HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20260727AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
July 27, 2026
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A City Coordinated Elections Options
II.Council questions and comments related to items published in the most recent
information update, as needed
Zoom Meetings Instructions
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87382374642?
pwd=Ug5rBVMOllmnlA3cVNLMcDgK6H4CYR.1
Passcode:81611
Join via audio:
+1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 873 8237 4642
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kc2RiNbUlA
072126_Staff_Report_Municipal_Election_Survey.docx
Election_white_paper_FINAL__Amended_May_2025_.pdf
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James R. True, Special Counsel
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
Kate Johnson, City Attorney
Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
DATE OF MEMO: July 20, 2026
MEETING DATE: July 27, 2026
RE: Consideration of a ballot issue or issues regarding future
City elections
On Monday, July 27, 2026, Council will have a work session to discuss the
possibility of proposing to the voters of the City of Aspen in an upcoming election
an amendment to the Aspen Municipal Charter regarding the date of the City’s
Municipal election.
BACKGROUND:
On May 13, 2025, staff presented to Council a White Paper titled “A Review of
Consideration for City of Aspen’s Participation in Coordinated County Election
Process in November.” Staff has been asked to bring this issue back to Council
for further consideration. It is staff’s understanding that Council would like to
consider the possibility of putting before the voters a specific Charter amendment
on the November 2026 ballot. If the Council wishes to do so, then ballot
language will need to be set by ordinance no later than August 25th, 2026.
The White Paper is attached without amendment.
For this discussion, staff must note that there is an outstanding biennial
community survey seeking feedback on this issue that was not part of the White
Paper or any previous discussion. This survey requests a gradation of support
as to how the municipal elections should be administered, with grades of
“Strongly support” to “Strongly oppose,” for the following choices:
a. Coordinate a single election in November, combining the City of
Aspen election with Pitkin County
2
2
b. Keep a standalone City of Aspen municipal election in March
c. Keep a standalone City of Aspen municipal election , but move to
May.
It also asks to specifically state a top choice for the three alternatives.
Preliminary results from the survey, which remains open until August 3, 2026, are
available for Council’s consideration. Currently, 330 online responders show 91%
support for a coordinated election in November, 40% support keeping it in March
and 32% support moving back to May (Question #19).
When asked to select their top choice (Question #20), 78% chose a coordinated
election with Pitkin County, 16% chose to keep a standa lone election in March,
and 6% prefer to keep a standalone election but revert to the previous May
timing.
Another finding of note is that only 10% of respondents oppose coordinating an
election with Pitkin County, while more than 50% of respondents oppose the
other two options (also Question #19).
It is important to highlight that while these preliminary results represent a
statistically valid sample of the Aspen population, they do not include several
hundred survey responses received via paper, and the responses shown here
have not yet been weighted to be representative of Aspen’s overall
demographics as will be done in the final community survey results.
Details regarding the preliminary results of these questions are included below:
3
3
4
4
5
5
DISCUSSION:
The White Paper set forth all of the pertinent statistics and theoretical
alternatives. At this point, staff would like to present specific alternatives for the
Council to consider.
I. Leave general election in March.
The pros and cons of this are set forth in detail in the White Paper.
Obviously, this would require no action on the part of City Council at this
time.
II. Move Election back to May.
Moving the Election back to May has been advocated by a number of
citizens. As noted in the White Paper, the turnout difference between
May and March, which was the primary reason to move to March, has
turned out not to be significant. However, May has fewer of the
drawbacks to the March election, e.g. submission of paperwork over the
Christmas/New Years Holiday and winter campaigning. Also, a move
back to May does not raise the complications of timing and other issues
that are faced with a move to November.
III. Move the Election to November
This will require consideration of several other issues that have been
debated, particularly our use of a runoff system. We will address each
alternative below.
A. Without runoff
The White Paper included a proposed Charter Amendment that
simply eliminated the runoff system. The County Clerk has made it
clear that they will not conduct a runoff election in December. The
County Clerk is required to conduct a municipal election in a
November general election. It cannot be forced to conduct a special
election. Thus, the City would have to conduct any runoff election
itself. As noted in the White Paper, a runoff has changed the
plurality result only twice since a runoff system was adopted in 2000.
Nonetheless, many people consider a runoff system as extremely
valuable in selecting a Mayor and Council Members.
6
6
B. With runoff
The City can certainly conduct the initial election through the
coordinated election with the County in November. However, if it
chooses to maintain the runoff system, as noted above, it will have
to conduct the runoff in December on its own.
Although this would seem to defeat the purpose of coordinating the
election by saving all of the equipment requirements and
infrastructure for conducting an election, it is unlikely that this can
actually be avoided. The Colorado Constitution retains the power or
referendum and initiative, as well as recall of elected officials, to the
people. See, Colorado Const. Art. 5, §1 (9) and Art. 21 §1.
Although there are not many examples in City elections, these
powers may be exercised through a special election outside of the
standard time frame. Thus, the City must retain some ability to
conduct a special election at unspecified times throughout a year.
Simply stated, not all special elections can wait until November.
C. Coordinating with the County in both the Primary and the General
election.
Colorado has a partisan primary system that is currently conducted
on the last Tuesday in June. This past year it was June 30th.1 The
advantage of the Colorado primary system is that it can act identical
to a runoff. Granted, the primary has a lower turnout than a general
election. However, the general election between or among
candidates who make it through the primary, would have a far
greater citizen participation.
A negative is that this would extend the election cycle. Under this
scenario, the election cycle would easily extend from early May to
November, with an elected individual taking office in January. Our
current cycle is from early December through early April, with
candidates taking office at the first meeting in April.
Unfortunately, the County is not required to coordinate the primary
election with the City. The requirement to conduct a coordinated
election only involves the November general elections. See, C.R.S.
1 In the past the primary has been conducted in August. That was ultimately deemed too short of
time between the primary and general election. It is unknown as to whether it will ever return to
August.
7
7
Section 1-7-116(1)(a). Nonetheless, since the county does conduct
county official primaries, Commissioner, Sheriff, etc., it may be
appropriately assumed that the County would be willing to add a City
primary onto that ballot.
D. With Rank Choice Voting
Colorado law now requires a County Clerk to conduct a rank choice
election if that is adopted by a municipality.2 However, any
additional expense in conducting the rank voting must be paid by the
City. See, C.R.S. Section 1-7-118.
The theory of rank choice voting is that it theoretically chooses a
candidate or candidates who have the greatest overall support of t he
electorate. It can be complicated to tabulate, particularly with two
open seats and multiple candidates. Nonetheless, such
complications can be overcome.
IV. Election in November versus March to Propose a Change.
There is a distinction to consider as to whether Council wishes to put this on the
ballot this November or next March. Either is available at this time. However,
although, with either election date, the first November election for Council would
be November of 2028, there are nuances with regard to the transition of the
officials elected in March, 2027 and November of 2028. It becomes complicated
but we will try our best to explain.
The Mayor and two Council members have terms that end next April 2027.
Those terms can neither be reduced nor extended. Thus, there has to be an
election in March of 2027, with those elected then taking office in April of 2027.
However, if the Charter Amendment is passed in November, it can limit the term
of those three elected officials, elected in March. The November ballot issue
could state that the mayor serves from April 2027 through January 2029 , three
months short of a full two years. A new mayor elected in November of 2028,
would take office in January of 2029 and would serve a full two-year term. The
Council members elected in March of 2027, would serve a term going from April
of 2027 to January of 2031, again, three months short of a full term. The new
Council members elected in 2030, would take office in Jan uary of 2031 and
serve a full four-year term, until January of 2035.
2 Rank choice voting is essentially the same as the instant runoff election that the City conducted in
2009.
8
8
If the election is in March, it is arguable that it would be inappropriate to shorten
the term of an official elected under a Charter provision that has not yet been
adopted. There are counter arguments, but we believe that the proper way
would be to have the term of the Mayor elected in March of 2027, even if the
change passes, to serve a full two year term, i.e. until April 2029. I would also
note this scenario creates a significant gap between when a person is elected
and when that person starts serving. Specifically, if the Mayor is elected in
March of 2027 and serves until April of 2029 and the next election for Mayor is
November of 2028, then the newly elected Mayor does not take office for f ive
months after the election.
However, that length of gap has to occur for the Council members who were
elected in 2025. Their term cannot end until April of 2029. Thus, with their
replacements elected in November of 2028, those replacements will not take
office until April 2029.
Frankly, it makes the most sense to have the Mayor elected in 2027 serve until
April 2029, and be replaced with the incoming coming council members elected
in November of 2028.
V. Alternative Ballot Issues.
The ballot issues have been addressed primarily as if there are either/or
selections. This is not necessarily the case. The Charter allows for alternative
ballot issues. Specifically, Section 13.10 of the Charter states:
If provisions of two (2) or more proposed amendments adopted or
approved at the same election conflict, the amendment receiving the
highest affirmative vote shall become effective.
Subtle alternatives, e.g., two to move to November, one with a runoff and one
without, are possible but could lead to confusion with voters, with both failing.
The most logical alternative amendments would be one to move to November,
with the other to move to May. If both fail, the election would remain in March.
SUMMARY:
If Council wishes to pursue Charter amendments this November, specific ballot
language based on these discussions will be presented to Council for formal
adoption by ordinance at appropriate meetings in August. A final decision would
be required by the end of August or early September in order to get one or more
issues on the ballot in November.
9
9
Staff has no recommendation for Council. Citizens can certainly petition for a
Charter Amendment. However, at this moment, it would be too late to start a
petition drive that could get on the November ballot. Th us, for the November
election, this is a decision for Council at its absolute discretion.
10
July 2024 1
Review of Consideration for City of Aspen’s Participation in Coordinated County
Election Process in November
(Amended April 25, 2025)
Prepared by:
Nicole Henning, City Clerk
James R. True, Special Counsel
Kate Johnson, City Attorney
Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
Introduction
The City of Aspen is currently evaluating whether to maintain the management of municipal
elections under the City Clerk's Office or explore the possibility of transitioning to Pitkin County's
Elections division to conduct the City’s regular election as part of the November Federal, State
and Local general election. This white paper examines the operational aspects and
opportunities associated with each option. In this context, it is necessary to consider also the
existing strengths of the city's election management and the potential operational improvements
that can be achieved under local control.
This analysis aims to explore both perspectives by highlighting the advantages of keeping
municipal elections under the City Clerk's Office while acknowledging the operational
opportunities that may arise from transitioning to county-run elections. By comprehensively
evaluating all considerations and ensuring efficient, transparent, and inclusive electoral
processes, the city is able to make an informed decision.
In this discourse, the argument for keeping the City of Aspen municipal elections as they are will
be presented first, emphasizing the benefits of localized management and community cohesion.
Then, this white paper delves into the operational shortcomings of the existing system, shedding
light on the challenges faced by the City Clerk's Office. Subsequently, operational opportunities
that can be pursued by local control are explored, offering recommendations for enhancing the
existing system. In closing, the argument for Pitkin County-run elections is considered, focusing
on the potential operational advantages such as increased voter turnout, improved accessibility,
and significant cost savings, which could pave the way for a more efficient and inclusive
electoral process.
By considering both the merits and drawbacks of each approach, the City of Aspen and elected
officials, with the input of its residents, can make a well-informed decision that aligns with its
commitment to an efficient, transparent, and inclusive electoral process. The goal is to ensure
11
2
that the operational considerations and other relevant factors are thoroughly examined to
preserve the integrity of the electoral system while meeting the needs and aspirations of
Aspen's residents and community.
Current status of City of Aspen municipal elections
The City of Aspen has held general elections since adopting the Aspen Municipal Charter in
1970. Aspen registered voters in March elect a mayor and council members every two years
and decide ballot measures presented by either the City Council or citizen petition(s).
Candidates who fail to acquire the designated majority vote enter a runoff election held in April.
Aspen is a home-rule municipality, meaning changing how and when elections are conducted
requires a vote from the citizenry. The City Clerk’s Office administers all regular and most
special municipal elections under the auspices of the Election Commission. City elections are
conducted nonpartisanally under the provisions of the Home Rule Charter, the City of Aspen
Municipal Code, and the Colorado Election Laws.
The concept of coordinated elections is not new to the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. For
decades, the city has coordinated with Pitkin County on elections with municipal questions
placed on the November ballot. A coordinated election, authorized by state statute, is conducted
pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the city and the county.
Operational shortcomings in the existing system
Operational inefficiencies: The complexities of organizing and managing elections challenge
the limited resources of the Aspen City Clerk's Office. With an office of four full-time equivalents
and a part-time administrative assistant, this department provides critical functions to support
citizen boards, commissions and City Council, legal record retention requirements, and liquor
licenses while balancing the high priority of the election cycle.
The City Clerk and staff manage the election six months out of the election year. Preparation for
the March election begins in early November with the call for petitions and candidate packets.
Over the holidays, in the month of December, candidates are petitioning and collecting
signatures, which are due the day after Christmas. During the holiday month, the City Clerk’s
Office performs updates to election computers in preparation for the upcoming election. The
Clerk’s Office also coordinates with the election management company (Dominion) and a
printing company for ballot production. Additionally, the Clerk’s Office begins ensuring the
absentee request forms are available.
In January, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA ) ballots are
sent. Furthermore, a ballot lottery is conducted, documents for election judges are prepared,
special absentee ballots are mailed, diagnostic tests are performed, and the ballot test deck is
acquired.
During the month of February, the election equipment undergoes a pre-logic and accuracy test.
Then, an official logic and accuracy test is performed, with election judges in attendance. Finally,
the ballots are obtained and mailed. Additionally, the first campaign reports are due, early voting
begins in the Clerk’s Office, the election judges are appointed, and ballot processing begins.
12
3
Voting continues through election day, during the first week of March, and ends the following
Friday if there is no runoff. If there is a runoff, the Clerk’s Office must perform a rapid turnaround
and start the entire process over for a runoff election in the first week of April.
This work coincides with other timely, deadline-oriented projects like year-end business
requirements. Business operations activities running parallel to the election may include but are
not limited to liquor and marijuana licensing hearings, departmental budget oversight, and
management and coordination of applications for Saturday Market vendors in conjunction with
assistance to the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission (CCLC).
Additionally, election rules continually evolve, requiring staff resources to evaluate them and
incorporate the statutes into the process.
Below is a chart providing a summary of the City of Aspen’s Election Process:
Low voter turnout: The city of Aspen municipal elections consistently struggle to reach 50%
voter turnout. Historically, turnout for municipal elections has been substantial when voters feel
a question or candidate race on the ballot is significant. Conversely, election turnout numbers
decrease when voters do not feel an issue is important.
Moreover, despite city communication efforts, voters tend to be confused about where to drop
their ballots because of dueling governments conducting elections. This confusion leads to
some ballots not being counted because they were dropped off at the wrong location at the last
minute.
Furthermore, when voters need to update their registration, they are required to do so online,
which is not immediately shared with city election staff. Voters may also visit the Pitkin County
13
4
Clerk’s Office to update their registration in person and then return to the city to cast their vote.
Often, voters are discouraged by the additional steps.
Accessibility issues: The city does not have access to Ballot Trax because it is only a county
elections tool. This online system tracks the status of an elector’s mail ballot and sends a series
of alerts notifying the voter where their ballot is in the election process, from the point of receipt
by the Clerk to the point counted. Pitkin County uses Ballot Trax, which provides an added
layer of convenience and transparency. Additionally, current State Statute accessibility
requirements are under evaluation, which may increase the costs of the city elections
significantly.
Resource constraints: Municipal elections require substantial resources when conducted by a
city-level entity. These include additional workload management, equipment, software, and the
logistical components inherent to any electoral process. In 2023, the total cost of the city
election amounted to $69,337 (Appendix A). Annually, municipal elections cost the City of Aspen
between $50,000 and $70,000 to conduct the election, which will continue to increase in future
years. In 2026, the city will be required to replace its election equipment, which is estimated to
cost $100,000. For 2025, the March 4th Regular Election and the April 1st Run off Election cost $72,728
(Appendix D).
Specifically, in 2023, the Clerk's Office worked an additional 180 hours above the standard
workweek in the 22 days leading up to and on Election Day. Starting in November, the Clerk’s
Office prioritizes the election over the next five months, while other work receives lower
prioritization.
When the City of Aspen elections are coordinated with Pitkin County, the costs incurred by the
city to the county range from $3,760 to approximately $15,000. The large variance is due to the
amount the county charges the city per word on the ballot.
The argument for Pitkin County-run elections
Enhanced operational efficiencies: Colorado counties are required to establish infrastructures
and systems for organizing, managing, and conducting elections. State law also requires them
to allow municipalities within the county to participate in the county’s general and special
elections. Due to its broader reach, experience, staffing, and financial resources, Pitkin County
Elections division may have additional resources.
Increased voter turnout is an important rationale to consider for coordinating municipal
elections with Pitkin County Elections. Although there has been a measurable increase in voter
turnout with the initiation of mail ballots in 2013 for municipal elections, turnout is significantly
higher in Pitkin County elections in most cases. The registered voter values below contain
active and inactive voters, all eligible to vote. The total number voted values represent the sum
of ballots cast for an election.
14
5
The table shows significantly higher voter turnout in the county versus the city during even
election years and some odd election years.
May
2017
Nov
2017
Nov
2018
Mar
2019
Nov
2019
Nov
2020
Mar
2021
Nov
2022
Mar
2023
Registered
Voters
6,445 6,400 5,883 6,096 6,048 6,127 6,161 6,288 6,146
Total #
Voted
2,413 3,735 3,810 3,243 2,113 4,673 2,354 3,686 2,811
% Turnout 37% 58% 65% 53% 35% 76% 38% 59% 46%
If the city chose to coordinate its general election with Pitkin County’s general election, the city’s
general election would be held in November of even years, making it more consistent for voters
and reducing existing confusion. Having elections held in Pitkin County at the same time of year
allows government agencies and candidates to provide consistent and well-organized
messaging to the public.
There have been some discussions regarding moving to the November election in odd years.
This would be impractical since odd year elections are not mandatory and only set if there are
ballot initiatives.
Currently, the city’s election cycle occurs during the high season, including Christmas and New
Year’s holidays. This results in difficulties for potential candidates and the electorate, with
distractions negatively affecting the ability to pay close attention to campaigns and facts around
ballot measures. Candidates have even pointed out that winter campaigning is negatively
affected by short daylight hours and winter weather. November and the months leading up to it
are a quieter time for the candidates and the electorate to engage in campaigns and educate
themselves about the issues.
Greater voter accessibility: Given their larger election budgets, counties usually have access
to more sophisticated, user-friendly voting systems and election technology enhancements.
Additionally, the State of Colorado and Pitkin County have full-time dedicated staff who have
more capacity to analyze, test, implement, and support new technologies to improve the voter
experience.
The City of Aspen voters also would have access to Ballot Trax to track their ballots via an
online system, which sends a series of alerts notifying the voter where their ballot is in the
election process. They also would have electronic ballot access for accessible voting.
Cost savings: Transitioning the administration of elections to the county would provide the
advantage of shared resources. The city may realize significant cost savings by capitalizing on
the economies of scale inherent in more extensive operations.
Operational Opportunities for Enhanced Municipal Elections
15
6
This section of the white paper examines various operational opportunities that can substantially
improve the management of municipal elections within the City Clerk's Office. By exploring the
potential for expanding staff and resources, collaborating with external partners, and
implementing technology upgrades, the City Clerk's Office can further strengthen its capacity to
deliver efficient, accurate, and satisfactory electoral processes for the residents of the City of
Aspen. This balanced approach considers the benefits, challenges, and potential long-term
outcomes of these operational enhancements.
Expansion of Staff and Resources: The City Clerk's Office could explore the possibility of
expanding its staff and allocating additional resources to manage municipal elections. By
increasing staffing and further investing in additional hardware, software, and logistical
components, the City Clerk's Office can enhance its operational capacity and improve the
efficiency of the electoral process. This would involve assessing the budgetary requirements
and working with the City Manager’s Office and City Council to secure the necessary resources
to support the expansion.
Considering these operational opportunities, the City Clerk's Office may further strengthen its
capacity to manage municipal elections. While these options may require additional resources,
the potential benefits in terms of improved efficiency, accuracy, and voter satisfaction are
options to explore if the city maintains the election process. Working closely with the key
stakeholders, the City Clerk's Office would develop a comprehensive plan to implement these
operational enhancements and ensure the continued success of the City of Aspen municipal
elections under local control.
The argument for keeping the City of Aspen municipal elections as they are
Managing municipal elections at the city level ensures a nimble and localized approach.
Municipal elections, when managed at the city level, are an embodiment of Aspen's commitment
to local democracy, civic participation, and community cohesion. With its intimate understanding
of the local electorate and ability for rapid adaptation, the City Clerk's Office has been
conducting elections with efficiency, integrity, and transparency for decades. By retaining control
of its municipal elections, the city can ensure that the electoral process remains responsive and
transparent,
Personalized Service: The Aspen City Clerk's Office, with its understanding of the local
electorate, is well-equipped to provide customized service tailored to the specific needs of
Aspen residents. For instance, the office can offer voter registration assistance, answer inquiries
related to local election rules and regulations, and provide guidance on campaign finance
reporting. This localized and customizable approach ensures that residents receive dedicated
support and access to resources specifically tailored to the unique requirements of the Aspen
community.
Down Ballot Status: Down Ballot Status is a concern that results from the location on a
crowded ballot. Although beneficial at times, in the November general elections, numerous
items may draw a great deal of attention, resulting in city issues and candidates being at the
end of the ballot. Maintaining the current election schedule avoids the down ballot status of
Aspen's municipal elections, ensuring that local issues and candidates receive the appropriate
amount of attention. By keeping the municipal election separate from high-profile state and
national races, Aspen residents have the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate local candidates
and ballot measures. They can focus on the specific challenges and opportunities faced by the
16
7
city, allowing for a more informed decision-making process and greater accountability of local
representatives.
Local Expertise and Knowledge: The Aspen City Clerk's Office possesses expertise and
knowledge specific to the local electoral process. Their experience in managing municipal
elections in Aspen, combined with their understanding of local election laws, regulations, and
procedures, contributes to the smooth operation and integrity of the electoral system. Retaining
local control ensures that this expertise remains accessible and utilized to effectively address
any issues that may arise during the electoral process.
Addressing resource constraints
Leveraging external funding: The city may research the feasibility of applying for various state
and federal grants designed to support local election infrastructure. This additional funding may
alleviate some of the financial burdens on local taxpayers.
Collaborative resource sharing: The City of Aspen may jointly explore partnerships with
nearby cities to procure election-related services and technologies, thereby achieving
economies of scale and shared efficiencies.
Potential challenges and strategies to transition to coordinated elections
While the benefits of a transition to Pitkin County are evident, it is equally important to consider
potential challenges.
Transitioning phase: The transition from a city-run March general election to a county-run
November general election will present logistical and operational challenges. A subsequent
election cannot reduce the term of an elected official. Thus, when the general election was
moved from May to March, a transitional period had to be set out in the ballot initiative. , all of
these transitional issues can be managed by developing a comprehensive transition plan,
ensuring minimal disruption to the electoral process.
Ensuring local needs are met: The unique characteristics of Aspen's electorate need to be
considered. This can be achieved through close collaboration between the city and Pitkin
County, focusing on community engagement and feedback.
Timing scenario:
1. Placing the item on the ballot in the next coordinated county election in November of
2025 would allow for public education, outreach, engagement, and community debate.
The diagram below outlines the transition of Council and Mayoral terms.
17
8
2. This would allow the first election to occur in November 2026.
3. If the transition of the city election to the county is decided to be placed on the ballot, the
transition plan would be set forth in the ballot issue itself.
Runoff: Currently, the city’s Home Rule Charter specifies that if candidates do not receive a
certain threshold, they must enter a runoff, and the candidate with the most votes in the runoff
election wins. To be consistent with the City’s current system, with a November general election,
the runoff would be in December. However, the county does not have an election in December.
The County and the State employ a primary system, Thus, the city would have to consider
alternatives. Those alternatives could include abandoning the runoff system, conducting the
runoff election itself, participating in the county’s primary system, or adopting a ranked voting
system. Before proposing any of these alternatives, other than abandoning the runoff system,
the city would need to discuss these alternatives with Pitkin County to evaluate how to best
proceed.
When evaluating and considering alternatives, it is important to consider when a runoff changed
the voter outcome from the initial results. There have been only two instances in the city’s runoff
history when the outcome altered from the initial voter results because of a runoff, the most
recent being this last election.
As everyone will recall, in the last election, no one received the necessary threshold; thus, four
individuals entered the run-off. The results of the general election were as follows:
Kolbe 1067^
Woolley 630
Benedetti 1018^
Torre 825^
Pitt 47
Ray 307
Doyle 1091^
The caret (^) indicates the runoff candidates. The threshold was 1123.
18
9
The results of the runoff were as follows:
Kolbe 1156
Benedetti 1334
Torre 546
Doyle 1235
In the 2017 general election, only two candidates went into a runoff. In the general election
Torre received 973 votes, while Ward Haunstein received 895 votes. However, in the runoff
election, Ward Haunstein received 932 votes, and Torre received 905 votes.
There have been 13 general elections since the adoption of the runoff system. In that time
there have been 9 runoffs in either the Mayor’s race or the Council race or both. In three of
those years there was no runoff, 2011, 2021 and 2023. In 2009, the City used an Instant Runoff
(ranked choice ) system. 2017 and 2025 are the only two times in which the results would have
been different without the runoff system.
It should also be noted that there is a significant drop off in participation in the runoff election. In
2025, there were 2718 ballots cast in the General Election with 2269 cast in the runoff. A drop
of 16%. In 2017, the drop was from 2413 to 1840, a 23% drop.
Recommendations: If City Council is considering modifying the general election date to
coordinate with the county, it is crucial to undertake a thorough examination of the potential
benefits and considerations associated with such a change. This comprehensive analysis will
enable City Council to make an informed decision about the potential modification.
If considering a transition, city and county election officials may wish to collaborate to create a
well-designed transition plan. This plan would outline the procedural aspects of transferring the
responsibility of managing municipal elections from the City Clerk to the Pitkin County Elections
division. Addressing potential challenges and prioritizing local needs within the transition plan
will ensure a seamless shift of responsibilities and minimize disruption to the electoral process.
Engaging in a comprehensive analysis, creating a well-designed transition plan (if applicable),
strengthening local expertise, promoting community engagement and education, conducting
regular evaluations, and collaborating with stakeholders will contribute to the effectiveness,
integrity, and transparency of Aspen's municipal electoral system.
Conclusion & Future Perspective
As the City of Aspen contemplates the future of its municipal elections, important factors must
be considered when evaluating whether to transition the management of elections to the County
Elections Division or maintain local control within the Aspen City Clerk's Office. Both options
present potential benefits and considerations that deserve careful examination.
19
10
Transitioning the responsibility for municipal elections to the County Elections Division offers the
prospect of increased operational efficiency, cost savings, and potentially higher voter turnout.
The county's established robust infrastructure and resources may provide streamlined election
management, leveraging economies of scale and a broader reach. This transition could lead to
improved administrative processes and enhanced coordination with county-level elections,
benefiting the city and Aspen residents.
Moreover, consolidating election administration under the County Elections Division may allow
for greater standardization of procedures and access to advanced voting technologies. Counties
often have access to more sophisticated voting systems, which could improve voter accessibility
and satisfaction with the electoral process. Furthermore, by combining efforts and emphasizing
efficiencies instead of redundant election security measures, the city can better protect and
streamline election security processes and infrastructure by supporting the County Elections
Division. Regardless, maintaining the integrity of the election and the security of the election is
of paramount importance to the city of Aspen.
On the other hand, maintaining local control over municipal elections offers distinct advantages.
The Aspen City Clerk's Office possesses local knowledge and expertise. This localized
approach promotes a responsive and nimble electoral system that can quickly adapt to
changing circumstances and address specific regional concerns. It also fosters community
engagement, as residents feel a direct connection to the electoral process and may have a
greater sense of ownership in selecting their local representatives.
Preserving local control enables Aspen to tailor the electoral process to its unique
circumstances. The ability to choose a specific election date, such as March, may allow for
flexibility to ensure that the electoral timeline is tailored to Aspen's specific context, maximizing
community participation and minimizing conflicts.
Furthermore, preserving independent municipal elections and avoiding the down ballot status of
the even-year general election allows for focused attention on local candidates and ballot
measures. Separating local elections from higher-profile state or national races ensures that
local issues receive appropriate scrutiny and consideration from voters. This preserves the
integrity of the local democratic process and allows for in-depth deliberation on Aspen-specific
matters.
In conclusion, the future of Aspen's municipal elections necessitates a thorough evaluation of
the potential benefits and considerations associated with transitioning to county-run elections or
maintaining local control. While a transition could offer operational efficiencies and broader
resources, local control promotes community engagement, tailored electoral processes, and
preserves the distinctiveness of Aspen's elections. Ultimately, the decision should be made in
the best interest of the community, with careful deliberation, collaboration between city and
county officials, and consideration of the unique needs and aspirations of Aspen's residents.
20
11
Appendix A:
Company Amount Services
Dominion Voting System 15,550.79$ Election Equipment/Software Licensing
Dominion Voting System 29,048.00$ Equipment and On-site Services
Peak Performance 1,000.00$ Election Software Laserfiche
The Aspen Times 3,221.34$ Campaign Reporting/Election Judges
Aspen Daily News 1,147.50$ Election Judges/Election Notice
Gran Farnum Printing 11,144.00$ Ballot Printing
US Postmaster 3,000.00$ Load Election Permit
Aspen Locksmith 1,912.00$ Change Locks for Election
Election Judges 2,918.50$ Ballot Processing/Election Day Vote Center
Amazon 395.22$ Election Supplies
Total 69,337.35$
Election Payments 2023
21
12
Appendix B
Key Findings: City of Aspen Voter Analysis
December 2023
The purpose of this effort is to create a clear picture of the current voters within the City of
Aspen, based on a review of available data. This involved looking at the demographics of registered
voters and their voting patterns in coordinated, regular municipal, and special elections compared to
November General Elections, and how they have changed from 2012 to 2023. This report will be
utilized by the City of Aspen to evaluate opportunities to increase voter participation.
Methodology
Magellan Strategies primarily looked at the length of residency, age, partisan registration,
geography (living inside or outside the roundabout), and timing of the election (odd vs even, spring vs
Nov). Magellan builds a voter file database from the Colorado Secretary of State multiple times a year,
which includes data for Pitkin County and the City of Aspen. These “snapshots” each year show the
true number of voters at that moment in time. Having such rich datasets allowed Magellan to analyze
the City of Aspen voter demographics beyond today’s universe. Today’s universe would be limited to
the demographics of current registered voters. Having the “snapshots” allows us to look at the
demographics of the voters at that moment, taking into account those voters who have since then
moved out, are now deceased, or stopped voting.
This analysis of historical voter demographics, profiles, and behavior using voter data from 2012
through 2023 clearly shows that there is higher voter participation, or turnout, during November of an
even year as opposed to November or spring of an odd year.
Turnout in Municipal Elections
Turnout is measurably higher in even year, General Elections compared to odd-year elections
and Municipal Elections.
Nov
2012
Nov
2013
Nov
2014
Nov
2015
Nov
2016
May
2017
Nov
2017
Nov
2018
Mar
2019
Nov
2019
Nov
2020
Mar
2021
Nov
2021
Nov
2022
Mar
2023
Nov
2023
ASPEN 66% 29% 51% 44% 74% 37% 27% 69% 53% 37% 81% 38% 37% 61% 46% 34%
PITKIN 68% 32% 54% 39% 75% 25% 70% 38% 82% 37% 63% 36%
22
13
ASPEN
General Elections 2016, 2018, 2020, and/or 2022
Voted in 0 or 1 Voted in 2, 3 or 4 Age Range 18 - 34 14% 10%
34 - 44 7% 13%
45 - 54 4% 12%
55+ 5% 34%
PITKIN
General Elections 2016, 2018, 2020, and/or 2022
Voted in 0 or 1 Voted in 2, 3 or 4 Age Range 18 - 34 14% 10%
34 - 44 6% 12%
45 - 54 4% 12%
55+ 6% 36%
Age
The older age bracket consistently has a higher turnout percentage in General Elections than
younger age brackets, as shown here in the City of Aspen as well as Pitkin County.
Older residents vote in odd-year elections more than younger residents, but across all age ranges,
more voters participate in even years. To show this trend, below is the turnout percentage by age
bracket for the City of Aspen from a November mid-term (or even year) compared to a Municipal or a
November odd-year election.
Length of Residency
Length of residency was analyzed with the assumption that citizens living longer in Aspen would
be more invested in their community and, therefore, have higher voter participation. We could not
necessarily prove this relationship. Length of residency is highly correlated with age, and an older
voter is more likely to vote whether they live in Aspen or not. Likewise, lower turnout, particularly in
odd-year elections, is characteristic of the younger age bracket, not newness to Aspen. Relating length
of residency and voter participation is difficult to calculate since the state only records vote history if
the new resident was not new to Colorado. If a resident is new to Aspen from within the state, from
Mesa County for example, we can see that they participated (or not) in Colorado elections. If a
resident is new to Colorado from California, we do not have any record of their past participation in
elections. We believe this participation is more tied to their age not length of residency in Aspen.
ASPEN
Voted in 2022 General
Election Age Range 18 - 34 554 15%
34 - 44 676 18%
45 - 54 660 18%
55 - 64 780 21%
65+ 1,093 29%
ASPEN
Voted in 2023 General
Election Age Range 18 - 34 204 10%
34 - 44 323 15%
45 - 54 362 17%
55 - 64 456 22%
65+ 769 36%
ASPEN
Voted in 2019 Municipal
Election Age Range 18 - 34 502 16%
34 - 44 541 17%
45 - 54 653 20%
55 - 64 652 20%
65+ 865 27%
23
14
Partisanship & Timing of the Election
There is no real correlation between partisan registration and voter turnout, which is not
unique to the City of Aspen. The timing of an election has little to no effect on the partisan composition
of the electorate, as shown in the tables below. The numbers below show the composition of those
who voted by party.
Geography
Magellan Strategies used street addresses from the voter-provided resident address on the
statewide voter file provided by the Colorado Secretary of State. We compared these addresses to a
list of streets provided by the City of Aspen and flagged voters as inside or outside the roundabout.
We found no measurable difference in voter participation between the population that lives inside the
roundabout and the population living outside.
Summary
After looking at elections from 2012 to 2023, both March/May elections as well as November
elections, it is clear that the highest voter participation occurs during November of an even year. Even
with the high publicity and energy surrounding the “Lift One Lodge” project in 2019, voter participation
was 15% lower than the average November even-year turnout. This election saw higher participation
than other November odd-year elections, but still lower than even-years.
ASPEN
Nov
2018
Mar
2019
Nov
2020
Nov
2022
Nov
2023
Spring
2023
Unaffiliated 42% 42% 44% 47% 48% 48%
Democrat 43% 43% 42% 40% 41% 40%
Republican 13% 14% 12% 11% 10% 12%
Other 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
PITKIN
Nov
2018
Nov
2020
Nov
2022
Nov
2023
Unaffiliated 43% 45% 49% 49%
Democrat 41% 40% 37% 38%
Republican 14% 13% 13% 12%
Other 1% 2% 1% 1%
24
15
Appendix C
November 2025 Charter Amendment Election
Section 2.2 – Municipal Elections shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the
following:
Commencing in the year 2026 and biennially thereafter, the City of Aspen’s General
Municipal Election shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November
in the Pitkin County Coordinated Election.
The Mayor elected in the General Election in March of 2025 shall serve until the first
regular meeting of City Council in April 2027. The Mayor elected in November 2026
shall serve a term from the first regular meeting in April 2027 until the first regular
meeting in January 2029. Thereafter, the term of the Mayor shall commence at the first
regular meeting of January following election and shall end two years thereafter at the
first regular meeting of January.
The two Council Members elected in the General Election in March of 2025 shall serve
until the first regular meeting of City Council in April 2029. Two Council Members
elected in November 2028 shall serve a term from the first regular meeting in April 2029
until the first regular meeting in January 2033.
The two Council Members elected in March 2023 shall serve a term from the first regular
meeting in April 2023 until the first regular meeting in April 2027. Two Council
Members shall be elected in November 2026 and shall serve a term from the first regular
meeting in April 2027 until the first regular meeting in January 2031.
Thereafter, the term of all council members shall start at the first regular meeting of
January following the election of such council member in the prior November election.
Any special municipal election may be called by resolution or ordinance or ordinance of
the council at least sixty (60) days in advance of such election. The resolution or
ordinance calling a special municipal election shall set forth the purpose or purposes of
such election. One or more vote centers for all municipal elections shall be open from
7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on election day.
Section 2.7 Run-off Elections., shall be deleted in its entirety.
Section 3.2 - Terms of office for members of Council, shall be deleted in its entirety and
replaced with the following:
Except during the transitional period from April 2025 through April 2033, the terms of
office for members of Council shall be for four (4) years. Each voter shall be allowed to
vote for two candidates for the office of member of Council. At all municipal elections,
the two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected for a four-
year term.
25
16
Section 3.3 – Mayor, shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Except during the transitional period from April of 2025 through April of 2027, the
mayor shall be elected at large for the entire city for a term of two (2) years. The
candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected mayor.
The mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council and shall exercise such powers and
perform such other duties as are or may be conferred and imposed upon him or her by
this Charter or the ordinances of the City. He or she shall have all of the powers, rights,
privileges and obligations of a member of Council. He or she shall be recognized as the
head of the government for all ceremonial and legal purposes and he or she shall execute
and authenticate legal instruments requiring his or her signature as such official.
Section 4.1, Regular Meetings., shall be amended by changing the word April, wherever
such word appears to January with no other changes to the remainder of the section.
26
17
Appendix D - Election Costs for 2025
Regular Election
Gran Farnum-ballot printing 9708
USPS-Ballot postage 1657
Dominion-Day of services 6948
Dominion-other 22928
Newspaper Ads 5424
Food/supplies 1968
Judges 2451
Total 51,084
Run Off
Gran Farnum-ballot printing 9655
USPS-Ballot postage 1043
Dominion-Day of services 6948
Newspaper Ads 1239
Food/supplies 1310
Judges 1449
Total 21,644
Total for both $72,728
27