##
% *#
$ $ $ ) !>% / " " $8 )
$8$D$)A 8 $$$ "$/ 8
% !8A / % )$8 %$) , $ $"% A
/! %) $ " "D%$ @$8 )
8$%$$ 8$$ 8"A / %% "!)A
8 " )8)
*> >'.'' '
1 ;
/+"% /%) , 8$)) ,$ ) 8"%!$/
/ "%$ ,$A !$ ,$
/" ) 8%$"$ $ ,$ !%) /
8"%!$/ 8$%$E@"%
88!G$
" /$/" %8 ,$!%) /
8 @"%FA $"$%% 8" /%) / /
8$ G!$ / / )$))!$/ / "
$8 /+" $ $ %) / $/+
" %)$A
>
E *EF G$)F
+
) $
+4
. -
- ; <
;
;
,
1 ? @ -
2
; 1
?4@ ;
2
; /
0 &:/ & A
$)$% $/,/) $) / ),'A 1
"H $)$% $/,/)1A.
) $)$% $/,/)1A&*
0 ) $)$% $/,/)1A&5
;$@)+ 6$$8E@
;$ F *A1
H) 6$$8*A4*
6!! &A .
!"
! "
#$ % & #$##
%#*#
28
2
14
8
19
3
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
54
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
+8 . - 2
2
2
&
$8 ) G$/ )0$%)%$ $/,/) "8E@
$ !)$F $"
@ <$E@A
@ 8 % )H)$ @ "$8F H H8% 2$
"$$ )$$%H)$ $ !/E% 8$F
+
$
#$
9$
!$
7$
%$
4$
8$
*$
$$
$
8#
!7
*7
78
4
**
4
%8
"
!
#$ % &'
! "
#$ % & #$##
%9 *#
+* = < 2 ;
- -
;
&
@)) ) 6$$$)H)$()( !8) @
8) 8"$8 8$$; #$$!/E% 8$F
+
#$
!$
%$
8$
$$
#$
!$
%$
!
9
*
9
#
7
!
#$ % &'
! "
#$ % & #$##
%!*#
28
3
14
9
19
4
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
55
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
'>'4>'.''.
* ;
0/!%) %%!8%%) /"% $
8""$III 0/!$%%)8 8""$II
" ) $HH C /%) , %%!) 8/
$ $" /"%A %
$" $ ? %$G / 8G "G + $G !$/
$"A , %)%) $) $ /!%% ,$
/ 8""$ % /$$" $ A / /
8 8/ / /"% !$%% ,,% ,
) , / $! /$$G GA 2$ $8 "$/ 8%%
)!/$8/ 8%) , ,%8% ,A %
!/ / ,$ / ,$ 8%%) /"%
$" %!$%% ), , /A /!$%% )A C$"
G!,8G ) "G $ 8""$A
8 " )8)
'>'4>'.''.'
4 ;
A 2!) / $/, % , $I 'A 2!" ,) ")
$%,% / , ", $$,) 88"")$ $
) !/ 8I 1A 6 / !>)D$8G%
8"%$L 8! /$% )$,$ ,/$,
$)$$)%// /$,$$ ,) !/ %!% 8$$I *A
2!8!D$ / 8""$ ,$ ) ,)I &A 2!
"8/ $" )$)$% /"! ) $ /$ /"
) /!"8/ $" $) I A 2!" /"!
$$ $ )" 8/ / /$8 ) ;$8
"I 4A 0/ $ / @ ,$ / $ )
I A / $ %!8"D$ / ,)
%$ $$)$) %%I 5A / ,$
, $)$% /" "$%$I .A 0/ % !/
8/$8 )!/8/ / % !/ $ / 8 8/
8/$8 )!/ /%) , G) / 8I /G 6$
$)
8 " )8)
'>' >'.''.
'.;
/ %$8 $ %8I / $ /$@I /
)IE$
!/ $ / 88,%$
/%I /$)$% $%,% %$,% )
$IFA ; ;;
= / )8%) $
$ & / B/%$ $ / )$!/
/+"% 8 @$AB /$ $ $% 88A /
9 8) HH= )$ -$ $ /$ !
!// /"% "$)A 2!, $
/I
+ $ 0- ; - &
' '
1 >
. ;
! "
#$ % & #$##
%7 *#
8 " )8)
'>' >'.''.'
' ;
$ /! D$ /!" /" ) %%$"
$"%!$/ ! % / / ) /!"
$" /") 88$%%I
8 " )8)
'>' >'.'' .
14 ;
0/ 8 8% %$8) /"% /)
$ 6 $ $ /" @8)$ 1 &..D I
8 " )8)
1>.'>'.''.
1 ;
0/!%) , / % $ @ )$% $ /"%
$8) 8/ / !% ,% $$ I )
/!) / % $"8 K ,) ) )%" %I
8 " )8)
1>.1>'.''.
&1 ;
02 ;U 2 ;H 2 $ % $"%
$% / # 26A 2!8! /% /"+
", %$%% % / %% /"! " %%!!$/
G$ $ 8A
8 " )8)
1>.*>'.'' '
'1 ;
0/ /$ )!/ /%$I0$%% @$
" " ),% /$I ) /M
8 " )8)
1>.*>'.''.4
*1 ;
$) !/!$%% %$"% , /% 8$I C)%
/ 8/$ 8 !"$/!%%% $
G$ !/$8/ 8%) @$ / 8$A @ C"
%$$) , /!/% /$A 0/ / /$ ),!$/ /
"$"I0/ ) ) /@/
)) / 8$!/!/ $ / ) $ $)$,%I
8 " )8)
1>.&>'.''
1 ;
/ % / 8"%$$ $) I
8 " )8)
1>.&>'.''.
. ;
!/ / %!/G! %$% , / ,$8 !/
") $ /
/ %% " , "$$(,(!)
8 " )8)
1>. >'.''.'
*& ;
!%) / %%$)$% /"% /%) % ,
$,% )/ %%!$%
A $)$% )1.
) $ %/A 'A $)$% $ 8 % ,) 8
$ $ %/ ,! 1.)) '"/A1A%$"$
/!" 88 $ 8/) $ 8 //"
$" ))$ / $- /$)$% $A
8 " )8)
A 0/ /%)C / ,$ /$$/)) /
! "
#$ % & #$##
%%*#
28
4
15
0
19
5
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
56
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
1>. >'.''.*
4 ;,%" / 8I 'A 0/)G )8 /$
, $ ) /I 1A 0/%% ,$I
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''.4
*.;
!%) G )$%% )! / ", ) 8%$8/!
" !/ $/,/) )!/ $ "$ ) /!A
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''
'' ;
%$8)A
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''.1
.;
9A K / ,$!/ "! )!$/
/% A
8 " )8)
1>.4>'.''.*
* ;
!%)! )) /!/"% / $"8)
/)$$A C /) @"% / %
(8% / , B/%%!) B , )$%8$ %8%
$) / $!/ ,) %$ $ " $/,/)A
/$G $!%) ,!/!/$% )) / $"%$8$ /
,$ $ %8!///,"%A
8 " )8)
1>. >'.''.5
&5 ;
2!$W%$8KK / %$8$ $ %8I
D$/! $ " $ "$$""
/ $ 8""$ $8!$/$ / !A
8 " )8)
1>.5>'.''.'
*4 ;
A 0/ / )$$P$8$ 8%% /$P
/%$I 'A 2! / )$$ $ $"8 /
%8% 8">,$I 1A 2!8! /% "@$"$-8$
%)$ @ $8"!/$% 8$ / %$%$/) )
% =$)I *A /%)! 8$)8$)$8$
"$ $8 % !!/ /
$8""8$%-E H P + F ;$@) -
E; F )H)$-EHFI &A /%)!8$))/$$
%% ! '>1 >' ,@"" $,%
$$ $% $"8 % $"
$)>!I A 2!8! )8$) " %)$
@/%)) ),% /$I
8 " )8)
1>.5>'.''.1
&* ;
+/%) "$ , $) % !!/
/ $ 8""8$%- %)$- ) "$@) I +
2!8$ %)$ @ , "@$"$-)!/$% 8$ $)
%$%$/) ) %I +0/ @8% ,$ //%)
, / )$$ ) !/ )I +2!8!
8$$8%% $%$- ) ) , %)$ @ )
! "
#$ % & #$##
%4 *#
,$ %$8 )% % " ) ),% /$
%$I +/%) ! '>1 >' , )/)
$ , @" " $$ 8 ) 8
%+$"$)>!I +2!!$%% /$$ 8 %% %8%
,$ ) / 8" $ I
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
.5;
0/ % , /$MI %!) %$G /$ $
!%) 8 " /" ! %% /$/"A /$!$%% %
% ! 8/$ >!" "$% 8$A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
' ;
! $ @ " %% /% $" ) " !
!/ /$$ /$!A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
'* ;
0/ $ $IH8% $$A G / G$ 8 /%
,$%)$ " ),% /$A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.*
&* ;
/$ %%A 8C$ !/ /$ / ))% ,8" ,$
)%A $ @$A +$">G$ %$>/%!G
/ %! 8"%$) / /$ $ ),%A %$) !
" "!G !/ ! !%% ,8 $! "
),%A /$G / $ 8$% /%) , 8) //$A
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.&
4 ;
$ !/ ,%" $%I $ ! ))
$8 ) G$ / )C %%8 "8/ / 8G$
$8G %A </" $ ! @
!/ "$ $8 ) G$ / 8/ /"
"%$+) $/ G$ A ( // /$ $ /% )C
/ ,%"
$C , $ @ $)!$/ $ /
!C$8" E8/%$ %F ) $ 8$%
G)/,8GAAA!%) / ) " /M
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.&
* ;
/!8!"G $ E$F / @$$ %)$>/$%$
$)/$$ ,$ /$8%$%!$/ )$
/ 8"%"/"% $) / ,$ "
$$ " "%" ,$ A ) /!8)/
!$/ 8/$ )"$8%% / 8/8) % / 8
8""$I0)C! " /% 8$%% ,$ /% %$G 8/$
/% $ A / /+" %$ $) % $,
/ 8"A
8 " )8)
0/ 8/ " / D %% /
! "
#$ % & #$##
%8 *#28
5
15
1
19
6
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
57
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
1> .>'.''.
;
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.4
&* ;
2!)! / $ %% %$ $ %$)
8 !%8"$P !/ $$!%% $
/" !!/% / $8" 8 /$
8"$8 !%% ,$I
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.
& ;
0/)/!G%$/G8%I
8 " )8)
1> .>'.''.5
*.;
2! / )$$ $ $"8 / %8%
8"I0/ $ 8) $% ) $$% , /
)$$I
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.'
1 ;
0/ $) $ $$$ %$8$ /!$%% /$G / %8%
8" ) / "$) // /$ G %%
!/% ++! $$$) /$"$%$I
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.&
.';
2 )$) / % ) /!/ / 88%)) /"
% GD$" D%$ G$!I
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
1.;
2! 8 / %! / %) $ %8A / "$
%! %$G)%/%!A ) ?, 8") /
8$$A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
* ;
/$ ) %$G" /% D/ 8"$$ /
8$"A /$%$%/$$%,%$!
/ $)!/ !%) , %G$ %$"$ A /%
,%" $ ! $ / )%2!/ $ $$) %% /
),% ) %8 )%8$ /"!$/ $8"%
88$ $A % $" $) $ $ /" /!
/$ / , %%!) /A ",)/$) 8"
) $$!$/ /$ ,$ /% $ / ) )
% ! /) % N ..
GA
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
&& ;
2!8 / 8$ ) 8""$!G / )$$
,! / !!/ ,/ %% "G$
!$/ $$ )$ / %8%% )$ $"
/I % !$/ "% /$ / /!8 / 8$
$ "% /$ % ,$I
!%) 8$% 8$))$ /$ %$ $8G $8
! "
#$ % & #$##
%**#
/8) " /% )G$$E$ !/
" / 8",$) ..$8FA 0/ /%
8 , )) /$ ,%"!$/ $%,% I 2!8
/ 8$!G !$/ /" ,/ %% "G$
"G/ $ / 8""$I 2$/@ /!/
C!) , "!/ ) $" $ / 8""$I 2$/
@ /!/!C$) / 6 $%% ) $" /
!/ ,%I / ,$)$- "% /$ $ 8/%
8A
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' .
. ;
!/ $ $ G8 %% / 8$%I BH8%B
"% / / %$ )!$%!) /I
8 " )8)
1> '>'.''.4
'.;
0/ $ ,/$) /$ / ) /!"8/ " ) / ) $A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.
;
!%)
A HG / ,$ /"% $ ))$$ /
8/%%A "$) "$% %$ /"!/!
8$A 0 ? $" "8/ " $ /"!$/ %
%$$ G$8/ ) "%$% ,)"A $ % "8/ "
),% ) , ,% 8G "% ) $A 0 % ?
%$$ %8% %$ $ /" ) $ /%>%)A 'A )) /
8/%% /"%!$/
A <$@A ,A 888
%$"$$ ,) / ", ,)"A 8A )D G$
$E/! /$!%) % ) , 8)!$/ %) $
!!/$8/ ) %% $) G$ %% /$FA)AD$$
'*>4 "" $8 $ )") 8A/
)$% )!$%)%$ ! " %% $$
$8%)$ ,/ /%>%) ) /"% A
8 " )8)
1> 4>'.''.4
*1 ;
0/ ))$$% $"8 ) / 8%% 8 8$ 8I0/
)$8 ) $ "G$/!$ %$ //"
$$I
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.4
..;
//%$ !/ )$ /$I / $
$)G! / /"% $8$ $8
E / $!G 8"$ ! ) %$ / ) / )F
/$ "%A =!$%% /
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' '
'.;
) ) /$ $8M
! "
#$ % & #$##
4$*#
28
6
15
2
19
7
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
58
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1> >'.'' '
' ;
2!/ /8""$$ )%!$/ /$ )!/ %$ /
, 88%A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.'
1& ;
+0%) / /$ 8$$ !/ )!! 8$
$$8$%% $% % ))8 / ",
"$) $ $/,/)I 2!"8/ $ $%%
$"%$ 8"I $!/ )$%8$ 8""$I +0$%%
/D%$%$,$"8)$ " " )$$%
R%) S $)$% $/,/)I +0$%% $ "$$
8""$ $IE/$ $ $8 / /%%+$"
$) %G$ ,F +0/!$%% $ 8 / 8$ "
/+"%) 8)$8%) /+"
%EAA $8) $8 $ + G$ %$$
!$%)%$ 8FI +0/ ,%$8 $ ) $ I +2!
)!G /+"R88,%SI
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.'
*4 ;
/%)!$ 8 )$ / ,$8!%% , $ $
//$
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.1
.5;
0/ $ / $$ $ !/$8/ " $%
$"8 8""$ 8/8// $)$ " ,$I
8% % $%$-$ / ,$%$ /$/" 8)
$8" / /$/ )C $ " "/I
/ !) ,HH ) $8/ % 8 $8/ /
@ / 8""$A
8 " )8)
1> >'.''.
1 ;
!%) "$ /+"%
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.5
. ;
0/ ! 8$ %$G / 8%%I / $
/ !$8/8) $8A = ,$ /"
8"%%!%),)$8% " , $ ! "
$%$ /$ %8 $ " G " 8"$8 ) 8%%
)$$A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.
** ;
0/!%)! %%!!G$ 8% "$%!/ 8/ ,
"G /" /E/, G$ 8) "%
/$ $F @ $8" ,$ /$
$ /$I
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.
&' ;
!/ $ ) ,%$ ") "$8
8/ %$"$I
! "
#$ % & #$##
4 *#
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.&
.;
!%)! %$ ,%$/) "/ $ / %8% !
%% / !%%/+"% $ ) /
)) / $A !%) "G $8%) %% /
! " 88)!$/ 8/ / / 8 /$)
,/$) ,$ "A !%) %! %$ / "
@ /! $) , %% / ! 8/ /"%A
$ !%) %$ 8/ ! " / / 8 /$)
,/$) ,$ "A
8 " )8)
1> 5>'.''.&
'* ;
0/ $/ 8 , %$) /+"% / /
/%) $ 8"%$8!$/%$ % "$) )
/$/ @A % !/ 8% 8 , $ %8
"$$ / $"% $"8!/$8/ $8%) G$
$ G$ )! $ %%A H$,$%$ $ ) ,
)))!/>$ $ )")A
8 " )8)
1>'.>'.''.1
& ;
/"% @) $ / "! %)$ $8%)$
88"")$ @I 2!$ /"% @ $%$-) /
8$) $"8I
8 " )8)
1>'.>'.''.
*& ;
/! $8 /$ %8% $) ))$ "
% $$I
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.
'& ;
$ $ 8$))$ " /$$/I
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.'
'' ;
6 / 8$, / 8""$ ) / )$"% /
8""$ ) / / %$ / %% $"A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.*
' ;
$ %) ,$% ) $ $ " %$
% /" /" /$)!$)/8""$A
/ % ") $ / G$ %% +
A " ..O % $/!$/ $%
)%$A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.4
.&;
/ $ $ $/,/) -) %)$I
8 " )8)
0/!$%% , ) , / % /$ %8% $8!G
! "
#$ % & #$##
4#*#28
7
15
3
19
8
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
59
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
1>' >'.''.4
*.;, $ ) 8$$ $$)$% $/,/) ,
$8) $8 $"8 ) , / 8$ , ) /
!$%)%$I
8 " )8)
1>''>'.'' '
1 ;
0/ ,$ ) $ / 8""$P ,)$$$ %$ $I
0/ ) ) /% $/,!$/ $P G$ $8I
%$$ 2!) $/,/) ) /% ) 8
/ 8$$
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.*
11 ;
0/ / $ $ 88$ $ / , !/!%)
88 " $8 $ %",$
/$8 8"A / !$ !%)C , ,%
% " / 8"$ / %% ,A $)
/) %$ $ / 8%) 1 ) $ $% )$$ $) "
/ 8%)C $) $@ //A 0 / ,$%
8""$ !/! )C / / ,$ $8
8 %% $ % % / ! .. ...D
) /)%"A 0!$/ $% / ) ,G
@)$ )G ,$%)$ "!G 8 $A
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.
&5 ;
$ %) !/%") + %)$ /$ "$"A 0/
!%)!"$ " ) )$%I
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.4
&* ;
2!8! / / /"% $%
8$ / %) /$$8 %8% %% $" /$ "G $ "
,/ $%,$%$ ) 8I
8 " )8)
1>''>'.''.4
&* ;
/%) / , 8 /!" /"% %%!) $
I /%) /,8!//"% /
% "$ $E%8"!$/ %8% / ) /"
) $ ) "8/F , / 8D%$ /"%I
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.4
'1 ;
8%) / % " $)$$)% !!/ /) /$%8
A H$"$ %$"$ /HH 8!)
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.
5 ;
6 ""G / %$ / " 8"$8%% ) 8$%%
%,% "",8""$ ,!
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''
.';
)$" 8$ ) !$ / / ,
/$ )!% /A !$/ /!G / ,$ $8)
! "
#$ % & #$##
49 *#
/ %% " / ,$ /!$%% A /$ $ ,$
%)!$/ /$ / ) %8G A /
/$% $ )) ) / /)$"$)$!G
// / $ ,/ A / $ ,8 /
%8G ),% /$A % G$8 $ %$ /$ $
G!$$ ,% )$ / G$ %$ / "/$
" , )A %$ / / $ ,$ %% /
$ ?$ "G ) " , % /
$%%!$ $ ! / ", ? ",
/$%) ) "/$ )) / ,%"A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
..;
0/ !$ 88"%$/ $ )$% )!/ 8$ "$/!
G /!$%% /% 88"%$/ / %I
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
;
0/ /8) > %%/8%$") ,%"
/ )!$%) %$ 8A C"/8$
$%) $!/$8/ 8%) ,,% , %)!$/ "
$8"!/$8/ ) $8%) 8/ !$) G/
" ,/A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.'' '
1* ;
/; ,8" "8/$" /!$%%G / /
"% "$ " $ / 8$ )$ /$
$/, ) $/,/)A / %$8 6A 8 , /
)% " % ") /"%
$A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.
&5 ;
/$G $ $ $" 8%% )$ / ,%" )K/$G /
88$% / )D% $8%) / 8% ,%" !/$8/ $
) $$!/ $ $) 8%%) %$A /
88$% $ %$G% / "$% 8/ // /$
8 ,!$%% " %$G% 8 %/A
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.'
*.;
!/ 8"%$ ) "I!/ $ /$% 8
?, $ %$"$) /"I /!" )!/8%$%
!%) % $ %$"$)$)$%%I
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.*
*' ;
0/ $ ",%$/I
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.&
&& ;
0/ $ /$ 88!/ / ! /$,%$/" $ $
$M
! "
#$ % & #$##
4!*#28
8
15
4
19
9
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
60
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.
* ;
%%) /$ <( " /8"")/
2%$% $ / )TR"?$ D$ )!$/
$%%$ )%% )""!$%% , $ / $
/ >#8$ /" "G $ / %) 8""$$A
/$@$ $ $"%A /$ $ %A 8$$A
""$$ %$G ", $ )(8G$)!$%%
$$ $ % @$%%A / % ) ))
$8"A /!$%% / "$$"" @ ) ,$8 "$8A
)!/ / 8""$$ /$/) /$ $) /
" / ,$ / ")% $ %A $% / / $!$%%
,$%,% // 8" /$HC )
$)A " %) / / % $ ,$%%$ )%%$
%)S /$ $ / / /$ 8" $ /$ $ )
G / /,$8A2!)! "$$
/ / R/ H$%S!/! $ $ %% /
/$/ ,$))I 0/ ) / ) I0/ /%)! %% ?
%%+) %%!,8"/"G /!%/I
/ $ / %!" /$ / ) ) ,8"
%$A 6 8 , /$ ,) " $ )
@ $ /$ ! "I0/ ,D%$ %$ )
? / /$/ ,$))I K,8"$D$ T
8 " )8)
1>'1>'.''.5
. ;
/! %$"$ C ,$ "", )
HH 8A "/!$)$ !/ / "",/HH !/$8/
!%) , / " A ", " 8 % !
1 % $A /$ $,$%$I
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
. ;
;D$ $ )!/ /$G //$/ )$8
!/ " 8 8 )!$/ /$/"A @ / 8$$
88% / 8 8!/))$$% 8 $8)
"$$ !$/ / ) !/@$8 "$/ ,
))A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
& ;
6 / $/ $$ $ )/
8$$I
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.
&1 ;
!%) % G 8$ 88$% 8$)!/$/
" $ ) /!" %$8 /%) , %%!) $ /
$- ) $/,/) 8 /%/ ,%8 /
8""$A
8 " )8)
0/!$%%! 8/ " $" ,8G
! "
#$ % & #$##
47 *#
1>'*>'.'' '
& ;
)$$I %!/ / , /,$8)
% ,$ ') ) 1) /" / )K %$ /%%$"
) 8$, / %8% 8" %% $"A " / /$/
$) , ,8 )%" ) ) 8)%%
,8 / !8K )/$ @A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.1
1& ;
! "", 8$ 88$% !%) $ GD$ "
$)$% ) %8% ,%$8 ,$
"$" "8 ,$A /$"$) "!/ %%
$) %$"$ <!$/ ,%$8 $$/ $ / "$))% / $/ $%
/ ,%$/) / $8% ) %G!$ , $A $)
$ )$,$!/ %8) / ,%$8 )
!$/ %% 8A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.*
&* ;
/!)!"G $ $!/$ CA
/!8!8 "?,)G 8" $A !/
!%) , $ /"I ;G A
8 " )8)
1>'*>'.''.&
1 ;
%$"$$ %8)/"% "G$ $ )$,%
$,% ! 8$$ /" /!)
% 88"") / )") %)$ ) $"!/$8/
"G8/$% / %8% 8"I 2!!$%% / 8$ ,
,% 88"") "$%$ %$ // 8 $
)) /%"!$/ G$)I
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
* ;
2!)!! 8%%8$ @ " %% /"I
2!)! ,%8 / ) 8""$!$/ / )$
$ 8) /"A
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
& ;
+!!/! / "$ /%) / 8!$/
$$ ) , / $ A +!/%)/
8$% , $8 / 8" /$ / ,
) )'* /A +! /%) / % "
!G ) $ $ $8 $ $ $ HH 2 ;M!$/ "$)
$ 8AAA 8"$ A
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.4
.&;
6$" + ,$A HG "% ) @"%
,)
8 " )8)
1>'&>'.''.
.1;
,%$ / $ /%)D$%%!!/! /$
/" E/%+"F % %$$A /
! "
#$ % & #$##
4%*#
28
9
15
5
20
0
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
61
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
/%) , @) /%A / $ /%) %$"$ /
%$$ $ $/",$ 8 8$$8
$/,/)A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''
* ;
!$%%$ )!/ $ 88 / %$% )
+)$)$% $/,/) )!$%)%$I
8 " )8)
1>' >'.'' '
'4 ;
2! "@$"$- / ,$ / 8$ CA
8 " )8)
1>' >'.'' '
*& ;
$8 / )"$8 / /$ "G / , 8-)! /
/ $"8 %8 , ) %8 E/
),%FA / ),$%$ /$ / %!,$+
!/$8/ $!/ "% /$ 8" ,A / %$ ,$%)
"),% /$ $ $C)! %%I C"/
%$ /"% $ / %$A " 8/
"G / /%) , ,% $ / %
!$/$8$A
8 " )8)
1>'4>'.''.
'* ;
$% / 88$ /!/+"% G$ $
! " ),% /$A / $8!$)8) $
8"%% ),% / !GA $ 8$%
)% ) 8 % /$ %!GA
/ / ) )$$8% $)!G $ / /
) / G$/$%%$)$8%8$ / %8G $,%%
$ $ %$ % "%A % /$
+% /$ !$%% , % /$ / ) /%
$8 ) G$,%"A
8 " )8)
1>' >'.''.&
' ;
6 / / ,$ /$$/,I
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.4
1 ;
/!)!D$ $ 8$)) $ /$ 8I
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.5
;
0/ / 8$$8 88 $"$))I 2!8
% ) / 88I
8 " )8)
1>'5>'.''.1
& ;
%/ , )$% $ & / /)
B B 8"%$ , " A ,%$ / ", B$
$8B 8"%$ "$$"%A/% /%) % ,
) , %!$) ) / 8) 8)8!
! "
#$ % & #$##
44 *#
" ,$) ,A $,, ) #(!$%% G/8$!/ /
/ / $ /"A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.4
4 ;
$) /"% !/ $)%% /
% /!G /"AA 8%$ $8 "$8 "
" ,) 8A($!$%% /
)! ,8 / " % $$$!%) ) ,$%%M
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
'4 ;
2!! )$$ !I 2!"8/ $8 "G
, / 8/8) "G$C! )$)EH>
%FA / / $)$$)% / 8$,/%/
$, / ! /%) / / $>)%/ ?
! /$$" )!$%% "$ / 88$%
/$ $ ) !/ /! ) )%$ $A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
* ;
!%) G !/ ,%" !$ % 8""$
) !IMI )/8 '1,%"
$)$$) / !%) // )M "% )A !%) %
G B$!)$)XXXXXX $ %$AAAA /!) / 8
)$ /$>% 8/ $% ! !
"G ! "% /$ ! %% $"$)
$"$) G$$ " / $8 8$ $8 )
, )) /!8$$8 %$!$%% 8
G ) 8 ) $!AB
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.'' '
& ;
!/ ) /$G /%),@"" $ "$ )
2 % $$)$% $/,/)A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.
&& ;
0/,$$/! 8" !/ 8K )/
8 /%I %% $8" /%) / 88 /$
! ) %% ! "!//%$/%),,%
/ /$/ 8 %$$ /,$ /$8) /" $
/ )$A $ !$ , /$8/ % / )K!
/!$/%$8" %% 8" A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.'
' ;
2!" /"% 8%% 88$ /0 )A /!
" / %$8 , /!" 8%% ) @A 2!
" / !/") % / 1.) $"I
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.'
1.;
/! $8$ ! 8/$
%8%!G 8 /"%I
! "
#$ % & #$##
48 *#
29
0
15
6
20
1
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
62
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
11 ;
0/ $ 8 / $ $$I0/
$ "$ / $!// $I $
8) , !I0/ "G /$G %!
) / 8$ )!$/ $%$ !GI
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
14 ;
<" / $8% C) ) / "$ / %$) $ "
/ $ 8$% $ "!$) , /"% ) / %
"% /$A 2!$%$ /"% $
)) $ $%,% "% ) / /$
8$$I / %$ /$/$/ /"
,$ / /$/%% $ "% $ /
%%!) /" ,$I %% )C/$G A
%% /" / 8C /" , 8 1.)E%
" $N.$ @F /!"8/%@ $8"!$%% / 8$
%I0/ $ / ", /"% $
/ $ I $C '% $ !!!%) ? ) '
+ "/% ) @A 2!8! / @ $)
" /"% /%!$/ / /$ 8$$I
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
&1 ;
/" /$ /%) , $8% 1.) "$$""
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.1
&5 ;
$
2!) ) $/,/) , "G$ /"
/%-IY'2!8 %% /$ !% ,8G $
%,% $)IY /$ /%/ / 8""$I !%)
/$ %$% %8% 8""$ % %$$ $ A ,$
!$/ " %8% $ %% , $A %% $8G$A )C
/$G $ %% 88$% %A 1& %8% " "$ !A
88$ $ )$ ,$ ,%8 ,!
%8% 88$ ) $ 8M0/ )$) 8/ /%
! )$$)$%%A ) , 8%)
% % / "/ '@ A/%! 8/)
%%!/$ %% $8 ,) ,A $%%$)$%
$/,$,% , %8% !A/! / !
% ) ,%%) ,8G !/! / /$ @$8A
"/!" ,) //!$%% , /A 0
/8/) $ %$"$ ) " / M0/
/ 8$ 8/) /% 2 8/) 8) )8
%8 % %%!) % / ' "/A 0/!
)) , A 0 ? /) ! $ %% ) "?,$
$ / ,!/!)$)C%%!$/%% $
,/!A %%!$ ) "$8%% $8 / %
8)A 3 = 2 #
#= 0 2# 26 A
! "
#$ % & #$##
4**#
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.*
;
2!) $8) /+"% "G/! ,%8
%$I / / /%" ) 8) 8%
$%,%I 2!" "$$ 8 %8% $8
E$AA G$ ! %8$8 $) 8 $8 8IF
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.4
;
0/ $ )$$$ R")S /" 8$%A
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.
&5 ;
2!8!,$ ! 8$%% /!/
)$% $8"I
8 " )8)
1>1.>'.''.5
* ;
/"$ " %$G%!$%% ")/$;
) "D$8G% )!$%% %%!"$
8" $ !/!$%% , " $ !/8"
A H "$!$%% 8 /$)$ ) /$
/K/% G$ ,))$ $ /$
8K8"!A
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.'' '
;
/$ G) /!D$ ) 8%% /- $$
G$ %$ / ,%"A ) %% ?! $
/ 8""$ $ / 8$ ) 8$ /$ ),8%A % + )
/$G / 8$ /%) $8G% -$ $/,/)A ;
8 $ / ",4 %% / $/,/) $ A
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.''.&
.;
" )$) , $ ) %$"$ /"
"8$ " %$$ !%/ 8%+)$ 8""$ $
I %$"$ !$%% / %) "$))% 8% ,
,% ) / /$/ /%" 8" G$ )
8 $ I %$"$/ !$%% / /
"%$+$ "$%$!/ / )!! 8) )
) ) / 8%$ 8 8$ /$"$%
$I0/ " ?)$!/ /%! )!$/ /$
% % / 8"%$!$/ ) %8%
%!I0/ ! )$8$ /$ $!/ /
/ " "";$8 "I
8 " )8)
1>1 >'.''.5
* ;
/$!$%% % ),% /$ $$A %$ $
%%$) ) $"$%" / /%) ,$A ) $ /
8) ,%$,% $ $, $ / 8""$A ,) $ %%
))$ /$8) /" .O+'&O /$%
% !/$% ,$ ,% /" ,8 /
! "
#$ % & #$##
8$*#29
1
15
7
20
2
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
63
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
%$A /$ $ $%% 88$) $ 8A ;G
"G )I / 8""$$ )% ) /$
!)/"I /" A 8) /"!
!/ 8%% /$$ ) "$" /"E%$G"
" 8) /" !$ ) )D$ ,$ $" $
F %% )) $ /" ' "/
N' ... "/E!/$8/ "! 8 /"FA!
) % ),% /$ $ , ,$%)$ "
/$ $8G$ 8) /"! ) $"
!A /$ $ G$ $ 8 /$ %! ) !%) @8
$ %% 8$ " % $ /$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.5
&& ;
" $ %% /"%
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
'.;
6 / !K /8>"/ %%+$"
$) $ / $/,/)I0/ ,$) / %$8!$%% 8
% @$$ 2I
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
' ;
%$" ) / G$$!$%% )"$8%% 8 8
8" /!$I
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
'* ;
2!8! 8 / ) %$8$ /"%
/ D% %)$%I
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.&
'1 ;
!%)! G!/!/8""$$ ))$ /$
,%" ) %G 0 0HHA
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
.';
0/ ) / ) , %$"$)I % / $/ )!/ /
!!$/ /$A / 2 %%! /" !/ /%) / $
$8 /"AI
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.4
*.;
$" / /%)C , %%!) !/A / ,$D$ $
,%8$ /" III 8$% %$"$!%) $"@
, $,% / $ 8D8 A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''.5
1 ;
2!"8/ $8 )!/ $ $ 88,%I !%) / /
%!/ $$ ) G/"% 8 % !$8
"8/ %%$ /!/ $ /% %) %% / $8
% % $ ) /$)$% $/,/)
" / "$)!G ) "$8 $ /$8%A /%)
! "
#$ % & #$##
8 *#
"" 8"$ ,D$) " $8$ /$8%
% 8%$ %I /%) /,$8 %$"$ $ ")
, 8" %)8$ ) 8$ D$"I /
$8 , ") / /% )$ 8G
" )$ 8"$ $$$ /!$D$ $/,/)
"$" / " )I / 8G , "%%)
D$) 8%I
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
..;
A H /" ) $
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
.4;
!8 " $8 ,D$$ $/,$
$ / %%!8"$
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' .
;
6 ,$ !!/ / $) /$$) /$
%$ ) $8 $G$ /$,$ ! / @
$$ / ,$ $I
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''
*.;
0/ 8$ ) @)$ / $,
$@$ / )$$ /0 )A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' '
'5 ;
/!"% ) , )$)A /! $
8,8%%) $ / $ /$A 6CG$) %
/ / $ $ $ /% %A (!))$
/$ $$!/// 8"$!G A
$" / 8/) )!%%!G "%A )C! /
8$ %) ,8 / 8$ $ G$ /
/ 8 , ") $))%
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.'' '
1 ;
!%) )$$%! G!/!8 /"%
% $"8$ / 8$ ) 8A 0/ % /"
$I /$%% / / $ % "% /$I
" / @ "$ " , ) $) "
"% /$I0/ / /8""$$ )I /
$%%D$ , !) ) )%@$8 )
$%%$8!$/$ / 8$% ) ,) $) 8$ %$A
8 " )8)
*>.'>'.''.
.4;
;G / $ / /"% $
$)!$/ / 8$P / "$
8 " )8)
!!/ 88$%% / $ $ /"!/
! "
#$ % & #$##
8#*#
29
2
15
8
20
3
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
64
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
*>.'>'.''.
'4 ;!/ !%)! / 8$ 88$% G "!/
$ /" ) $ // / ! G$ ,$
! " /%I !%) @%$ / " 8/
$ /% ,8 "$% )"$8A <@"%
%)8%!$/ /$8/$%) ) $,% )8/$%)
!A /" / 8 $ ) %$$ / /$
G+ "% ) 8",% /!$/!$ ,
8/$%)C ,/$+%//%8"$),,
!$/ / )$,$ % 8A 0//)
"$%$!$/"",!/ $ % /)$8) +!/
/%!%) , $,% /$)) )$8
/$%A 2% / "!/ /"
"8$ $$A E2! G!" %!/
"8// $ /% / $ B" %C /"BF )
!G ,/!A / ," %$ // $ ! "", /
!%)D$ /!!%) / ! 8%
!/ " % )!$/ /$!A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' .
*4 ;
/ 88$% /%) 8$)$$ @ /"%A /
!%%$ $ 8/ ,) /$ // ,%
8)$$!/$%!G8!)A $ ! ,$$
" ? ,$ $ / /%) /$$/A /
@ 8 $,% /$A
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' '
. ;
0/ )!)/$G , /$ !/ )!)"
" 8% ) ""I
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.'' '
.1;
6 C)) /D%$ %$ %8%I /%) /,
D / 8 /" ",/ 8$$8% "
/$8 8""$I
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.
' ;
0/ / ) / 8""$I
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.1
1' ;
2!)$ $ $ %+"$)8%
8 " )8)
*>.1>'.''.&
&& ;
C $ @$A CH0= @$)A ,) ) /
8A ;$/%A / @ A )
/! / "8/ /$) 8AAAA
8 " )8)
0/ ! @$% 1.) "I %)!
! "
#$ % & #$##
89 *#
*>.*>'.''.
&* ;
@ %!$/ " )1+ "/I
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.'' '
1 ;
2!$ /$ $% $"8$ 8""$I
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
' ;
0/ !$ %
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
14 ;
2! / 8"%!$/R) $/,S ))
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
&& ;
$ $$,%I $ %)$ @ 8I 2
8" /) $!$/ $ 8 K /
/ 8) / 8""$ $%I 2 8""$
"", > /"!G 8" 8"%$$
, /$ K $"8$ /$/" $%I
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.1
& ;
A / $)$$)%% !)>"$% ,$I 'A 6 / /
$ "I 1A / G ) I
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
. ;
= %%!% /% 8" $ ) %G$
$8 !"$ /$/"!/ / )
)8)A / / ) 8G$
/%A 0$) $8 / $ ) / 8$ )$
/ $8A =$8 ,) ) $8
"A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
;
,%$ /$ $ $ 8)"$$" 8$$ $
$ 8$ 88$%A !)/"),%
/$ %8%!G /%) / "@) 88$
!/! / ) 8)% 8 $8$ $ %$$ $
"% /$ " A
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
' ;
!%) G , $"8 $ 8$$8 $/,/) AA /!!%)
$) %$"$ %$,$%$ $ - + !%)!
/!8",%$) !$/ $/,$
/$/" /+">!/ / %G%$GA
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.*
*.;
2!8! "$$"$-/"% % "% /$ 8G
) !$/ $/$ %$$" 8) /" !!/
88$%% /$/" @A
! "
#$ % & #$##
8!*#29
3
15
9
20
4
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
65
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>.*>'.''.&
*4 ;
0$ ,) 8" ) ! !/ ) ! G$%%
/ / $ %$ / %) I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.*
& ;
0/!%)E!$ 8) ) ,%) ""F ($%% $%$
)I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
*& ;
0/$%%$ /"% "G % /!)!
8 $$ $8$ ! %+" ,$
%8%$)I %! , %/ $"% $8$
%$ %$"$$ % $ %$G% "$%
", $ / %8%$) /$ %A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
.*;
0/ "G /$G / /R8$%S
$!%) ,) )$8) % " /
/!G8 !/ %!/ 8%)K )"G
I / ,?8$ 8 / /% $)" %$
I K @$ ) "$%%$ %! "
8$ / /$,$$I ! 8$% $ /
8)) $8G $ / 8$% $) 8
)8) %) ,%" /! $) "$") ?
%I /$ G ?G 8$ %8"$8 /$ /
!K),,) )? // / )!I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;
A 0/ K!E F8$ ) 8 )!/ )! %
/ ) 8/ / " ) , $$ !,
$ ,R$"% "8S 8%%"//
!$/!$/ 8%$ $68A'.' I 'A 2!$ $ $,%
/ 8""8$% 88$ $"% "8 ,
$)$% $I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
1* ;
0/ 8" $ )$ , $ )%%)!! 8
$ , % /!/8/ %%)!!
")$ I %!/ ,G !G) $((
%%"8/"%,% 8%$% / /!/ ,G /$/
) /% !/ 8 ) ) "/ /%$)%A
/ 8$% $ $ ,%8G $$!/ / 8" G$
,8 / $8$ /" A %$"$$ !$%% 8
"% /$A ! " "% /$ $$ / /
$ / %) @$ ,) "%A /"
" " / -) "% ,8 / !
!8) ,$%) /" , / ) / %%
! "
#$ % & #$##
87 *#
$8"A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
14 ;
0/ )!)%8)/"!I R!G$ 8%S
) $ /$A ($8$ /"%!
!$%% $8 / /$ 8GA (/ / "G% %$)
$ .!/ $ ") / , 8)
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.4
&& ;
/%/ ) ,$ )))I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
' ;
/$ )
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
14 ;
0/ $ ,%" !$ 88 ) /
) 88$ 8$$8%% ))$ / ,%"I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
&' ;
$ / " !! ? / /$
// / )!%) $ %8%!G !/
!%) / $ % ) %)$ @ $ 8$$
$ ,)I )!/ $ / $"8 %8% ,$!/%
$" $%I 2% $ %) $8)$,% @$
$ !/!%) / / $8 $ %)$ %$
")I /$ $ %) $8)$,% @$ 8""$ )
)8$ %!$%% %$G% !)$8 /A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.5
;
2!!$%% 8 $ ) G$ )$8I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.5
'' ;
20 6 ( < = 2 2 2 0 I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.'' .
&' ;
! %$"$ /"% !K /$ % %$"$ ,) )
8 8"$8 )8$ %8% ,$I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
.&;
H / /"!)!/ / ) ) "$$ /$
$>/"A 0/ ) $ 8$% ) )8$)!/ ) 8
8 /$/"I0/! /$ )8$$ ) /)
// "8I / 8""$! % $$)
) /! ) "G /$ "8A
! "
#$ % & #$##
8%*#29
4
16
0
20
5
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
66
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
. ;
2!$ /$ 8$ /$ %8% "% ) %8%
,$I "%! / $8)$,% )$$8% $"
$)$ /$ " )!G!! %
/ %A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
&4 ;
!/ $ %I!/ / %I " /"I
!/$/>$,$%$$ ) 2 / $%$>$8$
) / %$G$/$8$$8 8""$$A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''
&4 ;
3 ! 8$ 88$%! / / /
,) !/ 8%$"! / " ,)A = G$
"C ),% %)$ $ /H$"%$/ !%%
N ...>$/ $ E/)% ),%FA6$ / )"$8
/+"% G ,8 $$!) /$! %8
!//$! ,)" 8) &,)" /" / )$)C
!,)) , / $ $8GA/+"
% $) $$ ! /$8
8$ / A%%%!)$$ %
$$ " %% 8$+8"$8 ,8G)A %$"$ /+
"% "G$" )$$8% ! !//%%+$"
$) 8) /" ! "$) / /% $/% $8
!$%% % ,8" " @$ ) 8/ " %A
; / $ / %)!$/$ / % 1+* !
/ %+" /$ % %8%A H+" /$ 8
G8G$,8 %$"$) $) / $8)
)") !%8% "$ / / / / ,$%$ !G
"A 0//$,%" , 8G$ !
! $ / %$A $ 8$% /%) 8G ),%
/$ ?8 /$!$) /% $8 / $
),% %+" /$ $) 8$% ), / )$
?8 ,$ /% $ / )A $
$ 88 / / %)$%% $ %" "@) /!
$) 8$!% ", %G / $% / $ 8%) 8A
2!% $% / %) 8%) ,) ) ) $
$),%/$8""$A / %"!
))$$ , $ $ ,% $) !%% !
/$/) , / %) 8 ),% /$ /
!G8I / 8$ %$"$$%!$%% % $ %
%$ / /$ 8$$A !$%% % , / 8
G$ " ) //%$$!A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.'' '
'* ;
2!8!,"%@$,%$/"%%$
// $ $$ /$ $-$%%%$ / /
,!$, / 88$%AI
! "
#$ % & #$##
84 *#
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.'
.;
2!!$%% ")$ 8%% /% / %8% /$ 8$$I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.'
1' ;
" /$ ,$ 8$$8) I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.1
'* ;
2!" $!$%% $ 8 " / !$$
/$!%/ ! 88$%% $$ )!/!$%% , / 8%%
) 8"$8 $"8 /$A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.*
.*;
2 // , / $"8 /$!$%%//"!L
"" ,$ /!$%% / % "%
,8 /!$%% % $8"L %8% ,$ )
I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.*
&5 ;
0/ "$)8 !" ,) ) / ,$%$
% "$%$ /) / / ,$%$ ""%
/"I0/ /!$ ! %% /$ % ) @
I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
.4;
0/ $ $ @ ),%
/$I
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
.;
/+"% "$% )8 $%,%% $
/!/! %$ / %%+$" ) )C! %$ $ $%A
0/%),%G$ / %!/ %$ / %%+$"A
%!/! $$ 8 $ /$ /$ 8%%) /%A
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
'4 ;
/"% , $) ! /%) 8 "
8/ $) ! ) %% ,$ / 8""$
8 " )8)
*>.&>'.''.
1& ;
$8% 8 " 88"")$ @A %% %$8 $
$ $$ 8$$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
;
0/ ! ,$$ 8$%% " %8% /"! ) /$
)8$$ /+" % $,% ,8 / /
%" /$$8"E" !/" !$)F )!/
!"G$ $ /)!$/ %% /%>%$>"$"
8AAA / %8% "$$/$!MI
%$
;,
@"$ $ /"!)/%$)C6$/
! "
#$ % & #$##
88 *#
29
5
16
1
20
6
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
67
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8$ M
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.4
&.;
,%$ / ) , %$"$ ,8 /!$ $K8""8$%
8$$ ) /K $ $$)$%-$A K,)
!$%)%$ ) / $"A / 8/8 $/,/)
8/$A K!/%"$ ) ) "8)A
$)$%-$ $ $)$A 8$ /% " %
/"A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
. ;
!/!%) , / $"8 !88$)H H $ /$,$%$
)$8%% /$! G !I ; // $
/ "!%) , 8)%/$2;A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.5
'& ;
!/ $ /!%) $ / 8$ ,/$!$/ /$I /)$8
% "$$ /$$ @ 8A % /
$ ) / 8$ /%) $!$/ $ $/A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' .
.5;
0/$/%8"$8$"8 )!/!%)
?)$- / !/!/ )$ /! / "$$"%
$"8 ),$%$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' .
* ;
$8!C%) $ $" % @ )% 8)
!/C/%)$8 C ) @ ,I 6 /
,$E+$)F%% !$/ / 8/%% )
)" $/,/)I 6 %8% % )!$) ,
% $)!$/ CI $8 C)8 /$ $)
/! / /%$!G$$)I $/,/)
/%/$!$/ CI
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''
.';
%%!% / / / $$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.'' '
'' ;
2!) /"% $"8 / 8" ) 8$ $8E@
FI /%$G ,! %$8 ) $%,$%$
),%!G/$I
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.1
&.;
/!/ " / ) 8 $ %
"E) /"/ "F $ / & A
/ 8 / )!$/ / ",$ /!
$ 8%)$% %A / )C)$8 8%$
) $) "$8 %$ / / /%) , )
! "
#$ % & #$##
8**#
"$" $% "$8 %$ 8 , $)) , /A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.*
&1 ;
2!, @ )G 8G !/ )!/ / $
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.&
* ;
($ %" %$%$/) )) /"%A %
/$ $8"A ? ,/ " 8) /$ %% ) $ /
%$/ ) /"/
@A $!%) ,/ $G!$ /$! $
/A ) G!/!/ 8$ 8 G! /"!
$/A !
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
&& ;
2!8 ")$ /$ ,$ / %8%!G$ 8%
/$ $$A
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.4
'5 ;
6 $ $8 8"$8 8$$I $ ) ,$ $ !I
$ ) /"+!I 6 $ $8 %I !%)
8"") %G$$ G$ $%% 8/ H8/ A
/ ,%$ $ /$ 8%)E"F ,)A $ $
% 8) $ / $%% ,D$) $ ) !
$ " / !/$ 8"%@A )8$ /"
% $ >!"!$%% / / %8% ,8 $!$%% )8%$
/ "8/ )) 8%$%A "$ /+"% ,$ %
/ ,+!%/ ) ) G $ 8$)$ / )
/ A 6!! "G >!"
" %$$ ) $+%8% !I
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.
1* ;
! / "$ $/ ) 8%) )$8!/ / ,%"
$
%A H)$ $ "$8%% /$/ $ ) %
/ 8/$8!/ / G/$"$% /$/%$)A 00
/" 8/ ) %% / %8% ,$A )
/"!%$G"/ $@E,N'.UF % "
"A / $ 8 / 8""$A
$ /$ ) $"" 8A /)
/ <2 "$/ %+" %8% $ / )C/
/" $A /$ $ ,)A <2C/,N .;
)% ),% /$A 6 " $"% "/
!/ N .; !%) ) "/% $"% 8/
A 6 %8% N ..U>"/ % %A 8 +
<2C% !) ,! ) %%!$ $$ /
!$/ /$!/% "$%!/$8/ $ / $8$% ,$ A $
/ 8C$)"$%/7; $ / 8 G/$
" %%$)A
! "
#$ % & #$##
*$*#
29
6
16
2
20
7
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
68
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
8 " )8)
*>. >'.''.5
4 ;
/%) /,%$"$%$8IH$"$) )$ $->%
88"")$IH$"$) 8 / % /$
$ !I !$)$8 @ C / ) ),%
/$I
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.
'4 ;
"$ !%) )$$% / / %8% 8"A 0//$K
!$ $ /$>/8)>/" /"% /
$8 %$ 8 $ %% / " $A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.
&' ;
)% !/"% / 8" $
/ "A ,$ / 8$
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''
*.;
!$8)E$"$% $ F /!!%)!
/ / /"!%) / ,) %8% $ %+"
%I 2!" / /" / %) %+"
%8% ,I ))$$%% + $ )$) @$ "+/!!%)
! / %% %+" % $ >!"!$)
% , %8%!G$>8$,$ / %8% 8"A E#
B)$$% ")B "!G 8A!$%%$>,% /$/$8
%$ /FA 0/)!)!/ %$ %$>88/$
<"G /$%$A $%$ 8$ /!$%%
%! , $ / /$/ ,$))A/$!/ / 8 )
, )%$ " ))$8) /$ %8%
"%A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.
&' ;
! )$8 /"%!K!,/$8$ /
)$$ ) 88$,$%$ $$ A
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.'
' ;
0%%G!/! $ "%8G "% /$ +
!/ @$ /!$/ /"% "% G$
/$!%) , ,% ,$I
8 " )8)
*>.4>'.''.1
* ;
2!8!"G/"% %%) ) %
8"%$8)I A "@ ", ) $ 8 ,
")+,8 / ,)A
8 " )8)
*> >'.'' .
&1 ;
0/ $C/ / ),% /$ /!8!,$%)"
) /!8! "!/! / ,I 0%) @8%$
/"% 8 %) / $/,/) ,8"
8"%% 8E%$!) )$ /!$
! "
#$ % & #$##
* *#
$) / ) $ % $ $ ))AAF!$%% /$ , /
% $% 0/! $ / %% / %G
/ / 8" ) ) %@ /$ $%,% $)
/ )!! )!%%! " ) ,$/% ?8
C/8/" %!/ 8" /
/ ) ? !G)!$/ /$"$% , 8"") $
/%"I 6! ) / @$80/ $ / 8
%$"$$ /"% $ , $ $ %$ " 8
,%" $ / ," /$ $ ,)%$ "/
)$ /$ )!%
8 " )8)
*> >'.'' '
1 ;
/ 8$8"$8 ,8" % /!$ %8% "
$ $$) )!G8E/ / %$ $) 8$
%$"$F $,$,%,8$$8$ $ /$8""$$
E $%) %$ / / % / / /FI /$
!G8 $8%) %% 8$8"$8 8%E%! "$))% /$/ )
/$ $ ,!FA
>
E 5&EF &.G$)F
+
) $
! "
#$ % & #$##
*#*#29
7
16
3
20
8
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
69
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
! "#$ %
$ &'#$##
"( )&*
!"#$ %$ &'#$##
+
29
8
16
4
20
9
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
70
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
, -'
.
/ '
%%0!$1234
#! 0561#34
! " # !" " #$ $ ! ! "%
! " # # %
! " $ $ " $! ! "
# ! !$ !&! !& %
,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##
#+
,#7
/ 8'
. 9 /
: 9
;
; ' ;
5%0<21234
#!%0% 1#34
'(!!
,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##
<+29
9
16
5
21
0
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
71
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
,< 7
9
; 1
8 '
.
( '/ )
' ' '
0118 4
!+0<%1 34
#<$05%1534
<$0+1!34
" ) &
,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##
!+
,!7
9
; 1
8 '
.
( '/ )
' ' '
66 0!21234
6!0!+1534
5 0<1+34
" ) &
,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##
5 +
30
0
16
6
21
1
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
72
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
,5
) ( ' ( .) ; ;
/
: 9 / ' ;
#!5 0561634
%!0!$1 34
,
! "#$ %$ &'#$##
%+
,%=/' 8
'/
: ;/
("# *! + ! (&! , "+ ! !&!
& + ! " ""&!
- &!.
,
#$
!$
%$
2$
$$
#$
!$
%$
2$
#$$ 6$
%2
!6
$$
5%
%
!
"# $%&
!"#$ %$ &'#$##
++
30
1
16
7
21
2
APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
73
APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2
I. OPEN ENDED RESPONSES TO QUESTION 6
• We need specifi c City personnel that can address the impacts to the immediate neighbors of STR’s and the neighborhoods they impact. Parking, Parties and Pets!! THERE MUST BE A MECHANISM TO DENY AND REVOKE STR PERMITS FROM REPEAT OFFENDERS. The Aspen Police Department should not be the default manager of STR units.
• Enforcing rules for STR’s to minimize neighborhood impact.
• Pay raises for Aspen Police offi cers, child care facilities, increase Aspen food rebate amount.
• Better public transport
• The owners of STR properties do not care if you tax them, so just tax them. The revenue could be used for multiple programs.
• General expenses
• Remove funding towards destination marketing- that only makes the problem worse. The fee/tax should only go to relieving impacts.
• Noise and Light Pollution abatement. Traffi c. Landfi ll.
• What is the city’s/community’s greatest need? Where are we falling short in funding? If STRs are causing “problems” then the funds should be geared towards solving the issues/problems. This is something that I don’t the the general public should be weighing in one because we don’t have enough knowledge to know what areas the city needs more funding for.
• We need a designated City personnel to address neighborhood impacts. Parking, Parties, Pets are a PROBLEM.
• The round-about and TRAFFIC!!!! There should be stop signs on every corner in this town!
• turning appropriate places toward long term rentals should be a primary goal. If there are far fewer STR allowed- far fewer- then those owners could see the value of long term renting.
• Raising money for the city isn’t the point of this exercise. It’s about not ruining neighborhoods by this impacts of essentially living next to a hotel
• The city should identify what impacts short term rental cause that need to be mitigated. The tax revenue should address those issues,
• Entrance To Aspen solution
• A subsidized hotel/hostel.
30
2
16
8
21
3
74
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
II. STR HEAT MAPI. SHORT TERM RENTAL TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDER DATA OVERVIEW
A. City of Aspen STR Data Points:
• There are 1,319 current active vacation rental permits (VRPs) through the City of Aspen.
• 280 VRPs were issued on or after 12/8/2021, the date the emergency moratorium was announced with 78 still waiting on review or additional information from the customer.
• There were only 70 VRPs issued before the City increased compliance and oversight with Council actions around business licensing requirements.
• 57 properties have multiple VRPs. The top two properties are The Gant which holds 123 VRPs, and Aspen Square, which holds 106 VRPs. This means 1,262 properties have just one VRP.
• The Lodge Zone District holds 316 VRPs, this is the greatest number of VRPs per Zone District. Second, is the Residential/Multi-family Zone District with 255 VRPs. R- 15 Zone District holds 186 VRPs, this is the greatest number for the residential-only districts. Second is R-6 which holds 108 VRPs. The Commercial Core holds 45 VRPs, and Commercial Lodge holds 132 VRPs.
• *The Short Term Rentals by Zone District Map provides full details on the amount of VRPs for every Zone District in the COA.
B. Attachments:
• Short Term Rental Heat Map
• Short Term Rental Density by Address
• Short Term Rentals by Zone District (East Aspen to Cemetery Lane)
• Short Term Rentals by Zone District (Cemetery Lane to Burlingame)
• Short Term Rental by Parcel Number
• Finance Summary Data – VRP Properties by Address
• CAST Survey - Lodging and STR Taxes
30
3
16
9
21
4
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
75
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
III. STR DENSITY BY ADDRESS IV. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICT
sdc
30
4
17
0
21
5
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
76
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
V. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICT VI. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICT
sdc
30
5
17
1
21
6
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
77
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
VII. PROPERTIES WITH MULTIPLE VACATION RENTAL PERMITS
PROPERTY NAME ADDRESS COUNT OF VRPS
The Gant 610 S West End St 123
Aspen Square 617 E Cooper Ave 106
Aspen Alps 700 S Ute Ave 49
Mountain Lodge 311 W Main St 39
North of Nell 555 E Durant Ave 32
Chateau Roaring Fork 1039 E Cooper Ave 30
Lift One 131 E Durant Ave 27
Durant Condos 718 & 728 & 738 & 748 S Galena St 23
Independence Square 404 S Galena St 21
Chateau Chaumont 731 E Durant Ave 20
Chateau Du Mont 725 E Durant Ave 18
Chateau Eau Claire 1034 E Cooper Ave 18
Riverside 1024 E Cooper Ave 17
Fifth Avenue Condos 800 S Mill St 16
Fasching Haus East 747 S Galena St 15
Silverglo 940 Waters Ave 15
Chateau Aspen 630 E Cooper Ave 14
Fasching Haus 718 S Mill St 11
Cottonwoods 124 W Hyman Ave 10
Obermeyer Place 101 N Spring St & 501 Rio Grande Pl 10
South Point 205 E Durant Ave 10
Chateau Blanc 901 E Hyman Ave 9
Christiana Condominiums 501 W Main St 9
Cooper Condominiums 210 E Cooper Ave 9
Concept 600 600 E Main St 8
Le Clairvaux 803 E Durant Ave 8
Park Central West 210 E Hyman Ave 8
Timber Ridge 100 E Dean St 8
Ute Condominiums 1020 E Durant Ave 8
Dolomite 650 S Monarch St 7
Original Curve 725 E Main St 7
Clarendon 625 S West End St 6
30
6
17
2
21
7
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
78
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
Little Nell 611 S West End St 6
Monarch Condos 700 Monarch 6
Old Hundred 900 E Durant Ave 6
Alpenblick 630 & 710 S Mill St 5
Galena Lofts 434 E Main St 5
Shadow Mountain Condos 809 S Aspen St 5
Silverbell 805 E Cooper Ave 5
St. Regis 315 E Dean St 5
Villas of Aspen 100 N Eighth St 5
Aspen Townhouse East 835 E Durant Ave 4
[No Name]250 S Original St 4
Der Berghof 100 E Cooper Ave 4
Mittendorf 450 S Original St 4
Mountain Chalet 711 S Galena St 4
Aspen Edge 1235 E Cooper Ave 3
Aspen Townhouses 108 W Hyman Ave 3
Black Swan Hall 851 S Ute Ave 3
Cooper Aspen Victorian 1012 E Cooper Ave 3
Hy-West B 835 E Hyman Ave 3
Larkspur 800 E Hopkins Ave 3
Monarch on the Park 233 E Cooper Ave 3
Ritz-Carlton 75 Prospector Rd 3
Winfi eld Arms 119 E Cooper Ave 3
Riverview 1028 E Hopkins Ave 2
Villager Townhomes 1001 E Cooper Ave 2
Subtotal 0
30
7
17
3
21
8
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
79
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
VIII. PROPERTIES WITH ONE VACATION RENTAL PERMIT
BIZ ADDRESS BIZ ADDRESS 2 STREET #STREET NAME
100 E Durant Ave 1D 100 E Durant Ave
100 E Durant Ave 2A 100 E Durant Ave
100 Park Ave 100 Park Ave
1001 S Ute Ave 1001 S Ute Ave
1004 E Durant Ave 1 1004 E Durant Ave
1006 E Cooper Ave 1006 E Cooper Ave
101 Park Ave 101 Park Ave
1011 S Ute Ave 1011 S Ute Ave
1015 E Hyman Ave 2 1015 E Hyman Ave
1016 E Hyman Ave 1016 E Hyman Ave
1022 E Hyman Ave 1 1022 E Hyman Ave
1024 Vine St Hunter Creek 1024 1024 Vine St
1035 E Durant Ave 4 1035 E Durant Ave
1039 E Durant Ave 11 1039 E Durant Ave
104 Northway Dr 104 Northway Dr
104 W Cooper Ave 2 104 W Cooper Ave
105 E Hopkins Ave 105 E Hopkins Ave
105 Exhibition Ln 105 Exhibition Ln
105 Thunderbowl Ln 4 105 Thunderbowl Ln
105 W Hyman Ave 105 W Hyman Ave
107 Aspen Mountain Rd 2 107 Aspen Mountain Rd
107 Aspen Mountain Rd 9 107 Aspen Mountain Rd
107 Park Ave 107 Park Ave
107 S Seventh St 107 S Seventh St
1087 Cemetery Ln 1087 Cemetery Ln
1097 Cemetery Ln B 1097 Cemetery Ln
1098 Cemetery Ln 1098 Cemetery Ln
1098 Waters Ave 1098 Waters Ave
110 E Bleeker St 110 E Bleeker St
30
8
17
4
21
9
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
80
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
110 Meadows Rd 111 110 Meadows Rd
1109 Waters Ave 1109 Waters Ave
111 Neale Ave 111 Neale Ave
111 Park Ave 111 Park Ave
111 Stein Way 111 Stein Way
111 W Francis St 111 W Francis St
111 W Hyman Ave 111 W Hyman Ave
1112 Waters Ave 1112 Waters Ave
1115 Waters Ave 1115 Waters Ave
1118 Waters Ave 1118 Waters Ave
1120 Dale Ave 1120 Dale Ave
1145 Black Birch Dr 1145 Black Birch Dr
117 N Monarch St 2 117 N Monarch St
117 Westview Dr 117 Westview Dr
118 E Bleeker St Lower 118 E Bleeker St
118 E Bleeker St Upper 118 E Bleeker St
118 E Cooper Ave 118 E Cooper Ave
1180 Dale Ave 1180 Dale Ave
119 S Hunter St 119 S Hunter St
1195 E Cooper Ave A 1195 E Cooper Ave
1195 E Cooper Ave B 1195 E Cooper Ave
120 E Hyman Ave 3 120 E Hyman Ave
120 S Spring St 120 S Spring St
1205 Tiehack Rd 1205 Tiehack Rd
1208 E Hopkins Ave 1208 E Hopkins Ave
121 Robinson Rd 121 Robinson Rd
1210 Snowbunny Ln 1210 Snowbunny Ln
1215 Riverside Dr A 1215 Riverside Dr
1215 Riverside Dr B 1215 Riverside Dr
122 Eastwood Rd 122 Eastwood Rd
122 Northway Dr 122 Northway Dr
122 W Main St 122 W Main St
123 E Hallam St 123 E Hallam St
30
9
17
5
22
0
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
81
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
123 E Hyman Ave 123 E Hyman Ave
123 W Hyman Ave A 123 W Hyman Ave
1230 Snowbunny Ln 1230 Snowbunny Ln
1232 Mountain View Dr 1232 Mountain View Dr
124 E Durant Ave 7 124 E Durant Ave
124 E Durant Ave 10 124 E Durant Ave
1240 Riverside Dr 1240 Riverside Dr
1242 Snowbunny Ln B 1242 Snowbunny Ln
1245 Riverside Dr 1245 Riverside Dr
126 Park Ave 126 Park Ave
127 E Hallam St 127 E Hallam St
127 Powder Bowl Tr 127 Powder Bowl Tr
127 Robinson Rd 127 Robinson Rd
1271 S Ute Ave 1271 S Ute Ave
1286 Snowbunny Ln 1286 Snowbunny Ln
129 E Hopkins Ave 129 E Hopkins Ave
1291 Riverside Dr B 1291 Riverside Dr
1300 Red Butte Dr 1300 Red Butte Dr
1305 Red Butte Dr 1305 Red Butte Dr
131 W Bleeker St 131 W Bleeker St
1335 Snowbunny Ln 1335 Snowbunny Ln
1345 Sierra Vista Dr 1345 Sierra Vista Dr
135 W Francis St 135 W Francis St
135 W Hopkins Ave 135 W Hopkins Ave
1350 Mountain View Dr 1350 Mountain View Dr
1350 Sierra Vista Dr 1350 Sierra Vista Dr
136 Northway Dr The Reliant Group 136 Northway Dr
1395 Snowbunny Ln 1395 Snowbunny Ln
1412 Sierra Vista Dr 1412 Sierra Vista Dr
1417 Crystal Lake Rd 1417 Crystal Lake Rd
1423 Silver King Dr 1423 Silver King Dr
1430 Silver King Dr 1430 Silver King Dr
31
0
17
6
22
1
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
82
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
1439 Crystal Lake Rd 1439 Crystal Lake Rd
1445 Red Butte Dr 1445 Red Butte Dr
145 Miners Trail Rd 145 Miners Trail Rd
1450 Silver King Dr 1450 Silver King Dr
1465 Red Butte 1465 Red Butte
1470 Sierra Vista Dr 1470 Sierra Vista Dr
1490 S Ute Ave 1490 S Ute Ave
1495 Homestake Dr 2 1495 Homestake Dr
15 Westview Dr 15 Westview Dr
150 E Durant Ave 150 E Durant Ave
150 N Eighth St 150 N Eighth St
1530 Silver King Dr 1530 Silver King Dr
155 Exhibition Ln 155 Exhibition Ln
1564 Silver King Dr 1564 Silver King Dr
1635 Silver King Dr 1635 Silver King Dr
164 Eastwood Rd 164 Eastwood Rd
171 Cascade Ln 171 Cascade Ln
173 Skimming Ln 173 Skimming Ln
18 Roaring Fork Dr 18 Roaring Fork Dr
200 Prospector Rd 200 200 Prospector Rd
200 W Hopkins Ave 200 W Hopkins Ave
201 Silverlode Dr 201 Silverlode Dr
204 E Durant Ave 204 E Durant Ave
205 Roaring Fork Dr 205 Roaring Fork Dr
205 S Galena St 11 205 S Galena St
205 S Galena St 12 205 S Galena St
205 W Hopkins Ave 205 W Hopkins Ave
205 W Main St 205 W Main St
207 N Second St 207 N Second St
211 W Hopkins Ave 211 W Hopkins Ave
212 S Cleveland St Upper Unit 212 S Cleveland St
214 E Hopkins Ave 214 E Hopkins Ave
215 Midland Ave 215 Midland Ave
31
1
17
7
22
2
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
83
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
215 W Hallam St 215 W Hallam St
217 E Bleeker St 217 E Bleeker St
217 S Third St 217 S Third St
217 Silverlode Dr 217 Silverlode Dr
219 N Monarch St 219 N Monarch St
220 W Main St 210 220 W Main St
222 W Hopkins Ave 3 222 W Hopkins Ave
222 W Hopkins Ave 4 222 W Hopkins Ave
23 Smuggler Grove Rd 23 Smuggler Grove Rd
233 W Bleeker St 233 W Bleeker St
234 E Hopkins Ave 234 E Hopkins Ave
234 Vine St 234 234 Vine St
234 W Hallam St 234 W Hallam St
235 Exhibition Ln 235 Exhibition Ln
237 Gilbert St 237 Gilbert St
237 W Hopkins Ave 237 W Hopkins Ave
267 Roaring Fork Dr 267 Roaring Fork Dr
269 Park Ave 269 Park Ave
276 Coach Rd 276 Coach Rd
28 Maroon Dr 28 Maroon Dr
30 S Willow Ct 30 S Willow Ct
300 Lake Ave 300 Lake Ave
302 N Second St 302 N Second St
303 1/2 E Main St 303 1/2 E Main St
307 W Francis St 307 W Francis St
308 E Hopkins Ave 201 308 E Hopkins Ave
310 N Sixth St 310 N Sixth St
311 S Aspen St 2 311 S Aspen St
311 S Aspen St 5 311 S Aspen St
311 S Aspen St 6 311 S Aspen St
311 S First St A 311 S First St
233 W Bleeker St D 233 W Bleeker St
31
2
17
8
22
3
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
84
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
312 W Hyman Ave B105 312 W Hyman Ave
314 E Hyman Ave 102 314 E Hyman Ave
314 E Hyman Ave 200 314 E Hyman Ave
314 E Hyman Ave 300 314 E Hyman Ave
315 Park Ave 315 315 Park Ave
316 S West End St 316 S West End St
32 Prospector Rd 32 Prospector Rd
320 N Seventh St 2 320 N Seventh St
320 W Main St A 320 W Main St
322 Coach Rd 322 Coach Rd
322 E Bleeker St 322 E Bleeker St
322 Park Ave 1 322 Park Ave
322 Park Ave 2 322 Park Ave
324 E Bleeker St 324 E Bleeker St
326 Oak Ln 326 Oak Ln
326 W Hopkins Ave A 326 W Hopkins Ave
330 W Bleeker St 330 W Bleeker St
332 W Main St C 332 W Main St
333 Vine St 333 333 Vine St
333 Vine St 333 333 Vine St
333 W Main St 1A 333 W Main St
337 Silverlode Dr 337 Silverlode Dr
340 Eastwood Rd 340 Eastwood Rd
342 Summit St B 342 Summit St
345 Park Ave 2 345 Park Ave
350 E Summit St C 350 E Summit St
350 E Summit St C 350 E Summit St
353 Pfister Dr 353 Pfister Dr
355 Pfister Dr 355 Pfister Dr
36 Roaring Fork Dr 36 Roaring Fork Dr
387 Silverlode Dr 387 Silverlode Dr
31
3
17
9
22
4
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
85
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
388 Exhibition Ln 388 Exhibition Ln
395 Silverlode Dr 395 Silverlode Dr
400 E Main St 101 400 E Main St
400 W Hopkins Ave 2 400 W Hopkins Ave
401 W Bleeker St 401 W Bleeker St
401 W Bleeker St 401 W Bleeker St
401 W Francis St 401 W Francis St
406 Aspen St 101 406 Aspen St
406 E Hopkins Ave Penthouse 406 E Hopkins Ave
407 N Third St 407 N Third St
407 Park Ave C 407 Park Ave
407 S Aspen St 104 407 S Aspen St
409 S Aspen St 105 409 S Aspen St
410 S West End St 101 410 S West End St
411 Pearl Ct 411 Pearl Ct
411 W Francis St 411 W Francis St
415 S Aspen St 202 415 S Aspen St
415 S Aspen St 415 S Aspen St
415 W North St 415 W North St
419 E Hyman Ave Penthouse 419 E Hyman Ave
419 S Aspen St 102 419 S Aspen St
420 W Francis St 420 W Francis St
420 W North St 420 W North St
421 Aabc G 421 Aabc
421 S Aspen St 101 421 S Aspen St
421 S West End St 421 S West End St
424 Park Cir TH-3 424 Park Cir
424 Park Cir TH-5 424 Park Cir
425 Park Cir B4 425 Park Cir
426 E Hyman Ave 426 E Hyman Ave
426 E Main St 426 E Main St
427 Silverlode Dr 427 Silverlode Dr
31
4
18
0
22
5
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
86
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
428 E Hyman Ave A 428 E Hyman Ave
43 Smuggler St 43 Smuggler St
437 W Smuggler St 437 W Smuggler St
437 W Smuggler St 437 W Smuggler St
447 E Cooper Ave 447 E Cooper Ave
449 Mountain Laurel Dr 2 449 Mountain Laurel Dr
450 S Riverside Ave B 450 S Riverside Ave
501 W Hopkins Ave 501 W Hopkins Ave
503 W Main St B101 503 W Main St
505 Park Cir B 505 Park Cir
505 Park Cir B 505 Park Cir
508 E Cooper Ave 201 508 E Cooper Ave
509 Race St B 509 Race St
509 W Hopkins Ave 509 W Hopkins Ave
509 W Main St 509 W Main St
51 Thunderbowl Ln 12 51 Thunderbowl Ln
511 Walnut St O 511 Walnut St
513 W Bleeker St 513 W Bleeker St
513 W Main St E201 513 W Main St
515 Park Cir 515 Park Cir
520 E Cooper Ave 305 520 E Cooper Ave
520 W Main St 23 520 W Main St
521 N Seventh St A 521 N Seventh St
525 S Original St Glory Hole C 525 S Original St
525 S Original St Glory Hole D 525 S Original St
530 W Hallam St 530 W Hallam St
532 Walnut St 100 532 Walnut St
532 Walnut St B 532 Walnut St
537 Race St 537 Race St
546 Walnut St 546 Walnut St
55 Overlook Dr 55 Overlook Dr
550 Lazy Chair Ranch Rd 550 Lazy Chair Ranch Rd
31
5
18
1
22
6
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
87
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
566 Race St B 566 Race St
570 S Riverside Ave 570 S Riverside Ave
570 Spruce St 570 Spruce St
575 Sneaky Ln 575 Sneaky Ln
58 Exhibition Ln 58 Exhibition Ln
60 Northway Dr 60 Northway Dr
601 S Monarch St 1 601 S Monarch St
601 S Monarch St 2 601 S Monarch St
601 S West End St 1 601 S West End St
601 S West End St 6 601 S West End St
601 S West End St 8 601 S West End St
601 S West End St 5 601 S West End St
601 W North St 601 W North St
602 E Hyman Ave 201 602 E Hyman Ave
603 S Garmisch 603 S Garmisch
603 S Garmisch 603 S Garmisch
604 N Eighth St 604 N Eighth St
605 E Main St 301 605 E Main St
611 S Monarch St 2 611 S Monarch St
611 S Monarch St 5 611 S Monarch St
612 W Main St 612 W Main St
615 W Smuggler St 615 W Smuggler St
616 S Galena St 616 S Galena St
616 W Main St 616 W Main St
616.5 W Main St 616 5 W Main St
620 E Hyman Ave 1 620 E Hyman Ave
623 S Monarch A 623 S Monarch
623 S Monarch C 623 S Monarch
624 W Francis St 624 W Francis St
625 E Main St 201 Penthouse C 625 E Main St
625 S West End St 15 625 S West End St
31
6
18
2
22
7
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
88
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
626 W Francis St A 626 W Francis St
626 W Francis St 626 W Francis St
627 E Hopkins Ave 627 E Hopkins Ave
627 S Original St 627 S Original St
630 E Hyman Ave 301 630 E Hyman Ave
631 S Galena St 11 631 S Galena St
631 S Galena St 13 631 S Galena St
633 W Francis St 633 W Francis St
635 Sneaky Ln 635 Sneaky Ln
64 Prospector Rd 64 Prospector Rd
651 Pfister Dr 651 Pfister Dr
655 Gibson Ave 655 Gibson Ave
660 S Galena St 660 S Galena St
670 Moore Dr 670 Moore Dr
675 Meadows Rd 675 Meadows Rd
701 S Monarch Caribou Club #4 701 S Monarch
702 E Hyman Ave 702 E Hyman Ave
702 W Main St 702 W Main St
704 E Cooper Ave 3 704 E Cooper Ave
704 E Hyman Ave 704 E Hyman Ave
704 S Galena St 704 S Galena St
705 W Main St 705 W Main St
706 E Cooper Ave 4 706 E Cooper Ave
708 E Cooper Ave 708 E Cooper Ave
708 E Hyman Ave 708 E Hyman Ave
708 W Bleeker St 708 W Bleeker St
709 E Main St 303 709 E Main St
710 N Third St 710 N Third St
711 W Bleeker St 711 W Bleeker St
711 W Bleeker St 711 W Bleeker St
712 S Galena St A 712 S Galena St
715 E Hopkins Ave 2 715 E Hopkins Ave
31
7
18
3
22
8
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
89
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
715 W North St Center 715 W North St
716 W Francis St 716 W Francis St
717 Aspen St B 717 Aspen St
717 W Francis St A 717 W Francis St
720 W Bleeker St 720 W Bleeker St
725 Cemetery Ln Units 721, 723, 725, 727 725 Cemetery Ln
727 E Hopkins Ave A 727 E Hopkins Ave
728 E Hopkins Ave 728 728 E Hopkins Ave
730 Bay St 730 Bay St
731 Cemetery Ln 731 Cemetery Ln
731 S Mill St 1A 731 S Mill St
731 S Mill St 1B 731 S Mill St
731 S Mill St 2A 731 S Mill St
733 W Francis St 1 733 W Francis St
735 E Bleeker St Creektree 735 735 E Bleeker St
735 E Francis St 735 E Francis St
736 W Smuggler St B 736 W Smuggler St
745 Castle Creek Dr 745 Castle Creek Dr
75 Overlook Dr 75 Overlook Dr
76 Exhibition Ln 76 Exhibition Ln
77 Westview Dr 77 Westview Dr
790 W Hallam St 3 790 W Hallam St
793 Cemetery Ln 1 793 Cemetery Ln
800 Roaring Fork Rd 800 Roaring Fork Rd
800 S Monarch St 1 800 S Monarch St
800 S Monarch St 5 800 S Monarch St
800 S Monarch St 9 800 S Monarch St
800 S Monarch St 13 800 S Monarch St
800 S Monarch St 14 800 S Monarch St
800 S Monarch St #4 800 S Monarch St
800 W Smuggler St 800 W Smuggler St
801 E Hopkins Ave 2 801 E Hopkins Ave
31
8
18
4
22
9
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
90
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
802 E Cooper Ave 2 802 E Cooper Ave
802 E Cooper Ave 3 802 E Cooper Ave
809 S Aspen St 3 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St 11 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St 15 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St 16 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St 18 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St 19 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St #1 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St #2 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St #20 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St #5 809 S Aspen St
809 S Aspen St #7 809 S Aspen St
81 Thunderbowl Ln 16 81 Thunderbowl Ln
810 E Cooper Ave 810 E Cooper Ave
812 E Cooper Ave 812 E Cooper Ave
814 E Cooper Ave 814 814 E Cooper Ave
814 W Bleeker St Aspen Villas C3 814 W Bleeker St
814 W Bleeker St Aspen Villas C4 814 W Bleeker St
814 W Bleeker St Aspen Villas E6 814 W Bleeker St
815 Bonita Dr 815 Bonita Dr
815 Roaring Fork Rd 815 Roaring Fork Rd
816 E Cooper Ave 816 E Cooper Ave
816 E Hyman Ave 816 E Hyman Ave
817 W North St 817 W North St
818 E Hyman Ave 818 E Hyman Ave
819 E Hyman Ave 2 819 E Hyman Ave
82 Westview Dr 82 Westview Dr
820 E Cooper Ave 820 E Cooper Ave
820 E Hyman Ave A 820 E Hyman Ave
825 Cemetery Ln 1 825 Cemetery Ln
825 E Hopkins Ave 1N 825 E Hopkins Ave
825 E Hopkins Ave 2S 825 E Hopkins Ave
31
9
18
5
23
0
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
91
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
825 S Ute Ave A 825 S Ute Ave
83 Exhibition Ln 83 Exhibition Ln
83 Ute Pl 83 Ute Pl
835 E Cooper Ave 4 835 E Cooper Ave
855 Roaring Fork Rd 855 Roaring Fork Rd
857 Bonita Dr 857 Bonita Dr
865 Roaring Fork Rd 865 Roaring Fork Rd
900 Waters Ave 900 Waters Ave
901 E Durant Ave B 901 E Durant Ave
901 S Ute Ave 901 S Ute Ave
901 W Francis St 901 W Francis St
907 Waters Ave 907 Waters Ave
909 Vine St 909 Vine St
91 Meadows Trustee Rd 91 91 Meadows Trustee Rd
910 Gibson Ave B 910 Gibson Ave
910 W Hallam St 8 910 W Hallam St
911 Waters Ave 911 Waters Ave
914 Waters Ave 1 914 Waters Ave
914 Waters Ave 4 914 Waters Ave
914 Waters Ave 5 914 Waters Ave
914 Waters Ave 19 914 Waters Ave
914 Waters Ave 20 914 Waters Ave
914 Waters Ave 21 914 Waters Ave
916 E Hopkins Ave 104 916 E Hopkins Ave
916 E Hopkins Ave 201 916 E Hopkins Ave
918 S Mill St A 918 S Mill St
924 W Hallam St 924 W Hallam St
925 E Durant Ave 2 925 E Durant Ave
926 E Cooper Ave 1 926 E Cooper Ave
926 E Durant Ave 3 926 E Durant Ave
926 Waters Ave 101 926 Waters Ave
926 Waters Ave 102 926 Waters Ave
926 Waters Ave 202 926 Waters Ave
32
0
18
6
23
1
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
92
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
926 Waters Ave 201 926 Waters Ave
927 E Durant Ave 3 927 E Durant Ave
928 W Hallam St 928 W Hallam St
929 E Durant Ave 4 929 E Durant Ave
930 W Francis St 930 W Francis St
930 W Hallam St 930 W Hallam St
934 S Mill St 934 S Mill St
935 E Hopkins Ave 2 935 E Hopkins Ave
935 E Hopkins Ave 6 935 E Hopkins Ave
935 E Hopkins Ave 9 935 E Hopkins Ave
935 E Hopkins Ave 10 935 E Hopkins Ave
935 E Hopkins Ave 11 935 E Hopkins Ave
935 E Hopkins Ave 12 935 E Hopkins Ave
938 S Mill St 938 S Mill St
940 Matchless Dr 940 Matchless Dr
941 E Hyman Ave 941 E Hyman Ave
945 E Cooper Ave 945 E Cooper Ave
950 Cemetery Ln 1 950 Cemetery Ln
950 Cemetery Ln 2 950 Cemetery Ln
950 Matchless Dr A 950 Matchless Dr
979 Queen St 979 Queen St
981 King St 981 King St
99 Northway Dr 99 Northway Dr
990 Gibson Ave 990 Gibson Ave
991 Moore Dr 991 Moore Dr
32
1
18
7
23
2
APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
93
APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW
VIII. CAST SURVEY - LODGING & STR TAXES
32
2
18
8
23
3
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Pete Strecker, Finance Director
THROUGH:Sara Ott, City Manager
MEETING DATE: May 9, 2022
RE:Short-Term Rental – Tax Questions
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Council has requested staff facilitate a Council work session to further consider a short-term rental tax
that would ultimately establish resources for addressing Community impacts generated by the STR
economy in the areas of workforce housing and childcare, environmental and other issues. Staff is
requesting input from Council in a number of policy areas to help further this taxation question.
SUMMARY / BACKGROUND:
Following the adoption of the moratorium on December 8, staff has been working collaboratively with a
diverse set of stakeholders in the short-term rental (STR) arena, to garner various perspectives around
how to best consider regulations that might influence both community and neighborhood feel as well as
fairness in the lodging industry. In tandem with these meetings, staff has had periodic check-ins with
Council, to seek policy direction on the identified key focus areas: zoning, good neighbor policies,
operational standards, life safety standards, permitting, financials and enforcement. At the April 11
check-in, staff asked for Council input around the desire to have an operational fee, and also the interest
level for a voter-approved tax, on STRs. Staff received feedback at that meeting to proceed with an
operational fee assessment and agreed for staff to return to seek answers to policy questions around
the issue of taxation.
DISCUSSION:
Staff is continuing to work on the operational fee computation and has enlisted the assistance of a third-
party consultant to develop the needed basis for nexus considerations that will equate the efforts of
financial oversight; health, life and safety inspection; zoning enforcement; etc. into that rate. This fee
will be presented at a future session with Council and ultimately incorporated into an ordnance for
adoption.
Regarding the issue of taxation, staff requires Council direction on a number of policy items before a tax
question can be formulated for consideration. Depending on when Council can provide direction to
these areas will play into the ultimate timing of a ballot question.
POLICY QUESTION #1: What is the desired timeframe for approaching voters with a STR tax
question?
During the April 11 work session discussion, Council members proposed two possible dates for when to
approach voters: November 2022 or March 2023. Consideration for which date would be best to ask
voters for tax policy changes was reflective a November election being a major election and that the
152189234
City’s tax question could be lost along with other issues on the ballot and/or could be competing with
other tax questions from nearby or overlapping jurisdictions.
Staff has requested input from the County and other taxing entities in the upper Valley and is aware that
the Ambulance District may being looking at an operational tax in 2022 and that the County had various
needs (housing, jail, childcare, mental health) that might have tax needs for consideration in 2023.
DECISION NEEDED: Does Council desire to place a question on the November 2022 ballot? If this is
desired, staff must notify the County in June that it desires to be included on the ballot. A ballot
question will need to be formalized and adopted in two readings by the Council by the end of August,
and then the formal ballot question will need to be conveyed to the County by early September for
certification.
POLICY QUESTION #2: What are the intended uses of the tax to be levied?
During previous work sessions and included in the language of the moratorium, Council has expressed
the unfunded impacts associated with the robust short-term rental market that exists within Aspen.
Explicitly stated impacts to affordable housing and childcare, transit and the environment were all
identified as not being captured for these businesses, and unlike the realities for other commercially
licensed businesses.
DECISION NEEDED: Can Council affirm whether or not these impact areas are aligned with the taxation
question that would be presented to voters? Are there any areas missing or are some areas of lesser
priority than others? Can the Council provide direction around an allocation for a STR tax to the desired
areas of impact to help steer a future ballot question?
POLICY QUESTION #3: Should an existing tax be reviewed? Who should pay the tax? What
level of taxation? This policy question is truly a three-in-one ask as there is an
interdependence between them.
The response to an initial question of how existing taxes align with Council and Community expectations
can create a basis for what type of tax and level of taxation. Aspen voters have already adopted a 2.0%
lodging tax that is levied not only on traditional lodge offerings, but on STRs as well. This tax is based on
the nightly room rate, with proceeds (this tax generated roughly $4.2M in 2021) dedicated to two
specific operations: tourism promotion ($3.1M) and transit services ($1.1M).
DECISION #3A NEEDED: Does the revenue generated and use of the current lodging tax align well with
Council and Community expectations?
Currently, the City already levies a lodging tax that is paid on short-term rentals in both traditional
lodges and in the single owner rental offerings, and is equal to 2.0% of the nightly rate (for stays up to
29 nights). This tax is currently dedicated towards two uses: no-fare transit services within the City and
tourism promotion.
Since there is an existing tax levied on nightly stays in these non-traditional STR lodge offerings, staff felt
it is appropriate to highlight this overlap before proceeding down a new tax question and allow Council
to evaluate the current tax use and whether it remains aligned with Community interests. This tax can
remain in place whether a new tax is levied or not, but due to the intersection of a new tax with what
153190235
has already been adopted by voters is worth assessing. If changes were desired, an in-depth discussion
of how best to address modifications would be required at a future work session.
DECISION #3B NEEDED: Is there a preferred option for what the tax structuring would look like when
addressing a tax for the short-term rental industry?
For consideration of potential new taxation on the short-term rental industry, there are options as to
how to structure a tax. The two most common methods for taxation would either an ad valorem excise
tax or flat rate per unit excise tax. These options allow a level of scalability for the cost per room or the
size of lodging offered, they are relatively simple to understand, and they are easy to pass on to the
renter. That said, an excise tax on bedroom count doesn’t appear to scale up or down nearly as
equitably as a percentage of nightly room rate.
There is a question for the Council around the urgency of addressing the community impacts identified
by Council in Question #1 which can lend itself back to what level of taxation is desired for this industry
to pay its fair share. Should the targeted tax be set to fully offset the disparity in the property taxation
process? Laying this on top of the existing 2.0% lodging tax, and wanting to expand uses to areas such
as more affordable housing and childcare (for example), what additional percentage should be levied?
This can also be considered in terms of future Community intent to use these resources as pledged
sources for issuing new debt.
To provide context around setting a new tax rate:
Looking solely at the disparity in assessed valuation rates for commercial properties and
residential properties (where STRs operate as commercial businesses but pay a residential
property tax rate), a starting point for a new ad valorem excise tax on nightly room rates could
be 5.4%.
o This could be allocated for use based on voter approval and would not be limited to the
current uses of the general purpose and clean river program mill levies, though both the
Asset Management Plan and Stormwater Plan both have funding needs.
The above does not necessarily then impact childcare or additional affordable housing funding
needs, so the 5.4% could be further escalated to account for those needs.
Researching some other communities that already have a specific STR lodging tax approved,
those communities range from an additional 2% to 15% on nightly rental rates.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
Staff requires input from Council around the timing of a ballot question, the uses of existing taxes and
the structure of a new tax and its intended purpose for addressing community impacts from the short-
term rental economy.
It is anticipated that a follow up session will be needed to address the issue of what tax rate should be
pursued. If sufficient responses to all questions can be provided in the next month, the possibility of
reaching the November ballot timeframe is possible, but may not be the Council preferred timeline
(TBD). Whatever the outcome, staff is prepared to take the necessary steps to bring forward Council’s
direction, once provided.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
154191236
Short-term Rentals –Financial Discussion
City Council –Work Session
May 9, 2022
155192237
Work Session on March 1:
•Zoning –number, location, density/intensity of use, surrounding uses
•Permitting –eligibility, transferability
•Life safety –inspections, fire, signage and noticing
•Financials –fees and taxes
•Operational standards –days of operation/year, occupancy,
nuisances, wildlife/trash, parking/access
•Enforcement –staff support, enforcement plan, fine schedule
Previous Council Direction & Community Engagement
156193238
Workgroup Meeting March 17:
•Attendees –condo-hotels, real estate brokers, property management
groups, individual homeowners, regulatory groups
•Overview –current tax rates, who is paying, current collection levels,
options for taxes vs. fees and review of other communities’ actions
•Takeaways –understanding of fee to capture operational costs to run the
program, support for taxes over fees to address impact concerns
Work Session on April 11:
•Fees –focus on regulation and enforcement cost capture (items from 3/1)
•Taxes –focus on STR related impacts to Community
Previous Council Direction & Community Engagement
157194239
1) Timing of Question? –Where are we with Community support and
what are other jurisdictions considering that could affect approval of a
ballot question?
2) Purpose of Tax? –What programs would we want to support with
these new resources to address STR related impacts?
3a) New or Existing Tax?–How does this layer over or within current
taxation in place?
3b) Who Pays the Tax? –Is this a tax that encompasses the entire
lodging community or just short-term rentals?
3c) What is the Target? –Is there a level of resources desired for
application with this tax?
Direction Sought from Council Tonight
158195240
Question #1 –Ballot Timing
•November 2022 –major election may lead to
greater turnout, but also can have question
“get lost”
•March 2023 –Aspen one of few that have
election at this time, but delays the
implementation of tax collections
•What Are Other Jurisdictions Considering?
o 2022 –Ambulance Operations
o 2023 –Possibly Housing, Jail, Childcare,
Mental Health
159196241
Question
What timeline does Council wish to consider around a ballot question?
Policy Outcomes
Support for additional tax and for its uses in tackling Community concerns
Staff Notes
Following voter decision, will take about 2 full months to align system
changes for tax collection. January 2023 tax remittance due February 20th.
Question #1 –Ballot Timing
Notify
County of
Election
Needs
June
Council
Adopts
Ordinance
End of
Aug
Ballot
Language
Certified
1st Week
Sept
Election
Day11/8/2022
Effective
Date of
Tax
1/1/2023
160197242
Question #2 –Purpose of Tax
Fee (Operational Based)Tax (Impact Based)Percent or
Priority
Zoning and Permitting Affordable Housing ?
Licensing, Auditing & Tax Collection Childcare ?
Life Safety Inspections Transit ?
Education of Regulations Environmental Impacts ?
Enforcement Efforts “Other”?
How Shall Tax Revenue Be Directed for Community Benefit?
161198243
Question
What are the desired uses for new tax collections?
Policy Outcomes
Address impacts to the Community for increased visitation and residential
development activity due to short-term rental lodging options
Staff Notes
Clearly define uses for new tax revenue
Create flexibility,within defined uses, to be nimble to changes
Transit impacts may not need to be prioritized at this time.
Question #2 –Purpose of Tax
162199244
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
Jurisdiction and Tax Type Rate
Levied
City of Aspen Sales Tax 2.40%
Pitkin County Sales Tax 3.60%
Roaring Fork Transit Authority Sales Tax 0.40%
State of Colorado Sales Tax 2.90%
Total Sales Tax 9.30%
City of Aspen Lodging Tax (on Room Sales)2.00%
Total Sales and Lodging Tax 11.30%
$24.5M in 2021
$15.3M –Parks & Open Space (1.5%)
$3.1M –Education (0.3%)
$2.5M –Childcare (0.45% * 55%)
$2.1M –Housing (0.45% * 45%)
$1.5M –Transportation (0.15%)
Next
Slide
163200245
2021 Taxable
Room Sales
Current
2.0% Tax
Percent of Total
Resources
STR Lodging*$82,600,000 $1,652,000 40%
Traditional Lodging $126,650,000 $2,533,000 60%
Total Lodging Industry $209,250,000 $4,185,000 100%
Transportation (0.50%)$1,046,250 25%
Tourism Promotion (1.50%)$3,138,750 75%
Total Use of Resources $4,185,000 100%
* Includes properties like the Gant, Aspen Square, Aspen Alps, etc. that are individually owned units.
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
Current Taxation In Place
164201246
Question
Does the current tax use align well with Community expectations?
Policy Outcomes
Ensuring existing resources are allocated for desired outcomes and
consistent with public interests.
Staff Notes
IF there were desired changes to this existing taxing authority, it would be a
separate ballot question and should be discussed for timing as well.
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
165202247
Flat Rate Per Bedroom / Pillow Count
Least preferrable option. Not significant disparity
for rentals of varying price points. Does not
achieve desired fairness outcomes.
Percentage of Nightly Rental Rate
Aligns with current tax structure for easy of
understanding and scales up to reflect premiums
charged for high-end rentals.
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
Options for
New Excise
Tax
166203248
2021 Taxable Room
Sales
Each Add’l 1.0% Tax
STR Sector of Lodging Economy $82,600,000 $826,000
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
Possible New Taxation
SHALL CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE INCREASED NOT MORE THAN $[____] COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2023, AND BY
WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE GENERATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXCISE TAX OF NOT MORE
THAN [___]%ON THE AMOUNT CHARGED TO ANY PERSON ON A NIGHTLY ROOM RATE AT ANY ACCOMMODATION OR
BUSINESS THAT IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A VACATION RENTAL PERMIT FROM THE CITY; AND SHALL THE REVENUE
GENERATED FROM SUCH TAX BE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE FUNDING [________________], WITH THE RATE OF TAX
BEING ALLOWED TO BE INCREASED OR DECREASED WITHOUT FURTHER VOTER APPROVAL SO LONG AS THE RATE OF
TAXATION DOES NOT EXCEED [___]%; AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, KEEP AND SPEND THE REVENUES
FROM SUCH TAX AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME THEREFROM NOTWITHSTANDING THE LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20
OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION?
167204249
What STR Industry Looks Like Today
Bedrooms Per
Listing
Number of
Rentals
Number of
Bedrooms
Total Heated
Area
Average Square
Feet Per Listing
Total Actual
Value
Total Assessed
Value
0 113 113*61,239 542 $117,330,500 $8,389,180
1 154 154 91,116 592 $146,012,700 $10,439,810
2 430 860 459,006 1,067 $899,114,000 $64,286,730
3 307 932 563,030 1,834 $1,153,142,000 $82,449,640
4 142 568 503,461 3,546 $945,690,700 $67,616,900
5 64 320 316,342 4,943 $544,402,000 $38,924,730
6 21 126 141,281 6,728 $259,273,900 $18,539,410
7 8 56 72,491 9,061 $155,489,600 $11,117,510
8 1 8 6,535 6,535 $18,786,000 $1,343,200
13 2 26 23,487 11,744 $34,875,700 $4,328,430
Totals:1,242*3,152 2,237,988 1,802 $4,274,117,100 $307,435,540
Not Shown:
21 Records
Still Vetting
* Includes properties like the Gant, Aspen Square, Aspen Alps, etc. that are individually owned units and make up a large
portion of the 0-, 1-and 2-bedroom units shown above.168205250
Actual Property Value for STR Listings $4,274,117,100
Assessed Value at Residential Rate $307,435,540
Assessed Value at Commercial Rate $1,239,493,959
Difference in Assessed Value $932,058,419
General Purpose & Clean River Program Mill Levies 4.788
Delta in Property Tax Revenue $4,462,696
Every 1% in Lodging Tax on STR Units Generates $826,000
Excise Tax Rate to Generate Equivalent $4.462M 5.4%
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
To solely address assessment rate variance, an
excise tax of 5.4% would be needed…
… with these resources applied to the above noted mill
levy areas or to other voter-approved purposes
169206251
Tax Rates Nightly Stay 29 Night Stay
Nightly Rate in Aspen $1,500.00 $45,000.00
City of Aspen Sales Tax 2.40%$36.00 $1,044.00
Pitkin County Sales Tax 3.60%$54.00 $1,566.00
Roaring Fork Transit Tax 0.40%$6.00 $174.00
State of Colorado Sales Tax 2.90%$43.50 $1,261.50
City of Aspen Current Lodging Tax 2.00%$30.00 $870.00
Subtotal: Current Existing Tax *$169.50 $4,915.50
A. New STR Tax (Just Property Tax)5.40%$81.00 $2,349.00
B. New STR Tax (?)???
Total: With Any Additional STR Tax *$250.50 $7,264.50
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
Based on 5/4/2022 Advertised Average Nightly Rate…
170207252
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
What are other communities doing?
Community Total Tax STR Tax STR Tax Specific Uses
Aspen 11.300%TBD TBD
Avon 14.400%2.00%Community Housing
Crested Butte 20.900%7.50%Affordable Housing
Frisco 15.725%5.00%Affordable Housing
Mt. Crested Butte 16.800%2.90%Affordable Housing
Ouray 27.950%15.00%Affordable Housing & Wastewater
Telluride 15.150%2.50%Affordable Housing
171208253
Policy Outcomes
Ensure alignment of existing resources is reflective of Community wishes
Establish new taxes for current unfunded impacts
Address concerns around fairness in lodging economy for taxation
Staff Notes
The timing of outcomes in areas of housing, childcare, environment, etc.
depend on resources available
The mill levy gap is only one area of disparity as there are other community
impacts that are not currently funded
Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much
172209254
Next Steps
Timing Drives Everything
November 2022 ballot question would force rapid process;
March 2023 allows for greater flexibility in process
Additional Work Session Tentatively Scheduled for June 7
Were all answers available around purpose and targeted level of
resources?
What questions does Council need analysis to for further
consideration?
173210255
City Council Work Session
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Haley Hart, Long-Range Planner
THROUGH: Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: September 12, 2022
MEETING DATE: September 19, 2022
RE: Council Work Session
Short-term Rental ‘Run-out’ Period
__________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff is providing information and research conducted on ‘run-out’ periods for short-term
rental (STR) permits. Staff requests Council direction on their desire to address ‘run-out’
for STR permits upon a sale of a home. The result of this Work Session will determine if
Council wishes staff to pursue a code amendment on this topic to the newly codified STR
Regulations.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
On June 28, 2022, Council passed Ordinance #09, Series of 2022, included as Exhibit B,
which created new STR regulations. The regulations include new definitions, a three-
permit system, caps for STR-C permits, new permitting requirements, occupancy and
operational standards, updated fees, active enforcement, and a non-transferability
clause. The non-transferability requirements are central to the run-out discussion. During
second reading on June 28th, public comment was received asking Council to consider a
specific circumstance where a property with existing reservations for STR stays would be
sold to another party prior to the commencement of the reserved rental dates. In response
to these comments, Council directed staff to return at a later date with research results of
what a ‘run-out’ period on STR permits upon a sale of a home might mean for the City’s
STR permit non-transferability policy.
Non-transferability of STR permits is a key feature of the new regulations – the most
important element of which is the attrition model to reduce the number of STR-C permits
over time. As read in the staff produced Short-term Rental Case Study, the research found
that non-transferability clauses were a common and equitable practice in achieving
attrition when a cap on the number of permits is in place. City Council directed staff to
reduce the number of permits in Aspen by 25% from the existing number of approximately
1,300. The cap set in place by Ordinance #09, Series 2022, applies to STR-C permits
256
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 2 of 5
and decreases the number of STR-C permits in capped zones from 11% to 8% of the
total number of residential units. Natural attrition through means of non-transferability will
support achieving this goal.
The City’s non-transferability clause states that STR permits may not be transferred to a
new owner when a property sells or from one residential address to other. The language
in Section 26.530.030.5 is as follows:
Non-Transferability. Commencing October 1, 2022, STR permits shall be granted only
for the property for which it is issued and solely to the permittee to whom it is issued.
The permit shall not be transferable to any other person, legal entity, or residential
address. If the property is owned by a partnership, corporation, association or company,
a transfer shall be deemed to occur if the permittee transfers his or her interest in the
property to a third-party individual or entity or if more than ten percent (10%) of the
partnership, corporation, association, or company is transferred to a third-party individual
or entity, even if the permittee retains an ownership interest in the property. Upon such
transfer of ownership, the permit shall be deemed terminated and revoked and the new
owner of the property shall be required to apply for a new STR permit if it wishes to
continue the use of the property as a vacation rental. The STR permit shall include a
non-transferability clause and notice that the permit shall be deemed terminated and
revoked automatically upon the sale or change of ownership of the property for which a
permit has been issued, as described herein.
There is no cap on STR-C permits in the C-1, CC, L and CL zones, or on STR-OO and
STR-LE permits. Although this regulation does apply to these permit types, un-capped
classic, owner-occupied and lodge units may apply for and subsequently may be granted
a new permit without being subject to the waitlist process. Only the STR-C permits within
capped zones will be subject to a waitlist. Therefore, those permit types may be the only
STR permits that will not be granted a permit within the 21-day timeframe of a completed
application and if applicable, noticing period. The ‘run-out’ topic specifically relates to
STR-C permits that are within capped zones.
On June 28th, Council heard from operators of the STR community. The primary concern
that STR operators communicated is the scenario of when a property has STR bookings
far into the future, but the property is sold prior to the bookings commencing. STR
operators feel that if bookings are canceled due to the non-transferabilty clause and
waitlist, it will harm the reputation of both the booking agent and City. There are often
financial concerns for STR operators and managers as well, whereby they may be held
liable to the customers for losses incurred because a booked property is no longer
available.
The other consideration brought forward by operators is if a new owner does decide to
continue with the prior bookings in honoring a contract for the bookings, without having
an issued permit, that would violate the STR policy. The new owner would potentially be
caught between the City’s regulation and the terms of a contract for the STR booking.
When staff asked operators within the STR Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) the
frequency of this challenge, there were two responses. One operator stated that in the
257
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 3 of 5
last three years this scenario had occurred approximately 10 times. The second operator
stated that they were unaware of any such occurrences currently, but in the past, they
typically have a short 30-60 days’ notice of an owner selling the unit; the number of times
this scenario had occurred was not mentioned by the second operator. 10 occurrences
out of the current 1,300 permits make this occurrence a percentage of 0.75% occurrences
per permitted STRs within the past three years. Given the likely high number of annual
bookings, that frequency is estimated to be significantly lower.
Subsequent to the passage of Ordinance #09, staff contacted the communities
interviewed for the STR Case Study Report. In response, out of the seven communities
who instituted a non-transferability clause in their STR Policy and responded to the
request, only one community, the Town of Breckenridge, responded that they institute a
temporary six-month license to honor previous bookings. This is due to the high number
of individually licensed condo-hotel rooms in their program and the frequency with which
those units are booked and sold.
Other responses included the acknowledgement that property owners should have a
sense of when they wish to sell a unit and could choose to stop taking bookings, or to
determine when a closing should occur to honor those bookings made by the owner and
their representatives. The Town of Crested Butte responded that they have seen the
owner and buyer negotiate a later closing date that allows the remaining summer or winter
bookings to take place. The City of Ouray responded that many agents work with the
previously made booking to find other units to place them in so that they may retain
business and reputation. Other communities responded that the community is well
informed on non-transferability and the topic has not been brought to City management,
because there are very few complaints about non-transferability. With the exception of
the Town of Breckenridge, other communities let the owner and buyer make the decisions
that best fits the needs of the renter, and the City is not party to the discussion.
In addition to staff’s outreach to the TAC and neighboring communities, staff contacted
VRBO to discuss how third-party operators conduct business upon the sale of a rental
property that they list and to understand how other municipalities respond. The VRBO
representative informed staff that they are not party to honoring any reservations that
were booked prior to a sale. VRBO leaves all decisions regarding prior booking to the
seller and the buyer, and that most jurisdictions do not attempt to legislate this process.
Verbatim responses from the TAC, neighboring communities and the VRBO
representative are included as Exhibit A, Summary of Responses.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
Staff has devoted time to research best practices on non-transferabilty and its relationship
to Council’s goals for the management of the STR permit program. Staff has also
conducted internal research with the City departments that would be responsible for
changing the code language and setting up an internal administrative system to
implement a ‘run-out’ period. Legal, Finance and Community Development have
discussed this policy alternative to the non-transferabilty clause and determined that for
258
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 4 of 5
a ‘run-out’ period to occur, a new, fourth, temporary permit would need to be created and
issued. This is the only means by which a ‘run-out’ period could be accounted for while
maintaining the City’s legal and regulatory position and not undermining the program.
In contemplating the creation of a fourth, temporary permit, staff identified the following
concerns:
• There are solutions available that do not require City intervention.
• Increased administrative workload to create and implement a fourth permit year-
round.
• A new permit would need to be built within MUNIRevs which requires additional
funding and a 10 to 12-week timeline for contracting and coding.
• Finance staff would need to develop a new system to gather information for taxes
and fees during the ‘run-out’ period, which is distinctly different than an annual
collection.
• Important regulatory compliance obligations such as HOA approval, inspections
and noticing would need to be omitted from the temporary permit issuance process
to meet the timeline needs of a new owner.
• Diversion of staff time to issue temporary permits would take resources away from
the monitoring and enforcing of regulations for exiting permit holders.
• Inequity for applicants and permit holders who are in other stages of the permitting
process due to the prioritization of the temporary permit issuance needing a quick
turnaround.
• A temporary STR permit would undermine the intention of the waitlist and permit
cap system as a temporary permit would skip the waitlist process and
subsequently create longer waiting times due to the diversion of the newly freed
STR-C permit to be put back into the system as a temporary permit.
• Unequal competition between owners and operators on the waitlist versus those
‘jumping the line’ through the temporary permit process. Bookings allowed to
remain in place for a newly sold property would get a temporary permit, yet would
deny that business to the next property on the waitlist.
A temporary STR permit reduces predictability for applicants on the waitlist, creates more
administrative workload for staff, and is a questionable customer service practice on the
City’s behalf based on the newly adopted STR regulations. Due to these concerns and
staff’s evaluation that need for a ‘run-out’ period is a relatively infrequent circumstance
that could be avoided by the private parties involved, staff does not support a run-out
period at this time.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS:
October 1, 2022 will be the date new STR owners and operators are allowed to apply for
new permits. All ‘grandpersoned’ permits must renew their permit by December 31, 2022.
Staff is dedicated to a smooth launch and requests that any code amendments desired
by Council to respond to the ‘run-out’ concept also consider the time and resources
required to create a new program.
259
STR ‘Run-out’ Period
September 12, 2022
Page 5 of 5
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The Finance team has confirmed a fourth permit within
MUNIRevs would incur additional costs. There would need to be a new contract and a 10
to 12-week period to code the new permit into the system. Estimated costs are $3,000 for
the first year to create the temporary permit, and $1,800 for annual fees thereafter.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Take no action and staff will continue to evaluate the topic as the program rolls
out.
2. Direct staff to pursue a code amendment that creates a fourth, temporary permit
type to accommodate the ‘run-out’ period.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that Council does not pursue a ‘run-out’
period for STR permits upon the sale of a home. A ‘run-out’ period counters the intention
of the non-transferabilty clause and waitlist and would create burden on both the
administrative application of a temporary permit and the legal boundaries the City would
be party to in administrating it upon the private sale of a home. Staff supports that an
owner and buyer may be able to privately determine how to best accommodate future
bookings in the case of a property sale.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Summary of Responses
Exhibit B – Ordinance #09, Series of 2022
260