HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160418
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
April 18, 2016
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Old Power House Property Zoning Update
II. Child Care Capacity Study
III. Land Use Code Revisions
P1
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR and COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JAMES R. TRUE
DATE: April 15, 2016
RE: Informational Update Regarding Old Power House Property Zoning
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
BACKGROUND: When the City Council started considering applications for the use of the Old
Power House building, the Community Development Department advised staff and Council that the
property was zoned R-30. It was recognized at the time that most proposals that had been submitted
would require a rezoning of the property. Subsequently, ComDev advised Council and Staff that
there was a PUD (now known as PD) overlay on the property. The terms of the overlay or any
document regarding the overlay were not provided during these discussions. It was noted, however,
that although rezoning the property to Public would be appropriate, it was, perhaps, unnecessary if
the PUD was amended. Since the selection of the current applicant, the City has proceeded on the
assumption that the property was zoned R-30 and that either it had to be rezoned or the PUD
overlay had to be amended or both. However, many neighbors have expressed objections to any
effort to rezone the property.
DISCUSSION: As noted above, the PUD overlay documents have never been provided or located.
Given the Council’s request that the applicant chosen by Council to pursue a project on the property
communicate directly with neighbors regarding its lease proposal and the desire to move the lease
forward in the near future, I felt it was important to revisit what was needed to either rezone the
property or amend the PUD. Although it is not unusual for properties in Aspen to have a PUD
overlay but not have a specifically adopted PUD site plan, on Monday, April 11, 2016, I requested,
again, that ComDev attempt to locate any PUD documents. Linda Manning, the City’s Clerk, was
made aware of the request and offered to research the issue through the clerk’s records.
Although neither ComDev nor the Clerk were able to find any documents related to the PUD, Ms.
Manning’s research revealed several actions affecting the Old Power House Property. A
chronological analysis of these actions leads us to where we are today.
Following its annexation in 1967, it appears that the property was zoned R-15. Unfortunately, the
ordinance does not have the map attached. This conclusion is based on a newspaper clipping that
was made part of the City’s files. However, zoning maps were amended and adopted in 1968
reflecting this R-15 zone.
P2
I.
2
In 1975, zoning maps were again amended and adopted by Council. These maps changed the
property’s zoning to R-30. In 1977, the City entered into a purchase agreement to acquire the
property from Holy Cross Electric Association. Then, in 1980, the City entered into a lease for the
Old Power House building to the Aspen Center for Visual Arts, which later changed its name to the
Aspen Art Museum.
In 1981, the City Council enacted Ordinance 57, which placed a Historic (H) designation on the
zoning records of certain properties throughout the City, including the Aspen Art Museum. This
designation is an overlay to an underlying zoning.
In 1988, the City Council undertook significant revisions of the Land Use Code. Following
adoption of these revisions, City Council also considered the adoption of a new zoning map.
Ordinance 15, Series of 1988, clarified some zoning irregularities and rezoned certain publicly
owned properties. For instance, Rubey Park was rezoned from Park to Public. Certain parcels
south of the Roaring Fork that were part of the Rio Grande property were rezoned from R-6 and
Office to Public. One of these parcels was used as snow storage at the time. City properties
rezoned pursuant to this Ordinance 15, Series of 1988, also included the Aspen Art Museum, the
Old Power House.
Ordinance 15 definitively rezoned the Old Power House property to Public with a Historic Overlay.
A copy of the Ordinance with the maps is attached hereto. Ms. Manning has conducted an
exhaustive search of actions following the adoption of Ordinance 15, Series of 1988 and has
concluded that no changes have been made to this zoning. ComDev has also examined its records
and has not found any subsequent changes to the zoning.
It must be recognized that current zoning maps, on line and in the community development
department, including what may be considered the official zoning map of the city, show the Old
Power House in an R-30 zone. These maps also indicate that there is a PUD overlay on the zone.
However, it appears that these maps are simply in error with regard to this property. Thus, I
attempted a brief investigation into how an error of this nature could occur.
In 1992, the Art Museum applied for a stream margin review of a project it was considering.
The application acknowledged that the property was zoned Public. In 2005, the Art Museum
applied for a temporary use permit for some structures. That application indicated that the
property was zoned R-30 with a PUD overlay. Neither project was seeking rezoning nor
required consideration of the zoning. These statements were just reflecting status. Although it is
difficult to piece together events from 20 or so years ago, some conclusions can be extrapolated.
In 1992, existing staff was either relying on the 1988 map or was otherwise familiar with the
1988 rezoning. In 1996 the City and County began to digitize their records as part of its
adoption of a GIS system. To create a digital zoning map, it appears that the point of reference
was the 1975 zoning map. The 1988 map consisted of five separate sheets. The 1975 map was
significantly smaller and is consistent with the look of the current maps. Although most of the
changes between the 1975 zoning map and the 1988 zoning map were adopted in the digital
version, the change to the Old Power House Property simply was not.
The land use code requires the Community Development Department to maintain an official
zone district map for review by the public, which map is the “final authority as to the current
P3
I.
3
zoning of land in the City.” See, Section 26.710.030 (A). The 1988 map was maintained with
the ComDev Department and was available for review. However, changes after 1988, which
have been numerous were maintained on separate maps that are based on the 1996 conversion to
digital mapping, ones that incorrectly reflected the Old Power House zoning as R-30.
Nonetheless, such a map, incorrectly proscribed, cannot be deemed controlling over a specific
action taken by Council.
This situation is unfortunately not unique. The City has previously had to address the
inaccuracies of the Zone District Maps. Coincidentally, one error in the Maps led to a litigation
that is being finally resolved in the Spring Supplemental Budget that will be considered by
Council on April 25, 2016. That litigation, commenced in 2002, involved representations made
to a property owner regarding her own property by City staff based on the then current map. As
with the issue today, that map upon which staff relied was in error. In the procedures leading up
to the litigation, City Council heard an appeal associated with a determination of the zoning of
the property in question, a property zoned at annexation as R-15 but reflected on maps as R-6. In
its conclusions following the appeal to it, the Council made the following conclusions of law:
1. The current City zoning maps identify the property as R-6, and in the absence
of other considerations, Section 26.710.030(A) would dictate that the property is
zoned R-6.
2. However, the above-referenced provision must be read in the context of the
Municipal Code as a whole, and Section 26.310 requires that all zoning changes
must be effectuated by ordinance in accordance with the procedures set forth in
the Code.
3. The R-6 zoning shown on City zoning maps is the result of administrative
errors, which are no substitute for a duly enacted ordinance intended to change the
zoning of the property.
4. Section 26.710.030(A) cannot be read so as to supersede the procedural
requirements of the Code and constitutional guarantees of procedural due process.
Therefore, the City zoning maps which show the property as R-6, which are in
error, must yield to the lack of any official action by the Aspen City Council to
rezone the property to R-6.
Granted, this is a different property and this determination of Council was appealed to the
District Court and was settled by the parties. However, the facts are almost identical to those
here and case law supports the analysis set forth in these conclusions of law. In Wainwright v
City of Wheat Ridge, 558 P.2d 1005 (Colo. App. 1976), the Court held that an “inadvertent or
erroneous change in the zoning map was without effect.” The court explained its ruling by
explaining that “zoning maps derive their effectiveness from the ordinance or resolution that
adopts them … [and] a zoning map merely reflects the effect of exercises of the zoning power
and changes made thereon do not of themselves constitute an exercise of that power.” Id. at
1006. In Board of Supervisors of Montgomery Township v Wellington Federal Development
Corporation, 602 A.2d 425 (Pa. Commonwealth, 1991), the court was required to address the
very issue at hand. The court concluded, “a mere administrative error in misdesignating the
zoning district of a specific property cannot change the zoning classification of that property.” Id.
at 430. The consequence of a different result “would be to allow an innocent administrative
mistake alone to bind municipal governments, a result we refuse to tolerate.” Id.
P4
I.
4
Recognizing this, the City took steps to resolve the conflicts that can arise between an ordinance
and the zone map. In 2003 the City adopted Section 26.310.130. That section states:
In cases where there is a dispute as to the correct zoning of a property, the
ordinance approving or establishing the zoning shall be the final authority and not
the Official Zone District Map.
Although this section may be in conflict with Section 26.710.030 (A), given its later adoption, it
becomes controlling. Further, based on this new provision, the current map, most recently
amended in 2011, and the maps online, which are amended regularly, now have a disclaimer.
That disclaimer states:
This map is a representation of ordinances and actions taken by the Aspen City
Council. It may or may not accurately identify the zoning of a parcel with the
City of Aspen….
It is unquestionable that ComDev endeavors to maintain accurate maps. And, perhaps it is
unfortunate that the 2002 matter did not result in a complete review of the accuracy of the
existing maps. Nonetheless, the City attempted to recognize through Section 26.310.130 and this
disclaimer that errors can occur. Such an error has occurred with regard to this property.
CONCLUSION: The inescapable conclusion is that the Old Power House property is currently
zoned Public, and was zoned as such in 1988.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Ordinance 15, Series of 1988
B: Zone District Map 1988
P5
I.
ORDINANCE NO. \ ~
Series of 1988)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPrING REVISIONS TO THE
OFFICIAL CITY OF ASPEN ZONING MAPS
WHEREAS, Ordinance 5, Series of 1988 re-establishes the list
of zone districts in the City of Aspen, including repealing the
L-1, L-2, R-40 and R-30 zone districts, creating the L/TR zone
district, and renaming the L-3 zone district as the LP zone
district; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure the conformance of the Official
city of Aspen Zoning Maps with the revised Land Use Regulations,
it is necessary to make revisions to the Official City of Aspen
zoning Maps; and
WHEREAS, in the course of reviewing the maps, the Planning
Office has also identified various additional changes which
should be made, involving zone district changes to publicly owned
lands, to certain lands presently designated with an SPA overlay
and to correct several minor designation errors; and
WHEREAS, at a public meeting held on April 5, 1988, the
Aspen Planning and Zoning commission recommended that the Aspen
city Council adopt revisions to the Official city of Aspen Zoning
Maps.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN.
Section 1
That the Official City of Aspen Zoning Maps, be and hereby
are revised to incorporate the changes identified on the maps
Attachment A P6
I.
which are attached hereto as Exhibit A.
section 2
That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed to amend
the Official Zone District Maps to reflect the revisions shown on
Exhibit A.
section 3
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the
adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in
the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
section 4
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or
unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent
provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
section 5
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to affect any
right, duty or liability under any ordinance in effect prior to
the effective date of this ordinance, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances.
section 6
A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 023
day of '7h0< r '
1988, at 5: 00 P.M. in the city council
Chambers, Aspen city Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days
prior to which hearing notice of the same shall be published once
in a newspaper of general circulation within the city of Aspen.
P7
I.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by
the city Council of the city of Aspen on the 02~
1988.
day of
0~ J ~
william L. stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
vJ~
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this 7,3'day of
10. 7 c'-.
f
1988.4/~~
7.?~~~ c?) J ..
william L. stirling, Mayor
ATTEST:
AR.ZONINGMAPSORD
P8
I.
P9I.
P10I.
P11I.
P12I.
P13I.
P14I.
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Shirley Ritter, Director Kids First
THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: April 8, 2016
MEETING DATE: April 18, 2016
RE: Childcare Capacity Report
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo is to provide information about the results of the
community childcare capacity survey, and seek direction from council for next steps in
addressing the community need.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: During the budget process, council had a brief discussion
about capital improvements at the Yellow Brick Building, as well as the need over the last year
for increased childcare capacity. At that time we discussed the need to do a community survey.
No decisions were made.
BACKGROUND: Kids First, with the help of City Business Process Manager, developed a
community survey asking about the need for childcare. We emailed the link to the online survey
to local employers, to send to all their employees. These employers included:
a. Aspen Valley Hospital
b. Aspen Skiing Company
c. City of Aspen
d. Pitkin County
e. Aspen School District
We also distributed the link to the online survey through Aspen Chamber Resort Association
(ACRA), Aspen Pitkin County Housing Association (APCHA), and placed ads in the daily and
weekly newspapers. 535 people responded to the survey conducted from February 10 to March 4,
2016. The questions we asked, and the raw data answers from the survey is attachment A.
P15
II.
Page 2 of 4
Demographic data:
1. For the target population (331) that answered the questions, 274 respondents or 79.4%
work in Aspen; 44 respondents or 12.8% work in Snowmass Village, with 11
respondents 3.2%, work in Basalt and El Jebel.
2. Nearly half, 44.1% or 153 respondents live in Aspen, 18.3% or 64 respondents live in
Basalt or El Jebel, 8.6% or 30 respondents live in Snowmass Village, and 8.6% or 30
respondents live in unincorporated Pitkin County. Smaller numbers of respondents from
Carbondale to Rifle.
3. Income ranges from the survey respondents:
10.2% earned less than $50,000,
21.1% earned between $50,001 and $75,000,
24.3% earned between $75,001 and $100,000,
29.9% earned between $100,001 and $150,000, and
14.5% earned over $150,000.
Survey conclusions:
About half the people responding to the survey live in Aspen and Pitkin County; most
people also work in Aspen. Questions 3 & 4
In the next five years we can expect to see a 67% increase in the number of children age
birth to 5 years. (300-476) Questions 5 & 6
Currently 48%, nearly half, of respondents use licensed center based childcare; when
asked their preferred childcare arrangement, 65% selected licensed center based
childcare. This indicates the need for spaces is approximately 35% higher than is met
today. Based on current childcare enrollment, this is about 110 additional children if the
survey sample is a representation of overall childcare use. Questions 7 & 8
When asked their ideal location for childcare, 60% of respondents chose close to work,
followed by 45% choosing close to home. For our survey sample, this points mostly to an
Aspen location for either of these choices. Question 12
Respondents affirmed the need (65%) for childcare offered at least from 7:30 am to 5:30
pm, with most (58%) needing full time, year round childcare. Question 13
Respondents stressed the need for flexible work schedules (61%). Some reported a great
deal of flexibility from their current employer, for others it was the most requested
employer support. Questions 16 & 17
Current average enrollment at Pitkin County licensed childcare programs 96% for all age
groups, birth to 5 years. Kids First has tracked this since 1/31/2015 and found only
seasonal variances, ranging from 90.3% to 97.3%.
Programs reported wait lists with between 21 and 50 children, of all ages they are not able
to accommodate currently. Assuming there are families on multiple wait lists, it would
point to at least 50 children needing/wanting care in programs at this time.
Additional space added to the Yellow Brick Building meets the desire for childcare close
to work for most people; as well as close to home for some people. The Yellow Brick
Building space also addresses the desire for childcare to be close to public transportation.
P16
II.
Page 3 of 4
This does not preclude the need for additional space for childcare in the Basalt or Snowmass
Village areas for those who desire childcare closer to where they live. Kids First staff continues
to work with the Town of Basalt to support their efforts to increase childcare capacity; Basalt has
budgeted $75,000 in 2016 for expansion of existing programs, financial aid, right now helping 8
families, and community outreach. Eagle County has contributed $10,000 for the expansion of 29
childcare spaces at Blue Lake in El Jebel. Kids First staff is working with Little Red Schoolhouse
in Snowmass Village to bring community leaders together to address the need for childcare there.
Kids First staff also plays a leadership role in the Aspen Community Foundation Cradle to Career
Initiative, Ready for Kindergarten task force. This collective effort has brought business leaders
to the table with elected officials from Eagle and Pitkin Counties, and the Town of Basalt to plan
for increasing capacity in high quality childcare programs in the mid-valley. Some of the entities
are interested in sustainable funding to reach these goals.
The other stated desire – on-site at work (28%) is more difficult given our geography in
the valley, but could be a topic of discussion among the largest employers, whose
employees were surveyed. This happens currently at the Aspen School District.
When thinking about classrooms it should be noted that to meet licensing, Colorado
Shines, and NAEYC quality standards a classroom caring for infants and toddlers would
serve 8 children a day, a preschool classroom would serve 16 children a day. The size of
the classrooms are similar for all age groups, at least 600 s.f., due to the need for crib
space for infants, and the inclusion of bathrooms in the toddler space. For preschoolers,
bathrooms can be shared by a couple rooms in proximity to each other. So for example if
you had 8 new classrooms, 4 serving infants and toddlers, 4 serving preschoolers, there
would be an addition of 96 children per day in childcare.
Right now there are about 325 children enrolled each day in licensed childcare in Pitkin
County, if we take the conservative figure of a 35% increase, we would be trying to
accommodate 440 children each day, an increase of 115 children. Because 80% work in
Aspen; and 44% live in Aspen; the overwhelming choice for childcare is in Aspen.
DISCUSSION: Aspen needs more capacity for childcare. People chose to live here for the
lifestyle, sometimes the work, and they stay to raise a family. Our community needs the vitality
of these families, and the birth rate is expected to increase, so how do we support the children
and families in our community? The survey data has helped Kids First staff conclude that need
for childcare spaces will increase by at least 35% over the next five years. Surrounding
communities are already seeing this increase.
Kids First Advisory Board recommends increasing capacity to address the need for childcare in
the community. They have also studied other sites, including Burlingame and other locations in
and around Aspen. Yellow Brick and Burlingame rose to the top initially because the city of
Aspen already owned the land. The parcel at Burlingame presented some issues: traffic, parking
and the size and elevations of the parcel that could seriously impact a building envelope. The
Yellow Brick Building offered some possible savings: efficiencies by adding to a building
already used for childcare rather than two city owned locations to manage, in-town location close
to work, by relocating a basketball court additional building space can be accommodated, near
P17
II.
Page 4 of 4
public transportation and other in-town amenities. For this reason the Yellow Brick Building
became the recommended location.
Kids First staff will also hold follow-up meetings to discuss the survey results with the employers
and other stakeholders, whose employees answered the survey. We learned a great deal, and
some things can be changed across the community to better support working families with young
children. We also learned that we need to distribute information about some services we provide
– that people did not seem to know about.
Kids First staff is seeking direction from City Council regarding next steps:
We propose conducting a financial/feasibility study as the next step, allowing us to
bring a more complete picture back to city council. We have questions 1) how do we
maintain the existing Yellow Brick Building as a valuable city asset, 2) How much
will new childcare space cost 3) How will this impact operational costs in the future –
is this sustainable?
What else do we need to know?
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial/feasibility study is expected to be done by
city staff, including Kids First, Finance, Business Process, and Manager’s office staff. This will
address financial impacts if council direction is to increase childcare capacity.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This is not yet determined, it will be a critical part of the
design process if that is the direction we are given.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Information and direction for staff to use the community survey
data to proceed with a feasibility study to determine alternatives for capacity planning.
ALTERNATIVES: If council does not want to conduct a financial feasibility study, Kids First
staff could attempt to elicit support from other governments and businesses; Kids First staff is
already working across the region because we know it is a bigger issue and cannot be solved by
City of Aspen alone. Kids First staff could also do nothing to expand capacity; this would have
an enormous negative impact on our community, employers, and families. Kids First staff could
consider other options and other locations for additional childcare building space; suitable space
has been considered and is difficult to find and expensive for the operation of childcare.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Survey Data
B. Childcare Program Capacity report
P18
II.
94.21%504
5.79%31
Q1 Do you or your partner/spouse work or
live in Pitkin County? If so, please answer
"yes" to provide more information on your
location and your childcare needs. If not,
answer "no" to be taken to the end of the
survey.
Answered: 535 Skipped: 0
Total 535
Yes
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
1 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P19
II.
65.67%331
30.95%156
3.37%17
Q2 Do you have children under the age of 5,
or do you plan to have children in the next 5
years?
Answered: 504 Skipped: 31
Total 504
Yes
No
Uncertain
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes
No
Uncertain
2 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P20
II.
44.09%153
8.65%30
12.68%44
5.76%20
11.82%41
4.61%16
6.63%23
1.44%5
0.86%3
3.46%12
Q3 Please tell us where you live:
Answered: 347 Skipped: 188
Total 347
#Other (please specify)Date
1 New Castle 2/29/2016 12:35 PM
Aspen
Snowmass
Village
Basalt
El Jebel
Carbondale
Glenwood
Springs
Unincorporated
Pitkin Count...
Unincorporated
Eagle County...
Unincorporated
Garfield County
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Aspen
Snowmass Village
Basalt
El Jebel
Carbondale
Glenwood Springs
Unincorporated Pitkin County (such as Old Snowmass, Aspen Village, etc.)
Unincorporated Eagle County (Missouri Heights, etc.)
Unincorporated Garfield County
Other (please specify)
3 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P21
II.
2 Aspen Village 2/29/2016 10:42 AM
3 New castle 2/24/2016 9:36 PM
4 Brush creek village 2/24/2016 9:43 AM
5 Woody Creek 2/23/2016 10:04 AM
6 Woody Creek 2/21/2016 2:07 PM
7 Woody Creek 2/17/2016 12:42 PM
8 Woody Creek 2/17/2016 12:17 PM
9 Rifle 2/17/2016 7:24 AM
10 Woody Creek 2/16/2016 2:49 PM
11 Silt 2/16/2016 1:31 PM
12 Gypsum 2/16/2016 12:43 PM
4 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P22
II.
79.42%274
12.75%44
2.61%9
0.58%2
0.29%1
1.16%4
0.58%2
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.29%1
Q4 Please tell us where your primary job is
located:
Answered: 345 Skipped: 190
Aspen
Snowmass
Village
Basalt
El Jebel
Carbondale
Glenwood
Springs
Unincorporated
Pitkin Count...
Unincorporated
Eagle County...
Unincorporated
Garfield County
I do not work
outside the...
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Aspen
Snowmass Village
Basalt
El Jebel
Carbondale
Glenwood Springs
Unincorporated Pitkin County (such as Old Snowmass, Aspen Village, etc.)
Unincorporated Eagle County (Missouri Heights, etc.)
Unincorporated Garfield County
I do not work outside the home
5 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P23
II.
2.32%8
Total 345
#Other (please specify)Date
1 i work in snowmass, husband in aspen 2/29/2016 2:01 PM
2 Aspen and Snowmass 2/29/2016 12:50 PM
3 Aspen highlands 2/29/2016 10:55 AM
4 Two Creeks in Snowmass 2/29/2016 10:39 AM
5 AABC 2/23/2016 10:04 AM
6 My husband works for a CT-based company out of an office in Aspen 2/18/2016 8:48 PM
7 I work in Aspen she works in Glenwood Springs 2/16/2016 12:42 PM
8 ABC 2/16/2016 8:02 AM
Other (please specify)
6 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P24
II.
Q5 Please tell us the ages and number of
the dependents under the age of 5 living in
your home:
Answered: 329 Skipped: 206
Age: less than
1 year
Age: 12 to 24
months
Age: 25 to 36
months
Age: 37 to 48
months
7 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P25
II.
65.56%
118
32.22%
58
2.22%
4
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
180
58.96%
102
39.88%
69
1.16%
2
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
173
66.67%
106
30.82%
49
1.89%
3
0.00%
0
0.63%
1
159
69.33%
104
30.67%
46
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
150
60.25%
97
36.02%
58
3.73%
6
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
161
None 1 child 2 children 3 children > 3 children
Age: 49 to 59
months
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
None 1 child 2 children 3 children > 3 children Total
Age: less than 1 year
Age: 12 to 24 months
Age: 25 to 36 months
Age: 37 to 48 months
Age: 49 to 59 months
8 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P26
II.
Q6 Within the next five years, how many
children of each age to you anticipate
having in your home?
Answered: 322 Skipped: 213
Age: less than
1 year
Age: 12 to 24
months
Age: 25 to 36
months
Age: 37 to 48
months
9 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P27
II.
30.85%
62
56.72%
114
11.94%
24
0.50%
1
0.00%
0
201
48.51%
65
42.54%
57
8.96%
12
0.00%
0
0.00%
0
134
43.07%
59
49.64%
68
6.57%
9
0.73%
1
0.00%
0
137
49.22%
63
42.19%
54
7.03%
9
0.00%
0
1.56%
2
128
40.79%
62
48.03%
73
9.87%
15
0.66%
1
0.66%
1
152
none 1 child 2 children 3 children > 3 children
Age: 49 to 59
months
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
none 1 child 2 children 3 children > 3 children Total
Age: less than 1 year
Age: 12 to 24 months
Age: 25 to 36 months
Age: 37 to 48 months
Age: 49 to 59 months
10 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P28
II.
14.60%47
26.40%85
6.83%22
48.45%156
12.42%40
9.63%31
27.02%87
8.07%26
Q7 Please tell us about your CURRENT
childcare needs and arrangements for your
dependents under 5 living in your home.
Check all that apply on a regular basis.
Answered: 322 Skipped: 213
Total Respondents: 322
#Other (please specify)Date
1 One day a week at the Treehouse 3/4/2016 10:18 AM
2 Baby is due March 12 and we are on the wait list for ELC 3/3/2016 11:47 AM
3 unlicensed nanny 3/2/2016 8:55 AM
4 .3/1/2016 1:23 PM
My relatives,
neighbors or...
My
partner/spou...
The children
regularly st...
The children
regularly st...
I need
licensed...
I need
childcare bu...
Not applicable
- I do not h...
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
My relatives, neighbors or friends care for the children on a regular basis
My partner/spouse or I regularly stay home to care for the children
The children regularly stay with a licensed at-home daycare provider
The children regularly stay at a licensed day care center
I need licensed childcare but have been unable to find a regular spot
I need childcare but have been unable to afford it
Not applicable - I do not have dependents under the age of 5
Other (please specify)
11 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P29
II.
5 Nanny 3/1/2016 11:52 AM
6 For 3 days a week, our 3 year old is in the 1/2 day pre K program at Basalt Elementary. My wife stays home with our 8
month old and I stay home 1 day per week when she works
3/1/2016 10:30 AM
7 Ski & Snowboard School 2/29/2016 10:43 AM
8 Part time At home, part time day care but need full time day care as too expensive for at home 2/28/2016 10:33 AM
9 nanny 2/25/2016 12:26 PM
10 No options other than where we are. Everything has a huge waitlist 2/24/2016 2:40 PM
11 I bring her to work with me 2/22/2016 1:08 PM
12 More child care is needed in the valley! Specifically Aspen!2/22/2016 9:10 AM
13 I need more days at licensed care center but cannot get them due to capacity issues.2/19/2016 3:31 PM
14 My baby is due in August. I am on lengthy waiting lists for child care after my maternity leave is up, and I'm worried I
will not be able to find regular care.
2/19/2016 11:41 AM
15 Unlicensed nanny keeps child in our home 2 days/week 2/19/2016 8:49 AM
16 Had to quit my job 2/17/2016 1:17 PM
17 I need more than part-time childcare, but am unable to afford it.2/17/2016 11:39 AM
18 Goes to an un-licensed in-home daycare provider 2/17/2016 11:33 AM
19 Nanny helps at our house. Not licensed, expensive and unreliable.2/17/2016 10:16 AM
20 Infant at home full time w mom, toddler goes to NJS hobby farm 2x/wk 2/16/2016 4:44 PM
21 Having a baby in three weeks and have been on a waiting list for about 7 months and I am still unable to find daycare
by the time I have to come back to work.
2/16/2016 1:45 PM
22 We use both a nanny & daycare 2/15/2016 9:14 PM
23 babysitters 2/12/2016 2:46 PM
24 i have a babysitter on days i dont have preschool 2/12/2016 1:37 PM
25 We would like more flexibility and to add a day if needed. Our daughter is the oldest of her classmates because they
do not have room for her in the classroom that is more age appropriate.
2/12/2016 11:19 AM
26 occasional babysitters, but need more flexible/affordable options 2/11/2016 11:37 AM
12 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P30
II.
16.77%54
26.40%85
20.19%65
65.22%210
19.25%62
1.55%5
Q8 Please tell us about your PREFERRED
childcare needs and arrangements for your
dependents under 5 living in your home.
Check all that would apply on a regular
basis.
Answered: 322 Skipped: 213
Total Respondents: 322
#Other (please specify)Date
1 Dependent on relatives moving to RFV 3/3/2016 11:47 AM
2 We are currently looking for a licensed child care facility and we are waiting lists. We are hoping the hospital will soon
provide this option as there are so many young families working at AVH.
2/26/2016 10:49 AM
3 in a dream situation i could stay home PT with Child and work PT 2/25/2016 9:48 AM
4 Wish we had more flexibility or more money but we lose funding help if we do less than full time at ELC 2/19/2016 4:19 PM
5 Prefer more Spanish-speaking childcare providers 2/17/2016 11:39 AM
Relatives,
neighbors or...
Partner/spouse
or I regular...
Children
regularly st...
Children
regularly st...
Not applicable
- I do not h...
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Relatives, neighbors or friends care for the children on a regular basis
Partner/spouse or I regularly stay home to care for the children
Children regularly stay with a licensed at-home daycare provider
Children regularly stay at a licensed day care center
Not applicable - I do not have dependents under the age of 5
Other (please specify)
13 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P31
II.
2.20%7
1.57%5
96.23%306
Q9 Do you have a need for childcare
providers who serve special needs
children?
Answered: 318 Skipped: 217
Total 318
Yes, and I
have an...
Yes, and I
have not bee...
No
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes, and I have an existing provider
Yes, and I have not been able to find a provider
No
14 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P32
II.
Q10 If you indicated you need a provider for
a special needs child, please tell us more
about your needs:
Answered: 8 Skipped: 527
#Responses Date
1 Day care refused to take our special needs 1 year old unless we hired an aide.3/2/2016 8:55 AM
2 .3/1/2016 1:23 PM
3 speech, motor skills delays 2/29/2016 2:03 PM
4 independent learning plan for my child with speech articulation needs 2/22/2016 4:51 PM
5 My son who is 4.5 yo was in EI, he received services from age 14 mo until just recently. He is doing great now.2/18/2016 8:51 PM
6 Our daughter has a very rare genetic syndrome and has been on a early intervention and now an IEP since birth.2/18/2016 1:35 PM
7 Special education teacher that can help develop a my child's language (I currently have one)2/18/2016 10:36 AM
8 Non-potty trained 4 year old.2/17/2016 11:27 AM
15 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P33
II.
21.84%69
22.15%70
25.95%82
23.73%75
27.22%86
Q11 Where does your child/children receive
childcare?
Answered: 316 Skipped: 219
Total Respondents: 316
At my home
At a location
within 2 mil...
At a location
within 2 mil...
At a location
more than 2...
Not applicable
- I do not h...
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
At my home
At a location within 2 miles of my home
At a location within 2 miles of my work
At a location more than 2 miles from my home or work
Not applicable - I do not have dependents under the age of 5
16 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P34
II.
15.26%47
45.78%141
59.09%182
6.17%19
28.25%87
11.36%35
0.97%3
Q12 Even if you do not currently have
childcare, what would be your ideal location
for childcare?
Answered: 308 Skipped: 227
Total Respondents: 308
#Other (please specify)Date
1 More in Aspen or Basalt 3/3/2016 2:17 PM
2 At the ELC where he is 2/24/2016 8:54 AM
3 The Cottage, Aspen is fine 2/22/2016 4:27 PM
At my home
Close to home
Close to work
Close to a bus
stop or park...
On-site at work
Not applicable
- I do not...
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
At my home
Close to home
Close to work
Close to a bus stop or park and ride
On-site at work
Not applicable - I do not currently have dependents under the age of 5
Other (please specify)
17 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P35
II.
22.33%71
64.78%206
9.75%31
13.21%42
1.57%5
13.21%42
4.40%14
Q13 During which time periods are you
likely to need childcare on a regular basis?
Check all that apply.
Answered: 318 Skipped: 217
Total Respondents: 318
#Other (please specify)Date
1 9am-6:30 pm 3/3/2016 11:32 AM
2 after school til 6pm 3/2/2016 11:23 AM
3 7-4:30 3/2/2016 8:57 AM
4 Weekend Childcare would open scheduling possibilities further.2/29/2016 12:48 PM
5 9:00AM to 5:00PM 2/29/2016 11:00 AM
6 If child care is down valley it needs to go later.2/29/2016 10:58 AM
During the day
between 8:00...
During the day
between 7:30...
Before 7:30 am
After 5:30 pm
Overnight (for
instance, yo...
Not applicable
- I do not...
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
During the day between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm
During the day between 7:30 am and 5:30 pm
Before 7:30 am
After 5:30 pm
Overnight (for instance, you work the night shift between midnight and 8:00 am)
Not applicable - I do not currently have dependents under the age of 5 years.
Other (please specify)
18 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P36
II.
7 0730a - 6:30p 2/25/2016 12:26 PM
8 Weekends 2/24/2016 10:37 AM
9 7.30am-7:30pm 2/24/2016 8:36 AM
10 During the day but based on an actual work schedule for this valley 8:30-6:30 2/20/2016 1:53 PM
11 at least 7am - 630pm 2/18/2016 10:50 AM
12 7:30 - 4 2/17/2016 12:02 PM
13 And everyday... some programs don't operate on Fridays or take extensive holidays 2/16/2016 4:35 PM
14 Weekends 2/11/2016 11:47 AM
19 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P37
II.
58.41%184
7.94%25
11.11%35
2.54%8
1.59%5
0.00%0
15.87%50
2.54%8
Q14 To what extent do you need childcare?
Answered: 315 Skipped: 220
Total 315
#Other (please specify)Date
1 Full time year round as well as holidays. Christmas, Spring break etc both parents work.2/29/2016 11:22 AM
2 Full time except summer 2/29/2016 11:00 AM
3 It's our priority to be w/ our child, we make lifestyle choices to make it possible (small home, not eat out or shop much,
or go on expensive vacations.
2/19/2016 6:41 PM
4 Full time during the school year 2/18/2016 9:37 AM
5 Public School Calendar Schedule 2/17/2016 2:38 PM
6 School year - not during summer 2/17/2016 12:43 PM
7 School year 2/17/2016 12:40 PM
Full time,
year round
Full time,
seasonal
Part time,
year round
Part time,
seasonal
Intermittently
(holidays,...
Weekends only
Not applicable
- I do not...
Other (please
specify)
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
Full time, year round
Full time, seasonal
Part time, year round
Part time, seasonal
Intermittently (holidays, occasionally)
Weekends only
Not applicable - I do not currently have dependents under the age of 5
Other (please specify)
20 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P38
II.
8 during the school year 2/17/2016 12:02 PM
21 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P39
II.
Q15 Please tell us the extent to which you
agree or disagree with the following
statements:
Answered: 284 Skipped: 251
22.89%
65
37.32%
106
11.27%
32
4.23%
12
24.30%
69
284
2.04
23.40%
66
19.15%
54
15.96%
45
4.61%
13
36.88%
104
282
1.97
15.00%
42
13.93%
39
23.21%
65
6.43%
18
41.43%
116
280
1.64
7.50%
21
9.29%
26
24.29%
68
7.14%
20
51.79%
145
280
1.36
6.74%
19
32.62%
92
24.47%
69
17.73%
50
18.44%
52
282
1.35
8.19%
23
22.78%
64
24.91%
70
16.37%
46
27.76%
78
281
1.32
I am satisfied
with my curr...
I have
experienced...
I have
experienced...
I have
experienced...
I am able to
pay for...
I know how to
find assista...
Finding
childcare in...
The childcare
program I us...
The childcare
program I us...
The childcare
program I us...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree
N/A Total Weighted
Average
I am satisfied with my current childcare arrangements
I have experienced difficulty finding high quality childcare for my
infant
I have experienced difficulty finding high quality childcare for my
toddler
I have experienced difficulty finding high quality childcare for my
preschooler
I am able to pay for childcare without assistance
I know how to find assistance to pay for childcare
22 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P40
II.
19.93%
56
23.84%
67
24.56%
69
7.47%
21
24.20%
68
281
1.74
28.78%
80
32.73%
91
5.76%
16
1.80%
5
30.94%
86
278
2.28
32.38%
91
31.67%
89
4.63%
13
1.78%
5
29.54%
83
281
2.34
34.16%
96
27.76%
78
6.05%
17
1.78%
5
30.25%
85
281
2.35
Finding childcare in a program I prefer is a major challenge for
me
The childcare program I use adequately prepares children for
school
The childcare program I use adequately fosters strong
emotional/social skills
The childcare program I use has well-qualified teachers/staff
23 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P41
II.
Q16 To what extent does your employer
support or assist families with childcare
needs? If you need more support from your
employer, please describe what you would
like to have.
Answered: 162 Skipped: 373
#Responses Date
1 I'm not aware that ASC assists. There is limited day care at the Tree house for some employees.3/7/2016 11:29 AM
2 I currently work at a childcare center and get 100% of my child's tuition paid by my employer.3/4/2016 3:06 PM
3 No assistance 3/4/2016 9:20 AM
4 ASC provides discounted rates for employees at The Treehouse, however services are provided on a seasonal basis
only. This is not ideal for full-time, year-round employees. Would love to see a full-time daycare implemented for
children under age 5.
3/3/2016 11:51 AM
5 None 3/2/2016 4:35 PM
6 I am not aware of assistance with childcare through my employer Resources education would be appreciated.3/2/2016 2:03 PM
7 flexible when I need to stay home 3/2/2016 8:59 AM
8 More money and more flexibility with schedule 3/1/2016 8:21 PM
9 Cheaper childcare options, support from employer.3/1/2016 5:47 PM
10 I'm a new employee and not yet totally familiar with my options 3/1/2016 4:34 PM
11 On-site childcare, or childcare close to work would be very helpful. Financial assistance would be appreciated as well.3/1/2016 2:54 PM
12 None 3/1/2016 12:49 PM
13 My employer is mostly flexible with childcare needs allowing a flexible work schedule most of the time.3/1/2016 11:58 AM
14 We need financial aid. We are in debt due to daycare costs. Financial aid income/assistance levels need to better
mirror affordable housing. It makes no sense to us that Kids First financial assistance cuts off at the low end of the
housing Category 4 income level. We are a Category 4 income family in terms of housing, and we are now under water
and sinking fast due to the high cost of daycare.
3/1/2016 11:34 AM
15 Ski School has worked for us in a pinch. I think an ASC child care facility in Basalt would be great!3/1/2016 11:21 AM
16 No idea 3/1/2016 10:30 AM
17 FSA program to put aside pre-tax dollars for childcare.3/1/2016 8:36 AM
18 I don't know for sure.3/1/2016 7:19 AM
19 o, It would be nice to see more understanding regarding irregular happenings. i.e. school snowdays = parents
scrambling to find help.
2/29/2016 8:59 PM
20 ASC should have a set employee day care center for there employees considering they make up such a large
population of the Aspen work force.
2/29/2016 5:44 PM
21 I am lucky - My eldest started in daycare when there were more openings for young babies. As a result the younger
kids were placed at the top of the list for availability. Other parents with their first child have much bigger struggles.
2/29/2016 3:44 PM
22 If my employer had reasonable priced childcare at work 2/29/2016 3:10 PM
23 None that I am aware of. Would be great to have help finding quality, available childcare and financial support would
also be helpful.
2/29/2016 3:02 PM
24 Current support is poor. There is no assistance in finding care and there is little flexibility with working from home
when childcare is unavailable.
2/29/2016 2:21 PM
25 The tax free benefit for ski Co maxes out at $5000, we will spend 6 times that next year. need $30,000 of before tax
benefit just fro daycare.
2/29/2016 2:09 PM
24 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P42
II.
26 I work 8:30 - 5:30 and my son is 3 with special needs, only option for services is the cottage, and you have to pick up
your child at 4 PM
2/29/2016 2:05 PM
27 Employee rate at Treehouse 2/29/2016 1:41 PM
28 No assistance that i am aware of.2/29/2016 1:27 PM
29 Unknown 2/29/2016 12:41 PM
30 I live in Carbondale, this is where my daycare is. I work at Aspen Highlands and take between 2 and 3 buses to get to
and from work. During the majority of the year (April-Nov) bus service is very intermittent. It can take sometimes 90
minutes to leave work and get to daycare. If I was to utilize daycare in Aspen, I would have to take the bus into Aspen,
then back out to Highlands. The reverse in the evening, which adds more time to the day/commute.
2/29/2016 11:29 AM
31 As far as I know there is no assistance. Honestly I just need child care options. My office may move to Basalt and my
current child care will not work. There do not appear to be any options in the town of Basalt.
2/29/2016 11:05 AM
32 I am not sure what support my employer provides. A company day care facility with free or reduced rates would be
terrific; or some allowance to be put towards day care.
2/29/2016 11:04 AM
33 As far as I know, my employer doesn't help with childcare needs at all.2/29/2016 11:04 AM
34 none 2/29/2016 10:58 AM
35 For what I know all ASC provides is the Treehouse but this is only based on availability. It's too far away from my
current office to use it anyways.
2/29/2016 10:57 AM
36 My employer gives no support that I know of. It would be nice to get childcare so I can ski with my spouse! Instead we
take turns.
2/29/2016 10:53 AM
37 More support would be to understand and act on family needs of what it takes to live in this valley. Multiple jobs are
something most working class parents have to do to make it work. Getting criticized for working multiple jobs is cruel.
2/29/2016 10:50 AM
38 Flexing schedules. Occasionally children are in the office with employees as their shift finishes after daycare has
ended.
2/29/2016 10:38 AM
39 Not sure, we are due in july 2/29/2016 10:38 AM
40 In an ideal situation I would like to see large Roaring Fork Valley employers, such as the Aspen Skiing Company
provide on site options for childcare.
2/29/2016 10:36 AM
41 on site day care 2/29/2016 9:37 AM
42 My employer allows me to have a slightly flexible schedule when needed.2/28/2016 1:36 PM
43 No support provided 2/28/2016 10:38 AM
44 need child care that matches work hours (after 5)2/27/2016 9:11 AM
45 My employer does not support or assist with childcare needs. It would be AMAZING to have an on-site childcare
facility.
2/26/2016 3:25 PM
46 As far as I know AVH does not offer child care. I believe they have enough employees and new space that they
everyone would benefit from them offering child care.
2/26/2016 10:54 AM
47 My employer doesn't help, but my husband's employer allows him to set aside pre-taxed money for daycare each
year.
2/26/2016 9:03 AM
48 Free child care 2/25/2016 1:09 PM
49 Does not.2/25/2016 12:54 PM
50 0%- some would be nice 2/25/2016 12:28 PM
51 Minimally. Child care availability is so minimal in the valley as it is and the hospital does not support child care needs.
The nurses have to work 7-7 as it is and a lot of places are open that early and you can't pick up that late.
2/25/2016 10:38 AM
52 No support. Would need financial aids. Maybe trough aspen chamber?2/25/2016 10:14 AM
53 I do not get much support from my employer. I am able to contribute to a pre-tax fund. Ideally, I would start my work
day an hour later.
2/25/2016 9:45 AM
25 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P43
II.
54 I currently do not have children but plan on having children within 1-3 years. Many of my friends and coworkers at the
hospital have children and I see the difficulty that they experience with finding child care in the valley, having to
arrange child care when the daycare is closed or their child is sick, etc. It is a stress that working parents should not
have to worry about so much. Ideally, I'd like a child care option at my workplace, which is the hospital. There are
many parents who would take advantage of this option and there wouldn't be a lack of enrollment. It would offer peace
of mind for many parents who work for the hospital as well as offer the ability for the mother to actually breastfeed her
child. The hospital is being recognized for their promotion of wellness for mothers and breastfeeding and I just can't
believe there isn't a daycare option here. If this was offered, it would give me more reason to remain a full time
employee at the hospital in lieu of working less or for a different company with more flexible hours.
2/25/2016 8:57 AM
55 FSA program 2/25/2016 7:45 AM
56 None. It is very expensive here and the cost of living keeps going up. There should be a cost of living raise.2/25/2016 7:42 AM
57 AVH provides nothing, as usual.2/24/2016 7:17 PM
58 No support from employer. There are very limited choices for childcare in the valley. I have been told that the there
are over 80 families on waitlists in the Aspen area. Good quality employer provided daycare, even if we have to pay
for it, would be very helpful
2/24/2016 2:45 PM
59 My employer doesn't support this but it would be great if some of the larger employers in Aspen can get together to
start a childcare center for employee's children.
2/24/2016 1:45 PM
60 I would like my employer to have a daycare or babysitting option for those days that the school is closed. I work in
Hospitality and typically do not receive holidays off, which makes things challenging.
2/24/2016 1:41 PM
61 No support 2/24/2016 1:26 PM
62 none 2/24/2016 12:37 PM
63 Absolutely no assistance. There is a Flex Savings Account offered for childcare, but the limit does not come close to
covering the rates for childcare in this county. As one of the three largest employers in the Valley, one would think that
on site childcare could be a option. Why don't the three largest employers-- City of Aspen, SkiCo, and Aspen Valley
Hospital pool their resources to provide employee childcare at reduced rates either on-site or nearby??
2/24/2016 12:20 PM
64 Aspen Valley Hospital does NOT support families with childcare needs. There are enough families with small children
who work for AVH that would greatly benefit from an AVH childcare center. The waitlists for infant care in the Roaring
Fork Valley are ridiculous! Its nearly impossible for someone to find infant care in or around Aspen unless you have
been on a waitlist for more than 2 years or you can afford to hire a private nanny which costs an arm and leg.
2/24/2016 11:47 AM
65 None 2/24/2016 11:35 AM
66 AVH does not have any assistance for childcare.2/24/2016 11:30 AM
67 Employer does not assist.2/24/2016 11:25 AM
68 My employer is family friendly - if I need to stay home with a sick child, take my child to appointments, or leave work to
deal with my child's needs they are supportive within reason. It is understood that they will provide me with flexibility
but that I am still required to get my job done and that often means making up the hours at a different times (like nights
and weekends). I am expected to work a typical work day, though they are flexible if that means 9 - 5, 7:30 - 3:30 or 8
- 4. I am also expected to attend all meetings and keep conflicts as much as possible to a minimum, though they are
understanding if an emergency comes up. I think I am very fortunate with my employer!
2/24/2016 11:08 AM
69 My employer requires all hourly employees to use vacation days to stay at home with kids when they are sick or to
account for the numerous days that our day care facilities/public school is closed. Management however is allowed to
miss as many days as needed without any loss of pay or vacation days.
2/24/2016 10:49 AM
70 None 2/24/2016 10:49 AM
71 NOT AT ALL 2/24/2016 10:41 AM
72 I get no support, I would like an on-site program with hours to fit shift work 2/24/2016 10:35 AM
73 Higher rate of pre-tax reimbursement for childcare. We can receive up to $5000, but our chilcare costs about $24,000
for the year
2/24/2016 10:23 AM
74 I do not officially receive financial child care support from my employer. My employer IS understanding and flexible,
and on occasion co-workers pitch in with babysitting and on occasion. I honestly couldn't ask for more from them.
2/24/2016 9:37 AM
75 wE WOULD LIKE SOME FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. aS OF RIGHT NOW WE DON'T QUALIFY FOR KIDS FIRST
BUT IT'S VERY HEAVY ON OUR BUDGET
2/24/2016 9:06 AM
76 n/a 2/24/2016 9:02 AM
26 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P44
II.
77 Childcare is more expensive than our mortgage. I need to make more money.2/24/2016 8:58 AM
78 no support.2/24/2016 8:53 AM
79 None,2/24/2016 8:25 AM
80 My employer is very flexible and has always accommodated my needs.2/24/2016 8:23 AM
81 By offering a flexible schedule in order to have one day/wk off to care for child at home so don't have to pay for day
care that day
2/23/2016 2:35 PM
82 I would like a reduced rate in house facility.2/22/2016 4:53 PM
83 I am self employed and my husbands work does not assist.2/22/2016 4:31 PM
84 no support 2/22/2016 1:51 PM
85 They accommodate my wife's schedule allowing her to work four 10s to have one day off.2/22/2016 1:34 PM
86 Am self employex 2/22/2016 1:28 PM
87 My employer does not provide support for childcare.2/22/2016 11:40 AM
88 I think the timing is the toughest for my family. We need something on the earlier side and pick up at 4:15. It's tough to
find a place that we like that has these hours.
2/22/2016 10:57 AM
89 When childcare fell through (despite being ON a wait list long before I had my baby) my employer allowed me to come
back to work part time for a month while I struggled to make different child care arrangements. It is no secret that child
care, especially day care for infants, is nearly impossible to get into in Aspen. I am lucky to work at an organization
that supported me in this way.
2/22/2016 9:24 AM
90 some flexibility in schedule on sick days 2/21/2016 7:47 PM
91 I Work in winter season mgt. for the ASC, therefore the facilities at the Treehouse are available to us. But, summer is
more of a challenge, particularly financially.
2/21/2016 2:17 PM
92 Child care at my place of work to allow ease for breast feeding, drop off and pickup 2/20/2016 3:21 PM
93 N/a. The system in this valley doesn't work for working families. I don't want preferential treatment at work bc the latest
daycare goes is 5:30 & work goes to 6.
2/20/2016 1:56 PM
94 No support from employer 2/20/2016 9:43 AM
95 none 2/20/2016 8:15 AM
96 Offers Dependent child flexible account. Flexible with my schedule 2/20/2016 7:38 AM
97 They allow us to bring the infants to work for 6 months. More flexibility of hours and staff to share day to day mundane
responsibilities at work.
2/19/2016 10:35 PM
98 We are self-employed 2/19/2016 8:42 PM
99 Spouse's employer provides seasonal care that has helped with our needs for toddler care.2/19/2016 8:28 PM
100 None we know of and we don't need/want it.2/19/2016 7:24 PM
101 No support from my employer. They should support more through subsidy and understanding of schedule 2/19/2016 5:32 PM
102 We are offered an FSA through work 2/19/2016 4:22 PM
103 we can pay for childcare through our employment for tax benefits but that is all 2/19/2016 4:02 PM
104 My employer allows a very flexible work schedule for sick days, school closures, etc.2/19/2016 3:58 PM
105 not at all 2/19/2016 3:39 PM
106 I have no assistance from my employer. I would love a child care benefit or credit. I know $75 dollars a day still doesn't
cover the total cost of child care but it is still a lot of money for my family. We could never afford to have our son in 5x
days a week childcare, let alone pay for more than one child!
2/19/2016 3:36 PM
107 self employed 2/19/2016 3:34 PM
108 Self employed 2/19/2016 3:27 PM
109 flexibility in hours 2/19/2016 2:37 PM
110 I am unsure as to the level of childcare support provided by my employer at this time, other than flex schedules, which
I appreciate.
2/19/2016 11:45 AM
27 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P45
II.
111 Self-employed 2/19/2016 8:54 AM
112 We have no additional options available to us at this time. Luckily we sometimes have the flexibility to work from home
when our nanny is unavailable
2/19/2016 6:42 AM
113 We have a flexible spending account sort of situation where we received pretax dollars to pay for preschool starting for
my 3 yo daughter this coming fall.
2/18/2016 8:55 PM
114 Allows for a flexiable schedule and to work for home if snow day or child is sick.2/18/2016 6:49 PM
115 None 2/18/2016 11:12 AM
116 employer gives a very small discount to staff for on site childcare center. hardly a discount at all.2/18/2016 10:33 AM
117 on site preschool with infant/toddler options 2/18/2016 10:06 AM
118 HUGE, we have an on-site facility!2/18/2016 9:43 AM
119 On site facility exists 2/17/2016 8:39 PM
120 they offer a day care flex spending account. other than that they offer nothing. It would be nice if they offered any kind
of financial help.
2/17/2016 4:09 PM
121 Financial assistance needed 2/17/2016 3:11 PM
122 On site care 2/17/2016 2:50 PM
123 The cost of childcare continues to be a tremendous hardship. $1000/month on a teacher's salary is crippling and leads
to debt and stress in the family.
2/17/2016 2:41 PM
124 Not at all. AVH offers nothing to help with child care needs, anything would be appreciated 2/17/2016 2:22 PM
125 No financial assistance. Also we have to make our schedules work for daycare schedules 2/17/2016 1:10 PM
126 I either need to be payed more or have more than a $5 discount a day for childcare.2/17/2016 12:46 PM
127 The Cottage. No financial support but we have the facility on campus. Wish it was open a little earlier and later.2/17/2016 12:42 PM
128 Wonderfully! They actually have a daycare for their employees.2/17/2016 12:29 PM
129 My employer runs the Cottage which serves children.2/17/2016 11:59 AM
130 A bigger discount at The Cottage.2/17/2016 11:57 AM
131 I wish our employer would give us a bigger discount for payment.2/17/2016 11:49 AM
132 My employer supports families with childcare needs (I work for ASD) I would like to see ASD offer more of a
substantial discount for the Cottage teachers who are taking care of and paying for their child to be in their class.
2/17/2016 11:22 AM
133 I am a teacher at Aspen Middle School, and it's not feasible to pay for child care on what I make as a teacher. I have
only one child, I can't image trying to pay for two.
2/17/2016 11:20 AM
134 My employer provides and FSA for childcare/dependent care. Flex schedule and/or work from home options would
also help.
2/17/2016 8:33 AM
135 reduced payment or free child service would be a great benefit 2/17/2016 7:33 AM
136 Pitkin County, my employer strongly supports my family and our need for flexibility.2/16/2016 4:40 PM
137 none 2/16/2016 3:38 PM
138 I don't know. I have two older step children and we struggled with using the yellow brick.2/16/2016 2:53 PM
139 I am self employed 2/16/2016 2:48 PM
140 Pretax savings account 2/16/2016 2:06 PM
141 I don't feel that my employer has helped with any support or assistance with childcare needs.2/16/2016 1:49 PM
142 None that we know of 2/16/2016 1:43 PM
143 My employer allows me to work from home and work flexible hours which helps me piece together someone to watch
my toddle between myself, partner and grandparents.
2/16/2016 1:04 PM
144 No financial support but understanding in terms of flexible schedules 2/16/2016 12:50 PM
145 A link to resources, or better yet an on site facility for staff 2/16/2016 12:48 PM
146 no current support from employer 2/16/2016 8:14 AM
28 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P46
II.
147 No assistance.2/15/2016 9:16 PM
148 No support from employer.2/15/2016 5:15 PM
149 Information on affordable child care and some financial help.2/15/2016 9:39 AM
150 We are not able to afford 5 days a week of child care but don't qualify for financial aid. My employer allows me to work
4-10s so I stay home one day with my daughter. I appreciate the flexibility but I end up working at all hours to get my
office hours in because with the day care hours and bus schedule I can ever get 10 hours of work in a day. It makes
for a tough day today routine.
2/12/2016 8:12 PM
151 None 2/12/2016 3:19 PM
152 None. The issue is the financial burden. Cost is effectively $300 per day of the week / per month / per child, so one
child w/ day care 5 days/wk, costs $1500/mo. Two kids = $3000/mo. That's handily more than our mortgage on the
cheap deed-restricted housing. Not even Bernie Sanders can help you if you have 3 kids not yet in first grade.
2/12/2016 2:56 PM
153 flextime 2/12/2016 1:39 PM
154 I am very fortunate that my employer allows me to work from home if there is a snow day or if my kids are sick. Not all
employers are like this, esp. not at my previous job.
2/12/2016 1:29 PM
155 None 2/12/2016 1:17 PM
156 None. They are flexible with my schedule. I work weekends and have my days off in the middle of the week so we
don't have to pay to put my daughter in daycare extra days.
2/12/2016 11:27 AM
157 Childcare/Dependent savings account.2/12/2016 9:42 AM
158 no assistance.2/11/2016 2:30 PM
159 My employer offers a Dependent Care Savings plan, which I participate in 2/11/2016 12:42 PM
160 No. Anything would help the large expense.2/11/2016 11:49 AM
161 Does not. Better pay/more flexible hours to recognize the high cost of childcare in the valley would be good.2/11/2016 11:43 AM
162 Flexible scheduling, tele-commute,2/11/2016 9:53 AM
29 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P47
II.
Q17 What one item would most help you
with your childcare needs?
Answered: 262 Skipped: 273
55.26%
21
10.53%
4
34.21%
13
38
2.21
57.50%
92
26.88%
43
15.63%
25
160
2.42
32.03%
41
44.53%
57
23.44%
30
128
2.09
29.51%
18
34.43%
21
36.07%
22
61
1.93
23.08%
15
30.77%
20
46.15%
30
65
1.77
48.76%
59
32.23%
39
19.01%
23
121
2.30
20.00%
3
26.67%
4
53.33%
8
15
1.67
18.18%
10
32.73%
18
49.09%
27
55
1.69
#Other (please specify)Date
1 Daycare extended hours 3/3/2016 11:37 AM
2 Financial aid income/assistance levels need to better mirror affordable housing.3/1/2016 11:34 AM
Nothing; no
significant...
Financial
assistance t...
Flexible work
schedule
Ability to
work part ti...
Ability to
telecommute...
Availability
of space in ...
Childcare
closer to...
More
convenient...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important Total Weighted Average
Nothing; no significant unmet needs
Financial assistance to pay for care
Flexible work schedule
Ability to work part time rather than full time
Ability to telecommute (work from home)
Availability of space in my preferred program
Childcare closer to transportation
More convenient childcare location
30 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P48
II.
3 There are no weekend or evening programs...we're the hospitality industry!!2/29/2016 3:44 PM
4 bettter hours, ending at 5:30 PM 2/29/2016 2:05 PM
5 Recognizing how much work continues to be done off the work site.2/29/2016 10:50 AM
6 Location close to work so that a full 9 hour work day can occur.2/29/2016 10:38 AM
7 longer hours of childcare - someplace that provides care to 6p 2/25/2016 12:28 PM
8 more options for child care 2/25/2016 10:38 AM
9 More programs to choose from 2/24/2016 11:35 AM
10 More options and availability 2/24/2016 10:34 AM
11 Longer hours 2/24/2016 10:23 AM
12 disappointed that woody Creek preschool closed when ELC has 40 people on waiting list for infant care??2/22/2016 1:28 PM
13 !00% Federally sponsored, high quality child care!2/21/2016 2:17 PM
14 Better hours!2/20/2016 1:56 PM
15 Facility to be open longer 2/17/2016 12:42 PM
16 A real option of care providers with realistic schedules is most important on my list. There are some that only operate
for 4 days a week, multiple weeks off.
2/16/2016 4:40 PM
17 More flexible childcare options (eg half days, seasonal, ability to change number of days per week without penalty)2/11/2016 11:43 AM
31 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P49
II.
Q18 Please share any other thoughts you
would like regarding childcare:
Answered: 74 Skipped: 461
#Responses Date
1 I am the director of a childcare center in Basalt, we are located within Pitkin and we have a wait list of over 30 children.
We are licensed for only 10 toddlers a day. We are in need of more childcare spaces, desperately.
3/4/2016 3:06 PM
2 Wife does not work because all of the money would just go to childcare.3/2/2016 4:35 PM
3 More special needs capable daycare 3/2/2016 8:59 AM
4 Very expensive in the valley. People are struggling. A lot of people of having to have one parent stay home and the
other work more than one job. Infant and toddler childcare - booked out, no one can take on any extras.
3/1/2016 5:47 PM
5 Child care should be conveniently located near work/bus routes, affordable, and available for more flexible hours.3/1/2016 4:19 PM
6 The quality of teachers and being able to retain good teachers is the most important thing for me, now that we've found
a spot in our day care and have financial assistance.
3/1/2016 12:49 PM
7 Financial aid income/assistance levels need to better mirror affordable housing.3/1/2016 11:34 AM
8 Childcare is a real challenge in the valley. It's expensive, hard to find good solutions. Anything ASC could do in this
area would be great.
3/1/2016 11:21 AM
9 Currently, we are fortunate to have our kids in daycare in Aspen, but with long wait-lists, we are asked to make
decisions year/(s) out on whether we are staying or having more kids. That makes family/health decisions very difficult
on whether we want more kids or stay in the same school year/(s) in advance just to guarantee our spots.
3/1/2016 7:19 AM
10 The price for child care in this valley is ridiculous and there are not a lot of options which drives up the cost even more.
If there where more licensed professional child care facilities or individuals it would help balance the price as well as
the waiting lists to get in. Due to this we have considered moving out of the valley and to somewhere where these
issues have been addressed. This town is not made for the middle class and it puts a huge strain on families both
financially and mentally trying to find a solution.
2/29/2016 5:44 PM
11 I have been able to get myself to an ok spot with childcare, but it was a huge issue when we first moved to the valley,
mostly because there was almost 0 availability for full time for any place we would trust to take care of our son.
Because of the high demand, pricing is very expensive. I probably would not qualify for any assistance because I
make a good salary, but my salary is the only income for a household of 4 in a place where housing is extremely
expensive. My husband is currently in school, so not bringing in money but we still need some daycare (currently 3
days a week). So the combination of completely unaffordable housing with high daycare costs makes even a good
salary not enough.
2/29/2016 3:02 PM
12 Even though there are certified facilities within the valley, the pay is so minimal that the quality and longevity of
teachers poor. Our son has been attending daycare for only 5 months and since then, three of the infant room
teachers have left and they have only been able to fill one spot because of lack of interest. This affects our children's
physical, emotional, and developmental needs daily. We pay a FORTUNE for daycare and this isn't acceptable. But,
since there are no other options, we don't have a choice in the matter.
2/29/2016 2:21 PM
13 No current children. Planning on starting to have children within the year.2/29/2016 12:41 PM
14 It is BEYOND unreasonably expensive in this valley!2/29/2016 11:53 AM
15 Childcare hours need to be expanded (prior to 7:30, later than 5pm) and more flexible. Closing for a week during
Christmas/spring break/July 4th makes things for working parents extremely difficult.
2/29/2016 11:29 AM
16 My child has been on the wait list for Blue lake since 6 months prior to her birth. She is 2nd on their wait list. which
means she has been on the list for 3 years. I need an option that is on Hwy 82. I have an infant on the way, there are
few options for a child under a year. I have no idea what I will do for her or my toddler in the up coming year.
2/29/2016 11:05 AM
17 It's extremely hard to get a spot at any childcare in the valley. I was very lucky that I put my unborn baby on the list at
Blue Lake when I was 3 months pregnant and I got a spot when I went back to work. I'm planning on having another
and I know Blue Lake has a long waiting list for infants right now and we may not get it.
2/29/2016 10:57 AM
18 Vacation of schools corresponds with guest's vacations. Very difficult for any of us working in tourism related jobs.
Early release Wednesday and the ridiculous number of days off school makes it extremely challenging for working
parents to spend time with our children or cover their daycare.
2/29/2016 10:50 AM
32 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P50
II.
19 The cost of having children in this valley may put off the decision to have children altogether.2/29/2016 10:49 AM
20 I do not have kids yet, but the family planning process in this valley is intimidating. It is challenging to keep up with the
cost of living in this valley even without children. I shudder to think of what it would take to raise a child here with all
the housing /daycare challenges we face.
2/29/2016 10:45 AM
21 I don't feel confident that my employees working from home with a toddler would be able to do their job to the fullest
requirement, but some flexibility with shorter days made up by logging in at home to complete projects seems
reasonable.
2/29/2016 10:38 AM
22 There are not enough infant childcare programs in Aspen and no preference for people that live in Aspen to have
childcare in Aspen. the waitlists change monthly (and childcares have said if you "nudge" it will get you to front of
line'. Families that have a child in the system have preference over new families which does not seem fair as they
already have a spot in the system and one should not be pushed to the bottom of a list simply because they have 0
kids in yet as opposed to someone that has 3 kids in the system.
2/28/2016 10:38 AM
23 My child is currently enrolled in two different programs, HJS Hobby Farm and ELC because the hours at the HJS don't
work for us to have him there daily and we wanted him to start to meet some Basalt kids before kindergarten next
year. I would prefer to have him in one program but the hours at HJS make that difficult for us. He has adapted well to
the situation.
2/27/2016 2:27 PM
24 Child care at AVH or to have them source it to a facility and offer it to their employees.2/26/2016 10:54 AM
25 I'm worried that we won't be able to afford to have 2 (or 3) kids in daycare at the same time.2/26/2016 9:03 AM
26 A safe environment that fosters a healthy, happy and smart child. Early Learning Center has been ok, but I would like
to see more engagement from the teachers; What did my child do today?How did he play? What did he learn? Did he
hit any milestones? Does he have a favorite toy? What did you notice that is new/different? The only feedback we get
is, 'he was good' or 'he was tired'. I would be greatly appreciative for more substantial feedback.
2/26/2016 9:02 AM
27 I have heard there are terrible wait lists.2/25/2016 12:54 PM
28 I shared my thoughts about the hospital having in house child care above but want to reiterate that point. I also think
(as a non mother) that I will not want to return to work full time after just 3 months of maternity leave, which many of
my friends do in order to keep benefits and to maintain a normal lifestyle in this valley. This is a larger issue within the
US for maternity leave but it ties directly into childcare needs here. It sounds like private childcare (ie. nanny) is cost
prohibitive here and daycare is the only option for couples who need both parents to work after having a child. I hope
that there is a solution to improve this.
2/25/2016 8:57 AM
29 More daycare options to choose from in case of lengthy waitlist.2/25/2016 7:45 AM
30 There are great programs but the days and times of operation for full time working parents limit options very quickly.2/24/2016 10:03 PM
31 I am able to afford the programs in and around Aspen but it's a matter of finding a spot for my 19 month old.2/24/2016 1:45 PM
32 As mentioned above, on site child care by the valley's largest employers would help those who need daily care, as well
as those who need limited care in the case of meetings, holidays, school closures, etc.
2/24/2016 12:20 PM
33 The waiting lists are long and Aspen desperately needs more childcare options.2/24/2016 11:39 AM
34 There are not enough options. Our family had only one choice because the only other option we were aware of was
full (and a nanny is cost-prohibitive). We feel like we can't have open discussions with the administrator of our
program regarding our child's care out of fear that our child will be denied opportunities or lose the space in the
program that we desperately need because of the lack of alternatives. Please expand daycare center opportunities so
that other families do not have to experience the anxiety that we do regularly.
2/24/2016 11:35 AM
35 Financial assistance is critical and there is very little choice in providers in Aspen. We feel like we can not provide
important feedback to our daycare provider, because we fear that we could lose our position in the program. There
are no other options for us. Between housing, daycare and food (with high taxes) our monthly income does not allow
us to save for our child's future education. As long time locals, we may need to leave the valley we love.
2/24/2016 11:25 AM
36 I work with two women who have infants under 1 and they cannot get their children into a traditional childcare facility in
Aspen. The wait lists are incredibly long and they are struggling to find dependable and affordable childcare in
general. There's only one preschool in Aspen (ELC) that has hours available for working parents. Most people can't
leave work until 5 so these programs that only run 8 -4 aren't an option for most working families. I would encourage
Miss Mares and Wildwood to consider expanding their hours. We would have loved to consider them for our child, but
at the time I wasn't working a job with enough flexibility to make it an option for us.
2/24/2016 11:08 AM
33 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P51
II.
37 There are clearly not enough spaces available for working parents. Families that do not have two working parents
should not be allowed to use city/county funded day care or be on the wait list for these services. Trophy moms with
nannies should not be allowed to use city/county funded day care at all. They are not working and truly do not need
day care, they want day care because it allows them to dump their kids somewhere while they galavant.
2/24/2016 10:49 AM
38 I wish it was tax deductible 2/24/2016 8:58 AM
39 The hours of many pre-school programs do not accomodate a typical working schedule. For example, the early
childhood center at the community school's hours were 8:30- 3:30; Miss Mare's is 8 -4 with either Monday being
closed or Friday being closed depending on the Aspen or Basalt location. Also, many of the pre-schools follow the
school calendar which means that they are closed a lot without any viable option for parents.
2/24/2016 8:53 AM
40 Not to 2/24/2016 8:25 AM
41 people need to be more cognizant of their needs before procreating. it is not have a child, find the housing, then
demand demand demand.
2/22/2016 4:53 PM
42 One of the day care facilities wouldn't even take my name for her waitlist as she said I wouldn't get in for 3 years. I
was pretty discouraged.
2/22/2016 4:31 PM
43 We love our providers, but have had to sacrifice some time at work to make it all happen.2/22/2016 10:57 AM
44 More space needs to be created in year-round, 9-5 pm day care programs- IMMEDIATELY. We qualify for financial
aid, but my child needs to be in day care a certain number of days for us to receive it, yet she only has 1 day right now
because of availability. We were told it could be years before my child has the amount of days that we need. In the
meantime, we are bleeding money because we had to hire a nanny for the days she is not in day care, and my
husband and I each work from home one day (we both work 4, 10 hour days). We would love to have more children
but how can we at this rate? Even if we put our non existent, unborn baby on every wait list, getting into a program
comes down to the luck of the draw. We were "bumped" down the wait list when I was on maternity leave because a
child showed up that could start before my daughter. I could go on and on about this issue because we have been
immensely effected by it, but the bottom line is that we need more day care options in Aspen. It is frightening trying to
find quality care for something as precious as your infant, and then trying to keep your day job and your bank account
in tact at the same time.
2/22/2016 9:24 AM
45 Biggest issue was quality childcare under the age of 1 2/20/2016 9:43 AM
46 The quality of care matters most!2/20/2016 8:15 AM
47 Have longer and paid maternity leave.2/20/2016 7:38 AM
48 Thank you for doing this survey!2/19/2016 10:35 PM
49 I am basing this on our current situation, but we did find out literally today that our preschooler will have a spot in our
preferred program in the fall. I do not know how we will afford it yet--I'm trying to start a business with a 2-month old to
build up income to pay for it.
2/19/2016 8:42 PM
50 The providers here are excellent. Just not enough room.2/19/2016 8:28 PM
34 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P52
II.
51 I am an educator and have worked in daycares and preschools as well as private schools and home school co-ops all
in other locations and have not been impressed by the lack of tidiness of the classrooms at Wildwood or "herding
sheep" feel of the Yellow Brick, was disgusted by the runny noses left unattended and 2 kids left behind when a
daycare walked to library storyhour, and as a tutor was concerned by the lack of academic development from Miss
Mare's. I have observed several friends and aquaintences who stayed home with their child or had babysitters
occassionally come to their home or husbands care and had a happy and healthy time. But when they took child to
daycare they experienced so much illness it became not worth it for the sickness tradeoff doctors, hospitals, sleepless
nights, broken bones, viruses etc. I cringe when I see a daycare or daycare children coming to an activity we go to b/c
they are sick it seems all the time (runny noses seem accepted as the reality of childhood b/c the standards of health
to attend are so low they keep infecting each other). But when my child has a runny nose I call her sick and usually
don't go out to spread germs. It is possible w/ good eating, sleep and not being mixed with tons of kids in close
quarters to be completely healthy at least half or more of the time as a child.I plan to teach my child at home and tutor
some of her friends because I want to and haven't been pleased with the preschools in Aspen. Nationally the
standards are to know letter names, sounds, and be able to write a little phonetically and read some words by end of
kindergarten this must begin before kindergarten in order for that to happen. I know a mom who happily stayed home
w/ her daughter but needed sssistance to put her in preschool more than one day a week. To get assistance she had
to go back to work. Now instead of a low stress family where they can eat home cooked meals together and enjoy
relationships, there is a high stressed two full time working parents, full time preschooled family. I know another mom
who worked from home and was grateful she could. Then assistance interveened and her kids are full time daycare
and always sick, they sleep at daycare so she's up with them at night. I know a single mom who it was emotionally
more healthy to leave her boyfriend so she did. She I believe recieves financial assistance for daycare works retail in
Aspen, she eats lunch out, pays for parking in town. It seems the assistance provided of daycare is more detrimental
to the health of the city, the stress level, and the deterioration of the family. I am grateful to be a stay home mom (we
go out every morning to one of the free or paid kids activities: story hour, ACES class, gymnastics, bouncy, ARC and I
work part time as a tutor 1-10 hrs a week) and it is challenging yet manageable to care for my one child, keep the
house clean, cook healthy homemade meals, care for myself and have family time. We are very happy staycationing,
enjoying the simple joys of Aspen that don't cost much. I cannot imagine our marriage would stay healthy or together if
I worked full time. It's a downward spiral to do daycare b/c it leads to too busy to cook so unhealthy meals and
expensive meals, too busy for exercise, full sleep, toos sick so increased bills, too busy for family relationships so
families fall apart which is very costly and increases dependence more. Do people actually have better lives with
assistance? Does it actually make our city better? Perhaps assistance needs to consider the ramifications of their
"help" and consider an out-of -the box research based approach that really betters lives. I believe the city's intentions
are good. (Did you know research show people are overwhelmed beyond 150 relationships)? Consider the
ramifications of this for the toddlers at the Yelliwbrick.
2/19/2016 7:24 PM
52 It's as expensive as housing for us and severely hampers what we can do. what's more, I take home only a few
hundred over childcare costs but there are just a lot of payroll deductions for other costs of living... hard to plan for kids
college, our own retirement, etc. Haven't had a vacation ever, because it's too expensive to plan time off, pay
childcare without the kids first aid (because they charge you whether your kid attends or not), and go spend money on
vacation.
2/19/2016 4:26 PM
53 Too expensive 2/19/2016 4:19 PM
54 We have fantastic childcare but I have many friends who have had a hard time getting into programs. I signed up the
moment I knew I was pregnant and that is the only reason I got in.
2/19/2016 4:02 PM
55 we are expecting, and I am nervous about finding adequate childcare when the time comes. I have heard horror
stories and have been encouraged to sign up now (pre the baby's birth) to secure childcare spots !?!
2/19/2016 3:38 PM
56 We currently have requested to add one more day a week childcare to our son's schedule and are on a waitlist.
Currently we only have 3 days a week meaning my husband and I never have a day off together, nor do we have days
as a family. This is a year round problem. Additionally, as I said before, childcare costs are expensive and we while
we can't imagine being able to pay for 5 days a week we would love to be able to!
2/19/2016 3:36 PM
57 My 4yo attends the Cottage. We've been happy with this arrangement. It has been hard to find well-qualified
babysitters for a reasonable fee in this valley.
2/18/2016 8:55 PM
58 I hope child care are open even on holidays and snow days since most parents still go to work on those days 2/18/2016 11:08 AM
59 Child care in the Valley especially for infants is impossible. There is nothing for weekends, if there is a snow day or
holiday I still have to work but they close!
2/17/2016 2:22 PM
60 There is not enough quality preschool programs. I do not want my child in a day care but a preschool. The wait lists
for preschools are long.
2/17/2016 12:46 PM
61 I can't wait to have some!2/17/2016 12:03 PM
62 I'm very lucky to have the options that I have.2/17/2016 11:59 AM
35 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P53
II.
63 While we make too much to qualify for financial assistance, the cost of living in our valley is such that we can't afford
full-time childcare, but need it.
2/17/2016 11:47 AM
64 I just want to express my family's delight over Early Learning Center. They have made my introduction to the work
world after maternity leave incredible. They are open the hours I need, everyday during the week and the care
providers are very caring and have a lot of fun with our kids - they want to go to school all the time, which is most
important to us.
2/16/2016 4:40 PM
65 I am currently pregnant and incredibly scared about the lack of options for newborn care. There seems to be very very
few spots in the upper valley - Snowmass & Aspen. My husband and I both work full time. I have flexibility to work
from home a few days a week, but it still scary to try to find a spot.
2/16/2016 2:35 PM
66 Childcare has been very difficult to even find, and the prices are so outrageous compared to how much my job pays.2/16/2016 1:49 PM
67 Even if we could get into a childcare program, at the going rate, just part time would be a strain on our finances. We
currently don't qualify for subsidy through Kid's First. Are there any models out there of co-ops or something where
parents serve as childcare providers for the day, and then their kids are watched by other parents the other days?
Wondering if Kids First could organize the structure and location for this, if this might be an option to open up more
childcare options in a creative way. Also, why don't more childcare settings provide lunch? In many other cities this is
a common occurrence, and can be one less thing for parents to worry about.
2/16/2016 1:04 PM
68 Impossible to find FT daycare for infants in Aspen. Severely lacking.2/15/2016 9:16 PM
69 childcare programs are consistently understaffed; it would be great to see some city funding allocated toward helping
programs attract and maintain quality, trained staff
2/15/2016 5:15 PM
70 There are no infant spots. I have an unlicensed undocumented worker and got into a bidding war with another family
to secure her. We will likely be leaving the valley after a decade of working here. Combined with the housing crunch, it
just isn't worth the sacrifice anymore to call this valley home.
2/12/2016 3:19 PM
71 The valley is in desperate need of more daycare space, esp. for infants. Something needs to be done ASAP. This is
an issue that can and will affect the whole town if parents cant't find daycare for their kids. The valley is only getting
bigger and more people are having kids now that the economy is better.
2/12/2016 1:29 PM
72 There is a lot of stress regarding childcare. We need more daycare facilities. I should not stress if I need to add or drop
days for my daycare but currently it informs and shapes my decisions. I am afraid I won't be able to add back days if I
drop them. There is too much demand
2/12/2016 11:27 AM
73 I work 12-hour shifts at the hospital and would love a childcare that is open earlier/later 2/12/2016 10:25 AM
74 What Aspen needs most besides more affordable childcare is more FLEXIBLE childcare. With so many people
working in nontraditional (eg not 9-5) jobs, we have nothing anymore that accounts for parents who work on weekends
and evenings. School breaks reflected in local childcare centers are often when parents are the busiest at work.
2/11/2016 11:43 AM
36 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P54
II.
1.41%4
8.80%25
21.13%60
24.30%69
29.93%85
9.15%26
5.28%15
Q19 What is your total annual household
income?
Answered: 284 Skipped: 251
Total 284
less than
$30,000
between
$30,000 and...
between
$50,001 and...
between
$75,001 and...
between
$100,001 and...
between
$150,001 and...
Over $200,000
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Answer Choices Responses
less than $30,000
between $30,000 and $50,000
between $50,001 and $75,000
between $75,001 and $100,000
between $100,001 and $150,000
between $150,001 and $200,000
Over $200,000
37 / 37
Kids First Survey 2016 P55
II.
Summary 1/31/2016
Current Capacity - 10 programs reporting
Infants - 3 programs reporting
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Desired capacity 22 22 22 22 22
Currently enrolled 20 17 19 22 19
% Filled 91%77%86%100%86%
Infant average % filled 88%
Toddlers - 7 programs reporting
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Desired capacity 54 50 54 50 53
Currently enrolled 55 54 56 57 52
% Filled 102%108%104%114%98%
Toddler average % filled 105%
Preschool - 8 programs reporting
Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday
Desired capacity 216 250 250 250 232
Currently enrolled 203 254 245 245 207
% Filled 94%102%98%98%89%
Preschool average % filled 96%
Total number of children served:
Infants 22
Toddlers 54
Preschoolers 250
326
Notes: In October overall enrollment is typically a bit low because of kids going to K and before
the season starts. Given that most programs are 80-100% filled with infants (exception being the
Cottage at 53%), toddlers range from 75-100% filled and preschool age rooms range from 58%
Sprouts, but most from 75 -100% filled or overfilled. We also lost spaces as ECC this fall. We have
one new home in Emma that is not reflected here.
P56
II.
4.18.16 Council Work Session
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion
Page 1 of 4
Memorandum
To: Mayor Skadron and City Council
From: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director
Reilly Thimons, Planner Technician
Meeting Date: April 18, 2016
RE: Land Use Code Revisions – Off-Street Parking and Mobility
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to provide a general overview
of the work that will be completed to update the parking requirements outlined in the Land Use
Code. Council is not asked to make any decisions, but is asked to provide some initial feedback
on the proposed off-street parking related work.
BACKGROUND: City Council has a top ten goal to update the Land Use Code to better reflect
that Aspen Area Community Plan. During a November 2015 work session, Council identified
seven policy areas that should be updated in the Land Use Code. These included:
• Review of Zoning History
• Commercial Design Standards
• Public Amenity
• View Planes
• Land Uses and Commercial Mix
• Off-Street Parking and Mobility
• Employee Housing Mitigation for existing commercial spaces
These work areas were reaffirmed during a February 29, 2016 work session where City Council
agreed to move forward with funding for consultants to assist in the efforts. Following that work
session, on March 15, City Council adopted a temporary moratorium on new land use
applications to enable open discussion about the potential code changes.
In March, the Nelson/Nygaard team was selected to assist in the update to the City’s parking
requirements. Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. are an internationally recognized firm
focusing on developing transportation systems that promote vibrant, sustainable, and accessible
communities. Nelson/Nygaard specializes in developing parking plans and management
programs that have introduced new techniques such as demand-based parking pricing, advanced
meters and implementation systems, and revenue-sharing systems; and, they also bring extensive
experience in drafting policies, regulatory language, and practical implementation.
HISTORY OF OFF-STREET PARKING: Off-street parking refers to parking for
development that is on individual properties – it does not refer to on-street parking. The City of
Aspen Off-Street Parking Requirements were last updated in 2005. The 2005 update overhauled
P57
III.
4.18.16 Council Work Session
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion
Page 2 of 4
parking requirements in an effort to better meet the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan goals of
reducing traffic in town, reducing trips over the Castle Creek Bridge, and encouraging alternative
modes of transportation. The update made the following changes:
• Allowed cash-in-lieu payments to fund mobility enhancements such as car-to-go and in-
town transit, rather than just parking.
• Allowed cash-in-lieu by right for all properties located south of the Roaring Fork River
(the Infill Area)
• Eliminated parking requirements for multi-family residential and lodging units in the
immediate downtown (CC and C-1 zone districts)
• Equalized parking requirements based on use type and location
o Commercial parking requirements decreased from between 1.5 to 4 spaces per
1,000 sq ft of net leasable space to between 1 and 3 spaces per 1,000 sq ft of net
leasable space
o Lodging parking requirements decreased from between .7 to 1 spaces per lodge
bedroom to between .5 and .7 spaces per lodge unit.
The City’s off-street parking code requires a minimum number of parking spaces, meaning a
new development is required to provide a base number of parking spaces, but can optionally
provide as much parking as they would like.
In 2012, the City updated the Aspen Area Community Plan, which reaffirmed the community’s
long-standing goal of limiting car trips over the Castle Creek Bridge. Then in 2014, the City
adopted a new transportation mitigation system through Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA)
Guidelines, which ensures all new trips are mitigated through Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)1 and Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS)2 improvements.
At the beginning of 2016, an RFP was released requesting an update to the existing off-street
parking requirements to ensure the Land Use Code better reflects the community’s goals and
vision outlined in the AACP. Nelson/ Nygaard have been contracted for this scope of work,
which is outlined below and detailed more formally in Exhibit A.
1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to programs or services that maximize the use of alternative
transportation, including buses, carpools, biking, walking, and carshare modes. TDM techniques include programs
such as compressed workweeks, as well as outreach and education programs. Built alternatives such as Park and
Rides, bike lanes, and bike racks that encourage alternative modes of transportation are also an important element of
TDM programs. Finally, economic incentives and disincentives are part of the TDM tool-box, including things like
parking cash-out programs where an employee trades the right to free parking at their workplace for a cash payment
from the employer.
2 Level of Service (LOS) is a measurement that determines the effectiveness of transportation infrastructure. LOS A
would refer to an area that has free-flow of traffic with almost no traffic. LOS F would refer to an area where the
flow of traffic is backed up and frequent slowing occurs. Typical Level of Service figures only takes vehicle drivers
into account. In recent years, Level of Service has expanded to include multiple modes, called Multi-Modal Level
of Service (MMLOS). MMLOS takes all mode types – auto, bicycle, transit, walking - into account.
P58
III.
4.18.16 Council Work Session
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion
Page 3 of 4
SCOPE OF WORK: Nelson/ Nygaard’s proposal included an extensive scope of work that will
focus on two primary areas of parking regulations:
• Technical analysis of the influence of current parking requirements in generating traffic
and limiting options for more sustainable physical and economical practices and
understanding how parking policy reforms will better support City goals.
• Community outreach and education deepening the understanding of impacts of current
requirements and exploring the benefits of potential reforms.
This two-tiered approach will provide the framework for evaluating parking with consideration
for the complexities of off-street parking regulation and management. Through the observation
of local travel and development patterns, review of best practices in peer and non-peer
communities, and the evaluation of the best strategy options in relation to our community goals,
Nelson/ Nygaard will evaluate optimal solutions for Aspen. Outlined below, in Table 1, is the
current anticipated schedule for data collection, outreach, and analysis:
Table 1: Anticipated Schedule
Timeline Tasks
April • Data collection and review of trip generation, parking utilization, land use to
parking ratios, and code review
• Community outreach with key parking stakeholders
• Council work session
• Initiate best practice research
May • Initiate peer review
• Analyze cost and value of parking
June • Deliver peer review
• Develop policy reform options and illustrations
• Conduct data collection (public community outreach via intercept surveys
and counts)
• Vet code recommendations for development projects
• Community outreach with key parking stakeholders
July • Conduct data collection (public community outreach via intercept surveys
and counts)
• Deliver draft update recommendations
August • Deliver draft update recommendations
• Public workshops
• Council workshops
September • Public workshops
• Council workshops
October • Final draft recommendations
• Adoption
At the work session the Nelson/ Nygaard team will present information on the different
approaches to parking, provide Council with information on potential directions for the code
changes, outline parking best practices, and answer questions related to parking options. Staff
P59
III.
4.18.16 Council Work Session
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Discussion
Page 4 of 4
requests Council’s feedback on potential parking requirement approaches covered in tonight’s
presentation.
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does Council need more information on any of the topics covered in the work
session?
2. Does Council have any questions about Nelson/ Nygaard’s scope of work or
outreach?
NEXT STEPS:
The consultants will take the feedback from the work session to develop potential code
amendment alternatives.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Scope of Work
Exhibit B – Proposed Schedule
P60
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 21
SECTION 3 SOLUTION
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The City of Aspen has set clear goals for reducing traffic while supporting the sustainable developm ent of,
and enhancing access to, the Aspen Infill Area. Recent changes to the City’s Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) process represent substantial progress towards aligning the City’s transportation and land
use policies with these growth/sustainability goals. Political support for these goals and recent reforms
indicate that the City is ready to further progress by reconsidering the purpose of, and need for, various
off-street parking regulations. To inform and advance this discussion, we understand the City will benefit
from complementary assistance in two primary areas:
Technical analysis of the extent to which existing parking requirements generate traffic and limit
options for more sustainable physical and economic development, along with the ways that
parking policy reforms, including those identified in the RFP, will support the City’s goals.
Outreach and education to engage key stakeholders including property owners, developers,
commercial and residential tenants, elected officials, and community leaders, to deepen
understanding of the origins and impacts of existing code regulations as well as to explore the
benefits of potential reforms to code requirements for off-street parking.
PROJECT APPROACH
The Nelson\Nygaard team is assembled specifically to meet these dual challenges of rigorous, detailed
technical analysis and outreach/engagement to offer a ‘Big Picture’ perspective. Through all phases of
technical analysis, solutions development, outreach, and education, the Nelson\Nygaard team will
appropriately frame and evaluate parking within a broad context with particular consideration for:
Parking as a common, but not the only means of access for people and for commerce
Multimodal accessibility of existing buildings/neighborhoods, and development opportunity sit es
within the Aspen Infill Area
Actual travel and trip generation patterns in Aspen (as opposed to the analysis of suburban, single
land use sites), that undergirds much of the literature on trip and parking generation
The evident vehicle trip and traffic generation potential of excess parking
Relationship between access, parking, the development of the built environment, and economic
development
The extent to which parking requirements and/or in-lieu fees present a barrier to developing the
types of mixed-use projects that support the community’s adopted vision for the Aspen Infill Area
Nelson\Nygaard’s technical analysis will address the complexities of off -street parking regulation and
management including multimodal travel patterns, the different access needs of affected land uses and
different scales of development, the existing relevant provisions of the municipal code, and the different
needs and interests of a variety of stakeholders. We specialize in translating a thorough understanding of
such complexities into clear and concise, code-ready parking regulations. To be effective, we will ensure
that the final regulations are easy to interpret, implement, and enforce while also sufficiently
comprehensive to advance the City’s goals for traffic reduction and orderly, sustainable development.
To develop optimal solutions for Aspen, our planning approach includes a strong focus on the following
the necessary steps for a clear understanding of issues and opportunities, and development and
evaluation of effective code reform options:
Observation of local travel and development patterns including gathering and/or
analyzing local data and information on parking supply and occupancy and vehicle trip
P61
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 22
generation, for a variety of local projects/contexts as well as assessing local stakeholders’
perspectives on issues and opportunities
Review of best practices in peer and non -peer communities to identify strategies, tools,
and practices for consideration, and valuable lessons learned from policy adoption and
implementation processes in comparable contexts
Reference to the latest literature on the impact of parking requirements on travel patterns
and the cost and viability of development
Evaluation of strategy options in relation to community goals for traffic reduction,
orderly development, and community/economic vibrancy
SCOPE OF WORK
We have included what we believe is a level of detail to clearly demonstrate how we would undertake each
of the activities outlined in the Request for Proposals (RFP). However, we would be happy to provide any
additional information that would be helpful to the City in evaluating our proposal. If selected, our first
task would be to review and confirm this scope of work in conversation with the City (and adjust budget
allocations by task or by firm, if directed by City staff) to make sure the final work plan aligns with the
City’s vision and the resources available for this study.
To support use and application of work products by City staff, all deliverables will be submitted in
electronic format compatible with one or more of the software programs used by the Community
Development Department including Adobe Creative Suite (InDesign, Illustrator, Acrobat,etc.), Microsoft
Office (MS Word, MS Excel, MS Powerpoint, etc.), or SketchUp. Draft ordinance language will be
submitted in MS Word format to enable in-line, comments, and edits.
This scope of work and the associated proposed budget assume that for all listed deliverables, the
Nelson\Nygaard team will deliver one draft document, followed by one final draft document. The final
draft document will be formatted for publication and will be revised from the draft to address comments
and changes requested by the City in the form of a single set of non-conflicting comments/guidance,
received from the City’s project manager or lead staff for the project.
TASK 1 DATA GATHERING
The foundation of effective planning for, and regulation of, parking and other modes of access will be a
comprehensive understanding of existing travel patterns, parking supply and utilization patterns, and the
costs and market value of parking to private sector developers in Aspen. This task includes gathering,
collecting (as needed), and analyzing quantitative and qualitative information needed to understand how
land use and transportation are currently coordinated and to assess the issues, impacts, and opportunities
of the current code and potential reforms.
1.1 Review and Summarize Local Vehicle Trip, Parking Generation and Parking Occupancy
Data
As a first step in the planning process, the team will review relevant data and background information
provided by the City, and/or that made publicly available by the City or its agency partners. This includes
review of adopted plans and policies that establish goals and influence objectives for regulating the supply
of off-street parking provided in association with new building projects, such as:
Aspen Municipal Code (Zoning and Development Regulations, Off-Street Parking Requirements,
and provisions related to in-lieu fee payment option)
The Aspen Area Community Plan (2000 and 2012)
P62
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 23
City staff and/or Consultant Report on the 2005 Update to City’s Off-Street Parking
Requirements
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines (2014)
Any shared parking agreements recorded with the City
After background document review, the team will review and assess the quality and relevance of available
quantitative data and information provided by City staff, including:
Vehicle and/or person trip counts collected for each land use in 2013 as part of the TIA update
process
Information on the scope and utilization of existing transportation demand management
programs
Parking supply, occupancy, and duration of stay information for off-street and on-street parking,
including areas subject to public concern about spillover parking impacts
Vehicle traffic volumes at selected intersections
Available data on pedestrian, bicycle and transit person trips made in key corridors
Documentation of the total residential units, total square footage of commercial space, and total
parking off-street parking supply provided in association with development projects completed in
the Aspen Infill Area within the past ten years
Documentation of projects for which the applicant paid a fee in-lieu of providing off-street
parking including the applicable fee schedule, the total fees paid by project, expenditures made
from the in-lieu fee reserve, and the current account balance
1.2 Data Collection Plan (Additional Services Task 1)
After the project initiation meeting, and a thorough review of available data and informat ion, the
Nelson\Nygaard team will prepare and submit for City review and feedback a data collection plan. This
plan—to be delivered in the form of a brief memo—will specify the key data and information that the team
will aim to gather and the methods and timeline for doing so. The plan will focus on acquiring the key
data and information necessary to effectively analyze issues and opportunities and develop solutions
(Task 3). The plan will identify how such data will be obtained by the project team, or what proxy data or
information may be necessary. Anticipated data collection/gathering steps are detailed in Tasks 1.3 and
1.4, below.
1.3 Conduct Vehicle Trip Generation Counts and Intercept Surveys
(Additional Services Task 2)
Trip generation studies of new development projects are frequently of limited value in assessing travel
patterns, potential impacts to the accessibility of surrounding properties, or future parking demand
because they focus exclusively on single-use sites, or record only motor vehicle trips in/out of selected
parking facilities with tube counts.
Accurate analysis of parking generation and identification of specific opportunities for shared parking
requires a comprehensive record of how and when people and goods arrive at and depart fr om specific
sites or mixed-use complexes. If data collected as part of the recently updated Transportation Impact
Analysis (TIA) process do not meet this standard, the Nelson\Nygaard team is available to conduct a
limited trip generation study of one or more mixed-use buildings or complexes located within the Aspen
Infill Area (As this sub-task is proposed as an additional service, the number of sites survey would be
determined in collaboration with city staff, if the City opts to authorize this additional data collection. The
budget for this additional services task assumes that a single site is evaluated in concert with parking
utilization data collection proposed in task 1.4. Additional sites may be surveyed at additional cost to be
negotiated).
P63
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 24
Data gathering will occur early in the project calendar and will be conducted according to a new trip and
parking generation methodology developed by Nelson\Nygaard and utilized by proposed Project Manager
Kevin Shively for a National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) funded evaluation of
transit oriented development. The methodology combines careful observation of all person trips to and
from the site with parking occupancy counts and intercept surveys of a sample of people arriving and
departing to create a complete picture of travel associated with on site land uses and activities. The
methodology and findings of this study, including vehicle trip and parking generation rates substantially
lower than projected, are reported in a paper accepted f or publication in 2016 by the Transportation
Research Board (TRB), entitled “Trip and Parking Generation at Transit-Oriented Developments, A Case
Study of Redmond TOD, Seattle Region,” (Tian, Guang, R. Ewing, R. Weinberger, K. Shively, P. Stinger,
D. Rowe, and S. Hamidi, 2015).
1.4 Conduct Parking Supply and Utilization Count (Additional Services Task 3)
If limited supply and occupancy information are available for off-street parking facilities in Aspen, the
Nelson\Nygaard team may, with authorization from the City project manager, conduct a one- to two-day
parking inventory and utilization survey of up to four proximately located off-street parking facilities
located within the Aspen Infill Area (The budget for this additional services task, presented in Attachment
B -- assumes data collection will occur on one weekday and one Saturday in the same week). In
collaboration with City staff, the team would aim to conduct this data collection at a combination of sites
that represent in combination a cross-section of the land uses, buildings, and parking facility types
present in central Aspen.
1.5 Gather and Review City Land Use, Zoning, and Permitting Information
An essential step in the analysis of existing off -street parking code requirements and the potential impacts
of reform options is to assess the ratio of parking spaces supplied and utilized during peak periods in
relation to existing and planned land uses in the City. To enable such analysis in Task 3, Nelson\Nygaard
will request that the City provide available land use information/data for the Aspen Infill Area. This
information should include gross floor area (gfa), and/or rooms or dwelling units (residential and hotel
uses) and off-street parking supplied in association with each of the following categories of land uses and
activities:
Existing commercial office uses
Existing commercial retail and restaurant uses
Other existing commercial uses
Residential dwelling units
Hotel/motel rooms
Civic uses (e.g. City Hall, Library, etc.)
To evaluate the potential impacts of reforms, and future shared access and parking opportunities, the
team will also request information regarding the development capacity of the Infill Area, or sample area,
including total capacity within current zoning as well as separately, as designated in the most recently
adopted Aspen Area Community Plan for each of the following:
Commercial office uses
Commercial retail and restaurant uses
Other commercial uses
Residential dwelling units
Hotels/motel rooms
Civic uses (e.g. City Hall, Library, etc.)
P64
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 25
If comprehensive data on parking supply are limited, the team will request from the City any available
parking supply data provided in association with recently planned, permitted, and/or constructed projects
within the Aspen Infill Area.
Deliverable: Technical Memo #1 – Summary of Local Parking Supply and Occupancy Conditions in
Relation to Existing and Planned Land Uses
1.6 Interview Key Development Stakeholders
To understand issues with and impacts of the existing off-street parking requirements, the
Nelson\Nygaard team, led by REgeneration Development Strategies for this task, will conduct interviews
with a selection of key stakeholders and participants in the project development process. Participants will
include stakeholders such as developers, property owners, property managers, lenders, brokers, and
potentially “end users,” (e.g. representatives of commercial and residential tenants of buildings located
within the Aspen Infill Area and completed subject to existing municipal code requirements, as updated in
2005).
REgeneration Development Strategies will work with the City to identify relevant real estate professionals
(e.g. developers who’ve recently completed projects in Aspen). As needed, the team can use its own
contacts and relationships with organizations such as ULI Colorado and Downtown Colorado Inc. (DCI)
to identify additional real estate stakeholders to interview.
The goal of the interviews will be to assess specific issues and impacts of current code and potential
opportunities for reform. This includes understanding current decision -making around parking supply,
and the extent to which off-street requirements present a barrier to the City’s desired scale and form of
development including high-quality, low-traffic development and redevelopment, issues with the option
to pay a fee in-lieu of satisfying off-street parking requirements, impressions of the new transportation
impact analysis and mitigation process, and response to potential reforms to the parking code and in-lieu
fee program including those listed in the RFP and in this scope of work under Task 3.
To support analysis of code and in-lieu fee reform options, the team will also request data and
information from these development stakeholders, including recent per space costs for construction of
structured or surface-level parking facilities, parking fees charged to tenants (if any) and the rent
premium associated with access to dedicated off-street parking.
Input from these stakeholders will be gathered durin g a series of focus-group meetings at City Hall,
coordinated by City staff, and facilitated by Jeremy Nelson of REgeneration Development Strategies. The
team will conduct one-on-one interviews in person, or by phone, with key stakeholders who are unable to
attend scheduled focus-group sessions.
Deliverables: Technical Memo #2 – Development Stakeholder Interview Summary: Issues and
Opportunities
Meeting Materials – The Nelson\Nygaard team will provide draft and final content for
meeting materials including interview questions and presentation slides. The budget for
this task assumes the City will be responsible for printing handouts and posting meeting
materials and information to the City’s website.
P65
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 26
TASK 2 PEER REVIEW
To inform the work of the project team, City staff, and stakeholders in Tasks 3-6, the team will conduct a
review of innovative tools, policies, and practices used for managing access to development sites in at least
four peer cities and two non-peer cities. This review will focus on identifying innovative means of
managing or regulating the supply and utilization of off -street parking provided in association with
development as well as key lessons learned from implementation of major changes to off-street parking
requirements.
2.1 Identify Candidate Cities for Peer Review
To ensure the greatest relevance of task to the challenges of and potential code reform options for Aspen,
Nelson\Nygaard will first prepare and submit for City review a brief memorandum with a list of candidate
cities to consider for peer review. This memo will identify a list of up to ten peer and non-peer cities that
have recently modified their off-street parking regulations or otherwise implemented development
requirements or conditions that promote trip-reduction and sustainable-growth goals. The memo will
identify the key relevant reforms, policies, or practices of each City and provide descriptive information
and statistics to assist City staff and the project team in determining whether it qualifies as a “peer” city ,
or a “non-peer” City. For greatest relevance to Aspen, peer cities would be defined to include other small
cities (under 50,000 pop.) in the United States with a significant resort/tourist industry and an associated
seasonal peaking of demand for access, parking and other public services.
From Nelson\Nygaard’s recent parking and transportation demand management planning work in peer
cities, including Park City, UT, and Mammoth Lakes, CA, the candidate list of peer cities would certainly
include:
Manitou Springs, CO, adopted an innovative residential permit parking (RPP) district
program to address spillover parking—one of the key concerns motivating stakeholder to
maintain off-street parking requirements
Breckenridge, CO, is integrating analysis of parking, transit and urban development and has
allowed and encouraged off-site accommodation of parking demand
Durango, CO, has flexible parking requirements including allowing applicants to count
available on-street parking towards satisfaction of code required parking and provisions
encouraging shared parking
Mammoth Lakes, CA, recently reformed its code to incentivize shared parking, lower
minimum off-street parking requirement, institute new maximums, initiate an in -lieu fee option,
and require implementation of TDM programs
Park City, UT, is currently developing a tiered performance-based parking management system.
Non-peer cities and regions that may offer lessons learned for Aspen include:
Boulder, CO, whose off-street parking maximums apply to development within the Boulder
Juntion/Transit Village area
Petaluma, CA, was one of the first communities in the US to adopt a Smart Code and phased
out off-street parking requirements in historic Central Petaluma
Fort Collins, CO, has reformed parking requirements for selected districts, in coordination with
their MAX Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project
Tahoe Region, CA/NV, has adopted one of California’s first Sustainable Communities
Strategies, linking land use and transportation —including progressive parking policies—to reduce
climate pollution
Billings, MT has extended the area exempt from off-street parking requirements from its
downtown, to include the East Billings Urban Renewal District (EBURD)
P66
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 27
Zermatt, Switzerland is a car-free resort town in the Alps, accessible by train and taxi. Private
vehicle parking is accommodated 5km outside of town in Tasch
2.2 Conduct Peer Interview and Research On Up To Six Cities
At the beginning of Task 2, Nelson\Nygaard will work with City staff and key stakeholders to refine and
confirm the proper list of peer and non-peer cities to advance for best practice review. This decision will
be informed by City staff assessment of which communities appropriately represent peers to Aspen in
their location, size, built form, transportation patterns and economy, and the full project team’s
assessment of specific reforms, practices, and reform processes would be most relevant to Aspen and most
valuable to investigate further. At least four peer cities and at least two non-peer cities will be advanced
for review. For each city, the team will research plans, policies, and media coverage to investigate and
describe the key reforms and practices relevant to Aspen. To investigate the antecedents and impacts of
reforms and key lessons learned, interviews will be conducted with City staff and/or key stakeholder in
each community.
Deliverable: Technical Memo #3 – Parking Regulatory Reform: Peer Review
TASK 3 ANALYZE REQUIREMENTS AND IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS
The Nelson\Nygaard team will be prepared to conduct a thorough analysis of the City’s code requirements
for off-street parking, including in-lieu fee payment options, and identify, evaluate and refine policy and
program solutions that help the City achieve its traffic reduction and sustainable development goals. This
analysis and planning work will be based on the information collected and reviewed in Task 1 including
initial outreach to participants and stakeholder in the real estate project development process , utilizing
the lessons learned from peer and non-peer communities in Task 2, and team members’ extensive
experience and familiarity with the current academic and professional literature on the interaction of
transportation (including parking) and land use/development. Nelson \Nygaard will lead work on this
task, focusing on the projection of future parking supply and utilization in relation to planned
development, development of transportation demand management policy and program options, and the
evaluation of parking and transportation impacts of choices. REgeneration Development Strategies, will
support Nelson\Nygaard in this analysis, leading evaluation of the construction cost and real estate
market impacts of existing and alternative code requirements and helping to develop solutions that
support the City’s vision for orderly, sustainable growth and development.
3.1 Review and Assess Parking Requirements and In-Lieu Fee Program
As an essential first step, Nelson\Nygaard will review and assess all currently applicable municipal code
requirements for the provision of off-street parking in association with development. In addition, the
team will review code provisions and available information about the City’s authorization of fee payment
in lieu of provision of off-street parking. Assessment of current parking requirements and in-lieu fee
payment options will be informed by information provided by City staff about the applicable fee rate, fees
collected to date, eligible expenditures, fee expenditures to date, and the current in -lieu fee account
balance.
3.2 Determine General Supply and Utilization Patterns
In this sub-task, Nelson\Nygaard will determine the parking generation rates of existing land uses. Our
first step will be to develop a comprehensive list of all land uses within the study area using the most
current land use data provided by the City. Wherever possible, Nelson\Nygaard will combine similar land
uses into larger categories in order to develop “blended parking ratios” that are more reflective of the
City’s mixed-use downtown. Utilizing this land use inventory, along with the parking supply and
P67
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 28
utilization data provided or collected in Task 1, Nelson \Nygaard will be able to conduct an objective
assessment of as built and actual demand ratios for a sample area within the Aspen Infil l Area.
The as-built ratio compares the total number of existing parking spaces to the total existing square footage
of occupied building space within the study area. The actual demand ratio represents peak -hour parking
occupancy within the study area, which can be calculated by individual use or for the entire area,
combining the on- and off-street supply. In short, actual parked vehicles can be correlated to actual
occupied building area to develop ratios that can be effectively compared to Code requirements. The ratios
can also be developed using the number of existing workers to develop ratios of parking spaces supplied
and occupied “per employee.”
After establishing parking generation rates for existing land uses, Nelson\Nygaard will project future
parking demand based on anticipated growth in key study areas. This analysis will enable the team to
demonstrate the effects of current and future development on parking demand, and determine whether
areas within the Aspen Infill Area have more or less parking supply than needed to support existing land
uses or anticipated future development. This data will also be used to evaluate the existing code
requirements and inform the recommendations related to parking standards and policies including
opportunities for shared parking.
3.3 Analyze the Cost and Value of Parking in Relation to Code Requirements
In this task, REgeneration Development Strategies will conduct a real estate market and development
feasibility analysis to help the consultant team and City staf f understand the value and economic impact
of parking as a real estate amenity; and the extent to which existing parking code requirements create a
barrier to desired redevelopment.
In addition to the actual parking need generated by land uses, residential and commercial real estate
tenants and buyers have varying expectations regarding the provision of on-site parking depending on
their needs and location. The cost of providing such parking also varies by construction type (surface,
wood-frame tuck-under, concrete podium, structured, and underground). The value of parking to a
developer depends on both of these factors: local market expectations regarding on-site parking and the
cost of building that parking in a particular configuration.
Based on information from the Task 1 data collection, Task 2 peer review, and Task 4 stakeholder
interviews, REgeneration Development Strategies will develop an assessment of the impact of the City’s
current parking requirements’ construction costs, market valu e, and tax base implications. This
assessment will focus on a limited number of land uses, building construction type (e.g. Type II
commercial building vs. Type V multi-family residential building), parking type (e.g. surface vs.
structured), and geographic locations determined to be most relevant by City and consultant team. The
assessment will be a planning-level, order-of-magnitude evaluation to help the project team and
stakeholders understand the market value of parking as a real estate amenity, extent to which t he cost of
complying with existing off-street parking requirements may create a barrier to desired development,
redevelopment, and the economic development implications of underutilized parking in terms of tax
yield. Parking construction costs will be derived from developer interviews, land costs in different areas of
the City, and publicly available information on regional construction costs. Market value of parking will
be derived from a side-by-side comparison of recently developed projects with different amounts of off-
street parking. This evaluation will inform and allow the team’s review of the current cash-in-lieu fee rate
and recommend any necessary changes to the rate or how such funds are used. Tax base implications of
parking will be derived from City sales tax data and County Assessor property tax data.
Deliverable: Technical Memo #4 – Analysis of Cost and Market Value of Parking and Real-estate
Market Impacts of Code Reform Options
P68
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 29
3.4 Develop and Evaluate Program and Policy Reform Options
Based on the data gathered and analyzed in Task 1, the review of lessons learned from parking code
reform processes in peer and non-peer cities (task 2), projections of future parking supply and utilization
per existing code (tasks 3.1 and 3.2), and the pa rking cost and value analysis conducted in task 3.3, the
Nelson\Nygaard team will define a set of recommended policy and program reform options tailored to
meet City goals and objectives.
At a minimum, this task will include analysis and planning level evaluation of the actions and strategies
identified in Task 3, in the Scope of Work element of the RFP for this project. Additional actions and
strategies that may be recommended for review and assessment relative to City goals, include:
Policy Framework for the Enhanced Management of On-Street Parking: This can be
considered as a means of more directly addressing the most frequently cited purpose and need for
municipal code requirements for off-street parking: the potential spillover impact of the parking
demand generated by new development on the availability of on-street parking in the vicinity of
the project.
“Soft-Ceiling” Maximums with Traffic Reduction Nexus: Considering “soft ceiling” limits
on the provision of off-street parking (aka “parking maximums”), triggered based on the
development project's type (residential, etc), geography (infill locations), or existing traffic counts
on surrounding streets (congested areas). Such limits could be implemented with allowance to
exceed maximums with a conditional use permit and payment of a multiplier transportation
impact fee to offset the traffic impacts of any additional parking spaces provided above the
maximum (Note: In the outreach and education phase (Task 4), the Nelson \Nygaard team can
help the City communicate the aims of parking maximums, including traffic reduction and how
such aims support the community’s long-term economic and environmental sustainability).
On-Street Parking Credits: Crediting available on-street parking in the vicinity of a project
towards satisfaction of applicants’ code required obligation to provide access in the form of off -
street parking (Note: the availability of on-street parking would be determined through annual
City surveys, or project developer funded surveys of on-street parking occupancy in the
surrounding area) .
Off-Site Parking Allowance: Allowing project applicants to satisfy their code required
provision of parking by leasing existing, but underutilized off-street parking at other public or
private sites or facilities within walking distance of the project in question.
Access Requirements: Reframing off-street parking requirements as requirements for the
provision or funding of facilities and services that provide access to the site for peo ple and
commerce, coupled with limitations on the provision of off-street parking (a.k.a. parking
maximums) for selected uses/locations. This option would be developed to be consistent with and
complementary to the recently revised transportation impact analysis (TIA) and mitigation
procedures.
Based on the latest academic and professional literature on the travel and parking demand generation
impact of land use and parking regulations, and the local trip and parking generation data reviewed
and/or collected by Nelson\Nygaard, the team will assess the potential land use, parking, and
transportation impacts of the recommended policy and program reform options. This assessment will
include an evaluation of the extent to which each recommended policy and program element supports
achievement of the City’s explicit goals for vehicle traffic reduction and sustainable and orderly growth
and development within the Aspen Infill Area.
This task includes review of the City’s current parking design standards to ensure alignment with the
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), site planning efficiencies and urban design
best practices.
P69
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 30
Deliverable: Technical Memo #5 – Definition, Illustration and Assessment of Policy and Program
Alternatives for Reform of Existing Code Requirements for Off-Street Parking (including
options for modification of the in-lieu fee payment program and guidance on compliance
with ADA standards and best practices in urban design)
TASK 4 OUTREACH AND EDUCATION
Municipal off-street parking code requirements and the real and potential impacts of their application are
complex and can be difficult to conceptualize for planners, developers, policy -makers and community
stakeholders. In our experience with similar zoning code reform projects, real or reali stic examples have
been invaluable to help key stakeholders to visualize application of existing code provisions to new typ es
of development and understand the impact of potential reforms.
During the educational City Council workshops and selected pop-up workshops, REgeneration
Development will present highlights of interviews and analysis related to the assessment of the
construction cost, real-estate market value, and municipal tax base implications of existing off-street
parking requirements, in-lieu fee options, and alternative policy and program solutions to meet the City’s
traffic reduction and development goals.
4.1 Illustration of Existing and Alternative Code Requirements
For this project, Nelson\Nygaard parking and TDM specialists will be supported by the firm’s team of
planners and designers who will illustrate the built form of real and hypothetical development projects as
they would be subject to existing and alternative code requirements. These illustrations and profiles of
exiting projects, built to code, will be instrumental for public education and discussion at each stage of the
outreach and education process.
To support stakeholder and community education and engagement in code reform, the team proposes two
phases of outreach as detailed in tasks 4.2 and 4.3.
P70
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 31
4.2 Educational “Pop-Up” Workshops
First, over the course of a week, Nelson\Nygaard and City project team members will lead a series of up
to four educational pop-up workshops done over the course of one week at various times and locations
that enable a broad spectrum of interested stakeholders to attend. Each workshop may be focused on a
different aspect of parking management in relation to development with titles such as:
Parking management solutions
Minimum parking needs
Safe parking design
Efficiency in shared use parking
However, all workshops will provide comprehensive coverage of the proposed changes with a primary
focus on the advertised topic to generate effective public input and feedback on the relevant aspect of
reform, and to attract stakeholders and members of the public at large who share a particular interest in
the topic at hand.
4.3 City Council Workshop and Open House
The second outreach task will be to facilitate a series of City Council discussions on the zoning code
reform process and options. The first Council discussion will be an informational workshop held during
the same week as the pop-up workshops. A second Council workshop held about one month later will be
an open house Council forum. At this meeting Nelson\Nygaard and the City project team will present the
input and feedback received at the pop-up workshops, and Council deliberation will inform subsequent
work by Nelson\Nygaard and the City project team to develop the draft proposal with specific
recommendations for code reform.
Deliverables: Meeting Materials – The Nelson\Nygaard team will provide Draft and Final content for
all meeting materials including posters and presentation slides. The budget for this task
assumes the City will be responsible for printing handouts and posting meeting materials
and information to the City’s website.
TASK 5 DRAFT UPDATES
Informed by the analysis completed in Task 3 and outreach conducted Task 4 respectively, particularly the
guidance received at the second City Council Workshop/Open House, Nelson\Nygaard will refine the list
of code reform options under consideration. This Draft Update will define set of recommendations for
code and planning reforms that shape access to and development of the Aspen Infill Ar ea in ways that
help achieve the City’s goals for traffic reduction and development of a lively, vibrant, and sustainable
downtown. These recommendations will be supported by a technical memorandum with analysis and
discussion explaining the proposed refor ms and directly addressing the most common interests and
concerns of Council and key stakeholders.
Deliverable: Technical Memo # 6 – Draft Recommendations for Parking Code Reform including
Proposed Code Language and Supporting Discussion and Analysis
P71
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 32
TASK 6 ADOPTION
A third and final City Council workshop would be held approximately two months after the open house
forum to present and address Council and public questions and comments on the recommendations of the
final draft proposal for code reform (the draft proposal will also be posted on the City’s website by City
staff to facilitate public review and comment).
After this meeting, Nelson\Nygaard will revise the text of the draft code reform proposal and the
supporting technical memorandum to address Council guidance and public comments, reflected in a
single set of non-conflicting comments/corrections prepared by the City project team.
TASK 7 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
Clear, concise, and regular communication between our team and the City of Aspen will be essential for a
successful project. Our Project Manager, Kevin Shively, will serve as the primary point of contact for the
City project manager. He will be present at the kickoff meeting, all major milestone meetings, and
scheduled outreach events throughout the course of the project to ensure consistent project oversight and
management. Working closely with Principal-in-Charge Tom Brown, Kevin will be responsible for
ensuring the quality of all project deliverables.
Kevin will also serve as the primary contact for, and will coordinate, the work of our sub-consultant
Jeremy Nelson of REgeneration Development Strategies, and Nelson\Nygaard Special Advisors Phil
Olmstead and Jason Schrieber, whose experience will be called upon as needed to address the specific
challenges of the project.
The team will be supported by Deputy Project Manager Sonja Burseth, who has significant public sector
parking supply management experience, through her work on the Right Size Parking Project for King
County (WA) Metro.
7.1 Project Initiation Meeting
The Nelson\Nygaard team will convene a kickoff meeting with City staff to confirm project goals and the
proposed work plan and schedule. This meeting will also provide an opportunity to identify available data
relevant to the City’s parking and transportation infrastructure. In particular, this meeting will allow the
Nelson\Nygaard team to review—in conversation with City staff—the key existing policies and practices
including zoning, enforcement, development standards, and administrative authority. Before collecting
data, doing site visits, or speaking with stakeholders, our team will seek to identify with City staff:
What is the City’s current vision for parking in the Central City and surrounding neighborhood s?
How well do current parking regulations and the existing parking system (including on -street and
off-street, private and public parking) support current land uses and/or future projected growth?
What are the real and perceived parking problems in Central City and other areas (from the
perspective of City staff, developers, merchants, visitors, and other stakeholders)?
What are the tensions among users’ various parking-related goals and what are the potential
opportunities for mutual gain?
How does the existing parking supply and parking regulations help or hinder realization of other
community goals?
Deliverable: Final Project Scope of Work, Schedule and Communication Protocols (Revised and
submitted after and based on guidance from City staff provided at the Project Initiation
Meeting)
P72
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 33
7.2 Project Coordination Meetings
The Nelson\Nygaard team will keep the City of Aspen regularly informed of project status and an active
partner in the execution of the project, with bi -weekly project team coordination meetings via phone and
bi-monthly in-person meetings to appraise the status of each task and to proactively resolve any potential
issues
Deliverables: Meeting Materials – The Nelson\Nygaard team will provide content for meeting
materials including agendas and meeting notes submitted for City review in electronic
format
Communication
To ensure the project is well-managed to achieve adoption of code reforms that are aligned with the City’s
transportation and development goals, the consultant team will develop communication and project
management protocols for City staff to review and confirm at the project initiation meeting. Potential
protocols include:
Holding an “internal kickoff” meeting to explain the project in detail to consultant team members
so that the final scope of work and schedule are adhered to throughout by all team members;
Ensure that key consultant team staff will always available for in-person meetings whenever
necessary and desired by City staff;
Guarantee that phone calls and e-mails from City staff are generally returned by the consultant
project manager within the same day (and always within 1 business day);
Provide monthly written progress reports listing completed tasks, next steps, and budget status;
and
Confirm that the City’s project manager is fully satisfied with the work product (meeting materials
and all deliverables are not considered “final” until the City project manager is fully satisfied).
P73
III.
Off-Street Parking and Mobility Update | PROPOSAL
City of Aspen
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 34
SECTION 4 TIMELINE
Task Description 23 2 9 16 23 30 6 13 20 27 4 11 18 25 1 8 15 22 29 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21 28 5 12 19 26
1 Data Gathering
1.1 Review and summarize local vehicle trip, parking generation, and parking
occupancy data
9 9 9
1.2 (AS1)Data collection plan (AS Task 1)9 D
1.3 (AS2)Conduct vehicle trip generation counts and intercept surveys (AS Task 2)9 9
1.4 (AS3)Conduct parking supply and utilization counts at up to four sites (AS Task 3)9 9
1.5 Gather and review City land use data, relevant building permit applications, and
zoned development capacity by use
9 9
D1 Deliverable: Techical memo #1 - Summary of local parking supply and occupancy
conditions
9 9 D
1.6 Interviews key development stakeholders 9 9
D2 Deliverable: Technical Memo #2 - Development Stakeholder Interview Summary 9 D
2 Peer Review
2.1 Identify candidate cities for peer review 9 9
2.2 Conduct peer review interviews with up to six cities 9 9 9
D3 Deliverable: Technical Memo #3 - Parking Reform: Peer Review 9 D
3 Analyze Requirements and Identify Solutions
3.1 Review and assess parking requirements and in-lieu fee program 9 9 9 9 9
3.2 Determine general supply and utilization patterns 9 9 9
3.3 Analyze the cost and value of parking in relation to code requirements 9 9 9
D4 Deliverable: Technical Memo #4 - Analysis of parking cost /market value 9 9 D
3.4 Develop and evaluate program and policy reform options 9 9 9 9
D5 Deliverable: Technical Memo #5 - Definition of policy/program options 9 9 D
4 Outreach and Education
4.1 Illustration of existing and alternative code requirements 9 9 9 9
4.2 Educationall "pop up" workshops M
4.3 City Council workshops and open house M M
5 Draft Updates
5.1 Draft updates 9 9
5.2 Deliverable: Technical Memo # 6 - Draft recommendations 9 D
6 Adoption
6.1 Support for Adoption 9 M
7 Project Management and Coordination
7.1 Project initiation meeting M
7.2 Project coordination meetings 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
7.3 Project management and coordination 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
7.4 Quality Assurance/ Quality Control 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
March April JuneFeb July August September
2015
May October
P74III.