HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20260202AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 2, 2026
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Airport Advisory Committee Representative
I.B Early Childhood Education Goals 2026 - Staff Recommendations
I.C Interview of Finalists for 455 Rio Grande Place Restaurant Operator
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/89871323433?pwd=PiAaeqLuerK5Hy5oA89be72dhVcj16.1
Passcode:81611
Join via audio:
+1 346 248 7799 US
Webinar ID: 898 7132 3433
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kBTDQEvsv
Kids_First_Burlingame_Childcare_Facility_Update_and_Options_Staff_Report_-
_February_2_2026.pdf
Attachment A City of Aspen Childcare Needs Assessment Report.pdf
Attachment B Staff Memo for 5-28-24 City Council Meeting.pdf
Attachment C PITKIN BIRTHRATE GRAPHIC.pdf
1
1
1
STAFF REPORT
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Megan Monaghan and Nancy Nichols, Kids First Co-managers
THROUGH: Pete Strecker, City Manager; Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 2, 2026
SUBJECT: Early Childhood Education Goals 2026 – Staff Recommendations
INTENDED OUTCOME
Provide City Council with clear recommendations for the Burlingame Early Childhood
Education (ECE) Facility and Kids First program priorities for 2026.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Kids First recommends focusing 2026 efforts on strengthening existing childcare programs and
deferring construction of the Burlingame ECE Facility until data shows a clear long -term need.
These recommendations support City Council’s goal of early childhood education
programmatic enhancement and optimization.
DISCUSSION:
Staff Recommendations:
1. Defer Building the Burlingame ECE Facility
Background:
Declining birth rates, current enrollment trends, and findings from the City of Aspen Childcare
Needs Assessment Report indicate that constructing a new center now could negatively
impact existing providers.
The City of Aspen purchased the Burlingame Ranch property in 1996 for development of
affordable housing. Over time, City Council approved Phases I and II of the Burlingame Ranch
project, and in 2011 designated Parcel C in Phase III for a future childcare f acility.
Project History:
•2021: RFP issued for design services for childcare facility.
•2022: Design team selected; program development and initial site concepts completed
with Kids First input.
•2022–2023: Designs refined through guidance from a Design Advisory Group and four
community open houses.
2
2
•September 2023: Land use application submitted to the City.
•May 2024: City Council approved land use entitlements (Ordinance No. 6, Series of
2024), granting a 10-year vested rights period through May 28, 2034, during which a
building permit may be submitted.
Timeline Considerations:
If the project proceeds, construction is estimated to take approximately four years from start to
completion. A capital fundraising campaign would begin during the first year of planning. To
remain within the vested timeline, a complete building permit app lication must be submitted by
July 24, 2034.
Defer construction until need is demonstrated or regional partners align.
Pros:
•Avoids high-cost investment before demand is clear.
•Allows time for regional collaboration (Snowmass Village, Garfield County, Confluence
Early Childhood Development Service District).
•Provides flexibility to refine long-term financial, governance, and operational models.
•Opportunity to explore alternatives.
•Reduces risk of underutilized or misaligned facilities.
•Recent information indicates a decline in birth rates across the board
Cons:
•Delays potential future childcare capacity.
•Construction costs may escalate.
•Potential loss of momentum or partner interest if timelines remain uncertain.
Attachments:
Attachment A – City of Aspen Childcare Needs Assessment Report
Attachment B – Staff Memo for 5-28-24 City Council Meeting
Attachment C – Pitkin County Birth Rate Trend Graphic
2. Invest in Sustainability for Existing Childcare Programs
City Council recently expanded financial aid for families and extended wage enhancements;
these remain primary focus areas for 2026.
Kids First recommends continuing core programs and exploring additional investments that
strengthen affordability, workforce stability, and program sustainability. With approval of these
options, Staff will design programs and provide additional information to City Council on a
subsequent date.
3
3
Option A: Business Voucher Program
Partner with employers to share childcare costs.
Pros: Supports families and employers, stabilizes provider funding, strengthens relationships
between the business community and childcare providers, helps employers attract and retain
employees with young children, flexible model that can be scaled up or down based on
employer participation, may reduce family financial burden without requiring large capital
investments.
Cons: Requires ongoing funding, does not add new physical capacity, participation may be
uneven across industries or employer sizes, limiting reach, administrative complexity in
coordinating vouchers, eligibility, and employer contributions, reliance on employer buy -in
could make the program vulnerable during economic downturns, may benefit families with
employer support more than those who are self-employed.
Option B: Provider Base Support (monthly funding)
Predictable financial support for centers. This could include monthly funding to childcare
providers for operational supports.
Pros: Stabilizes budgets, easy to administer, supports working families by reducing out-of-
pocket childcare expenses.
Cons: Harder to tie funds to measurable outcomes, inflation and rising operating costs may
reduce the real impact of fixed monthly payments over time, may create unnecessary reliance
on ongoing public subsidies without incentivizing efficiency or innovation, does not directly
increase childcare capacity or address long-term supply gaps
Option C: Explore Small-Scale Capacity Expansion
Assess opportunities to expand care through existing sites or partnerships.
Pros: Faster, lower-cost options, expands family choice by supporting diverse program models
and locations, leverages existing infrastructure, relationships, and licensed providers, allows
piloting of expansions before committing to larger capital investments, can be targeted to areas
or age groups with the greatest need.
Cons: Inconsistent support across childcare programs, may increase operating costs, limited
scale may not fully address long-term regional demand, licensing, zoning, or staffing
constraints may limit feasibility, requires coordination and technical assistance to ensure
quality and compliance.
4
4
3. Evaluate Early Childhood Teacher Housing Needs
Study housing barriers and potential support models.
Pros: Addresses a root cause of staffing shortages, improves staff recruitment, retention, and
overall provider stability, informs future policy decisions with data-driven insights, identifies
opportunities to align childcare, housing, and workforce strategies, may uncover scalable or
regional solutions that benefit multiple providers, supports long-term sustainability of the
childcare system.
Cons: Requires money and staff time, does not provide immediate relief to current staffing
challenges, implementation of solutions may require significant additional investment,
outcomes may be influenced by broader housing market constraints, potential for study fatigue
without clear next steps or committed funding.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS
Kids First has consistently and responsibly built its reserve balance, creating an opportunity to
strategically deploy a portion of these funds to advance priority programming. A phased
reallocation of reserves could be partially earmarked to support new and expanded provider
initiatives, serving as an alternative to—or bridge toward—a significant capital investment in
Burlingame Early Childhood Education Facility.
Targeted use of reserves to strengthen childcare supports aligns with Kids First’s long -term
financial stewardship and programmatic goals. This approach allows the community to
respond to immediate workforce and family needs while maintaining fiscal stabil ity and
reinforces the City of Aspen’s commitment to remaining an innovative and forward-thinking
leader in childcare systems.
Specific financial impacts will be determined as program priorities are established and
evaluated based on their measurable impact on childcare programs throughout Pitkin County.
Any new or adjusted funding requests will be formally analyzed and brought fo rward to the
Aspen City Council for review, consideration, and approval at the appropriate time.
The City of Aspen has a strong history of recognizing childcare as critical public infrastructure,
supported through sustained public investment to ensure quality, affordability, and availability.
Continued financial prioritization through strategic reserve reallocation will further support
families who live and/or work in Pitkin County and help sustain a high -quality childcare
ecosystem essential to the region.
5
5
RECOMMENDATIONS
Kids First recommends City Council prioritize the following:
1.Defer Action on Building Burlingame ECE until long-term need or regional alignment is
demonstrated.
2.Invest in the Sustainability of Existing Programs, continuing high-impact initiatives and
exploring new supportive strategies.
3.Evaluate Childcare Provider Housing Needs through a targeted study.
ALTERNATIVES
1.Move Forward with Building Burlingame ECE
Begin the building permit process and progress toward construction.
Pros: Adds future capacity; avoids future construction cost increases, long term investment in
early childhood infrastructure, may increase community visibility and support for early
childhood education.
Cons: High cost, significant staffing and fundraising needs, risk of an under-utilized facility,
long term 3-5 years or longer before capacity is realized, market volatility cannot be predicted,
creating an unstable and competitive early childhood structure.
2.Make No Changes to Kids First Programming
Focus on new programs recently approved by City Council including expanded wage
enhancement for childcare providers and increased Financial Aid programming to ensure
success.
Pros: Allows staff to focus on new initiatives, no new financial commitments, reduces
operational and administrative complexity, maintains program stability for providers and
families, allows for data collection and evaluation of current program.
Cons: Limits additional supports for providers and families, may not address emerging or
unmet needs in the childcare community, missed opportunity to expand services during a
period of demonstrated demand, potential perception of stagnation or lack of responsiveness
to childcare community feedback.
3.Wait on Childcare Provider Housing Focus
Gather information from existing City of Aspen Housing Projects .
Pros: City of Aspen is addressing this need through the Lumberyard and other affordable
housing developments, avoids duplicating efforts already underway by the City, reduces
immediate financial and administrative burden, enables data -driven decision-making based on
actual outcomes and demand.
6
6
Cons: Current projects do not prioritize childcare provider housing needs, delays relief for
childcare providers experiencing housing instability, risk that childcare workforce needs
remain unmet within existing housing allocation models, may impact provider recruitment and
retention, missed opportunity to advocate early for dedicated units or priority placement for
childcare staff.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Staff proposed options and recommendations are supportive of Council's goal to address
early childhood education (ECE) affordability and accessibility. While the City has long been
actively engaged in supporting families and ECE providers, it is important to recognize there
is also the newly created Confluence Early Childhood Education Coalition, funded by the
recently adopted 0.25% special district sales tax. Given that this new entity should further
support families and providers throughout its borders (including within Aspen), while it is early
and not fully defined on how that will materialize, it is an important element for Council
consideration when considering staff provided options.
ATTACHMENTS
•Attachment A – City of Aspen Childcare Needs Assessment Report
•Attachment B – Staff Memo for 5-28-24 City Council Meeting
•Attachment C – Pitkin County Birth Rate Trend Graphic
7
CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT
FINAL REPORT
8
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND 19
PROVIDER SUSTAINABILITY 32
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS 33
CONCLUSION 38
APPENDICES 39
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
BACKGROUND 10
GOALS & OBJECTIVES OF THE ASSESSMENT 11
CONTEXT 13
9
BURLINGAME ANALYSIS
AT A GLANCE
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.
10
4
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE
NEEDS ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
11
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.
12
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
6
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.
13
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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
14
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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).
15
PITKIN COUNTY CHILD CARE NEEDS ASSESSMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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.
16
10
BACKGROUND
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.
17
11
BACKGROUND
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.
18
12
GOALS & OBJECTIVES
OF THE ASSESSMENT
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).
19
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. 13
20
CONTEXT
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.
21
CONTEXT
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. 15
22
CONTEXT
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN PITKIN COUNTY & THE BROADER REGION
16
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 2023.1 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.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.
23
CONTEXT
DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN PITKIN COUNTY & THE BROADER REGION
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
2040.7 Overall, projections suggest Pitkin County’s young child population will decline by 8% (61
children) between 2024 and 2040.8 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.
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 2040.9 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 2040.10
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
24
CONTEXT
Source: Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Forecasts.
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%.12 Nearly 75% of
young children in Eagle County and 67% of young children in Garfield County live in families
where all parents are working.13 Children in these households most likely need some sort of non-
parental child care during a typical week.
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.14 An estimated
15% of Garfield County workers and 11%
of Eagle County workers commute to
Pitkin County for their jobs.15 These
commuters are an important population
to consider when estimating demand for
care in Pitkin County. 18
25
License Type
Child care center (not operated by a school district)
Child care or preschool operated by a school district
Large family child care home
TOTAL
Licensed Child Care Capacity in Pitkin County (July 2025)*
Licensed Capacity
428
68
12
508
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY
& DEMAND
What is the existing supply of licensed child care in Pitkin County?
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.*16 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.
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
2025.17 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.18
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. 19
26
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
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.
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.
20
27
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
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.
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.
21
28
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
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.++
Source: Kids First Community Child Care Needs Survey.
++ Percentages will not add up to 100 because families could select more than one preferred location. 22
29
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Approximately 15% of workers who live in Garfield County and 11% of those who live in Eagle
County commute to Pitkin County for work.**19 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.
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
** 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. 23
30
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
24
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.20,21 (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.22,23 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.24,25+++
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.26 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.
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.
31
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
25
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 2040.27 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 2030.28 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.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.
32
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
26
County
Pitkin County
Garfield County
Net Total for
Pitkin and
Garfield counties
727
4,435
5,162
Population Forecasts for
Children Under 6
666
6,343
7,009
Change in
Young Child
Population,
2025 to 2040
-61 (-8%)
+1,908 (+43%)
+1,847 (+36%)
2025 2040
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
33
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
27
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.
CHILD CARE WAITLISTS
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.
34
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
28
Dimension
of access
Availability
Affordability
Location
Defining question
Are there slots
available for
children who need
it?
Can families afford
to pay for care?
Is the location of
care physically
accessible to
families?
Summary
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.
Many families struggle to afford care and see child
care in Aspen as particularly expensive, even with
the financial aid that is available.
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.
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.
35
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
Schedule
Quality
Sustainability
Family Choice
Do providers offer
schedules that
align with
families’ work?
Does available
care match the
quality indicators
that are valued by
families?
Can providers
afford operating
costs on an
ongoing basis?
Do families have
the option to
select care that
aligns with their
culture, values,
and priorities?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 29
36
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
30
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.
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
37
ANALYSIS OF SUPPLY & DEMAND
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.
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.31 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.
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.
38
32
PROVIDER
SUSTAINABILITY
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
39
33
CONSIDERATIONS
& NEXT STEPS
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.32 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.
*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.
40
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS
34
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.
41
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS
35
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.
42
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS
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.
43
CONSIDERATIONS & NEXT STEPS
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.33 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.
^^ 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. 37
44
38
CONCLUSION
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.
45
39
APPENDICES
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
Pitkin County: 56%
Aspen: 54%
Snowmass Village: 18%
County and/or jurisdiction of residence: 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%
46
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% 40
47
APPENDICES
Annual household income:
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):
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%
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. 41
48
APPENDICES
42
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.
49
APPENDICES
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.
50
APPENDICES
Factor
Quality of care*
Stability or reliability
Curriculum and educational activities
Hours of operation
Provider was someone I know/trust
Cost
Proximity to home
Proximity to work or school
Cultural/language considerations
Average Rating
(1 to 5, where 1 = not at all
important and 5 = extremely
important)
4.9
4.8
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.2
4.0
4.0
3.5
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. 44
51
APPENDICES
45
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%
52
APPENDICES
46
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.
53
APPENDICES
47
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.
54
APPENDICES
48
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.
55
APPENDICES
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.
56
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
English in Action
Morgan Fixel
Pitkin County Human Services
Roaring Fork School District Family Resource Center
Valley Settlement
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. 50
57
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. 51
58
APPENDICES
52
APPENDIX G: REFERENCES
1 Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Estimates.
2 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Vital Statistics Program.
3 Colorado Department of Education. Grade Level Membership by LEA.
4 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Vital Statistics Program.
5 Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Estimates.
6 U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
7 Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Forecasts.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). 2019-2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
13 Ibid.
14 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.
15 Census Transportation Planning Products. 2017-2021 Flow Estimates.
16 Colorado Department of Early Childhood. (2025). Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.
17 Ibid.
18 Confluence Early Childhood Education Coalition. (2025). Parachute to Aspen Early Childhood Care and Education
Status Report.
19 Census Transportation Planning Products. 2017-2021 Flow Estimates.
20 Colorado Department of Early Childhood. (2025). Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.
21 Colorado State Demography Office. 2025 County Single Year of Age Forecast.
22 Colorado Department of Early Childhood. (2025). Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.
23 Calculations based on data from the Colorado State Demography Office. 2025 County Single Year of Age
Forecast.
24 Colorado Department of Early Childhood. (2025). Colorado Licensed Child Care Facilities Report, July 2025.
25 Calculations based on data from the Colorado State Demography Office. 2025 County Single Year of Age
Forecast.
26 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.
27 Colorado State Demography Office. County Single Year of Age Forecasts.
28 Ibid.
29 Ibid.
30 Warner, G. (2024). West Mountain Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
31 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.
32 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.
33 Confluence Early Childhood Education Coalition. (2025). Parachute to Aspen Early Childhood Care and Education
Status Report.
59
53
60
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 1 of 20
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Jeffrey Barnhill, Planner II
THRU: Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
RE: Burlingame Early Childhood Education Center (ECE) Project
Major Public Project, Planned Development and Related Reviews
2nd Reading | Ordinance #06 | Burlingame Early Childhood Education
Center Project
MEETING DATE: May 28, 2024
Applicant:
City of Aspen, c/o Sara Ott, City Manager
Representative:
Glenn & Cody Horn, Davis Horn Inc.
Location:
Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing Planned
Development Lot Park C
Current Zoning:
Public (PUB) with a Planned Development (PD)
overlay.
Summary:
The Applicant requests amendments to the
Planned Development Review (Project Review &
Detailed Review), Growth Management Review,
Commercial Design Review, Transportation &
Parking Review, Boundary Adjustment Review,
Conditional Use and Rezoning to develop an
early childhood education center. The
Community Development Director determines
that this project is an Essential Public Facility.
The application was submitted as a Major Public
Project to provide a more flexible and
coordinated review process.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff supports the proposed development for
three reasons: (1) A childcare center has
been contemplated in this location consistent
with Ordinance #22, Series of 2011; (2)
Development of a childcare center in this
location is consistent with the goals set forth
in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan; (3)
The proposed development complies with all
applicable land use code standards.
Figure 1.
Location
of Project
61
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 2 of 20
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The Applicant proposes development of an early childhood education facility accommodating up
to 94 children. The applicant anticipates 24 employees to be generated from this development.
The development additionally includes a new trail segment, right-of-way improvements, an
adjacent parking lot, and landscaping improvements. Pursuant to Land Use Code Section
26.500.040.C, the Community Development Director has determined that this application qualifies
for Major Public Project Review, triggering a two-step approval process: (1) a recommendation
from the Planning and Zoning Commission and (2) a final decision via Ordinance from City
Council.
The Applicant requests the following reviews and approval from City Council.
❖ Planned Development | Project Review & Detailed Review (Land Use Code Section
26.445.050 & 26.445.070)
Memorializing details related to building design, height, bulk, mass, density, parking,
transportation improvements and other pertinent features will aid in maximizing the use of the
site. Project Review is intended to establish the allowed dimensions of a property and ensure
site planning is compatible with the context of the area. Detailed review is intended to perfect
and finalize the detailed aspects of the project within the parameters established during
Project Review.
❖ Use Variation Standards (Land Use Code Section 26.445.060)
This project does not require a use variation. The development is located on Park Parcel C.
This Parcel was called out in Ordinance #22, Series of 2011 as a “Public Park and Possible
Future Childcare Facility”. The Burlingame ECE parcel is zoned Public (Pub). A childcare
facility is allowed per underlying zoning. Ordinance #22, Series of 2011 also approves the
childcare facility as a conditional use.
❖ Growth Management Review (Land Use Code Section 26.470)
There are no annual allotment limits for Essential Public Facilities; however, the development
must demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. Growth Management helps ensure
an orderly and efficient development pattern, and requires that new development quantify
and appropriately mitigate for new employee generation. Planning and Zoning Commission
will confirm the proposed employee generation in their recommendation. City Council will
determine the appropriate mitigation method.
❖ Commercial Design Review (Land Use Code Section 26.412)
The purpose of Commercial Design Review is to preserve and to encourage appropriate
architecture that creates walkable neighborhoods and supports the heritage of Aspen.
Essential Public Facilities are required to comply with Commercial Design Review standards
and the Commercial Design Pedestrian Amenity standards.
❖ Transportation & Parking (Land Use Code Section 26.515)
The Applicant has submitted a Transportation Impact Analysis and a Parking Plan which
models the number of trips generated and parking needs of the proposed development.
Based on the findings from the TIA and the provisions set forth in the Land Use Code, a range
of measures are proposed to mitigate trips, including 41 off-street (on-site) parking spaces, 5
on-street (off-site) parking spaces, sidewalk improvements, pedestrian route improvements,
driveways, parking, and access considerations, and bicycle pa rking.
62
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 3 of 20
❖ Subdivision/Boundary Adjustment (Land Use Code Section 26.480)
The subject properties consist of Lot Park C, Lot 3, and Lot 4. The minor subdivision/boundary
adjustment will decrease the size of Lots 3 and 4 and will increase the size of Lot Park C. The
purpose is to create a larger Lot Park C to accommodate the full development of the
Burlingame ECE.
❖ Rezoning (Land Use Code Section 26.310)
The resulting lot changes from the Subdivison/Boundary Adjustment will require rezoning.
This is required to rezone the land that is exchanged by the lot-line adjustment.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
On April 2nd, the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the application and recommended
approval via Resolution #01, Series of 2024. Multiple conditions are incorporated into the
approval, many of which derived from the Development Review Committee (DRC). The P&Z
adopted one changed condition related to the vesting of the project.
Section 8: Vested Rights:
Five years of vested rights is recommended for this project by the Planning and Zoning
Commission as timely completion of this project will support a current community goal.
BACKGROUND:
The development is located on Park Parcel C of the Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing
Planned Development. This lot is currently vacant with a public trail running through the lot. This
parcel was called out in Ordinance #22, Series of 2011 as a “Public Park and Possible Future
Childcare Facility”. The parcel proposed for the development is zoned Public (Pub). A childcare
facility is a conditional use per underlying zoning. Ordinance #22, Series of 2011 also approved
the childcare facility as a conditional use.
Figure 2: Ordinance #22, Series of 2011 Excerpt
It is important to note that this project has been contemplated since the approval of Ordinance
#22, Series of 2011. The use was approved by City Council and parcel has long been thought of
as a location for a childcare center. The Ordinance required a substantial amendment to the
COWOP approval and revised dimensional limitations. The COWOP section of the code was
replaced with the Public Projects section and the proposed development complies with the Public
Project criteria. (Exhibit A – Staff Findings)
Childcare capacity within Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley is an ongoing challenge for families and
businesses and is perhaps illustrated best from some recent articles from local reporters:
63
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 4 of 20
“The City of Aspen is forging ahead fast and furiously in its push to expand childcare capacity,
recognizing that if parents can’t participate in the workforce, the local economy cannot thrive.1”
“‘Currently, the City is seeing programs with space for 16 kids with nearly 50 families on the
waitlist’, Assistant City Manager Diane Foster said. ‘Some programs have hundreds of families on
their waitlist…2’”
“This is not an issue that is only affecting Aspen and has been seen to be a valley wide issue from
Parachute to Aspen.3”
The proposed Burlingame Early Childhood Education Center plan was developed after extensive
neighborhood outreach, consideration of the Burlingame Resident and Community Survey,
numerous meetings with an advisory group, and a significant process seeking public input. T here
were two open houses at Burlingame, an open house at City Hall, and information posted on the
City of Aspen website. After significant planning and multiple meetings, the design team met with
City Council to consider the plan and get dire ction from Council. The applicant was directed, by
City Council, to proceed with the land use application and process.
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The Applicant proposes development of an infant-preschool early childhood education facility
accommodating up to 94 children. This includes playgrounds for each age group of children. The
applicant anticipates 24 expected employees. The development includes but is not limited to a
new trail segment, right-of-way improvements, and landscaping improvements.
Table 1: Proposed Dimensional Standards
The proposed project site contains a gross lot size
of 39,122 square feet. The applicant proposes
15,263 sq. ft. of gross floor area for the building.
The building reaches a maximum height of 39.5
feet. Setback variations are requested to
accommodate the building. The proposed parking
for the site consists of Phase 1 – 31 parking
spaces, Phase 2 – 10 parking spaces, and 5 on-
street parking spaces. The project requires
mitigation for 24 FTEs and 73 new trips generated
by the development.
The development will require the trail that currently runs through the Park C parcel to be realigned.
This will require significant retaining walls in the existing slope maintenance and grading
easement area owned by Aspen Valley Land Trust. The proposed project design was the result
of multiple meetings with the applicant team, Kids First staff members, Kids First Advisory Board,
and extensive neighborhood outreach.
1Sackariason, Carolyn. “City of Aspen child care capacity goal on fast track.” The Aspen Times, Nov 27, 2021)
2 Webber, Megan. “Aspen City Council supports increased capacity for child care” The Aspen Times, Jan 25, 2022)
3 Lassalle, Laurine. “Aspen Journalism: Report sheds light on child-care capacity gap across the Aspen-to-Parachute region” The
Aspen Times, Mar 10, 2023
Gross Site Area 39,122 sq. ft.
Gross Floor Area 15,263 sq. ft.
Maximum Height 39.5 feet
Setbacks As shown on Plat
Parking Maximum of 41
parking spaces
TIA 73 Trips to be
mitigated
FTEs 15.6 (24 FTEs
mitigated at 65%)
64
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 5 of 20
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan
The applicant team considered numerous options for the layout and design of the building
informed by their Neighborhood Outreach and multiple meetings with Council. The Neighborhood
Outreach consisted of the Burlingame Resident and Community Survey, multiple meetings with
the Kids First Advisory Board, and studies of other childcare facilities. The applicant team chose
a design that complemented the surrounding residential development while retaining a distinct
commercial feel, and responds to the significant topography challenges on site.
The site plan and building design were informed by Kids First, an early childhood resource center
that supports quality, affordable childcare choices in Aspen. Their input was crucial in shaping the
square footage and programing of the new facility. Kids First provided direction regarding building
materials, the layout of space for various activities/uses and teaching pedagogy that they would
like to see in the space (Figure 3). Classroom configuration is a product of childcare regulations
involving strict size requirements by age group.
65
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 6 of 20
Figure 4: Height Comparison from Burlingame ECE and Existing Burlingame Phase III Building
Figure 5: Building Model Northwest Elevation
66
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 7 of 20
Figure 6: Building Model West Elevation
STAFF COMMENTS:
Major Public Project Review
The Community Development Director determined that this proposal qualifies as a Major Public
Project, allowing for a streamlined review process. Planned Development Review usually triggers
a three-step review process and requires two separate applications. This application is paired
down to a two-step review in a single application – under the provisions of the Major Public Project
review.
To be considered a Major Public Project, the proposal must support stated community goals,
which is certainly the case for this project. Developing a childcare facility in the subject location
has been contemplated since 2011. The proposed project is compatible with the neighborhood
context. The project addresses and supports the stated community goals of increasing the City of
Aspen’s childcare capacity. The proposed development complies with applicable adopted
regulatory plans, including the West of Castle Creek Corridor section of the 2012 Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP). The AACP states:
The West of Castle Creek Corridor area should provide a transition from the rural expanses of Pitkin County
to the urbanized atmosphere of downtown Aspen. The area should feature separate and recognizable nodes
of unique uses and functions, and maintain a land use pattern and scenic quality along the Highway corridor
that creates a distinct series of visual experiences that signal arrival to the Aspen Area.
The AACP describes the need for important institutional and commercial uses, childcare being
one of them. The City has taken steps to increase availability of affordable housing throughout
the years, most noticeably with the approval of the Lumberyard Hous ing Development. A childcare
center in Burlingame could provide an important institution for the surrounding community.
67
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 8 of 20
Planned Development | Project Review & Detailed Review
Memorializing details such as building design, materials, height, bulk, mass, density, parking,
landscaping, lighting, and street layout will aid in maximizing the use of the site. Adopting a
Planned Development overlay clarifies these details upfront.
Project Review is intended to establish the allowed dimensions of a property and ensure site
planning is compatible with the context of the area. Detailed review is intended to perfect and
finalize the detailed aspects of the project within the parameters established during Project
Review. Because this project is considered a Major Public Project, both reviews are combined
into a single application.
The site plan is compatible with the context and visual character of the area. The site plan
responds to the site’s natural characteristics and physical constraints. The existing crusher fines
trail will be re-aligned adjacent to Deer Hill which requires the installation of nine tiered boulder
retaining walls. These retaining walls range from 35’ to approximately 190’ in length and 3’ to
approximately 6’ in height. The boulder retaining walls will be in the existing slope maintenance
and grading easement area that is excluded from the Aspen Valley Land Trust Conservation
Easement (Figure 7). This new trail segment will be connected to the other side of the shared use
trail and Harmony Road.
Figure 7: Boulder retaining walls and new trail segment
The development is oriented towards Paepcke Road and relates to the development pattern and
materials of surrounding buildings in the Burlingame Ranch Planned Development. The southwest
side of the Burlingame ECE responds to existing grade on site and is b uilt into the hillside. The
preschool playground is located at grade on the second floor of the building. Figure 8 shows the
configuration of the southwest part of the building. Materials and a character zone diagram are
included in the application to model the proposed development.
68
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 9 of 20
Figure 8: Southwest corner of Burlingame ECE building
The property has a gross lot size of 39,122 sq. ft. The applicant proposes 15,263 sq. ft. of gross
floor area. The building reaches a maximum height of 39.5 feet. Setback variations are requested
to accommodate the building (Table 1: Proposed Dimensional Standards). There exists a
significant community goal to be achieved through the development of the childcare center and
variations from the dimensional standards.
Many of the buildings in Burlingame Phases II and III are 37 -38’ tall. The height maximum
proposed for the Early Childhood Education Center is 39’ 3½”. That is at the talle st point with
much of the building significantly lower height than the maximum. The next tallest height
measurement would be approximately 30’ 6”. Figure 9 demonstrates the elevations of the
proposed project. There are no historical or cultural resources in the immediate vicinity; however,
the project is compatible with the neighborhood and surrounding development patterns, including
the scale and massing while retaining a distinct commercial feel.
Figure 9: Burlingame ECE Elevation Comparison with existing Burlingame Phase III building
The applicant included a transportation impact assessment that has been reviewed by the City
Planning, Engineering, and Transportation Departments. The Traffic Impact Study calculates that
the Burlingame ECE will create 403 vehicle trips per day (vpd) on t he average weekday. Peak
hour traffic is anticipated to be 73 vehicle trips per hour (vph) in the morning peak hour and 72
69
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 10 of 20
vph during the evening peak hour. These additional trips must be mitigated to satisfy City of Aspen
requirements. This means that the applicant will still need to find ways to mitigate the 73 vehicle
trips. There is a suite of options for the applicant to pursue to mitigate for these additional trips
including, bike parking, sidewalk improvements, enhancing pedestrian access points, traffic
calming features, and pedestrian experience improvements. The applicant proposes to mitigate
20 trips at this time with the following Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) measures:
1. Sidewalk Improvements,
2. Pedestrian Routes,
3. Driveways, Parking, and Access Considerations,
4. and Bicycle Parking.
It is likely that a WeCycle (or some other bike-share service) will need to be included pursuant to
Transportation Department comments. The Transportation Department feels that this site is a
prime location for a WeCycle station. The applicant shall work with the Transportation and
Engineering Departments prior to building permit to establish the TDM/MMLOS measures.
There is a shared use trail that is located directly adjacent to the development that is utilized by
bikes, scooters, and pedestrians. The re-aligned trail will improve connectivity from this site to the
shared use trail or across Harmony Road to a trail continuation. Additionally, the site can be easily
accessed via existing RFTA bus service. The closest bus stops to this development are Paepcke
Dr III (approximately 200 ft. from the site) and Forge Rd. + Molly Ct. (approximately 300 ft. from
the site) where buses run every thirty minutes.
Figure 10: Proximity to public transit facilities
Figure 11: Proposed Trail Segment - Blue
Existing Trail Segment – Yellow
The design of the proposed development is compatible with the context and visual character of
the area. The applicant proposes materials that are compatible with the surrounding development
and that are seen in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. The materials are low
maintenance, durable, and compatible with the surrounding buildings. The applicant designed the
building and selected similar materials to those found in Burlingame, which consist of steel and
fiber-cement. These materials have proven durability in the mountain climate and provide wildfire
resistant qualities. The existing materials used for the Burlingame residences utilizes a variety of
70
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 11 of 20
roof designs, including shed, gable, and flat to break up the massing of the residential structures.
This in addition to the vertical and horizontal sections of the fiber -cement boards provide
pedestrian scale, reduce perceived massing, and creates visual provides visual interest.
The Burlingame ECE building incorporates a variety of roof pitches and planes along with vertical
and horizontal sections of fiber cement in a manner consistent with the residential development.
This design, in combination with the abundance of street-facing fenestration provides architectural
interest, breaks up bulk and mass while also providing a distinct commercial feel.
The applicant proposes offsite and onsite stormwater runoff and drainage facilities. A subgrade
water quality sand filtration vault is proposed beneath the parking lot. This will adequately handle
runoff from the parking lot and some runoff from the new building. The stormwater, wastewater,
and sanitary sewer facilities tie into existing Burlingame facilities. There are proposed onsite and
off-site storm inlet structures, swales, and dry wells that assist with handling general stormwater
runoff on site. These also tie into existing Burlingame facilities. The Engineering Department finds
that adequate stormwater facilities are contemplated. The Applicant will continue to work with
Engineering to meet URMP standards at time of building permit. Staff supports t he project review
and detailed review amendments with the exception of the on -street parking and phased parking
schemes.
Growth Management Review
The development will help the City reach its goals on childcare capacity. The facility is a public
amenity and will benefit Aspen residents. There are many different character areas of the City of
Aspen. Each area provides a unique ambiance that builds on the beauty of the City and provides
a unique experience for locals and visitors. This area, West of Castle Creek, is the gateway to
Aspen. Burlingame is a unique neighborhood in the City of Aspen and is different from what is
seen in downtown Aspen.
The majority of Burlingame consists of residential development. Buildings in this neighborhood
are modestly scaled with smaller footprints and lower heights compared to the commercial core.
Being outside of downtown Aspen allows for flexibility with density, size, scale, and use. Uses
surrounding Burlingame include the airport, a community college, a business center, affordable
housing, golf courses, and a ski area. The Burlingame ECE captures the essence of the
surrounding development. It is a two-story structure that uses similar materials and building style
to maintain the character and ambiance of the development.
The applicant consulted Kids First to project the number of employees that would be required to
staff the Burlingame Early Childhood Education Center. A total of 24 Full Time Equivalents
(FTEs) are projected. This estimate is under the assumption that the building operates at
maximum capacity. As an Essential Public Facility, the amount of mitigation required is
discretionary. The applicant proposes to mitigate for 65% of the number of employees generated,
which is commensurate with the mitigation typically required for commercial space
(26.470.080.(d)(1) Affordable housing mitigation). This comes to mitigation for 15.6 FTEs. A
condition of approval is included in the entitlements requiring an audit to be conducted five years
after the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is received on the new building.
The applicant requests the ability to use one or more forms of Affordable Housing Mitigation to
offset the FTEs. These include the provision of physical housing units within the City, certificates
of affordable housing credit purchased from private develop ers, or “credit” from City voluntary
employee housing development.
71
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 12 of 20
Because of its aggressive measures to house employees, the City currently owns multiple
affordable housing units that have not been credited towards mitigation requirements. Several of
these units may be used to fulfill mitigation requirements for the ECE. It is worth noting that a
similar methodology was exercised for the development of the Aspen Polic e Station and Aspen
City Hall which were approved via Ordinance No. 11, Series of 2016 and Ordinance No. 4, Series
of 2017 respectively. The remaining balance from these developments comes to 31.35 FTEs. A
condition of approval is included in the resolutio n requiring mitigation to be met prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.
As an Essential Public Facility, it will be up to City Council to assess, waive or partially waive
affordable housing mitigation requirements as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the
purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals (Section
26.470.110.(d) Essential Public Facilities). Additionally, as discussed in the Detailed and Project
Review Criteria, the trips generated by the Transportation Impact Study will need to be fully
mitigated according to the Engineering and Transportation Department standards.
Commercial Design Review
The applicant has provided several models depicting how the Burlingame Early Childhood
Education Center building fits within the context of Burlingame. This site is unique as the rest of
the buildings at Burlingame are Residential. The building has been designed to match the style
and aesthetics of the surrounding buildings. The ECE building matches the size, scaling, massing,
and architectural materials of the surrounding structures.
The Burlingame ECE does not respond to the traditional street grid, seen typically in Aspen, as it
is uncharacteristic of this area. Additionally, this lot responds to the site constraints from the steep
slopes and topography. The building is partially built into the hillside. The building is oriented to
the street to the greatest extent practicable. The building is located adjacent to the Harmony Road
and Paepcke Road intersection. The building is set back from the street facing facades from
approximately 220 ft. off of Paepcke Road and some 50 ft. off of Harmony Park. The second level
of the building is recessed back from the entry level, and the top section of windows are recessed
even further from the second level. This effectively reduces the perceived mass of the building as
viewed from the streets. The building being built into the hillside also helps to reduce the perceived
mass of the building from the street and the Crusher Fines Trail to the rear of the buildi ng.
Figure 12: Building Model Northwest Elevation
72
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 13 of 20
The landscape elements proposed in this application complement the surrounding context,
support the street scene, and enhance the architecture of the building. Trees, shrubs, native
grasses, and ornamental landscape treatments are incorporated into the design. The design
includes pervious pavers and vegetation to assist with drainage on site.
The proposed materials complement the design of the building façade and respond to the
neighboring buildings and structures. The exterior materials are of a high quality, durability, and
possess wildfire resistant qualities. These include fiber cement pane ls, metal clad exterior with
wood interior windows, metal siding, a metal roof, heavy timber posts for the carports, and will
incorporate photovoltaic panels. The existing materials used for the Burlingame residences create
visual interest by utilizing a variety of roof structures and pitches. Shed roofs, gabled roofs, and
flat roofs break up the massing of the residential structures. This in addition to the vertical and
horizontal sections of the fiber-cement boards provide pedestrian scale, reduce perceived
massing, and creates visual provides visual interest. The residential structures contain decks that
help separate the residential structures from the distinct commercial use.
Figure 13: Material Samples
Figure 14: Elevation Comparison Models
Pedestrian Amenity
The proposed pedestrian amenity space consists of three playgrounds, sidewalk areas, a section
of the recreational trail, a landscape buffer, and an internal airlock. The applicant proposes 11,101
sq. ft. of Pedestrian Amenity space out of a gross lot size of 39,122 sq. ft. The code requires that
25% of the Gross Lot Area on a property shall be provided as pedestrian amenity space. The
73
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 14 of 20
proposed development meets the 25% Gross Lot Area of Pedestrian Amenity space
(11,101/39,122 = approximately 28%). This is further shown in figure 15. The pedestrian amenity
space on this property is almost all open to the sky. Only the airlock, 72 sq. ft. of the proposed
11,101 square feet of Pedestrian Amenity space, is not open to the sky; however, Section
26.412.070 Pedestrian Amenity mentions that airlocks may be included in the calculation of
pedestrian amenity space.
Figure 15: Pedestrian Amenity Space
The proposed development incorporates several different playgrounds for different age groups of
kids. The space usable, versatile, and accessible. This Pedestrian Amenity space is consistent
with those found at other childcare complexes. The playground areas assist with the development
of young children in an outdoor environment. Staff finds the criteria met for pedestrian amenity
space. The applicant suggests useful pedestrian amenity space that can be used by three
different age groups of children as well as some areas for the general public to access.
Transportation & Parking
The number of vehicle trips projected for a new development like this need to be offset with
alternative modes of transportation (the Land Use code refers to these as ‘mobility measures’).
For instance, if the project generates 10 vehicle trips during peak times, then a commensurate
number of mobility measures are required.
The Impact Study prepared by McDowell Engineering, LLC informed the anticipated number
of trips generated. According to the study, 73 vehicle trips are generated during the peak
hours. The applicants TIA proposes that they will be currently mitigate for 20 of the 73 vehicle
trips generated. The applicant shall work with the Transportation and Engineering
Departments to fulfill their mitigation of the remaining 53 vehicle trips generated prior to
building permit. These measures include:
1. Sidewalk Improvements,
2. Pedestrian Routes,
74
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 15 of 20
3. Driveways, Parking, and Access Considerations,
4. and Bicycle Parking.
The Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines inform applicants on the best strategies to
mitigate their peak hour new trips. The TIA Guidelines describe this type of project as a Major
Development – Outside of Roundabout with Significant Development. A Major development
typically would require the development mitigate trips using a minimum of five TDM measures.
This project will initially mitigate for 20 of the 73 vehicle trips generated. A condition of approval
will state that the applicant shall work with the Engineering and Transportation Departments
prior to building permit to offset the rest of the trip generation.
The Engineering and Transportation Departments have presented several viable mitigation
measures that could be used to offset the trip generation associated with this development.
One viable TDM measure that has been suggested to the applicants would be the construction
of a WeCycle station (or general bikeshare) on the property or located adjacent to the property
in the right-of-way. Additional suggested measures include:
1. Elevated crosswalk, rapid flash beacons, speed tables, etc
2. Traffic calming measures per the City of Aspen Traffic Calming Policy
Figure 16: Parking Plan Table 2: Parking Allocation
The parking requirements
for the Burlingame Early
Childhood Education Center
are established through
special review. The
applicant analyzed parking
needs for the building based
on the number of people
accessing the site on a daily
basis, including teachers, janitors, administrative staff, and
students. Based on the anticipated trip demand, the
parking lot was designed to meet Americans with Disability
(ADA) standards, and includes drop off parking, electric
vehicle charging stations, among other improvements.
Table I is a diagram of the assessment.
A typical Commercial facility in the City of Aspen would be required to provide three units of
parking per 1,000 sq. ft. of Net Leasable Area. For a development of 14,250 sq. ft. that would
come out to 42.75 parking spaces. The applicant proposes 46 total spaces with 36 initial
spaces built when the project is developed (31 in the parking lot and 5 on -street parking
spaces). The applicant proposes an additional 10 spaces to be added at a later date if deemed
necessary by the facility operator. Staff does no t support the phased parking structure.
The Burlingame ECE is a unique site with a unique use and staff believes that the parking
assessment is a reasonable parking plan. Staff does have significant concern about the 5
on-street parking spaces. Staff recommends the applicant eliminate the 5 on -street
parking spaces from the proposal.
75
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 16 of 20
Table 3: Parking Impact Requirement Prescribed Pursuant to Title 26
Land Use Code Parking Impact Requirement Calculations [Per Table 26.515-1]
Use Parking Requirement (in units)
All Other Uses (civic, cultural, public uses,
essential public facilities, child care
centers, etc.)
Established by Special Review
according to the review criteria of
Section 26.515.080
Commercial 3 units per 1,000 sf NLA
As an Essential Public Facility, parking requirements are reviewed on a case -by-case basis
via Special Review. In this instance, the Land Use Code does not prescribe minimum parking
requirements. The proposed parking totals account for trip generation and anticipated demand
based on the type of development and location of the site. The Applicant requests to meet
parking requirements with one hundred percent on -site parking spaces. A range between 31
to 41 off-street spaces are proposed. The application contemplates developing the initial 31
spaces in tandem with the development of the ECE. The additional ten spaces will be added
if parking demand exceeds supply. Parking spaces are intended to accommodate employees,
ADA needs, student drop off, bus and delivery parking, and electric chargers. Staff does not
support the phasing of the parking lot. The application does not list any reasonable reason to
phase the parking and the measures to build the additional 10 parking spaces are arbitrary.
Table 4: Parking Requirements by zone district
The applicant is prepared to discuss meeting additional parking requirements via cash -in-lieu
payment if the proposed parking plan is determined insufficient. Up to 40% of the Parking
requirement can be met via Cash-in-Lieu. The applicant is currently considering the 41 parking
spaces as the adequate amount to satisfy the development. The 41 parking spaces meet the
modeled needs for the development as measured by the transportation consulting firm.
The Applicant plans to provide sufficient off -street parking to meet the needs of the ECE
without impacting the surrounding neighborhood. The applicant has proposed five on-street
Additional TIA Credits
(Projects Subject to
TIA)
Mobility Commitments
(Projects Exempt from
TIA)
On-Site
Parking
Provision
Cash-in-Lieu
of Parking
Fee Payment
All Other Areas 1 Additional TIA Credit
(equal to 1 Parking Unit)
1 Mobility Commitment
(equal to 1 Parking Unit)
At least 60%
and up to
100%of the
Requirement
Up to 40%of
the
requirement
Location Options for Meeting Parking Requirements
Parking Requirements by Zone District [Per Table 26.515-2]
76
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 17 of 20
parking spaces to supplement Burlingame residents heading southbound dropping off
children at the ECE. This is not a requirement of the development; however, the idea for
additional parking was presented during numerous outreach meetings by the applicant t eam.
The City of Aspen Parks Department expresses concern about on -street parking in this area
as it could interfere with the cyclists and pedestrians on the shared trail path. The
Engineering Department has also expressed concerns on how people are going to access
these spaces i.e., three-point turns of people in the northbound lanes to utilize these spots.
The applicant team is prepared to remove the on -street parking if necessary.
While shared parking is not requested in the application, the Community Development
Department recommends that the applicant consider a shared parking agreement so that at
least some of the parking spots may be used by neighbors during off -peak hours. Staff finds this
criterion to be met for the proposed parking with the condition that a shared parking agreement
be considered.
Figure 17: Proposed On Street Parking
Based on the recommendation and referral comments from the Parks and Engineering
departments ComDev staff recommends the removal of the five on street parallel parking spots.
Subdivision/Boundary Adjustment
The adjustment results in the same
number of parcels. Following the lot line
adjustment, the resulting Lot 3 will be
3,920 square feet, Lot 4 will be 3,485
square feet, and Lot Park C will be
39,125 square feet. This is shown on
Figure 18.
Figure 18: Boundary Adjustment for
Adjacent, Residential Lots 3 and 4 to
accommodate increased lot for the ECE.
77
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 18 of 20
Rezoning
Rezoning of the resulting lots results in a negligible impact to existing land use and neighborhood
characteristics. This is required to rezone the land that is exchanged by the lot -line adjustment.
The zone districts will remain the same. This will not change what can be built on each lot. The
Park C Parcel will still be able to develop the ECE building and Lots 3 and 4 will still be a ble to
build single-family residences. This is demonstrated in Figure 20. Lots 3 and 4 are zoned
Affordable Housing (AH) and Lot Park C is zoned Public (PUB). The applicant proposes rezoning
so that all of Lots 3 and 4 are zoned to AH and the new whole of Lot Park C is zoned PUB following
the boundary adjustment. These are the exact same zoning designations as they are current ly.
This is simply a technicality that is required by the lot line adjustment as shown in Figure 19.
Figure 19: Areas as part of the boundary
adjustment that will need to be rezoned
The proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City
and in harmony with the public interest and the intent of this Title. The rezoning allows for a big
enough lot to support the Burlingame ECE. The other rezoned lots will still allow for single -family
developments as is currently allowed on the lots. The rezoning simply ensures that the areas
adjusted from the lot-line adjustment become the same zoning as the rest of each parcel. The
areas gained by Lots 3 and 4 will become AH and the areas gained by Park P arcel C (the subject
of this project) will become PUB.
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
While staff is recommending approval of the ECE, the Ordinance, as written contains the following
conditions of approval following review of the project by City referral agencies:
• A baseline of 24 FTE’s will be used to establish the required mitigation.
• An employee audit will be conducted five years after Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is
received on the new building. The audit shall include all employees, full and part -time,
working out of the building. The hours will be added and then divided by 2,080 to get the
FTE count. If the audits show additional employees above the baseline, additional
mitigation shall be required. Mitigation can be satisfied by utilizing existing deed restricted
units provided by the City (new or as buy-downs).
• The Burlingame ECE is determined to be an Essential Public Facility. As such, City Council
grants flexibility in meeting the affordable housing mitigation requirements of this project.
The project can provide mitigation through any of the methods allowed by the land use
78
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 19 of 20
code or can utilize employee units produced by the City’s 505 fund – either in the past or
the future for meeting the project’s mitigation requirements.
• Applicant and Parks & Open Space staff shall coordinate with AVLT for review and
potential revisions of the slope maintenance and grading easement and/or the
conservation easement caused by the proposed trail re -alignment on Burlingame Lot 1A.
• Applicant shall document the absence of a water re-use line, backup system with portable
water, ponds, pumps, and valves for irrigation supply prior to building permit.
• Irrigation Water Source Design shall be coordinated with the Utility Department and Parks
Department for feasibility to supply all irrigation water required for this project prior to
building permit.
• All necessary improvements to irrigation water supply are to be at the sole cost of the
applicant.
• The Final Subdivision Plat shall grant a 4 -foot-wide pedestrian easement to the public for
proposed trails on Burlingame Lot 1A.
• The Final Subdivision Plat shall reference, and the applicant shall obtain, access and
development easements for any impacts on non -city owned parcels for certain proposed
trails and trail segments.
• Proposed easements associated with the childcare facility must be finalized prior to
building permit Certificate of Occupancy (CO). Ideally these easements are finalized prior
to building permit issuance or mid-way through construction and not left until the end of the
project.
• Final improvements to mitigate trips generated by the project will be approved by the
Engineering and Transportation Departments prior to submission of a building permit
application. As a building permit application submission may not be imminent, the desi gn
team will collaborate with the departments to explore mitigation techniques available in the
future inclusive of changes to the parking lot, adjacent property and areas within the
walking shed of the site. Physical and/or service improvements are the preferred method
of mitigation with fee-in-lieu permitted for any remaining unmitigated trips.
• As the early childhood education center is proposed to be located within a residential
subdivision, it is reasonable that some trips will originate and terminate within the
neighborhood. The TIA recommends a trip reduction of 20 trips due to the center’s location
and this reduction may be permitted in the future by city staff if changes to the TIA
Guidelines address trip reduction or if permitted by City Council prior to building permit
application.
• An updated soils report, compliant with the requirements outlined in the Engineering
Standards, will be required for building permit submittal. Note that the design may need to
change in accordance with the findings of the new report.
As part of the Ordinance review, Council could remove or alter any of these proposed conditions,
or add additional conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the ordinance on Second Reading. The following
motion can be made:
“I move to adopt Ordinance #06 (Series of 2024).”
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
79
Staff Memo – Burlingame ECE
Page 20 of 20
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance #06, Series of 2024
Exhibit A – P&Z Resolution #01, Series of 2024
Exhibit B – Consolidated Staff Findings
Exhibit C – Application
Exhibit D – Supplemental Documents to the Application
80
Additional Colorado Birth rates information can be
found at https://cdphe.colorado.gov/colorado-live-
birth-statistics
81