HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20251117AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
November 17, 2025
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Kids First Early Childhood Community Needs Assessment Report and Presentation
I.B Clean River Program Urban Runoff Management Plan 2025 Update
II.Council discussion of the items published in the most recent information update,
as needed
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83916672378?pwd=jtL4D0iPbNbkG4ALHKrEGVQHCC64qt.1
Passcode:81611
Join via audio:
+1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 839 1667 2378
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kiitI0k3B
11.17.25 Kids First Early Childhood Community Needs Assessment Council Work
Session Memo Final.pdf
City of Aspen_child care needs assessment final report_092225_PRINT
11.11.2025.pdf
URMP Update Staff Report_11.10.2025.docx
Attachement A-Criteria for a Major Engineering Review Checklist.pdf
1
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Megan Monaghan and Nancy Nichols Co-Managers, Kids First
THROUGH: Pete Strecker, City Manager,
Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2025
RE: Council Early Childhood Education Goal - Kids First City of Aspen
Community Childcare Needs Assessment Report
_____________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE:
Present the findings of the City of Aspen Child Care Community Needs Assessment.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The City of Aspen and Kids First commissioned a comprehensive needs assessment to evaluate
the childcare landscape in Pitkin County and the broader Roaring Fork Valley. The assessment
examined both current and projected childcare needs, identifying areas of strength as well as
gaps in meeting the needs of families across the region.
Key findings, needs, and opportunities:
• Unmet Needs: Pitkin County experiences ongoing fluctuations in early childhood
enrollment patterns. Data from the spring and summer of 2025 indicated a shortage of
infant and toddler care and sufficient capacity for preschool-age children. More recent
data, however, shows available spaces across all age groups, reflecting the dynamic and
changing nature of childcare demand in the community.
• Affordability & Access: Families report affordability, flexible hours, and accessible
locations as major barriers.
• Regional Demand: Families commuting from Garfield and Eagle counties create
additional demand in Pitkin County, particularly for infant/toddler care.
• Risk to Existing Providers: Adding preschool slots at Burlingame without targeted
support may threaten the financial sustainability of existing providers, some of whom
already face enrollment challenges.
• Design Flexibility: Future designs should allow for reconfiguration as demographics and
age group demands shift.
• Facility and Housing Co-Location: Co-locating provider housing with childcare facilities
could reduce operational costs, improve retention, and enhance service stability.
2
2
Conclusion
At the time this report was prepared, Pitkin County faced an unmet need for infant and toddler
(I/T) childcare. Current data, however, indicates that immediate demand for I/T spaces has
declined, while demand for preschool and pre-kindergarten (Pre-K) spaces has recently
increased. This shift highlights the inherent variability of early childhood care needs within our
valley. While future demand cannot be forecast with certainty, historical trends demonstrate
that additional I/T and preschool capacity will likely be required in the coming years.
Recommendations
Given these fluctuating needs and the City’s ability to remain responsive, staff recommend
returning to City Council in early 2026 for a facilitated work session. This session will provide an
opportunity to evaluate the advantages and challenges of constructing the Burlingame Early
Childhood Education Center and to explore potential alternative strategies. Kids First is well
positioned to adapt to this evolving landscape and to play a key role in addressing future needs.
The proposed work session will focus on how Kids First can best support this effort, including
consideration of how the Burlingame facility could contribute to meeting the community’s long-
term early childhood education goals.
3
CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
4
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Sarah Hughes of Groundswell
for Good, LLC and Beth Melton of Melton Strategic
Solutions, LLC with support from Kids First leadership.
Kids First and the consulting team are deeply appreciative
of the families, child care providers, employers, and
community members who graciously shared their time and
expertise during the course of this needs assessment.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
BACKGROUND 10
GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT 11
CONTEXT 13
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND 19
PROVIDER SUSTAINABILITY 32
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS 33
CONCLUSION 38
APPENDICES 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5
Background: While this report seeks to evaluate the full picture of child care needs for families in
Pitkin County, Kids First and the City of Aspen are particularly interested in evaluating the need
for a child care center at Burlingame Ranch. This report provides both general information to
understand child care needs and specific information and recommendations to support decision-
making on this proposed project.
The Burlingame Early Childhood Education Center, as currently envisioned, would be a 15,300-
square-foot licensed center with three playgrounds. The center would have slots for 16 infants,
20 toddlers, and 58 preschoolers, requiring approximately 24 staff members. The cost estimate
for the facility was about $15 million in 2022.
QUESTION: IS THERE A NEED FOR THE PROPOSED BURLINGAME CHILD CARE CENTER?
OBSERVATIONS:
There is a need for additional child care capacity for some age groups in Pitkin County and
the Roaring Fork Valley more generally. Pitkin County has an unmet need for child care for
infants and toddlers under age 2.5. Child care availability for preschoolers is more sufficient.
Families have unmet needs for child care including:
Availability for infants and toddlers
Affordability
Hours of care that match their work schedules
Accessible locations near where they live or work
Due to known constraints in the child care business model, creating new preschool slots in
Pitkin County without additional support for existing providers may threaten their financial
sustainability and destabilize the local child care landscape.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Burlingame child care center as currently envisioned has the potential to harm the
existing child care infrastructure by contributing to an oversupply of preschool slots. The
proposed model for the center should be reevaluated due to operational concerns and the
potential impact on existing providers.
Efforts to increase child care capacity with a new facility or other strategies should be aligned
with the unmet needs of families.
A new center will only benefit the community to the extent that existing providers are
supported and the specific needs and preferences of families are addressed.
BURLINGAME ANALYSIS
AT A GLANCE
6
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
4
Child care is an integral piece of the fabric of a community. Most parents of young children rely
on others to help care for their child during their earliest years, and families and children thrive
when they can access the type of care they need and want, whether they choose a child care
center, preschool, nanny, or family member to care for their children. Child care is also a vital
underpinning for the local economy, supporting parents’ ability to participate in the workforce,
and ensuring employers have access to the labor force they need to operate successfully.
The City of Aspen has long demonstrated a strong commitment to helping families who live or
work in Pitkin County access the care they need to remain and thrive in the community. Still, the
City wrestles with questions plaguing many communities: Is there enough child care for families
who need it? What will child care needs look like in the future? And how can we ensure the
community’s child care options truly meet families’ needs and preferences for care?
These questions are of particular importance as the City weighs the creation of a new child care
facility in the Burlingame Ranch neighborhood. Making significant investments in child care
capacity requires a careful weighing of factors such as the current and future demand for care,
the sustainability of existing providers, and the needs of families in the region.
There are several approaches to quantifying the need for child care, each with its own benefits
and limitations. Unlike projecting housing needs, where it can be reasonably assumed that every
family will need housing, the number of decision points families face when choosing whether to
use child care—and what types of providers to use—makes estimating child care demand a
complex undertaking. Commonly used methods of quantifying the need for care include
comparing the population of young children in a community to the number of licensed child care
slots, assessing the need for care by examining the share of children with parents in the
workforce, and analyzing waitlist data from existing providers. Additional consideration of the
varying needs and preferences of families regarding location, curriculum, teacher qualifications,
hours of operation, provider language, and other factors are critical for understanding whether
community child care needs are being met.
Estimating the need for child care in Pitkin County adds other layers of complexity. In a deeply
interconnected region like the Roaring Fork Valley, families regularly cross county lines for child
care or employment opportunities – meaning an analysis isolated to Pitkin County will not
sufficiently capture the need for child care in the community. This needs assessment therefore
considers the child care needs of families from Pitkin County, as well as neighboring Garfield and
western Eagle counties, to provide a clearer picture of demand from across the region.
7
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5
Drawing on data from a survey of families, focus groups with parents, an analysis of demographic
and workforce data, and interviews with child care providers, employers, and community-based
organizations, this report fulfills the following objectives:
Provides an overview of families’ current child care arrangements, preferences related to child
care, and barriers they face to accessing care.
Summarizes the existing supply of licensed child care in Pitkin County.
Explores the factors that drive demand for child care in Pitkin County—both current demand
and projected future demand.
Summarizes this information to draw conclusions about the adequacy of child care supply and
whether this supply will meet projected future needs.
Outlines key considerations for the City of Aspen when deciding whether to invest in a new
child care center in the Burlingame Ranch neighborhood.
By accomplishing these objectives, the assessment equips the City of Aspen and Kids First with
comprehensive data that can inform decisions about the creation of new child care capacity in the
community.
8
KEY FINDINGS FROM THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT INCLUDE:
Most families in the region use some form of non-parental child care.
The share of young children living in families where all parents in the family are working is
very high in the Roaring Fork Valley, and most families rely on some form of child care. More
than eight in 10 families in the Roaring Fork Valley reported in the family survey that they use
some form of non-parental child care during a typical week.
Families report using both licensed care (e.g., child care centers or preschools) as well as
license-exempt or informal care (e.g., nannies or nanny shares, family members, friends, or
neighbors). The most common source of care for families who report using child care is a
child care center. Many families, however, report piecing together care from multiple sources
in order to meet their needs. Use of license-exempt or informal care varied by race/ethnicity,
with Hispanic or Latino families reporting using this type of care at higher rates than white
families.
Many parents who commute from surrounding areas would like to use child care in Pitkin
County, creating additional demand that must be considered alongside demand from families
who live in Pitkin County.
The ratio of young children who live in Pitkin County to the number of child care slots, a
measure commonly used to assess whether a community is a licensed child care “desert,” is
not as high in Pitkin County as in many other communities across the state. However, families
who commute to Pitkin County for work create additional demand from outside the county,
and this demand must be accounted for when assessing the need for child care.
Among families who live in Garfield or Eagle County but commute to Pitkin County for work,
approximately one-quarter of those who do not currently have child care in Pitkin County
indicated they would prefer to use a Pitkin County provider.
Families who do not currently use child care in Pitkin County perceive it as unaffordable.
When asked what would need to change for them to use child care in Pitkin County,
commuting parents who want to use a Pitkin County child care provider were most likely to
cite a need for a lower cost of care. Kids First offers financial aid to families who live or work
in Pitkin County, and ensuring families across the region are aware of this resource could help
more parents afford the care they need. Families would also benefit from increased financial
aid support.
6
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
9
7
Pitkin County has an unmet need for child care for infants and toddlers. Child care for
preschoolers is more sufficient, and creating new preschool slots may threaten the
sustainability of existing providers.
Considering population estimates and forecasts, family experiences shared during focus
groups, licensed child care capacity data, and family survey data, Pitkin County likely has a
shortage of child care slots for infants and toddlers (children under 2.5 years of age). Without
additional capacity that meets families’ needs, it is likely that this shortage may worsen in
future years as the young child population in the Roaring Fork Valley is projected to grow
through 2040.
Care for preschool-aged children (ages 2.5 to 5 years old and not yet in kindergarten) is more
widely available in the community, and families of preschoolers generally feel they have more
options from which to choose. Many providers and some focus group participants expressed
a concern that unfilled preschool slots are negatively impacting the finances of existing child
care providers.
Although the supply of preschool care comes close to meeting demand, availability of slots is
only one component of child care access. It is important that the City of Aspen continue to
consider how existing care options meet families’ needs for care that aligns with their work
schedules, preferences regarding curriculum and approach to education, and ability to afford
care.
When I was desperately looking for infant child care, I had to become part-time at
work, so my work suffered. … We ended up miraculously finding three days a week
[in another county]. And I was forced to travel 40 minutes one way for drop-off, 40
minutes back home to work, 40 minutes to pick up, and 40 minutes back home.
In bad weather during the winter, I was on the road four to five hours per day.
That is not healthy for my baby, it's not healthy for me, and it's just flat out not safe.
Nearby, reliable daycare was what saved my life!”
- Family survey respondent
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10
8
Efforts to increase child care capacity with a new facility or other strategies will only benefit
the community to the extent that existing providers are supported and the specific needs and
preferences of families are addressed.
Current providers are experiencing challenges with preschool enrollment, recruitment and
retention of staff, and generating sufficient revenue to cover the full cost of care. Without
careful consideration of how to mitigate these challenges, a new child care facility could
exacerbate the issues.
Families are experiencing challenges with the cost and operating hours of existing child care
programs. Any future facilities and programs should seek to address these needs.
The child care facility at Burlingame, as currently envisioned, should be reevaluated due to
several operational concerns and the potential impact on existing providers.
The current vision for the Burlingame child care facility includes a significant (16%) increase
in preschool capacity in Pitkin County, which has the potential to harm the financial and
operational sustainability of both the Burlingame center and other area providers.
However, families do have unmet child care needs, and a child care center in the Burlingame
neighborhood presents a unique opportunity to support an increase in child care supply that
meets specific unmet needs for care. Options for increasing the viability and utility of a
potential new center include:
Changing the vision and operating model of the new center to target the specific needs of
families in Pitkin County, such as care for children under 2.5 years old, expanded
affordability for families, and extended hours/days.
Building a space that is flexible and can be modified to meet current needs and adapted
to meet any changing needs in the future (i.e., building spaces that can be flexible to
adapt to changing needs for different age groups based on square footage, bathroom
placement, plumbing, etc.).
Utilizing the space and programming to help increase recruitment and retention of child
care teachers (e.g., dedicated housing or training programs).
Revising funding policies to help all providers maintain financial viability when they have
fluctuating enrollment (e.g., base pay or enhanced payments for infant and toddler slots).
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
11
9
For parents, deciding who will help care for their children during their earliest years of life is a
deeply personal and important choice. Although this needs assessment provides rich data on the
child care preferences and experiences of Roaring Fork Valley families, the complexity of
decision-making around child care—and the role that broader social and economic trends play in
the need for child care—makes true demand challenging to predict. Moving forward, it will be
important for the City of Aspen to stay apprised of demographic and economic trends and adjust
child care plans as needed. By pairing new, comprehensive data on families’ needs and
preferences with an analysis of demographic data on the region, this needs assessment provides
a strong foundation from which the City can build as it continues its work to ensure every family
who lives or works in Pitkin County has access to the child care they need.
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
12
BACKGROUND
10
In Aspen, child care has been a public policy priority for many years, and the City has made
significant strides toward helping more families access care. However, many families still struggle
to find child care that meets their needs.
This report was commissioned by Kids First to assess the current and future child care needs
within the Roaring Fork Valley to inform policy, planning, resource allocation, and potential
developments. This report seeks to holistically evaluate the complex factors related to the supply
and demand of child care to paint a clear picture of where there are strengths and gaps and help
guide the City’s decision-making about future efforts.
KIDS FIRST
Kids First is an early childhood resource center and department of the City of Aspen. Created in
1990, Kids First receives a portion of a dedicated sales tax within the City to support child care.
Kids First provides support across Pitkin County, including child care financial aid for parents,
supportive funding for child care programs, quality incentives for child care staff, quality
improvement coaching for child care programs, professional development for educators, early
childhood mental health and nurse consultation for child care programs, and parenting workshops.
BURLINGAME CHILD CARE FACILITY
While this report seeks to evaluate the full picture of child care needs for families in Pitkin County,
Kids First and the City are particularly interested in evaluating the need for a child care facility at
Burlingame Ranch. This report provides both general information to understand child care needs
and specific information and recommendations to support decision-making on this proposed
project.
Between 2000 and 2011, the City went through a series of approvals for the development of
Burlingame Ranch. As a part of these processes, the City approved an allowance for one parcel
(Parcel C) to be used for a child care center. In 2017, the City of Aspen purchased Burlingame
Ranch with the intent to develop affordable housing.
13
11
A design team was contracted by the City in 2022 and developed several design schemes for a
child care center, which were then refined by a design advisory group. The design process included
input from Kids First, as well as neighborhood and community members. A final preferred design
for the child care facility was identified by City Council in late 2022 and included in a land use
application, which was approved in May 2024.
The center, as currently envisioned, would be a 15,300-square-foot licensed center with three
playgrounds. The center would have slots for 16 infants, 20 toddlers, and 58 preschoolers,
requiring approximately 24 staff members. The cost estimate for the facility was about $15 million
in 2022.
Kids First has been building up a reserve fund in anticipation of contributing to fundraising for the
development of a new center. However, before proceeding with fundraising for this project, Kids
First requested a Community Child Care Needs Assessment to measure and forecast the need for
additional child care slots in the community in general and to help evaluate the need for a new
center at the Burlingame location.
BACKGROUND
14
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
OF THE ASSESSMENT
12
1. Understand current and future child care needs in Pitkin County.
Kids First seeks to develop a holistic view of the child care needs of families who live or work in
Pitkin County, including identifying gaps in child care services, understanding how community
demographics are impacting child care needs, and gathering input from parents, providers, and
other stakeholders to inform next steps. Specifically, this assessment:
Examines the current supply and demand for child care services in Pitkin County.
Gathers demographic and other population data to understand the needs of families who live
and/or work in Pitkin County.
Assesses child care availability against the needs and desires of families.
Shares input on current and future child care needs from community members.
2. Evaluate the need for a child care center at Burlingame Ranch.
Additionally, the City of Aspen and Kids First will use the information gathered to inform decisions
about the development of a new child care center at Burlingame Ranch.
GEOGRAPHIC & DEMOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THIS ASSESSMENT
This needs assessment was designed to understand the child care needs of families with children
from birth through 5 years old who live and/or work in Aspen and Pitkin County. Because of the
unique interconnectedness and commuting patterns in the Roaring Fork Valley, data collection and
analysis includes families in Pitkin, western Eagle, and Garfield counties. The report also includes
analysis and perspectives of licensed child care providers operating in Pitkin County. The needs
assessment also considers families’ needs and preferences with regard to license-exempt family,
friend, neighbor, and/or nanny providers. Community-serving organizations and large employers
provided additional context through interviews.
METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW
This needs assessment was conducted using mixed methods, including:
Review of secondary data on demographics and commuting patterns for the region.
A comprehensive survey that assessed the child care needs, preferences, and experiences
of families (see Appendices A and B for a detailed overview of results);
Focus groups with families of young children (see Appendix C).
Interviews with licensed child care providers (see Appendix D).
Interviews with leaders of community organizations (see Appendix E).
Interviews with large employers (see Appendix F).
15
13
CURRENT CHILD
CARE CONTEXT
The family survey, focus groups, and interviews with providers yielded important information about
the current child care arrangements of families in the region. More than eight in 10 families in the
Aspen-to-Parachute region use child care, with licensed, center-based care being the most
common option. However, many parents report they rely on license-exempt or informal
arrangements (e.g., nannies, au pairs, family members or friends) as well, with use of informal care
higher among Hispanic or Latino families, as well as families who live in Garfield County. Many
families also combine types of care, piecing together care from multiple sources to meet their child
care needs.
We have had to use three different child care providers within the week to piece together care so we
can both work, which has significant stress on both child and family.”
- Family survey respondent
Parents in Garfield and Eagle counties who responded to the family survey reported more difficulty
finding care for their children, echoing themes heard in focus groups conducted with local parents.
Families with infants and toddlers were also more likely than those with preschoolers to report that
finding care for their child was very difficult.
Although finding care can be challenging, families who have care are generally satisfied with the
care their child receives. Among those who were not satisfied with their care, cost and a mismatch
between provider operating hours and families’ work schedules were commonly reported sources
of frustration.
Child care [until] 5:15 made a huge difference to us. Even when it was 5 pm, it was challenging. We
couldn't use care that ends at 3 pm or we wouldn't be able to work.”
- Family survey respondent
Finally, some children in the region are not regularly cared for by anyone other than a parent or
guardian. The cost of care, parental preference to care for their children, and inability to find a slot
that meets their needs were commonly reported reasons why families did not use any type of non-
parental care. About two-thirds of families who did not currently use child care said they would like
to use it if they could find an option that meets their needs.
For more detailed information on the current child care arrangements and preferences among
families in the region, please see Appendix B.
16
14
FAMILY AND EMPLOYER IMPACTS
Through a survey, focus groups, and interviews, parents shared many stories demonstrating how
families are making it work when they are unable to find or afford the child care they need. Some
shared that relatives relocated from far away to help provide care for young children. Others told
stories about their concern for the health and safety of their children as they accept any care they
can find, even when they are not comfortable with the care environment. Many participants shared
their concern about the future of the community because they perceive that families are moving
out of the area or choosing not to have children because they can’t afford to live in the valley.
Employers shared that they offer significant flexibility to employees to accommodate their child
care needs, but for those in critical frontline positions – service roles, patient care, or teaching, for
example – flexibility is typically not an option. Employers also observe that their employees who
are women seem to be more impacted by child care challenges than men. Employers consistently
see that child care is a significant concern for potential and current employees, following cost of
living and housing as primary barriers to working in the area.
Additionally, family survey respondents shared that their employment has been disrupted due to
problems with child care. Approximately 37% of survey respondents reported that child care
problems caused someone in their family to quit a job, not take a job, or greatly change their job in
the past 12 months due to problems with child care. More than half reported that child care
challenges had caused them to use vacation days, sick days or other paid leave, and one-third
reported that they had to take unpaid leave. More than 40% reported cutting their work hours due
to child care problems. Approximately 12% reported they had left a job due to child care
challenges, and nearly 20% reported not looking for a job in order to care for children.
CONTEXT
17
15
WHAT FACTORS INFLUENCE THE DEMAND FOR CHILD CARE?
Understanding how demand for child care among families in the region compares to supply is a
primary objective of this needs assessment. Assessing the demand for child care is more
complex than comparing the number of licensed slots to the number of children in the
community, although this information provides a basis for analysis. When making decisions
about where their children will be cared for, each family considers factors such as alignment with
their work schedules, preferences for in-home or center-based care, cost, and curriculum, among
other criteria.
Projecting the need for child care becomes even more complex in a community like Pitkin County
that is closely interconnected with communities throughout the Roaring Fork and Colorado River
Valleys. Because Pitkin County is a major employment center in the region, parents who
commute to work in Aspen from communities in Garfield and western Eagle County are also
potential users of child care in Pitkin County. Data collected by Kids First from Pitkin County child
care programs in April 2025 indicated that many families cross county lines for child care, with
approximately 22% of children enrolled in licensed Pitkin County programs living outside of Pitkin
County. The child care needs and preferences of families who commute into Aspen from other
communities must be considered alongside those of families who reside in Pitkin County in order
to obtain the full picture of demand for care.
The data on demand for child care included in this report are estimates derived from the best
available data sources. Estimates are inherently imperfect, however, and demand is always
subject to change if there are unanticipated developments related to housing supply, employment
or commuting patterns, policy changes, or larger social and economic trends.
KEY QUESTIONS
Understanding the demand for child care in Pitkin County requires answering fundamental
questions, including:
How many young children live in the region?
Of those children, how many live in families who need or want child care in Pitkin County?
Does the available child care supply align with the needs and desires of families?
How might the demand for care change in the future based on projected demographic
changes?
Pairing quantitative data from the family survey conducted as part of the needs assessment and
public data from sources such as the Colorado State Demography Office and the U.S. Census
Bureau–alongside qualitative data collected through focus groups and interviews–can help
answer these questions and inform decisions about whether or how to invest in initiatives to
increase child care capacity in Aspen and Pitkin County.
CONTEXT
18
16
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN PITKIN COUNTY & THE BROADER REGION
Changes in the child population of the region will naturally drive changes in demand for child care.
Several data sources point to a declining population of young children in Pitkin County in recent
years. The population of children under 6 in Pitkin County declined by nearly 13% (115 children)
during the decade spanning 2013 to 2023. Births to Pitkin County families fell by more than 11%
between 2013 and 2023, and enrollment in the Aspen School District in 2024-2025 was
approximately 10% lower than it had been a decade earlier.
1
2,3
Neighboring Garfield County has also seen a decline in the number of children ages birth through
5. The number of births in Garfield County fell by 6% between 2013 and 2023, and the young child
population declined by 11% during the same period. 4,5
Comparable child population estimates specific to the small part of western Eagle County in the
Roaring Fork Valley are not available from the Colorado State Demography Office. However, data
from the U.S. Census Bureau show that the population of young children declined in Basalt
between 2014-2018 and 2019-2023, while the population of young children in El Jebel increased
significantly.6
Source: Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Estimates.
*Comparable child population estimates specific to western Eagle County are not available.
CONTEXT
19
17
Source: Colorado Department of Education. Grade Level Membership by LEA.
Population forecasts indicate that the young child population in Pitkin County is expected to
continue declining through 2030, at which point it is projected to grow incrementally through
2040. Overall, projections suggest Pitkin County’s young child population will decline by 8% (61
children) between 2024 and 2040. It is important to note, however, that housing developments
on the horizon in Pitkin County – such as the Lumberyard development – are not yet reflected in
population projections and could result in an increased number of children in the community
above what current projections suggest.
7
8
In contrast to Pitkin County, Garfield County’s young child
population is projected to increase significantly in the
coming years, growing by 11% (471 children) between
2025 and 2030 and by 43% (nearly 2,000 children)
between 2025 and 2040. Considering Garfield and Pitkin
counties together, the population of children under 6 is
projected to increase by 36% (nearly 1,900 children)
between 2025 and 2040
9
.10
Overall, the young child population in Eagle County as a
whole is expected to decline by 6% between 2025 and
2030 and increase by 28% between 2025 and 2040.11
CONTEXT
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN PITKIN COUNTY & THE BROADER REGION
20
18
EMPLOYMENT AND WORKFORCE CHARACTERISTICS
Labor force participation among parents is another key driver of child care demand. The vast
majority of young children in Pitkin County live in families where parents are working.
Approximately 88% of Pitkin County children under 6 live in families where all parents in the
family are in the labor force, significantly higher than the state-level rate of 67%. Nearly 75% of
young children in Eagle County and 67% of young children in Garfield County live in families
where all parents are working. Children in these households most likely need some sort of non-
parental child care during a typical week.
12
13
Source: Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Forecasts.
Regional commuting patterns are also
important to consider when estimating
child care demand, as some parents may
prefer to have their child cared for by a
provider closer to their place of
employment or along their route to work.
Employers in Aspen and Pitkin County
draw people from across the region, with
the majority of the workforce coming
from outside the county.An estimated
15% of Garfield County workers and 11%
of Eagle County workers commute to
Pitkin County for their jobs.These
commuters are an important population
to consider when estimating demand for
care in Pitkin County.
14
15
CONTEXT
21
19
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY
& DEMAND
As of July 2025, Pitkin County is home to 14 licensed child care providers that serve young
children: 10 center-based programs, two school-based preschool programs, one large family
child care home, and one center operated by Aspen Ski Company for part of the year.*In
addition to licensed providers, families also use license-exempt care provided by nannies or
nanny shares, au pairs, family members, friends, or neighbors. Approximately 10% of survey
respondents who use child care reported solely using license-exempt care, and many more use
license-exempt care in combination with other forms of care (e.g., a nanny in combination with a
licensed preschool). Focus group data also reflected these findings. The supply of licensed care
is the primary focus of this analysis. However, given data collected for this assessment and
national data indicating that many families rely on and/or prefer informal care, it is reasonable to
assume that some families are having their child care needs met through informal care
arrangements. This assessment seeks to understand what additional needs are not being met.
16
More than half of the licensed providers in Pitkin County (eight providers) are located in Aspen,
with the remainder located in Basalt (3), Snowmass Village (2), and Woody Creek (1). In total,
licensed providers in Pitkin County are licensed to serve a total of 508 young children as of July
2025. In practice, the actual number of children who can be served is likely below this number
due to staffing shortages or provider decisions to keep class sizes smaller.
17
18
Licensed Child Care Capacity in Pitkin County (July 2025)*
License Type Licensed Capacity
Child care center (not operated by a school district)428
Child care or preschool operated by a school district 68
Large family child care home 12
TOTAL 508
What is the existing supply of licensed child care in Pitkin County?
Source: Colorado Department of Early Childhood. Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.
* Child care capacity at the center operated by Aspen Ski Company is excluded from data on the number of
child care slots in the community because they are only open for part of the year and largely serve tourists.
22
20
How does current supply compare to demand?
As of July 2025, Pitkin County has 508 licensed child care slots and an estimated 631 children
under 6 who are not yet in kindergarten. As noted previously, however, assessing whether child
care supply can meet demand is more complex than comparing the population size to the
amount of licensed care available. Other factors such as parent needs, preferences, and work
schedules; commuting patterns; and differing availability of care by age group also influence
demand for care. Each of these factors is examined below to deepen understanding of whether
there are unmet needs for child care in Pitkin County.
+
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Among parents in the region, how many would prefer to have their children cared for by
a Pitkin County provider?
Roaring Fork Valley parents and employers report long commute times by car or bus, and the
location of care is especially important because families may need to add significant time to a
commute to drop children off at care. In both focus groups and the survey, families were asked
about their preferred child care locations.
Data from the family survey show that location is an important consideration for parents in need
of child care, with an average importance ranking of 4 out of 5, where 5 is most important.
However, location ranked below other factors such as quality of care, stability or reliability, and
curriculum or educational activities.
Parents in the focus groups were asked if they would prefer
care close to their home or close to where they work, and
they were largely divided on this question. Parents who prefer
care near home shared concerns with having children in the
car for a long commute, wanting their children to be in care
with the children they will go to elementary school with, and
the desire to be close in case of an emergency. Parents who
prefer care near work shared that they value being able to
better align work and child care schedules, the ability to
breastfeed during the day when children are infants, and the
need to pick children up in an emergency. Many parents in
the focus groups already had care in Pitkin County and
shared that they see more need for additional care in Garfield
County and western Eagle County than in Aspen.
+ This estimated population number assumes one-third of 5-year-olds are not
yet in kindergarten and will potentially need child care.
23
21
Preferences for the location of care by county of residence: Family survey data show that nearly
all families who live in Pitkin County and have a child in child care use a Pitkin County child care
provider (91%), whether that care is licensed or license-exempt. Among respondents who live
outside of Pitkin County but work in Pitkin County and have their child in some form of care, 34%
reported they currently use care in Pitkin County.
Reasons why commuters to Pitkin County use care in another location: Respondents who
commute to Pitkin County and use care in another county were asked why they use care outside
of Pitkin County. The most commonly reported response was that it was more convenient to their
home (71%). More than one-third (38%) reported using a provider outside of Pitkin County
because it was more convenient for their commute to work, and 38% said they used care outside
of Pitkin County because the cost was lower.
Desire for Pitkin County care among commuting parents: Among parents who commute to work
in Pitkin County from another county in the valley and currently use a child care provider outside
of Pitkin County, approximately one-quarter said they would prefer to use care in Pitkin County if
an option met their needs. When asked what would need to change in order for them to use a
provider in Pitkin County, nearly all said they would need a lower cost of care (94%). More than
half (56%) indicated they would prefer to use a Pitkin County provider if there were more
availability, and nearly 40% said they would use a Pitkin County provider if there were expanded
operating hours.
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
of parents who commute to Pitkin County for work but
currently use a child care provider in another county
indicated they would prefer to use care in Pitkin County.
Source: Kids First Community Child Care Needs Survey.
24
22
These preferences suggest that while most parents commuting to Pitkin County for work prefer
to use a provider closer to their home, there is a sizable share of commuting parents who would
like to have their children cared for by a Pitkin County provider. However, the cost of care (or
perceived cost of care), availability of slots, and operating hours may be barriers to using a Pitkin
County child care provider.
Desire for Pitkin County care among parents who do not currently use child care: Parents who
do not currently use any form of child care are also potential users of child care in Pitkin County.
Approximately two-thirds of these families reported they would use child care if an option met
their needs. Of those parents, nearly 60% said they would prefer care in Pitkin County. The
preference for Pitkin County care largely fell along geographic lines. There were strong
preferences for Pitkin County care among families living in Pitkin County and little preference for
Pitkin County care among families living elsewhere who are not currently using any form of child
care.
Among parents who want care in Pitkin County, which parts of the county are perceived
as most convenient?
Survey respondents who indicated a preference for care in Pitkin County were also asked about
their preferred locations within Pitkin County. The most popular location among these parents
was Basalt, with 44% of parents indicating a preference for this area. The area outside of
downtown Aspen (where the proposed Burlingame facility would be located) was the second-
most popular location, chosen by 35% of parents. Aspen central core was the third most popular
choice, with 32% of parents indicating a preference for care here.++
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Source: Kids First Community Child Care Needs Survey.
Percentages will not add up to 100 because families could select more than one preferred location. ++
25
23
Approximately 15% of workers who live in Garfield County and 11% of those who live in Eagle
County commute to Pitkin County for work. These data are for all workers, not specifically
workers with children. However, if we assume that commuting percentages among parents are
roughly similar and that one-quarter of commuter parents prefer care in Pitkin County (based on
family survey results), children of commuting parents could represent an estimated additional
100 to 150 children who could be included in the estimated demand for Pitkin County care.
**19
It is important to note, however, that a preference for care in Pitkin County does not guarantee
that families will ultimately choose a child care slot in Pitkin County. Families may encounter
other barriers related to affordability, operating hours, or preferences related to the program’s
curriculum, and the true demand for care from commuting parents may be below this estimate.
How do supply and demand for child care vary by age group?
Parents who participated in the focus groups consistently shared that finding child care for
infants and toddlers (children under 2.5 years old) was extremely difficult and that they do not
feel like they have choices among providers when their children are very young. Some shared
stories of joining waitlists early in their pregnancies and being on waitlists for years before
getting care for their young child. Parents generally felt that there were far more options for care
once their children reached preschool age. Providers echoed these observations, sharing that
they are often operating at or near full capacity for infants and toddlers, but several have
openings for preschool-aged children.
Infant care is so hard to find, it’s all so expensive, and families don't get much of a choice in quality.
It's just a matter of where you get in…”
- Family survey respondent
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
** Note that the most recent available commuting pattern data from 2017 to 2021 include pre-pandemic years
when employees were more likely to commute to a physical office. It is possible that commuting percentages are
lower following the pandemic due to the increased prevalence of remote work. In the family survey, more than
half of respondents indicated that someone in their household worked from home at least one day per week, and
interview and focus group participants shared an observation that child care needs have shifted with the increase
in hybrid or remote work following the pandemic.
26
24
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Is there enough child care in Pitkin County for all families who want it?
Based on findings from the focus groups, provider interviews, licensing data, and family survey,
it is likely that there is an unmet need for infant and toddler care in Pitkin County, particularly
when factoring in potential demand from children who live outside the county. There are
currently approximately 1.82 infants and 1.56 toddlers for every licensed child care slot, not
including children whose parents commute to work in Pitkin County and indicate that they want
care there. Including an estimated number of children from outside of Pitkin County whose
parents indicate they want care in Pitkin County, these ratios increase to 2.36 infants per
licensed slot and 1.89 toddlers per licensed slot.
The generally accepted definition of a licensed child care desert is an area with three or more
children for every licensed slot. Pitkin County does not meet this definition of a child care
desert, but for infants and toddlers, there are still many more children than licensed child care
slots. While these numbers do not account for the availability of informal, license-exempt care or
parents who choose to care for their children at home, the qualitative data supports the
conclusion that child care supply is not fully meeting the needs of families with children in this
age range.
26
The amount of licensed preschool care available comes closer to meeting families’ needs.
There are approximately 1.02 preschool-aged children in Pitkin County for every licensed
preschool slot.
+++ Capacity numbers by age group will not sum to total capacity due to how child care licensing works for family
child care homes. Large family child care homes are licensed to serve no more than two infants under 18 months
and 12 children total. This analysis assumes the large family child care home in Pitkin County serves two infants
and considers the remaining 10 slots in both the toddler and preschool categories. Therefore, it shows the
maximum number of children who could be served in each age group.
These sentiments are borne out by data on licensed child care capacity by age group. As of July
2025, there were a maximum of 56 licensed slots for infants at Pitkin County providers,
compared to an estimated 102 infants who live in Pitkin County. (Note that this number does
not include infants who live outside of Pitkin County whose parents may also want to use a
Pitkin County provider, as discussed in the previous section). The number of slots for toddlers is
slightly more sufficient relative to the population of children, with a maximum of 108 toddler
slots for an estimated 168 toddlers in Pitkin County.Preschool slots were the most readily
available, with 354 licensed slots and an estimated 361 children between 2.5 and 5 years old
and not yet in kindergarten.
20,21
22,23
24,25+++
27
25
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Including estimated demand from outside Pitkin County, this ratio increases to 1.23 children per
licensed slot, indicating preschool care still comes closer to meeting potential demand than care
for infants and toddlers when children from outside the county are included.
Given that care for preschoolers is also more prevalent than infant and toddler care in Garfield
and Eagle counties, and that parents and providers indicated that some parents prefer a
preschool located near where their children will attend elementary school, there may be less
demand for preschool in Pitkin County among commuters. Providers and families shared during
interviews and focus groups that they felt preschool care was much more accessible, and
parents felt they had more options from which to choose. Quantitative and qualitative data
suggest that the creation of additional preschool slots will likely create an oversupply of care for
this age group in the immediate future. Many providers and some focus group participants
expressed this concern and shared that vacant preschool slots are negatively impacting the
finances of existing child care providers.
There isn't enough child care for infants, and there's plenty of child care for children between
3 and 5 years old.”
- Family survey respondent
Will there be sufficient child care supply to meet demand in the future?
When contemplating significant investments in new child care facilities, it is important to
consider potential future demand for care to ensure providers can remain sustainable in the long
term. Several factors can influence changes in demand for child care, including population
growth or decline, the creation of additional housing developments in the region, the arrival or
departure of major employers, or policy changes.
As noted earlier in this report, Pitkin County’s young child population is projected to shrink
through 2029, at which point it is projected to increase slowly through 2040. All in all, the
county is projected to see a net loss of 61 children ages birth to 5 by 2040 with most of the
population loss occurring before 2030. Garfield County, however, is forecast to see significant
growth in its population of young children, with a projected increase of more than 1,900 children
by 2040, and this growth will result in a net gain of young children for the region as a whole.
27
28
29^
^ As noted previously, population forecasts for the portion of western Eagle County included in the Roaring Fork Valley
are not available. The young child population in Eagle County as a whole is forecast to increase by 24% by 2040.
28
26
County
Population Forecasts for
Children Under 6
Change in
Young Child
Population,
2025 to 2040
Pitkin County 727 666 -61 (-8%)
Garfield County 4,435 6,343 +1,908 (+43%)
Net Total for
Pitkin and
Garfield counties
5,162 7,009 +1,847 (+36%)
2025 2040
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Source: Calculations based on data from the Colorado State Demography Office,
County Single Year of Age Forecasts.
While it is not possible to predict how many of these additional Garfield County children will
have parents who commute to work in Pitkin County, data from the family survey suggest that a
sizable share of families living in Garfield County and commuting to Pitkin either already use
care in Pitkin County or would prefer to if an option met their needs. If a significant number of
parents continue to commute to work in Pitkin County and prefer child care there, current
shortages for infant and toddler care could be exacerbated, and demand for preschool care
could increase as well.
Another factor that could influence the demand for care in
the future is the construction of new housing developments
in the region. The Lumberyard project, for example, is
expected to include 277 new rental units in Aspen by 2029,
and increased availability of housing could result in an
increased number of families with young children in Pitkin
County. There are also housing developments in the
pipeline in Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and the
area from New Castle to Parachute that could increase the
young child population above what is forecast by current
population projections.30
29
27
Most child care providers interviewed in Pitkin County maintain waitlists for their programs.
They use these waitlists to provide parents the opportunity to express interest in a program
and to maintain a contact list that they can use should a spot become available. Waitlists are
important for helping child care providers understand and manage demand and availability.
In focus groups, parents shared stories of putting children on waitlists well before children
were born and remaining on waitlists for years before securing a spot.
These stories from families and recent waitlist numbers demonstrate unmet need for child
care. However, they are best considered as an anecdotal source of data rather than a way to
quantify child care need. Child care providers were asked to share their experience with
waitlists, and most shared the following observations:
Families often remain on waitlists after they have found care because they are waiting
for availability with a preferred provider.
When providers call families on the waitlist, they often contact several families who have
already found care but did not remove themselves from the waitlist.
Families are typically on many different waitlists simultaneously. This was confirmed by
more than half of parents who responded to the family survey indicating they had placed
their child on multiple waitlists for care, as well as focus group participants who shared
the same practice.
CHILD CARE WAITLISTS
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Local and state-level policy changes also have the potential to affect the demand for child care.
One possible change on the horizon is the potential creation of a special district from Aspen to
Parachute that would direct additional funds to make child care more accessible to families by
offering tuition credits for families and subsidies for providers. The question of whether to create
this special district is expected to be referred to voters in the region in the fall of 2025. If voters
approve it and child care costs are significantly reduced for families, Pitkin County could see
increased demand from families who are currently priced out of child care. Conversely, if the
creation of the special district leads to increased child care capacity outside of Pitkin County, it is
possible that demand for child care in Pitkin County could soften among families living in Garfield
and Eagle counties.
30
28
Dimension
of access Defining question Summary
Availability
Are there slots
available for
children who need
it?
Availability of slots is highly dependent on age
group. Infant slots are most limited relative to the
population of the region, followed by toddler slots.
Slots for preschool-aged children are the most
widely available, and many providers are beginning
to see indications that there is an oversupply of
preschool slots.
Affordability Can families afford
to pay for care?
Many families struggle to afford care and see child
care in Aspen as particularly expensive, even with
the financial aid that is available.
Location
Is the location of
care physically
accessible to
families?
Many families commute very long distances and
generally wish to minimize the amount of time
they spend traveling to and from child care. There
seems to be more need for additional child care in
Garfield County and/or western Eagle County, with
less need in Aspen. Families differ in their desire
to have care closer to work or closer to home.
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Do families have access to the care they want and need?
When analyzing demand for child care, it is important to consider not just the number of slots
needed, but also the specific characteristics families are seeking. In other words, a meaningful
supply and demand analysis must assess whether the available options align with the particular
needs and preferences of families.
While this report contains calculations that illustrate the supply of licensed child care slots and
the estimated current and future demand for those slots, it also must recognize the multifaceted
nature of what families need. In order to understand whether families who live or work in Pitkin
County have access to child care (i.e., whether the available supply is able to meet the need), this
report evaluates multiple factors, as outlined below.
31
29
Schedule
Do providers offer
schedules that
align with
families’ work?
The days and hours of care available do not align
with many families’ work schedules, especially
when combined with long commutes. Many
families need longer hours than are currently
offered and/or care on additional days (i.e.,
weekends). Families are often relying on multiple
licensed and unlicensed care providers or
flexibility from their employers to make up for the
shorter-than-desired operating hours of centers.
Quality
Does available
care match the
quality indicators
that are valued by
families?
Families are generally very happy with the quality
of licensed care available in Pitkin County.
However, some families that have not been able to
access licensed care shared concerns about the
safety and developmental appropriateness of the
unlicensed care options they have identified.
Sustainability
Can providers
afford operating
costs on an
ongoing basis?
Providers are experiencing challenges with
recruiting and retaining staff as well as covering
the difference between the true cost of care and
revenue from subsidies and parent tuition. Centers
providing infant and toddler care are experiencing
the most acute difficulty as they see their
preschool enrollment declining.
Family Choice
Do families have
the option to
select care that
aligns with their
culture, values,
and priorities?
Families are generally very happy with the care
that exists in Pitkin County. They have choices for
care once their children reach preschool, but they
do not have options when children are younger.
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Overall, this assessment finds that the primary areas in which currently available
options do not consistently meet families’ needs are:
Availability/supply for infants and toddlers
Schedule/hours of operation
Affordability of care
32
30
Focus group data aligns with the family survey data. In focus groups, working parents generally
shared that they feel like the hours of care are shorter than what they need, and many struggle
to get to work on time with their current provider’s schedule. Other parents shared that they are
not able to work because they couldn’t find care that aligns with their schedule.
Limited hours for pick up are difficult when the traffic in Pitkin County is so terrible. For example,
a 4:30 pick up time means my spouse must leave work at least an hour early and risk not working
during his salaried time. Also, having children be in the car for an hour before and after work
hours to drive to care is terrible.”
- Family survey respondent
Sufficiency of current child care provider hours among families who use non-parental care
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Hours of Operation
Due to the concentration of service and hospitality-oriented jobs, as well as the commuting
patterns in the Roaring Fork Valley, many families have a need for care outside of traditional
hours. Many families who have care find the hours offered by their provider to be shorter than
what they would prefer: only about half of the families who responded to the survey reported
that the hours offered by their current provider meet their needs .
Source: Kids First Community Child Care Needs Survey.
33
31
Affordability of Care
Through focus groups, several families shared that affordability is a barrier to accessing child
care. Even with financial aid available for families whose children are in care in Pitkin County,
only a small percentage of families indicate that affording care is not at all challenging.
Difficulty affording child care costs each month among families using some form of non-parental care
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Source: Kids First Community Child Care Needs Survey.
Since 2016, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has used a benchmark that
considers child care affordable if families pay no more than 7% of their household income for
child care costs.Kids First provides financial aid for families who live or work in Pitkin County,
limiting their family contribution to 10% to 20% of household income (with higher income families
expected to contribute a greater percentage of their income). Kids First is generally able to
provide financial aid that supplements other available sources (e.g., CCCAP) and helps support
families’ child care tuition within these thresholds.
31
In the survey, families who currently have their children in care were asked how much they are
paying per month. The majority of families with children in care in Pitkin County (63%) indicated
that they are paying $1,000 to $2,000 per month, and 7% were paying more than $2,000 per
month. For families with children in care outside of Pitkin County, 44% paid between $1,000 and
$2,000 per month, and 9% paid more than $2,000 per month. These data include all types of child
care, both licensed and informal/license-exempt.
For families whose child(ren) are NOT currently in any form of non-parental child care but
indicated they would like to use care in Pitkin County if an option met their needs, the average
amount they reported they could pay per child, per month was $788.
34
32
When considering building additional child care supply, it is important to recognize that any efforts
to create additional supply will only have a net positive impact if existing supply is preserved as
well. Through interviews with providers, this assessment identified the following themes related to
the sustainability of existing child care providers:
Providers are experiencing challenges with financial sustainability. Many providers shared the
challenges of keeping their centers afloat financially. Similar to child care businesses across the
country, they struggle to cover the cost of care while keeping costs manageable for families.
Directors generally shared a desire for more unrestricted general operating funding to help them
bridge the gap between the cost of care and parent tuition payments without onerous reporting
requirements.
Recruitment and retention of staff is one of the biggest challenges for centers. Many directors
expressed that they have struggled to find qualified staff in the valley. Directors are finding that
staff often cannot afford to live near where they are working, so many are commuting long
distances. They have also found that staff are more likely to stay if they are able to find affordable
housing.
Centers have experienced financial challenges as they struggle to keep preschool spots fully
enrolled. Private centers observed that many families move to other programs when their children
reach preschool age. Providers observed that Colorado’s Universal Pre-K (UPK) program has
impacted preschool enrollment, as there has been an increase in preschool availability. Generally,
because of the larger ratios allowed for older children, child care is most financially viable when
infant/toddler and preschool care can be located together. Centers that have underenrolled
preschool classrooms are further challenged to cover the costs associated
PROVIDER
SUSTAINABILITY
35
33
OPPORTUNITIES AND ASSETS
There are many opportunities to leverage existing assets to support child care in Pitkin County.
The community has demonstrated a strong commitment to child care. There is a strong
commitment in the community to support child care for working families. The sales tax that
funds Kids First’s programs is one of the first that was established in the state. Community
members are proud of the commitment to child care and want Aspen to be a good place to raise
a family into the future.
Child care in Pitkin County is perceived as high-quality by families and the community.
Two-thirds of respondents (66%) who report having children in child care in Pitkin County report
being very satisfied with the quality of their care, and an additional 30% report being somewhat
satisfied. In contrast, 51% of respondents whose child was in care in a different county reported
being very satisfied with the quality of their care, and 35% were somewhat satisfied. Throughout
the development of this report, families and community members expressed a high degree of
confidence in the quality of licensed child care in Pitkin County. Families value the options that
exist and generally see the offerings as very high-quality.
I am extremely impressed with the child care we use. The incorporation of the outdoors, physical
activity, and learning is amazing!”
- Family survey respondent
Local funding for financial aid is available to families. For any family that lives or works in Pitkin
County, their out-of-pocket cost for care is capped at 7% to 20% of gross income*, with higher-
income families contributing the higher percentage. In recognition of the very high cost of living
in the area, Kids First has extended this financial aid well beyond the typical range in many other
communities, with families up to 649% of the Federal Poverty Level (more than $208,000 for a
family of four) eligible for aid. While many families still find it a challenge to afford care, it is
noteworthy that local funding is able to provide financial aid for so many families in the area and
that this funding extends beyond just those who live in Aspen to the workforce in Pitkin County
more generally.
32
CONSIDERATIONS
& NEXT STEPS
*City of Aspen recently lowered the out-of-pocket cap for some families from 10% to 7% of household income in an
effort to improve affordability for families. The data in this needs assessment was gathered prior to this change.
36
34
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS
Regional efforts to support child care are underway. The Roaring Fork Valley is deeply
interconnected. While Kids First is funded by a city sales tax and a department of the City of
Aspen, they are committed to serving any family that lives or works in Pitkin County in recognition
of the economic importance of the valley-wide workforce. The Confluence Early Childhood
Education (CECE) Coalition is also engaging in robust efforts to fund and support child care
through a connected infrastructure spanning the Roaring Fork Valley.
Opportunities exist for additional supply building. With local and statewide efforts to support the
development of affordable housing, there are opportunities to leverage the co-location of child
care facilities to reduce upfront costs and contribute to the long-term sustainability of new child
care operations.
Pitkin County has many long-time, consistent child care providers. Many centers that exist in
Pitkin County have been in place for many years, and many have staff who have worked in their
centers for a significant amount of time as well. Families and the community appreciate this
stability. Consistency of care is an important factor that can help to support families and provide
peace of mind.
EVALUATION OF NEED FOR A NEW CHILD CARE CENTER AT BURLINGAME RANCH
Overall, this assessment concludes that there is a need for additional infant and toddler care in
Pitkin County. At this time, the data does not indicate a need for additional preschool-age care
and indicates that increasing the supply of such care could negatively impact the availability of
care more generally. In focus groups, many families indicated that Burlingame is not the
preferred location for care for anyone who does not live there. However, it is still likely that
families with infants and toddlers would use care at Burlingame because they are struggling to
identify other suitable options.
This assessment also concludes that the Burlingame child care center, as currently envisioned,
has potential to harm the existing child care infrastructure by contributing to an oversupply of
preschool slots. It is critical to recognize that this needs assessment captures one moment in
time and that the development of a new facility takes time, during which conditions can shift and
change. There could be a need for additional preschool capacity in the future, and, as detailed
above, factors both in and outside of Aspen have potential for creating shifts in demand.
37
35
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS
The proposed facility will require a significant investment, so if a child care center is created at
Burlingame, it is critical that it both responds to current conditions and has the flexibility to shift
and respond to changes (both physically and operationally) in the future. The following are critical
considerations for the Burlingame child care site and the evaluation of alternative options:
How would the creation of additional preschool slots impact the financial viability of new
and existing centers? The proposed Burlingame facility would create slots for 16 infants, 20
toddlers, and 58 preschoolers. This means that there would be approximately 0.94 children
(including both Pitkin County and potential commuters) for or 0.88 children (including only
Pitkin County) for each licensed preschool slot in Pitkin County, creating an estimated
oversupply of preschool. This calculation also does not account for families who choose to
use parental or license-exempt/informal care. Child care centers typically rely on the higher
adult-to-child ratios allowed for preschool to offset the staffing costs of the lower ratios
required for infants and toddlers. A center that charges affordable tuition for families is
unlikely to be able to operate sustainably without preschoolers or significant subsidies.
However, increasing preschool capacity is likely to have a negative impact on the ability of
both existing centers and this new center to operate sustainably due to preschool
underenrollment.
Can the center be designed flexibly to accommodate changes in need in the future? In small
communities, year-to-year fluctuations in the birth rate can create meaningful shifts in
demand for care among specific age groups – presenting challenges for providers. Providers
shared that they have seen these types of shifts over time. Additionally, outside factors such
as the development of new family housing units or unexpected shifts in demographics can
impact demand for different age groups. Because child care licensing has varying
requirements for different age groups (e.g., square footage per child, bathroom and
handwashing station requirements, etc.), a new center should be designed so that classroom
configurations and staffing can be adjusted to meet the differing age requirements for
various ages over time in response to current needs, or it will likely struggle with enrollment
as needs shift.
Could this center be adequately staffed? What might the impact on staffing at other centers
be? The proposed Burlingame child care center will require approximately 24 staff members.
Existing providers shared that one of the most significant challenges they face is recruiting
and retaining qualified staff. A new center is likely to face the same challenge and could
divert some staff away from existing centers. The City should explore whether there are
resources that can be used to support all centers in recruitment and retention efforts,
benefiting existing and potential new centers alike. For example, the City could support the
creation of housing options for child care providers that could support staffing for all centers.
38
36
Could this center be designed to accommodate the unmet schedule needs of families? The
largest unmet need identified by families was a schedule with extended hours and days. A
center that provides an expanded schedule is much more of a need than an additional center
with a similar schedule to what is currently offered.
Can tuition be affordable for families? Even with existing financial aid programs, some
families see child care tuition as prohibitive, especially those who live outside of Pitkin
County. Can the operating model of the center be designed to allow the selected operator to
offer tuition that is affordable to families?
Is the benefit of the proposed facility sufficient for the cost? Are there other strategies that
would have a more positive impact on child care access? The estimated cost to develop this
facility in 2022 was $15 million, and it is likely that this cost is now higher. The facility
proposed would serve a maximum of 94 children. The proposed investment is high - over
$150,000 per new child care slot created. Considering the need to preserve existing centers,
the opportunity to participate in regional initiatives, and the current barriers to child care
access faced by families, the City should consider evaluating the full range of potential
options for allocating funding to gauge what would have the greatest net positive impact on
child care supply for those who live or work in Aspen. Another option is to consider whether
there are opportunities to make an impact with a smaller-scale center or design elements
that would reduce the overall cost per child.
Is there community support for the Burlingame facility? While the survey did not directly
address this question, in family focus groups and provider and community member
interviews it is worth noting a lack of widespread enthusiasm for the project, and many
participants expressed opposition to the construction of a new center. Participants were not
selected randomly, however, so it may be that there is community support that was not
captured in these groups. If the project is to be pursued, there will be a need for fundraising
from the community, and it is worth considering whether there has been a shift in community
sentiment since the initial development of the plan for the Burlingame child care center.
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS
39
37
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Ensure that existing child care supply is supported and sustained. Current child care options in
Aspen are generally seen as high-quality and desirable for families in the Roaring Fork Valley.
However, the business model of child care is tenuous, and many centers are seeing that the cost
of care and retaining qualified teachers poses a significant challenge. Any loss of existing child
care slots will create additional need and offset any gains produced by the development of a new
facility. Centers could benefit from workforce development programs (such as dedicated housing
or wage enhancement) as well as financial support to stabilize revenue (such as base funding or
enhanced payments for infant and toddler care).
Consider support for other types of care (e.g., family, friend, and neighbor providers or family
child care homes) and smaller-scale centers. Efforts to support child care in Pitkin County to
date have primarily focused on large centers. However, some families prefer home-based care for
infants and toddlers because of the more familiar home environment and low provider-to-child
ratios (among other factors). There are also smaller format license types available (small
centers or infant centers, for example) that may provide an effective option for younger children.
While licensing considerations for home-based care can limit options in rural resort regions
where many potential providers live in multi-family settings, efforts to support both licensed and
license-exempt home-based care could complement current efforts to support larger centers and
may present opportunities to create new choices for families and different models for providers.
^^
Ensure families across the region are aware of Kids First financial aid and consider expanding
the support available through financial aid as funding allows. In several focus group
conversations and interviews, participants expressed misconceptions about eligibility and other
factors related to the financial aid provided by Kids First. Outreach and education efforts,
especially for those who live outside of the area but would be eligible due to their employment,
could be valuable to ensure families understand all of their options. Additionally, if adequate
funding is available, then families would benefit from additional financial aid that further limits
the amount of their household income that parents are expected to contribute.
Support coordinated child care planning efforts across the Roaring Fork Valley. While this
assessment did not evaluate child care capacity in the Roaring Fork Valley outside of Pitkin
County, reports from the CECE Coalition, demographic projections, and feedback from families
indicate that there is likely a greater need for additional care downvalley.Efforts to secure
regional public funding for child care are underway. Kids First and the City of Aspen would benefit
from coordinating with these efforts to ensure that funding and strategies to support care are
maximized. Additionally, if regional funding increases supply in other parts of the valley, this
could impact the need for care in Aspen.
33
^^ As of the writing of this report, a small center license can only serve children over 2 years old. The Colorado
Department of Early Childhood Rules Advisory Committee is considering changes that would
allow for small centers to serve younger children as well.
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS
40
38
The two primary goals of this assessment were to understand current and future demand for
child care in Pitkin County and to assess the need for a child care center at Burlingame Ranch. A
comprehensive review of the current context identified that while existing programs are
supporting families in many ways, unmet needs for child care still exist. Most notably, families
struggle to find care for children under 2.5 years old, pay for care, and find care that aligns with
their scheduling needs. Additionally, the long-term viability of some centers is threatened by lost
revenue when preschool slots are underenrolled, as well as challenges with recruiting and
retaining qualified staff.
Therefore, this assessment concludes that there is a need to create additional child care capacity
and recommends a targeted and specific focus on ensuring that the creation of new facilities and
child care programs are aligned with the specific demonstrated needs of families, are created
flexibly to adapt to future shifts in demand, and that new facilities are paired with new or
enhanced policies to ensure that existing supply is preserved.
CONCLUSION
41
APPENDICES
39
APPENDIX A: SURVEY OVERVIEW AND RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS
The consulting team created a comprehensive survey for Kids First that assessed the child care
needs, preferences, and experiences of families between Aspen and Parachute. The survey was
available via SurveyMonkey in both English and Spanish. It was open for responses from mid-April
2025 until early June 2025 and received 300 valid responses from across the region, with 278
responses in English and 22 in Spanish. Responses were collected via convenience sampling and
snowball sampling methods. The survey was distributed widely among child care providers, school
districts, employers, libraries, local media, parent groups, and nonprofits in the region. Focus group
participants were also invited to complete the survey.
The below table summarizes characteristics of survey respondents. The target respondent group
was families with young children who live and/or work in Pitkin County. There is no perfectly
comparable population in existing public data sets, but demographic data indicate that the sample
resembles the population of people living in Pitkin County on key characteristics, such as family
income and race/ethnicity. When examining demographic data for the population living across
Pitkin, Garfield, and Eagle counties, Hispanic/Latino families and families earning less than
$75,000 per year are somewhat underrepresented in the sample. However, these groups still made
up sizable shares of the survey population (see table below).
Characteristics % of respondents
County and/or jurisdiction of residence:
Pitkin County: 56%
Aspen: 54%
Snowmass Village: 18%
Unincorporated part of Pitkin
County: 12%
Basalt: 10%
Woody Creek: 5%
Garfield County: 36%
Eagle County: 7%
Work location:At least one person working in Pitkin
County: 75%
42
40
APPENDICES
Remote work:
Someone in household works from
home at least one day per week: 55%
No one in household works from
home: 45%
Employment status:
All parents working either part-time or
full-time: 84%
One parent working either part-time or
full-time: 12%
Prefer not to say: 4%
Age of young child(ren):
Infants (under 12 months): 25%
Toddlers (1 year to 2.5 years): 40%
Preschoolers (2.5 years to 5 years old,
not yet in kindergarten): 64%
Percentages add to more than 100 because
families can have children in multiple age
groups.
Number of young children:
One: 64%
Two: 29%
Three or more: 7%
Age of respondents:
18 to 24: Less than 1%
25 to 34: 24%
35 to 44: 69%
45 to 54: 5%
55 to 64: 1%
Race/ethnicity of respondents:
White: 77%
Hispanic or Latino: 19%
Multiracial: 2%
Asian: 2%
American Indian or Alaska Native:
<1%
Black or African-American: <1%
43
41
APPENDICES
Annual household income:
Below $35,000: 3%
$35,000 to $49,999: 3%
$50,000 to $74,999: 8%
$75,000 to $99,999: 13%
$100,000 to $149,999: 28%
$150,000 to $199,999: 14%
$200,000 or above: 19%
Receipt of any government funding for
child care (e.g., Kids First Financial Aid,
program scholarships, the Child Care
Assistance Program (CCCAP), TANF, or
military child care benefits):
Yes: 15%
No: 83%
Not sure: 2%
APPENDIX B: DETAILED INFORMATION ON FAMILIES’ CURRENT CHILD CARE
ARRANGEMENTS
Use of child care: Most families living in the region from Aspen to Parachute report using some
form of child care. Approximately 83% of survey respondents reported using some form of non-
parental child care, whether formal (e.g., a child care center, family child care home, or school
district preschool) or informal/license-exempt (e.g., a nanny, an au pair, a family member, or a
neighbor). Households with preschool-aged children (ages 2.5 to 5 years old and not yet in
kindergarten) were most likely to report using child care (84%), while households with infants
used non-parental care at the lowest rates (73%). Households in Pitkin County were more likely to
report using non-parental care than households in Garfield and Eagle counties (86% vs. 78%).
Source(s) of child care: The most common source of child care for respondents who live in Pitkin
County was a child care center (not operated by a school district), with 72% of respondents
indicating they use this form of care at some point during a typical week. The next-most common
sources of care were an unpaid adult family member (24%) and a child care or preschool program
operated by a school district (16%). More than a third of Pitkin County families (34%) report
using multiple types of care during a typical week, suggesting that many families piece together
care from multiple sources in order to meet their child care needs.
#
Note that percentages will add up to more than 100 because families could report using multiple#
sources of care.
44
42
APPENDICES
Among Pitkin County families whose children were in some form of child care, 83% reported that
their current type of child care was their ideal form of care, and 17% reported they preferred a
different type of care. Among those who preferred a different type of care, 70% preferred some
type of licensed care (e.g., a child care center or family child care home).
Child care centers (not operated by a school district) were also the most commonly reported
source of care for families in Garfield and Eagle counties (57%), followed by unpaid adult family
members (33%) and school district-operated child care or preschool programs (14%).
Approximately 42% of Garfield and Eagle County families reported using multiple sources of care
during a typical week. Families in Garfield and Eagle counties were much more likely to report
using informal or license-exempt care than families in Pitkin County (56% of respondents in
Garfield and Eagle counties, compared to 33% of families in Pitkin County).
The share of Garfield and Eagle County families reporting that their current form of care was their
most preferred type of care was significantly lower than in Pitkin County, at 57%. Among those
who reported they would prefer another type of care, 75% preferred some type of licensed care.
Travel times to child care: Some families in the region have long commutes to child care, either
because they are unable to find care that meets their needs close to home or because they prefer
to have their children in care closer to where they work. Travel times to child care vary across the
region. Across all survey respondents, the average time traveled to their child care provider on a
typical day with good weather was 18 minutes. Travel times were higher, on average, for families
in Eagle and Garfield counties, who report traveling an average of 23 minutes to their child care
provider, compared to 15 minutes for families in Pitkin County. Families who live in Garfield or
Eagle County but work in Pitkin County had the highest average travel time to care, at 30 minutes.
Difficulty finding child care: Families in Garfield and Eagle counties were more than twice as
likely as those in Pitkin County to report having a hard time finding care for their child, with 48%
reporting that finding child care was very difficult, compared to 19% in Pitkin County. Across the
region as a whole, families with infants and toddlers (under age 2.5) were more likely to report
that finding care had been very difficult than those with preschoolers, reflecting the wider
availability of preschool slots in the region.
45
43
Satisfaction with care: Overall, families who use some form of non-parental child care report
being satisfied with their care. Nearly half (47%) of respondents from across the region indicated
they were very satisfied with their care, and an additional 41% reported being somewhat satisfied.
Overall satisfaction levels were fairly consistent across counties. Among those who were not
satisfied with their care, cost, and a mismatch between provider operating hours and families’
work schedules were commonly reported sources of frustration.
Families whose children were in care in Pitkin County were more likely to report being satisfied
with the location of their child care provider(s) than respondents whose children were in care in
Garfield or Eagle counties. Nearly 70% of Pitkin County respondents indicated they were very
satisfied with the location of their child’s care provider, compared to 49% of those in Garfield and
Eagle counties. This gap in satisfaction could be a reflection of the longer travel times reported
by families who live outside of Pitkin County.
The highest levels of dissatisfaction were related to the cost of care. More than a third of
respondents in Pitkin County and in Garfield or Eagle counties reported being very or somewhat
dissatisfied with the cost of care. When asked what they currently pay for child care for one child,
the most commonly reported cost bracket among families whose child was in care in Pitkin
County was between $1,000 and $1,499 per month (33%), followed by $1,500 to $1,999 (24%). In
total, 70% of families whose children were in care in Pitkin County reported paying more than
$1,000 per month for one child. Costs reported by families using care in Garfield and Eagle
counties were generally lower, with approximately half of all respondents using care in one of
these counties reporting that they pay more than $1,000 per month.
APPENDICES
46
44
Factor
Average Rating
(1 to 5, where 1 = not at all
important and 5 = extremely
important)
Quality of care*4.9
Stability or reliability 4.8
Curriculum and educational activities 4.4
Hours of operation 4.3
Provider was someone I know/trust 4.2
Cost 4.2
Proximity to home 4.0
Proximity to work or school 4.0
Cultural/language considerations 3.5
APPENDICES
Factors parents prioritize in child care decisions: Parents were asked to rate the importance of
several factors that are often considered in child care decisions on a scale from 1 to 5, where 5 is
most important. Quality of care, the stability or reliability of care, and the provider’s curriculum
and educational activities were rated as the top three priorities:
*Quality of care was not explicitly defined and reflects how parents evaluate
quality for themselves.
47
45
APPENDICES
Parents who do not use any form of child care: Some children in the region are not regularly
cared for by anyone other than a parent or guardian – either due to parental preference or
because they are unable to find and/or afford care. Approximately 14% of Pitkin County
respondents and 22% of Eagle and Garfield County respondents reported their children were not
cared for by anyone besides a parent or guardian. When asked why they do not use any form of
non-parental care for their children, the most commonly reported reason was that care was too
expensive (70%), followed by parental preference to care for their child(ren) (38%) and inability to
find an available slot (32%).
When asked if they would use a child care provider for their children if an option met their needs,
65% said yes. However, the cost of care may be a barrier for these families even if they found a
provider who met their needs. When asked what they could afford to pay for child care for one
child, the average amount reported by families whose children were not in any form of child care
was $788 per month.
Employment impacts of child care challenges: Employment disruptions due to problems with
child care affect many parents in the region. Approximately 37% of survey respondents reported
that child care problems caused someone in their family to quit a job, not take a job, or greatly
change their job in the past 12 months due to problems with child care. More than half reported
that child care challenges had caused them to use vacation days, sick days, or other paid leave,
and one-third reported that they had to take unpaid leave. More than 40% reported cutting their
work hours due to child care problems. Approximately 12% reported they had left a job due to
child care challenges, and nearly 20% reported not looking for a job in order to care for children.
Cost of child care: Parents who currently have child(ren) in child care were asked how much they
pay. This includes all forms of licensed and license-exempt/informal care.
Families in care in Pitkin County:
$0 (care is free): 2%
Less than $250: 3%
$250 to $499: 4%
$500 to $749: 11%
$750 to $999: 9%
$1,000 to $1,499: 35%
$1,500 to $1,999: 28%
More than $2,000: 7%
Families in care outside of Pitkin County:
$0 (care is free): 7%
Less than $250: 7%
$250 to $499: 6%
$500 to $749: 16%
$750 to $999: 11%
$1,000 to $1,499: 28%
$1,500 to $1,999: 16%
More than $2,000: 9%
48
46
APPENDICES
APPENDIX C: FOCUS GROUPS
Focus groups were held May and June 2025. One in-person and three virtual focus groups were
held. The in-person focus group was conducted in English, two of the virtual focus groups were
conducted with simultaneous interpretation in English and Spanish, and the third virtual focus
group was conducted in Spanish. The purpose of these focus groups was to hear directly from
parents to help inform data analysis and recommendations.
In total, 22 parents participated in focus groups. Eleven of the families represented live in Pitkin
County, with others living throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, including Glenwood Springs, El
Jebel, and Carbondale. Participants have children ranging in age from five months to 18 years. Of
the participating families, 15 currently have licensed, center-based child care.
SUMMARY
Location of care:
Parents were asked if they would prefer care close to their home or close to where they work,
and parents were divided on this question.
Parents who prefer care near home shared concerns with having children in the car for a long
commute, wanting their children to be in care with the children they will go to elementary school
with, and the desire to be close in case of an emergency.
Parents who prefer care near work shared that it is easier to align work and care schedules, the
ability to breastfeed when children are infants, and the desire to be close to their child during
the day in case they need to pick them up in an emergency.
Schedule:
Parents generally feel like the hours of care are shorter than what they need.
Parents struggle to get to work on time with the current schedule at many providers.
Some parents shared that they are not able to work because they couldn’t find care that aligns
with their schedule.
Other parents expressed the need for flexible care that aligns with their work (i.e., not having to
pay for care when they don’t need it).
Affordability:
Many parents shared that it is difficult for them to afford care, even when they are receiving
assistance.
49
47
APPENDICES
Availability:
Parents experience an acute shortage of infant care. They do not have choices and are often on
waitlists for years before securing a spot.
Once children are 2.5, there are more choices available, and a lot of shuffling around occurs at
this age.
There is more of a need for care in Garfield County and western Eagle County than in Aspen.
Making it work:
Parents were asked how people are making it work when they do not have care. They shared:
stories of relatives moving to the area to help provide care;
a lot of families accepting whatever they can get, even when they know that children are not
in a developmentally supportive environment;
families (or nannies) driving really long distances for whatever care they can find.
Impacts:
Parents shared perceptions that many families are moving out of the region or not having
children because they can’t afford to live in the area.
Burlingame:
Parents were asked about their perceptions of a child care center at Burlingame. There were
differing opinions.
Generally, everyone agreed that the location is probably only ideal for those who live in
Burlingame. There were some concerns about increased traffic in the area and that people
would have to drive their children the “wrong direction” before heading to work.
Some parents shared that they see the need for spots, and families would probably use it
because they are desperate for options, but locations in Garfield and western Eagle counties
are more needed.
There was generally support for the idea of a new center if it serves infants and toddlers, but
there was concern about poaching teachers from existing programs.
Some parents expressed a desire to see increased support for existing programs before
considering the creation of new programs.
50
48
APPENDICES
APPENDIX D: PROVIDER INTERVIEWS
Background
Nine interviews representing 11 centers in Pitkin County were conducted in May 2025. The
purpose of these interviews was to understand the perspectives and observations of child care
providers in Pitkin County to help inform data analysis and recommendations.
Summary
The themes below emerged through the conversations. These themes represent the perspectives
of those interviewed.
Challenges of centers:
It is difficult to make it work financially.
One of the biggest challenges to operating a center is teacher recruiting and retention. Many
directors expressed that they have not been able to find qualified staff in the valley.
Due to UPK, district preschools are “scooping up” kids, and they aren’t enrolled in community
programs like they used to be.
Several directors expressed frustration with the “strings” attached to Kids First funding and
programs.
Capacity:
Centers are generally operating at or near full capacity for infants and toddlers.
Centers have struggled to keep preschool spots full - many families move to other programs in
preschool.
Waitlists:
Providers do not see waitlists as a valid measure of child care need in the valley.
Most families are on several different waitlists.
Some families that have care are on waitlists because they are seeking a different option or
waiting for their preferred option.
It seems like waitlists are getting smaller because people can’t afford to live in Aspen.
Many families take the first thing that’s available to them and then stay on waitlists as they wait
for their preferred location or preferred schedule.
51
49
Observations of needs/challenges for families:
Families are seeking longer hours of care.
Care is difficult to afford for many families, even with financial support.
Parents often want their children to attend child care near where they will attend elementary
school.
There is a desperate need for infant care; when children are older, there are choices available.
Staff information:
Centers are generally providing a child care benefit for their employees through prioritized
waitlists and/or reduced tuition.
There is a split of staff - some live in Aspen, others live very far away (e.g., Silt, Parachute, etc.)
When staff have children, they generally send them to care at the center where they work.
Staff are more likely to stay if they have affordable housing.
Staff can’t afford to live near where they are working.
Some staff do not have cars, and this can be a challenge for them.
Burlingame:
Several directors expressed concerns with opening a new center when existing centers are
struggling to staff and fill their classrooms.
We need infant and toddler care, don’t need a new center that will take children ages 2.5 and up.
The challenge of opening a new center will be finding staff - many directors are concerned
about a new center poaching staff.
Parents do not have many options, and some directors said, “the more care the better.”
There was probably more need when it was first conceived than there is now.
The location is not convenient for anyone who doesn’t live there.
Flexible configuration would be important because demographics shift, and the center needs to
be able to meet current needs.
There are new centers in Glenwood, Carbondale, and Basalt.
APPENDICES
52
50
APPENDICES
APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Background
Nine interviews were completed in March and April 2025. The purpose of these interviews was to
help the consulting team understand the context for families and children in Pitkin County and the
Roaring Fork Valley and to get some background on perspectives on child care to support survey
development and data interpretation. Several questions were added or revised in the survey or
noted as possible focus group questions in response to what was shared in these interviews.
Interviewees included:
Aspen Community Foundation
Aspen Chamber Resort Association
Aspen Family Connections
Early Childhood Network
Summary
The themes below emerged through the conversations. These themes represent the perspectives
of those interviewed and are intended to provide context to help understand the data gathered
through the survey and focus group discussions. Statements are not intended to be considered
facts and are presented as perspectives of community leaders and those who support families.
Perceptions of child care:
Child care in Pitkin County is perceived as very high quality.
Current child care providers are dedicated veterans. There is a concern that there is not a new
generation of providers ready to follow them when they retire or otherwise leave the industry.
Child care programs have staff that are very well trained and provide developmentally
appropriate, nurturing care for children.
Families’ varied child care needs:
Many community members have an assumption that Latine families are not interested in
seeking center-based care, but others do not agree.
Many families have a need for child care that extends beyond the schedules that are typical in
center-based programs.
There is a need for weekend and off-hours child care as well as summer programming.
There have been some shifts in the need for child care following post-pandemic changes in
work environments and commuting (e.g., parents who have a hybrid work schedule and are only
commuting a few days a week).
The most significant need for child care is for infants and toddlers.
Families’ choices for care are limited.
English in Action
Morgan Fixel
Pitkin County Human Services
Roaring Fork School District Family Resource Center
Valley Settlement
53
51
APPENDICES
Needs/challenges for families:
People are spending a lot of time commuting each day.
Families are spread thin financially due to high housing and other costs of living.
There is a perception that families are disconnected from one another and from the
community, and this negatively impacts well-being and mental health.
Resources for families:
Families have more resources and support once they enter the public PK-12 system.
The opportunity for outdoor and other recreation activities positively contributes to quality of
life and is supportive of family thriving.
Other notes on child care:
There is a discrepancy when families say they are having trouble finding and accessing care,
but programs are reporting that they have unfilled child care slots.
Interviewees see that the community dialogue around child care has improved in recent years -
those without children are beginning to understand why child care might be important to them.
APPENDIX F: EMPLOYER INTERVIEWS
Background
Representatives from four major employers (Aspen Valley Health, Aspen Ski Company, Pitkin
County, and Gould Construction) in the area were interviewed in May and June 2025. They were
asked about their observations of employees’ child care needs and how child care is impacting
operations and economic development in the area.
Summary
Some employers interviewed offer or are considering offering child care benefits for
employees, including dependent care Flexible Spending Account (FSA), on- or near-site child
care, informal care networks for emergencies, and prioritized waitlists with community
providers.
Employers offer flexibility for scheduling and hybrid work to their employees to
accommodate child care needs.
Employees who work in positions that do not allow for scheduling or hybrid work flexibility
(e.g., clinical staff, hospitality workers, etc.) have the most unmet child care needs.
Employees are often unable to find extended, off-hours, or emergency care.
Women are typically more impacted by child care challenges at work than men.
Employers see that while housing is typically the primary challenge with recruiting or
retaining employees, child care is often cited as a concern as well.
Some employers have heard employees express that they are delaying or opting not to
have children because of the challenges of living in the area.
54
52
APPENDICES
APPENDIX G: REFERENCES
Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Estimates.1
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Vital Statistics Program. 2
Colorado Department of Education. Grade Level Membership by LEA.3
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Vital Statistics Program.4
Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Estimates.5
U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.6
Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Forecasts.7
Ibid.8
Ibid.9
Ibid.10
Ibid.11
U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.12
Ibid.13
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). On the Map tool. As cited by Pitkin County in a presentation to the Board of County
Commissioners on February 11, 2025.
14
Census Transportation Planning Products. 2017-2021 Flow Estimates.15
Colorado Department of Early Childhood. (2025). Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.16
Ibid.17
Confluence Early Childhood Education Coalition. (2025). Parachute to Aspen Early Childhood Care and Education
Status Report.
18
Census Transportation Planning Products. 2017-2021 Flow Estimates.19
Colorado Department of Early Childhood. (2025). Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.20
Colorado State Demography Office. 2025 County Single Year of Age Forecast.21
Colorado Department of Early Childhood. (2025). Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.22
Calculations based on data from the Colorado State Demography Office. 2025 County Single Year of Age
Forecast.
23
Colorado Department of Early Childhood. (2025). Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.24
Calculations based on data from the Colorado State Demography Office. 2025 County Single Year of Age
Forecast.
25
Center for American Progress. (2016). Child care deserts: An analysis of child care centers by ZIP code in 8
states. Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.americanprogress.org/article/child-care-
deserts/&sa=D&source=docs&ust=1754627580706198&usg=AOvVaw1MnYu-vG5HeYFacXUNBdlD.
26
Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Forecasts.27
Ibid.28
Ibid.29
Warner, G. (2024). West Mountain Regional Housing Needs Assessment. 30
Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Program, 81 F.R. 67438 (45 C.F.R. § 98). Retrieved from
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-09-30/pdf/2016-22986.pdf.
31
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
(2025). 2025 poverty guidelines: 48 contiguous states (all states except Alaska and Hawaii). Retrieved from
https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dd73d4f00d8a819d10b2fdb70d254f7b/detailed-guidelines-
2025.pdf.
32
Confluence Early Childhood Education Coalition. (2025). Parachute to Aspen Early Childhood Care and Education
Status Report.
33
55
53
56
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Kyla Smits, CFM, Project Manger
PJ Murray, PE, Clean River Program & Stormwater Manager
THROUGH: Tricia Aragon, PE, City Engineer
Tyler Christoff, PE, Deputy City Manager
MEETING DATE: November 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Clean River Program Urban Runoff Management Plan 2025
Update
__________________________________________________________________
INTENDED OUTCOME:
The intended outcome of the report is affirming the direction of the 2025 update to the
Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). This report will provide background on the
program, why the City of Aspen regulates stormwater, and the current direction of the
2025 update.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Roaring Fork River is at the heart of Aspen’s environmental, recreational, and
economic vitality. Since the 1970s, Aspen has prioritized river health through the Urban
Runoff Management Plan (URMP), which guides how stormwater—rain and snowmelt
runoff—is managed in both public and private development. The URMP ensures that as
Aspen continues to grow and redevelop, our river remains protected from pollution and
flooding risks, safeguarding both local and downstream communities.
As regulations evolve and new technologies emerge, the URMP requires periodic
updates to remain effective and relevant. Last August, City Council approved a contract
for the latest update. This update is focused on three main areas:
Modernizing Stormwater Control Measures: The update will expand options
for on-site stormwater treatment, encouraging flexibility and innovation—such as
the use of pervious green spaces and new treatment technologies—to better fit a
variety of project types, sizes, and budgets.
Technical Updates: The manual will incorporate the latest data and best
practices, including updated rainfall statistics, improved mudflow and runoff
57
analysis, and revised design and maintenance guidance, ensuring the URMP
remains a regional leader in stormwater management.
Improved Readability and Usability: The document will be reorganized to be
more user-friendly, making requirements clearer for developers, homeowners,
architects, and planners. It will also consolidate relevant City policies and
procedures into a streamlined, ADA-compliant, and searchable digital format.
Stormwater runoff remains a primary source of pollution and sediment in the Roaring
Fork River, threatening water quality, recreation, and the broader local economy. As a
headwater community, Aspen’s commitment to strong, current stormwater standards is
essential for protecting both our local environment and all users downstream.
This URMP update advances Aspen’s mission to deliver innovative and efficient
municipal services, protect natural resources, and foster a healthy, sustainable
community. By investing in robust stormwater management today, Aspen is ensuring
the long-term health of the Roaring Fork River—one of our most valued community
assets—for generations to come.
DISCUSSION:
History
Aspen’s commitment to protecting the Roaring Fork River began in the early 1970s with
the development of the first Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP). The initial goal
was to reduce stream pollution caused by urban runoff and prevent property damage
from flooding, while also improving the city’s overall environment.
By 2001, the City completed a Surface Drainage Master Plan for the Aspen Mountain
Basin, which revealed that most of the downtown stormwater system could not handle
even minor storms without causing floods in properties and buildings. The plan also
identified the risk of significant mud accumulation in several parts of town due to flows
from Aspen Mountain.
In 2005 and 2006, local studies confirmed growing concerns about the impact of urban
development on river health. These reports found that runoff from street s and buildings
carried pollutants into the Roaring Fork River and that development along the river led
to a loss of natural vegetation. Reduced river flows from upstream diversions made
these problems worse.
Recognizing these challenges and anticipating new federal and state requirements,
Aspen’s citizens and city staff worked together to strengthen their approach. In 2007,
residents voted to create a dedicated funding source for stormwater management,
58
leading to the establishment of the Clean River and Stormwater Program. That same
year, a Citizens Review Committee, city staff, and City Council developed a Stormwater
Business Plan, which outlined a 15-year strategy for improving water quality and
stormwater infrastructure.
The URMP was adopted as Aspen’s main policy manual in 2010 and last updated in
2014. Since then, best practices in stormwater management have evolved, prompting
the city to pursue further updates. The primary objective throughout has remained clear:
prevent, reduce, and mitigate the effects of urban growth on the Roaring Fork River,
ensuring its health for the community now and into the future.
Community Values
Ecological river health underpins recreation and tourism in the Roaring Fork Watershed.
According to the 2008 State of the Roaring Fork Watershed Report, about 30% of
residents took part in rafting, kayaking, or boating, and 33% participated in fishing—
which generates over $11 million annually for Pitkin County. The Roaring Fork River
provides 10% of Colorado River's annual flow, with Aspen as its headwater community.
Our community has recognized the responsibility and importance of the Roaring Fork
River by ranking its ecological integrity as a high priority in river management—an
emphasis further supported by the City of Aspen’s 2024 community survey, which
confirms ongoing public commitment to river health and water quality.
Purpose of URMP and Current Application
Healthy rivers depend on many factors: flow regime, sediment dynamics, water quality,
floodplain connectivity, riparian vegetation, aquatic habitat, and aquatic biota. Urban
Figure 1: URMP Covers over the Years
59
activities contribute to poor river health due to pollutants linked with urban land use and
water quality impacts. Data from the National Stormwater Quality Database
demonstrates that runoff from residential and commercial land uses typically has
significant concentrations of suspended solids, nutrients, and pathogens, among other
pollutants. Good stormwater management practices are necessary to prevent
degradation of these critical resources.
The URMP focuses on management
strategies that preserve the important
ecological functions of the Roaring Fork
River. It achieves this by emphasizing
treatment of urban stormwater runoff to
control the sediment and pollutant load
that goes to the river. As properties are
redeveloped, they are required to
implement stormwater treatment
measures onsite to capture and treat
these pollutants. These individual efforts
complement the City’s regional stormwater
facilities, such as the John Denver
Sanctuary, creating a coordinated
approach to improving water quality.
Many City codes are guided by the
principle that, upon redevelopment,
properties must be brought into
compliance with utility requirements, life
safety standards, stormwater regulations,
and other applicable codes. One property at a time, the City, in partnership with private
development, increases its ability to treat stormwater and control runoff.
The purpose of the URMP is to provide minimum standards and technical guidance for
addressing stormwater runoff in the development and redevelopment of the City of Aspen.
The manual is an effective tool for the development community to reduce both stormwater
quality and quantity impacts and protect downstream areas and receiving waters. This
includes guidance for on site design practices, criteria for the selection and design of
structural stormwater control measures, drainage system design, and construction and
maintenance information.
Figure 2: An Example of Green Stormwater Infrastructure:
Raingarden
60
The manual
applies to any
project in the
City of Aspen
that disturbs 200
square feet of
soil or interior
remodel projects
that are
significantly
altering greater than 50% of the building. The requirements outlined in the URMP vary
depending on the location of the project, scale of work, and existing stormwater
improvements already in place. The current thresholds were established to ensure
projects of substantial size were brought into compliance with stormwater treatment
standards. Given Aspen’s unique characteristic of higher redevelopment instead of new
development, it was critical to set thresholds that captured the redevelopment landscape
in order to treat stormwater and have a beneficial impact to the health of the river .
Stormwater Improvement Costs and Sediment Reduction Analysis
According to a local engineering firm, the cost of their services does not change based
on location within the Roaring Fork Valley. The local firm states that Aspen is the easiest
to design stormwater improvements because of our robust manual with standardized
requirements. The total cost for hiring a civil engineer who designs the site layout, grading,
drainage, utility infrastructure, and stormwater system , averages $25,000-$30,000 for
major level projects. The cost to install a stormwater system, including grading, averages
$115,453.
A drywell (A structural subgrade stormwater control measure), when properly maintained,
can last 20 – 30 years. If every lot under 3,000 square feet in the City of Aspen treated
stormwater, approximately 15,000 lbs. of excess sediment and associated pollutants
would be stopped from entering the river every year. Over 30 years, a single 3,000sf lot
could remove approximately 345 lbs. of sediment, assuming an 85% capture rate.
Planned Direction of Updates
The city is pursuing the update of the manual for 3 main reasons: modernizing stormwater
control measures, technical updates, and improved readability and usability. Being able
to find the requirements and to be able to communicate the intent behind the regulations
to the community is essential to the manual. The URMP is one of the pillars of the Clean
River and Stormwater Program and communicating how this manual helps protect the
river, a high-ranking community value, is essential.
Figure 3: Development Thresholds for Engineering Development Review
61
Modernizing Stormwater Control Measures
(SCMs)
There have been many stormwater treatment
innovations since the 2014 URMP update. One
of the goals of the URMP update is to allow for
greater flexibility and ingenuity when
implementing on-site SCMs. An example of this
simplification could be exploring how to utilize
the above basement green space for potential
treatment which would decrease the need for
subgrade treatment like drywells. This concept is
known as receiving pervious areas.
Technical Updates
As with all technical manuals, they require
periodic updates. Aspen has been a regional
leader with the technical information provided in
the URMP. Some of this information requires
updating to stay current, such as mudflow
analysis, rainfall data, runoff methods,
revegetation methods, and detention methods
that are critical to the functionality of stormwater treatment and conveyance. Some of
these technical updates will allow for greater flexibility during redevelopment and can be
prioritized to be incorporated in this update.
Improved Readability and Usability
The current manual provides significant background to engineering concepts making
this document long and complex, providing textbook like explanation of concepts. This
update aims to reorganize the document for ease of use, utilizing appendices for the
technical background. Additionally, the current thresholds for stormwater treatment
requirements allow for some discrepancies in interpretation. This update will highlight
and provide clarity for policies as well as design and maintenance requirements, which
broadens the use from engineering firms to architects, planners, and homeowners.
The new manual will also be ADA compliant, searchable, and have other digital features
that will make the digital version easier to navigate.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The environmental impacts of this manual are far reaching. The City of Aspen is a
headwater community for the Roaring Fork River and any action we take that impacts
Figure 4: An Example of Green Stormwater
Infrastructure: Disconnected Downspouts into
Receiving Pervious Areas
62
the river impacts every downstream user. Increased sediment and/or pollutant loading
can have wide-ranging adverse impacts on the health of the river. Even small lots can
contribute a significant amount of sediment and pollutants to the river. The Roaring Fork
River is a finite resource, and the stormwater program and the URMP will continue to
help protect the health of the river in the future.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The recommendation is to reaffirm support for the 2025 URMP manual update. These
updates aim to but are not limited to:
1. Modernizing Stormwater Control Measures
2. Technical Updates
3. Improved Readability and Usability
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternative A: Not moving forward with the update, and the current thresholds and
requirements are maintained.
Alternative B: Rather than updating the existing manual, the project could be redefined
as a feasibility study to explore alternative stormwater management strategies. For
example, the city could consider adjusting the thresholds for requiring treatment or
providing treatment systems in public rights-of-way or on city-owned parcels, rather than
relying solely on private property solutions.
Implementing stormwater treatment within the right-of-way or on city-owned land would
represent a significant shift for the Clean River Program. Currently, responsibility for
treatment is shared between private landowners and the city through a public -private
partnership. Under this new approach, the city would assume full responsibility for
stormwater treatment. This change would require substantial additional funding,
possible acquisition of new land, and a comprehensive feasibility study to determine
whether the idea is practical.
Alternative C: Stormwater requirements could be adjusted so that only larger
developments are responsible for treatment, while smaller developments would be
exempt. This alternative would shift the regulatory burden toward larger construction
projects, potentially simplifying compliance for small businesses and residential
properties. However, it would be important to assess the impact on water quality, as
exempting smaller developments might lead to gaps in stormwater management. An
analysis should be conducted to determine thresholds for exemption and to evaluate
how this strategy aligns with overall environmental goals.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
63
ATTACHMENTS:
ATTACHMENT A – Criteria for a Major Engineering Review Checklist
64
Engineering Major Submittal Requirements Updated Ja n 2022
Major Engineering Design
Project Disturbance Thresholds Which Trigger a Major Engineering Submittal
City of Aspen Engineering Department
Project Type Criteria
A Major Engineering Plan and Report is required if the following threshold is exceeded for the
specific project type.
Project Type A Major Engineering Plan and Report is Required If…
New Construction -
Structures/driveways/patios
Disturbance Area exceeds 1,000 sf
Structure Addition The floor area of the addition exceeds 1000 sf. This includes basements and second floor
additions.
Interior Only
Alterations/Remodels
If the pre project Impervious area lot coverage is greater than 50% of the property and
the interior remodel is greater than 50% of the building footprint a major grading plan is
required.
If the pre project Impervious area lot coverage is less than 50% of the property and the
interior remodel is greater than 75% of the building footprint a major grading plan is
required.
Refer to Interior Remodel Definition below.
Combination of Partial
Interior Remodel, Addition,
and Exterior
Grading/Landscaping
If the percentage of interior remodel triggers a major review based on the above criteria a
Major Engineering Plan and Report is required
If the exterior disturbance area exceeds 1,000 sf a Major Engineering Plan and Report is
required.
If the square footage of the addition triggers a major review based on the above criteria a
Major Engineering Plan and Report is required.
If the exterior disturbance plus the addition footprint exceeds 1,000 sf a Major Plan and
Report is required.
If none of the individual components (remodel, exterior disturbance plus addition) trigger
a major engineering review then a major engineering review is not required.
Demolition - Partial or
Complete
Greater than 1000 sf of disturbance area. If the site will be left empty a major plan and
report is still required to demonstrate no negative changes to existing drainage patterns
and proper abandonment of all utilities.
Repair Greater than 1000 sf of disturbance area.
65
Engineering Major Submittal Requirements Updated Ja n 2022
Major Engineering Level 1 and Level 2 Criteria
Greater than 1,000 sf of disturbance
area or over the interior remodel
threshold
And
Less than 25% of the project property
1. Major Level 1 Engineering Review
a. The disturbed area must be brought into compliance with COA
stormwater requirements.
b. Existing public improvements that are noncompliant are not
required to be upgraded to meet City Standards
Greater than 1,000 sf of disturbance
area or over the interior remodel
threshold
And
Greater than 25% of the project
property
1. Major Level 2 Engineering Review
a. The entire property must be brought into compliance with COA
stormwater requirements.
b. All public Improvements adjacent to the project must be
brought into compliance with City Standards. This includes
sidewalks, curb and gutter, ditches, curb cuts, ADA ramps, and
removal of head in or non-compliant parking spaces.
2. If existing or proposed infrastructure does not have appropriate
easements such easements will be required to be in place prior to
permit issuance.
NOTES AND CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS:
Disturbance
Area Definition:
Disturbance is defined by the exterior area of the building where the ground is disturbed. This includes but not
limited to soil grading, landscaping, removing impervious area, adding impervious area, replacing impervious area,
layback areas, construction access areas, and stockpile areas.
Interior
Remodel
Definition:
Interior alteration shall be defined as a Level 2 Alteration of the work area within the building as described in the
2015 IEBC: Level 2 alterations include the reconfiguration of space, the addition or elimination of any door or
window, the reconfiguration or extension of any system, or the installation of any additional equipment. Pre-
project lot coverage is determined by dividing the total hardscape footprint on the lot (house, driveway, patios,
sidewalks, etc.) by the total lot area. Interior demolition is measured by the square footage of the room
renovated/modified divided by the total square footage of the structure
Special
Circumstances:
Any work, regardless of amount or size, performed on historic properties, in environmentally sensitive areas,
geologic hazard areas, in jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional floodplains, or work that impacts trees may be
required to submit information for permit review and may be required to provide a more detailed drainage
analysis and design than suggested in the table above.
Cumulative
Work:
The de minimis threshold for minor projects applies only to a single addition on a given piece of property. If
cumulative additions on a property over a three-year period after the CO is issued increase the impervious area by
more than 1000 square feet, “major” project requirements and evaluations will apply to all impervious areas that
are in addition to the “baseline” imperviousness determined from the 2008 aerial photography.
66