The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.202205091 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION May 9, 2022 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen ZOOM MEETING INSTRUCTIONS Zoom Meeting Instructions Please click the link below to join the webinar: https://zoom.us/j/97964405043?pwd=cjdvanVrSVhhQU5JNmtsYTAvUGdudz09 Passcode: 81611 Or One tap mobile : US: +12532158782,,97964405043#,,,,*81611# or +13462487799,,97964405043#,,,,*81611# Or Telephone: Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 6833 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 Webinar ID: 979 6440 5043 Passcode: 81611 International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/ac1CrhSrjQ I.WORK SESSION I.A.Moratorium Project Update - Engagement Summary: Residential Building And Short-Term Rentals I.B.Short-Term Rental - Tax Questions 1 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council FROM:Phillip Supino, Community Development Director MEMO DATE:May 6, 2022 MEETING DATE:May 9, 2022 RE:Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment – Complete Public Outreach Summaries for Residential Building and Short-Term Rentals REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo introduces the comprehensive Public Outreach Summaries (Exhibits A and B) outlining the work done by City of Aspen staff and consultants, in developing and implementing an engagement plan to encourage input about future policies and regulations for residential building and short-term rentals in Aspen. At the Work Session, Staff will ask Council to discuss the City’s public participation efforts and how the results from the engagement process will continue to inform future decision making. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 26, Series 2021, and Ordinance No. 6, Series 2022 instituted moratoria on the issuance of certain residential building and vacation (short-term) rental permits in Aspen. This pause granted Aspen City Council, City of Aspen staff, and the community to take the time needed to thoughtfully evaluate the state of our built environment, including how development impacts the health, peace, safety, and general wellbeing of the residents and visitors in this community. Since December 2021, Staff has been fully committed to the research and development of appropriate policy around shaping Aspen’s built environment, with public participation at the forefront. With Council support and direction, Staff worked with experts in the fields of public participation and development, as well as community members, to take bold actions to address these priority areas: •Vacation rentals (short-term rentals). •Pace and scale of residential development. •Opportunities for affordable housing production. •Development procedures within the Land-Use Code. 2 Staff Memo, Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment – Public Participation Findings, 5/9/22 Page 2 of 4 •Climate impacts of residential development and redevelopment. The moratoria were initially instated in December 2021, and the public participation process began immediately thereafter. The project team drafted a public engagement plan outlining goals and objectives, as well as anticipated stakeholders, engagement levels, and how best to communicate with them. From there, two formal rounds of public participation were conducted; the final period of engagement concluded on May 2, 2022. SUMMARY: Exhibit A: The Short-Term Rental Outreach Summary, and Exhibit B: The Residential Building Outreach Summary, to this memo document engagement efforts and comprehensive summaries of staff findings throughout the public participation process. The summaries were compiled by City of Aspen staff and our consultant team of Design Workshop and City Explained, Inc. There is a focus on the efforts related to the residential building components of the moratorium, as well as short-term rental engagement findings. While the future of residential building and short-term rental activity in Aspen are intertwined, most of the public participation efforts for these two subject areas were managed separately due to the unique nature, technical expertise, and resources available and associated with each topic area. The Public Outreach Summaries provide evidence of the depth and breadth of the strategies and tactics that were facilitated throughout the engagement process. These efforts were based on the foundational best practices that have served our community well in the past, and additionally recommended by the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) Engagement efforts were intentionally designed to be inclusive, transparent, values-based, goal-driven, and decision-oriented. Each summary tells a story about our community’s invested interest in the future wellbeing of our community character, sustainability, and legacy, and includes the key findings and input to support these narratives. Specific components of the reports include: The Project Plan and Schedule: A high-level overview of the design work and implementation steps that comprised the engagement framework. Engagement Activities: An outline of the participation opportunities available to the public to attend and contribute to the conversation. Communication and Participation Channels: Specific metrics highlighting the reach of marketing, communications, and engagement efforts. Key Findings and Summarized Participant Feedback: Big-picture snapshot of the themes and considerations brought to light by participants through the engagement process. Appendices: Qualitative and quantitative data results compiled from stakeholder meetings, events, and online reporting systems. Hundreds of participants engaged in at least one of the 50 opportunities available for public participation across both projects. The summaries include specific numbers for 3 Staff Memo, Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment – Public Participation Findings, 5/9/22 Page 3 of 4 participants by topic and outreach opportunity. In staff’s view, the following activities seemed most impactful in collecting meaningful feedback: In-Person Open House Events Questionnaires Technical Stakeholder Group Meetings DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen made a promise to the community that its public participation process would be a full-circle approach to inform, as well as listen to, stakeholders with the intention of sharing information, facilitating understanding, and collecting input from all perspectives to make informed decisions that benefit the community as a whole. The information that staff and our consultant team have received during these engagement efforts has been essential to what will be the eventual Code Amendment outcomes on both the short-term rental and residential building topics. As staff has returned to Council for check-ins on the progress of our efforts, several policy recommendations have been directly shaped by both general and specific, or technical feedback from the community members that we have spoken with and the comments that have submitted. From the STR conversations, the following are examples of the policy direction and recommended strategies and tactics that have emerged and been shaped by the outreach efforts and input from the community and stakeholders: Exempting commercial and lodge zones from permit caps, Require a property manager to be the qualified owner’s representative for STRs, Creation of the in-unit messaging program, Staff recommendation for a tax, not an impact fee, on STRs, Arbitrage regulations that prevent short-term rentals of long-term leased properties, Development of good neighbor guidelines, HOA verification required for STR permits. Additionally, the Technical Advisory Committee and engaged members of the public helped staff and consultants more fully understand how the STR market and industry function in Aspen. Their input and perspectives were essential to staff having as complete and informed an understanding as possible about the topic. Similarly, on the topic of residential building regulations, staff made several pivots in our thinking and proposed policies in response to questions and concerns, particularly form members of the development community: Retaining Floor Area and other dimensional limitations as is. 4 Staff Memo, Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment – Public Participation Findings, 5/9/22 Page 4 of 4 Allowing affordable housing in most zone districts but ensuring that it remains in character with neighborhood dimensional limitations. Moving demolition allotment review from a board to an administrative process. Creating high thresholds for demolition projects – but making the thresholds definitive and objective. Exempting non-historic additions to designated historic structures from the demolition calculation Improving the GMQS deferral agreement for local residents. In staff’s view, the public engagement process to date, has translated into exactly the outcomes that are hoped for from public engagement. Policy direction has been amended in several areas to respond to broadly framed community perspectives and our technical stakeholders made nuanced suggestions that have been incorporated to improve, streamline, and bring clarity to proposed review processes and standards. Residents and effected parties were informed about the process and how to engage. On both the short-term rental and residential building topics, draft code language that reflects Council, staff, consultant, and community input is being finalized. Prior to Council’s review of specific code language as part of the First and Second Readings of Ordinances, this draft code language will have been reviewed by community members and technical stakeholders for final evaluation and comment. The results of the engagement process and the contents of the engagement summaries can help inform Council’s thinking as they consider staff’s work and recommendations in the coming weeks. FINANCIAL IMPACTS:N/A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:N/A ALTERNATIVES: N/A RECOMMENDATIONS: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: EXHIBITS: A – Public Outreach Summary – Short-Term Rentals B – Public Outreach Summary – Residential Building 5 OUTREACH SUMMARYMAY 9, 2022ASPEN CITY COUNCIL UPDATE6 DATA ANALYSIS INITIAL DATA FINDINGSCASE STUDY ANALYSISDATA FINDINGSINITIAL DRAFT POLICY IDEASPOLICY DRAFTINGPOLICY DRAFTINGIn December 2021, Aspen City Council approved Ordinance No. 26, Series 2021, a temporary moratorium on the issuance of new vacation rental permits (also known as short-term rental permits). During this time, and again in April 2022, an additional moratorium was instated on the issuance of residential building permits (Ordinance 27, 2021, and Ordinance 6, 2022). The moratorium on residential building permits is scheduled until June 8, 2022, and the moratorium on short-term rental (STR) permits extends until September 30, 2022. While residential building and short-term rentals are intertwined, the City facilitated two unique outreach campaigns, one for each focus area. Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment is an overarching outreach campaign that dives deep into STR and residential building activity in Aspen.This report is speciﬁ c to STRs.Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment was in response to the moratorium and explores solutions that will improve regulations and respond to specific themes that correlate with STR activity, specifically in mountain communities throughout the United States. These themes include:PROJECT PLANNINGJAN2022ENGAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENTFEB2022TECHNICAL ADVISORY MEETINGS BEGIN1X1 INTERVIEWS BEGINAPR2022CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONSMAY2022CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONSSTR MORATORIUM ENDSOPEN HOUSEADOPTED ORDINANCES PROPOSEDDATA FINALIZATION AND POLICY UPDATESSEPT2022The chart below illustrates concurrent project planning eff orts and data analyses with arrows indicating where data, information, outreach results and community discussions are informing project components.1PROJECT PHASING AND DATA ANALYSIS FLOW CHARTOUTREACH SUMMARY: PROJECT PLANNING AND SCHEDULE• Zoning• Good Neighbor Policies• Operational Standards & Enforcement• Life Safety• Permitting• FinancialsPROMISE TO THE PUBLIC: Utilizing values and ethics from the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) - which defines the development context, promise to the public, and how feedback would be put into action – the project team drafted a public engagement plan outlining goals and objectives, as well as anticipated stakeholders, engagement levels, and how best to communicate with them. The engagement approach focuses on:• Informing the community-at-large (public) of the project by providing balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the “problem”, what alternatives may be appropriate, and what opportunities and/or solutions there might be to address change to current City policy.• Consulting with internal and external stakeholders to obtain feedback on current process successes and barriers, data analysis, policy alternatives, and involve them throughout the process to ensure their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered.• Involving technical advisors on specific discrete policy questions that can further the data analysis and proposed code changes.PUTTING FEEDBACK INTO ACTION: The project team identified the need to work diligently to summarize engagement initiatives and findings in real-time to provide for a continuous information loop in and out of the policy development process to:• Set clear expectations with stakeholders and the community on engagement activities and how their feedback will be considered or incorporated in the policy development process.• Provide status updates through Aspen Community Voice and make engagement summaries readily available to the public.ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY #17 Public engagement focused on facilitating dialogue about an aspirational vision for the community. A variety of mechanisms and tools were used to share information including one-on-one discussions with community members, focus groups, questionnaires, and public drop-in events. The project team created a webpage on Aspen Community Voice that hosts project information, outreach opportunities, key project dates, events, meeting registrations, and documents for review. Through a series of online tools on Aspen Community Voice and questions developed for technical stakeholders and community members alike, the project team gathered data points to assist Aspen City Council and staff in furthering project discussions around our STR themes: • Zoning• Good Neighbor Policies• Operational Standards & Enforcement• Life Safety• Permitting• FinancialsThese discussions, held both in-person and virtually, began with the launch of Aspen Community Voice on February 8, 2022, and continued with focus group sessions and publicly available questionnaires between February and April, and an Open House on April 6, 2022. Each tactic offered a different style of discussion with the project team: • Questionnaires(Consult) – Gauge public interest and concerns,as well as obtain public feedback on the direction of policydevelopment.• 1x1 Discussions (Consult) – Intentional meetings with passionate,invested, and/or expert parties to better understand existingconditions, opinions, and trends, as well as concerns andaspirations, and provide feedback on the process.• Focus Groups (Collaborate) - Data- and values-driven conversationswith technical advisors based upon initial data ﬁ ndings and policyquestions pertaining to discussion points outlined above.• Open House (Consult) - Information sharing and values-basedconversations based upon community members experiences livingand working in Aspen.OUTREACH SUMMARY: SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITIESENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES COMPLETED TO DATE2The activities listed below illustrate distinct engagement activities that included technical stakeholder meetings, one-on-one interviews, two questionnaires,, an open house and presentations between January 25 and April 30, 2022. In total, there were approximately 760 participants across Aspen Community Voice (656), one-on-one interviews (11), technical stakeholder advisory group members (12), Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) and the Aspen Board of Realtors (ABOR) technical stakeholder meeting (~15), and the April 6, 2022 Open House (70).123MONDAY, MARCH 3, 2022Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. 4TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2022Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. 5TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2022Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss short-term rental activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. 678-18192021THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022Members from ACRA and the ABOR gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2022Public Open House event at City Hall from 4-6pm to collect feedback about the future of STRs in Aspen.TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2022Community Development Director presented to ACRA on the status of the moratorium and collected feedback from ACRA board members. TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment: STRs and online engagement activities.MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2022The Technical Advisory Group is comprised of 12 community members that represent their technical area of expertise in the community. Members gathered to discuss STR activity in Aspen as it pertains to the lodging and real estate industry. MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment: STRs Questionnaire #1.FEBRUARY-APRIL, 2022Stakeholder interviews (11) to learn more about the current state of STRs, as well as concerns and recommendations for potential solutions. APRIL 19-29, 2022Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment: STRs Questionnaire #2. 22TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2022Community Development Director presented on the status of the moratorium and collected feedback from ACRA and ABOR members. 8 OUTREACH SUMMARY: COMMUNICATIONS AND PARTICIPATION3In order to meet the goals outlined by the project team, it was important to employ a variety of tactics to inform the public about how they could get involved in the engagement process, share their voice, and shape the future of STR activity in Aspen. Communication channels included: Aspen Community Voice (AspenCommunityVoice.com), Aspen Daily News advertisements, Aspen Times advertisements, Twitter (@cityofaspen), Facebook posts, events, and advertisements, Instagram, newsletters (ACRA, Colorado Conversations, and Community Development Updates), targeted email invitations (200+), Aspen 82 interviews, CGTV advertisements and media releases. Engagement activities and events included two (2) presentations to ACRA, one (1) Technical Stakeholder Meeting (ACRA and ABOR), eleven (11) one-on-one interviews, five (5) Technical Advisory Group meetings, one (1) Open House, two (2) online questionnaires on Aspen Community Voice, and receipt and response to 35 emails and inquiries.This coordinated communications and outreach initiative was intended to maximize information shared with the community and clearly identify opportunities for community members to engage with the project team both in-person and virtually. In total, there were: 15011x17 Posters placed in venues between Basalt and Aspen6,404Targeted event mailers for the April 6, 2022 Open House141 DAYSContinuously running digital ads in Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News159K+Digital ad impressions between Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News214New registrations on Aspen Community Voice platform562‘Engaged’ Visitors to the Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment + project page2.8KVisits to the Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment + STR project page322Largest number of visitors to ACVproject pages in one day~760Total participants across surveys, interviews, advisory groups, and the open house70Participants at the April 6, 2022 Open House at City Hall12Technical Advisory Group members that attended five (5) meetings656Project questionnaires taken on Aspen Community Voice 9 OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKZONINGTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN COMMERCIAL AND LODGING DISTRICTS WHEN PERMITTING LOCATION OF STRS. 1ALLOW MARKET DEMAND TO DETERMINE HOW MANY STRS ARE PERMITTED PER ZONE DISTRICT. 2ALLOW MARKET DEMAND TO DETERMINE WHERE STRS ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT ASPEN. 3In the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, 227 participants ranked their preference on where STRs should be permitted based on zone district. Most respondents felt that STRs should first be permitted in the Downtown Core, then lodge districts, then West End neighborhoods, then East End neighborhoods, followed by Cemetery Lane residential neighborhoods, then finally, residential neighborhoods outside of the roundabout. SHORT-TERM RENTAL ZONE DISTRICT PREFERENCES4DOWNTOWN CORE LODGE DISTRICTSMIXED-USE DISTRICTSWEST END RESIDENTIALEAST END RESIDENTIALCEMETERY LANE RESIDENTIAL1( THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AT ALL)7(THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED)65432OUTSIDE THE ROUNDABOUTBelow is a summary of high-level findings from discussions (Aspen Community Voice, Interviews, Focus Groups and an Open House) on STR activity in Aspen. General engagement opportunities were presented in various mediums, such as virtually and in person, to aid in access for participants to engage in the process. Of note was the availability of technical experts to have rich and intentional conversations with participants in order to attain high-quality qualitative and quantitative data to support ongoing analyses and case study work. Key findings do not represent consensus but rather indicate either a majority response or important discovery through conversations with technical stakeholders and community members.Regulating STRs in commercial and lodge zones differently from residential zones can create certainty in zoning and the land use process, as well as ensure that lodging development is compatible and appropriate within the context of the neighborhood. Allowing market demand to determine where and how many STRs are permitted per zone district increases the likelihood that residential zones will become increasingly attractive for STRs, impacting community character and livability. For example, in Park City, Utah, only 32.6% of all housing units (10,440 total) are occupied. Vacant seasonal and recreational housing units have nearly doubled since 2000 to 6,750 units, and Park City is the only city in Utah where the number of jobs (11,000) out numbers the population (8,500). Zoning regulations and affordable housing policies can help mitigate some of the impacts STRs have on housing, infrastructure, and other community impacts. In Durango, Colorado, only 39 STRs are allowed in residential zone districts to keep the majority of STRs in the commercial core. STRs are permitted in the central business, mixed-use, and selected planned development zones. The intent in having a small cap in residential zones is to focus on neighborhood preservation, quality of life, and housing preservation.Questionnaire #1: Rank your preference for where you believe short-term rentals should be permitted based on zone district:10 77224599555871991768Traffic and ParkingTrash and Wildlife SafetyNeighborhood Impacts (ex: Noise, Crowding) Over TourismTax Fairness (Ex.: Property Tax Increases, Loss of Local HousingCompetition to Traditional Lodging in TownOther (please specify)GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICIESSTRS OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT COMPANIES SHOULD USE IN-UNIT MESSAGING ABOUT HOW GUESTS CAN BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND SUPPORT COMMUNITY VALUES. 4HAVE ONE STANDARD SET OF GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD POLICIES THAT ALL STRS ABIDE BY. POLICIES WOULD INCLUDE RULES ABOUT NOISE, TRASH, WILDLIFE, PARKING, TRANSIT, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, AND RESPECT FOR THE COMMUNITY. 5WHEN VISITING ASPEN, RESPECTING AND EMBRACING OUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER, ETIQUETTE, AND UNIQUE MOUNTAIN STYLE IS WELCOMED, APPRECIATED, AND NON-NEGOTIABLE. 6In the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, more than 200 participants ranked their areas of greatest concern regarding STRs in Aspen. Loss of local housing was ranked #1, neighborhood impacts such as noise and crowding was ranked #2, and traffic and parking followed in closely at #3. The landscape of Aspen is changing, and it is a priority for our community to invest in maintaining our mountain views, small-town community character, and historical heritage. When visitors come to our area, the community appreciates when visitors invest in our community and embrace all that Aspen has to offer, our mountain town values, culture, and lifestyle. A group of technical advisors knowledgeable about best practices in lodging and STR industry, particularly in mountain towns, has met regularly with City of Aspen staff to discuss the future of STRs in Aspen. The group emphasized the need for good neighbor policies that all STR owners and renters abide by to solve for some of the nuisance complaints submitted by community members in regard to STRs. Those policies would also help visitors be a part of the community. For example, visitors often don’t know how important it is to lock their trash. In 2021, Aspen Police received more than 300 reports of bear OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.GREATEST AREAS OF CONCERN 5activity, mostly because bears were getting into trash or other food sources that weren’t properly stowed. This is a 20% increase from the year prior. The Aspen Police Department also responded to nearly 200 calls for disorderly conduct and harassment.In Salida, Colorado, STRs are only granted to ‘bona fide residents’ or their designated agents who are certified Chaffee County residents. A ‘bona fide resident’ means the applicant must show two of the following: a valid driver’s license or Colorado identification card, current voter registration, valid motor vehicle registration, or a document designating a primary residence for income tax purposes. The hope is that the concerns posed by STRs will be mitigated and neighborhoods and quality of life will be preserved since those operating businesses in Salida are those who live and invest in their local community.Questionnaire #1: Please check your three areas of greatest concern regarding short-term rentals in Aspen? (Other please specify):11 INITIAL OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKOPERATIONAL STANDARDS & ENFORCEMENTTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.ACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF STR REGULATIONS IS NEEDED. 7RESIDENTS AND STR OPERATORS SUPPORT PENALTIES FOR FREQUENT VIOLATIONS OF REGULATIONS. 8STRS MUST HAVE QUALIFIED, LOCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF UNIT. 9The 245 participants who responded to the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice provided more than 400 comments related to STR activity in Aspen. Nearly 10% of these comments and questions were related to enforcement, with some participants remarking that regulations without enforcement will be broken and the City’s current resources, specifically the Aspen Police, should focus on local needs rather than responding to nuisances from STR visitors. Further, those who do not adhere to established regulations should have their STR permit revoked. Noncompliance to STR regulations can lead to issues with responsiveness in emergency situations and a lack of clarity on the owner of the unit if nuisances occur during a visitors stay and a compliant is made. In Aspen, lodges generally have 24-hour, seven days per week, on-site management. STRs, however, are typically managed or rented by off-site entities including property management firms or real estate agents. The reduced availability of services and longer response times create burdens for service providers and increase the likelihood of safety and regulatory compliance issues from STRs. ADHERENCE TO REGULATIONS6OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKPrior to the adoption of Santa, Fe, New Mexico’s current STR policy, 40% of STR owners were noncompliant with the previous policy. In the new policy, Santa Fe responded to these issues by adopting policy that requires STRs to have a local operator who can arrive at the rental within an hour to response to issues and daily fines against violations. The Town of Crested Butte, Colorado, has a full-time staff member dedicated to overseeing Crested Butte’s STR permitting process, financial compliance, and enforcement. Part of their enforcement includes revoking permits for STRs that are noncompliant and issuing liens on the properties until compliance is met.12 LIFE SAFETYINCLUDE A PERMIT NUMBER AND LOCAL CONTACT OR OWNER REPRESENTATIVE IN STR LISTINGS, AS WELL AS POST THEM ON THE PROPERTY. 10STR OPERATORS AND OWNERS WANT TO COMPLY WITH LODGING APPROPRIATE LIFE-SAFETY STANDARDS. 11LIMIT UNIT OCCUPANCY. 12When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice if the City should make a distinction between lodge (condo-hotel) properties and residential properties or units, participants stated that residential properties should primarily serve our local community and exist in residential districts for the wellbeing of our community and character. Since lodges operate under certain regulations and operational standards to monitor noise, wildlife, safety, service concerns, STRs should do the same. More people are coming to Aspen to visit. In a report provided by the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA), paid occupancy rose in the summer months (May-October) from 44.2% in 2020 to 65.6% in 2021. When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice what respondents viewed as the greatest benefits to having short-term rentals in Aspen, more visitors in town was the least beneficial outcome. With more people comes more responsibility to keep our residents and visitors safe. Instituting occupancy restrictions can help manage the number of visitors coming to our community, as well as ensure proper safety measures are met for those who are visiting. Occupancy restrictions also reduce neighborhood nuisances and impacts from STRs. In Breckenridge, Colorado, occupancy restrictions are a key tool for managing STR impacts. There is a two person per bedroom occupancy limit and STRs cannot advertise for more than what the occupancy maximum is. Through the financial regulatory tool, LODGINGRevs, the City can enforce these restrictions. Under current regulations in Aspen, the requirements for lodges to ensure the safety of their guests, provide for a quality visitor experience, and contribute to Aspen’s efforts to facilitate a sustainable economy and maintain sustainable community infrastructure, are significantly more rigorous than those required of vacation rentals. For example, traditional lodges are required to mitigate for job generation and affordable housing, support transit systems, offer parking for all visitors, and meet higher building code life safety standards. INITIAL OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.THREE GREATEST BENEFITS OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS7OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKEXPANDED AND DIVERSIFIED LODGING BED BASEREVENUE FOR PROPERTY OWNERSINCREASED TAX REVENUEINCREASED ECONOMIC ACTIVITYMORE VISITORSOTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY)060801004020120140Questionnaire #1: What do you view the three greatest beneﬁ ts of short-term rentals to be in Aspen?13 PERMITTINGCREATE DIFFERENT PERMITS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN DIFFERENT PROPERTY TYPES. 13COLLECT RELEVANT UNIT AND OWNER DATA ON PERMIT APPLICATIONS TO PROVIDE IMPORTANT DATA TO MARKET PARTICIPANTS, SUPPORT GREATER MARKET UNDERSTANDING, AND REGULATORY ENFORCEMENT. 14EXISTING PERMITS SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED TO CURRENT PERMITTEES AND ATTRITION SHOULD BE USED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PERMITS. 15When asked in the first STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice if the City should make a distinction between owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied STRs and have different regulations for owner-occupied than for nonowner-occupied, 42% of 243 participants responded “yes”, while 58% of participants responded “no”. Per the City of Aspen’s Land Use Code, the use of STRs is allowable in all lodging, commercial, and residential zones. This is to say, there are few restrictions or regulations on where STRs can be located and no restrictions on the number allowed in the lodging, commercial, and residential zones. The number one way that mountain communities around the country are regulating STR operations is through a permitting system. Those in favor of instituting different regulations commented that non-owner-occupied STR permit holders tend not to be residents and are less invested in the wellbeing of the Aspen community. In addition, those who operate their homes as a business should be subject to the same regulations as a commercial lodge. Those against differentiating permits between non-owner-occupied and owner-occupied STRs expressed that property owners should be able to manage their properties without government oversight and subsize the cost of the property by renting it out for additional income. Further, regardless of regulations, respondents felt neither owner-occupied homes nor non-owner-occupied homes are likely to be affordable housing options for locals but do offer additional opportunities for tourism. Also, the distinction could affect the resale value of a property and be difficult to enforce. In the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice, the City asked participants if they think it best to grandfather existing permits and use attrition to arrive at the capped limit of issued permits OR use a lottery to arrive at the capped limit. 61.2% of respondents chose attrition.OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.TYPES OF PERMITS AND ONGOING TRACKING8LOTTERY030025020015010050ATTRITION Questionnaire #2: Q1 - Do you think it best to grandfather existing permits and use attrition to arrive at the capped limit over time OR use a lottery to arrie at the capped limit?14 OUTREACH SUMMARY: KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKFINANCIALSTHEME KEY FINDINGSPARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.ASSESS A PERMIT FEE THAT ALIGNS WITH STR PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION COSTS AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS. 16PREFERENCE FOR A TAX (WHICH IS SCALABLE PER UNIT) OVER AN IMPACT FEE (WHICH IS A SET COST). 17When asked in the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice whether respondents thought that Aspen City Council should approve a new short-term rental specific tax to mitigate for community and environmental impacts, 60% of partcipants said “yes”.Prior to Santa Fe, New Mexico adjusting its STR regulations and tax structure, only 60% of its 1,444 active whole-unit STRs were registered with the City, which cost the City $1.6 million each year in missed revenue. On average, research demonstrated that the owners of STRs were making over $80,000 per host per year. Santa Fe has since instituted regulations and enforcement for STRs that are noncompliant, making them subject to a fine of $100 per day for a first violation, increasing up to $500 per day for further offenses. In Aspen, there are currently 1,246 registered STRs. Prior to the moratorium, STR permit holders were not required to pay a fee with their annual application. However, all lodges, including STRs, are subject to a 2% lodging tax that is used to support destination marketing (75%) and local transit services (25%). When asked in the second STR questionnaire hosted on Aspen Community Voice what community benefits could be supported by an STR tax, affordable housing rose to the top, followed by infrastructure and then the Climate Action Fund. SHORT-TERM RENTAL IMPACT MITIGATION9No40%60%YesAFFORDABLE HOUSINGINFRASTRUCTURECLIMATE ACTION FUNDEARLY CHILDHOOD COMMUNITY POLICINGOTHER02402001601208040Questionnaire #2: Q5 - Should Aspen City Council ask Aspen voters to approve a new short-term rental speciﬁ c tax to mitigate for community and environmental impacts?Questionnaire #2: Q6 - If yes, what community beneﬁ ts should the new tax revenue fund?15 APPENDICES LISTINGAPP A STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPP B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP SUMMARYAPP C ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES APP D APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS APP E ACV QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2APP F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW121113227416 APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY1APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYThe team interviewed residents, resident property owners, resident aff ordable housing occupants, property managers, real estate brokers, STR owners, former elected offi cials, lodge operators in Aspen and summarized key ﬁ ndings below:I. KEY FINDINGSA. Positive Impacts• STRs diversify and expand the lodging bed base by off ering more unit sizes and diff erent product types than traditional lodging. STRs are off ered at diff erent price points, which makes Aspen available to more and diff erent visitors. • STRs provide income for property owners, supporting the economy. • STRs help locals stay in their house with supplemental income. B. Negative Impacts• STRs undermine community character and the sense of a lived-in community. • STRs have contributed to the movement of workers from the “public” service economy to the “private” service economy. • STRs have unmitigated impacts on community infrastructure and character, such as over-dependence on private vehicles taxing roads and parking capacity. • STRs do not suffi ciently mitigate their job generation and aff ordable housing demand. • STRs have reduced the availability of free market rental housing.C. Preferred Regulatory Options• Limit the over-all number in the community. • Treat STRs more like lodging than residential uses. • Assess and permit fee on STRs that is commensurate with their value and cost. • Help STR occupants be better visitors and reinforcing community culture and character. • Implement stronger life-safety and compliance regulations. • Take the speculation out of the real estate market by limiting the ability to short-term properties.17 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP2APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPThe City of Aspen short-term rental staff team organized 12 community professional and citizen members who are subject experts or who personally have experience in short-term rentals. This working group of 12 met every other week for a total of ﬁ ve meetings on data sharing, information gathering, and policy recommendations for the City’s short-term rental ordinance. Their time, feedback, community engagement with constituents, and input towards the policy drafting process has been essential to staff throughoutthe moratorium.I. TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP MEMBERS AND MEETING DATESDonnie Lee, Gant Aspen Tricia McIntyre, ALVR Wayne Stryker, Stryker BrownJoy Stryker, Stryker BrownValerie Forbes, Sotheby’s John Corcoran, Aspen Alps Michael Miracle, SkiCo Wendalin Whitman, Whitman PropertiesJoshua Landis Chuck Frias, Frias Properties Tracy Sutton, Aspen Signature PropertiesGinna Gordon, APDMeeting #1 Meeting #2 Meeting #3Meeting #4Meeting #52/17/223.3.223.17.223.28.224.28.22II. MEETING EXECUTIVE SUMMARIESA. Meeting #1 Summary• The ﬁ rst meeting gave staff the opportunity to hear from the group what their personal interactions were with STRs to better understand the diff erent ways individuals or businesses work with STRs. Staff gained valuable knowledge on the economics of STRs and how some types of STRs may proﬁ t or be ﬁ nancially diff erent from others. Market functions and ﬁ nances were a great topic of discussion, and it gave staff data around how homes with STRs market diff erently than those without and what those implications for the owner may be. The group decided to think about ‘what needs to be managed’ to help guide the conversation around the second meeting.B. Meeting #2 Summary• The second meeting focused on how zoning and permitting contribute towards STRs and how the regulation of both can help set better operating standards for the City. The group agreed that the ‘right number in the right zones makes sense’ and that having STRs in the core and in traditionally short-term rental buildings should be top priority when thinking about limitations to zoning. The priority for zoning was having the core and lodging/commerical zones have the majority of STRs and as one moves out from the core, have decreasing density and increased limitations of STRs. The group also focused heavily on ‘whose accountable’ and emphasizing the recommendation that a local owner or local managing group should be solely responsible for STRs in the community due to the unique community character that is Aspen. The group was asked to give their detailed opinions on how zoning and permitting can regulate the STR market for their homework.C. Meeting #3• Pete Strecker led the third meeting on accounting and ﬁ nances. The group was asked their opinion on having fees and taxes. There was consensus that a tax, possibly in addition to a fee, made sense as there is scalability for a tax based on the size, number of beds, and number of nights a guest will stay in a STR. This has greater mitigation than a one-time-fee ‘for all’. The group thought that housing was a logical nexus to the tax question but also decided that turning STRs into long-term local housing will be viable. This discussion also brought up the need for a good neighbor policy that all STR owners and renters abide by that might help solve for some of the nuisance complaints by neighbors. Staff asked as homework ‘what are we solving for’D. Meeting #4• The fourth meeting focused on the question ‘if there are caps then what’. The group looked at the number of STRs broken out by zone, location and density and answered questions on how to fairly and equitably decease density and intensity of STRs. The group agreed that if there is a cap on STRs, grandfathering all existing permits and decreasing that number over time via attrition was the preferred method. The group also explored the idea of diff erent permit types based on the use of the STR. There was consensus on the ‘3-strikes and your out’ policy for STRs who violate code or who have three complaints on the property within a permit year. There was also discussion on data points the City should be collecting when re-doing the permitting process that can help clarify some questions around current STR use in Aspen.E. Meeting #5 • The ﬁ fth meeting of the TAC focused on draft ordinance and guidelines. Staff looked to TAC for speciﬁ c recommendations on how the caps by zones should be established, what should deﬁ ne a qualiﬁ ed owner’s representative, and their preference on how STRs are capped in residential zone districts. There was strong consensus on grandfathering in all permits and letting ‘natural attrition’ take over to help regulate the market, and then followed by non-transferable licenses. There was productive conversation and clarity on ‘who’ should be the property manager and who may qualify to be a representative of the property when applying for a STR permit. Speciﬁ c questions and comments that came out of the work session that staff will apply to developing guidelines and the ordinance include: a recommendation for September 30 as renewal date rather than December, determining what’s the timeline for the ‘3 strikes and you’re out’, a HOA compliance document from the HOA president to ensure that STRs are allowed, having an occupancy of 2, conﬁ rming that inspections will help with compliance, having a permit fee be assessed based on the number of bedrooms, determining if permit gets revoked does the owner get it back after a certain number of years or do they loose it indeﬁ nitely.18 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP3APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPI. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #1 A. AGENDA• Introductions• Background, Purpose, Objectives, Process • Industry DiscussionoHow do you interact with the STR market?oDescribe the industryoDescribe the economic ecosystemoWhat do regulators need to know that we don’t know?• STRs in AspenoHow does the local/regional STR market function? oAre there diff erences between in and out of town?oWhat share of real estate market activity is attributed to STRs?• Regulating STRsoDo STRs in Aspen require additional regulation and oversight?oIf no, why? If yes, in what ways?oWhat level of regulation is appropriate?oWhat would happen in the community if?• Wrap and Next StepsB. Meeting #1 Notes19 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP4APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPI. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #2 A. AGENDA• Introductions• Summary of PurposeoCouncil directionoGoals for meeting #2oPrevious meeting summar• Council Work Session OverviewoSummary of staff presentation and Council direction• STRs in AspenoHow does the local/regional STR market function? oAre there diff erences between in and out of town?oWhat share of real estate market activity is attributed to STRs?• STRs in Aspen - PermittingoSummary of Council directionoGroup discussion of permitting optionsoGroup preferences for permitting20 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP5APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPMEETING #2 NOTES21 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP6APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPI. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #3 A. AGENDA• Introductions• Summary of PurposeoOutreach Updates - Open House Invite for April 6th 2022• Homework ReviewoSummary of comments received from members• Financial Discussion – Pete StreckeroCouncil’s thoughts on STR ﬁ nancials oWhat Council has expressed interest inoStaff ’s actionsoQuestions to contemplate: oWhat do you think about taxes in the context of property zoning?oWhat do you think about both fees and taxes in the context of community impacts (aff ordable housing, transit, etc.)?oWhat do you think about a fee for the vacation rental permit? It is currently $0.oSome communities have done fee schedules based on bedroom counts – any thoughts around that?oSTRs remitted in 2021 data• Wrap and Next StepsB. Meeting #3 Homework Responses• STRs are a land use distinct from residential and lodge uses. Yet land use regulations do not make that distinction. This results in a variety of inequities and community impacts which our current system fails to address. I think it makes sense to create an additional tax on short term each rental that goes directly into a fund to work towards addressing the inequities and community impacts, whether it be employee housing or otherwise.• Aspen has not sought to mitigate the impacts of STRs on employee generation and other infrastructure and service demands. Same as above.• The community has not established review criteria to ensure basic health and safety standards for individual STRs, or to provide common expectations related to property management and guest behavior standards. We would of course support a more stringent review process by the City when applying for a permit to verify that each STR has a licensed and insured property manager available to assist the guests for emergencies or otherwise. We also support a standard ﬂ yer that could be prepared by ACRA, the City, or both, that all STRs must provide to their guest and have in each rental unit. Perhaps education is the ﬁ rst step prior to regulation when it comes to guest behavior.• The scale and rapid expansion of STRs are changing the nature of important aspects of neighborhood and community character in ways that we are just beginning to understand. It is clear that some• STRs are operating as commercial uses in dedicated residential zone districts. This seems to fall into the conversation we have been having about certain restrictions for residential neighborhoods, such as the West End, but I do not think this pertains to the condo buildings that have always had STRs. I still think it would be interesting to learn about owner comments or concerns as it relates to STRs in residential neighborhoods and do a majority of these owners want restrictions?• STRs, particularly in multi-family developments, have accelerated a transition of many housing units that previously were owned or rented by working locals into de facto lodge units. The displacement of locals from these units over time is not a new trend, but STRs have brought a new scale and pace to this challenge. I think this is true, but I also don’t see this new ownership base renting to locals at affordable or even semi-affordable rates if they aren’t allowed to rent short term. When an owner sees how much money they can make renting short term or even seasonally long term, it no longer makes ﬁ nancial sense to rent the unit to a local for 6 months or a year as that makes the unit unavailable for their own use. An owner may rent long term for July and August and then use the unit in June and September, which they could not do if it was rented to a local for 6-12 months. I honestly don’t know what to do about the displacement of locals from units that they rented in the past. I remember renting a very average unit at the Scandia on West Hopkins in 2012 for $2k/month and while I believe it is listed for sale now, the most recent advertised rental rate was $5,500/month because the market supports that even though the unit was not updated at all in the last 30 years.• From one broker comment - I think this needs to be explored more not really thrilled with any of these options below.• A) Owner to Owner• Yes• B)With the property until the expiration date• (2 out of 4 responses said YES)• C) Tied forever with the propertyoYes• In regards to the price of the annual permit, the consultants will give us a range that will help cover the cost of the STR program administration by the city.• What would be an appropriate price of annual permit?• A)$150• (2 out of 4 responses said YES)• B)$150 + $50 per bedroomoYes• C)$500oYes• D)$1,000• E) A % based on the tax amount received in 2021 from the rental property• F) Another Amount ______________________• General comments from one broker on STRs are here:oAspen and Snowmass are resort communities that exist but for the grace of tourism. Limiting short term rentals limit the more affordable sector of our lodging pool, which personally I think is a shame. In terms of our rental business speciﬁ cally, most of our rental listings prefer to rent for 30+ days, so limiting short term rentals there simply cuts the tax revenue that would have come in from the 7-10 day rentals that happen usually over the holidays, President’s Week or spring break. Originally, the STR permit was so the city could track how many beds were available in the community and to ensure compliance with lodging taxes. I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with cancelling permits for non-compliance oryour community, but care must be taken to remove the emotion and consider the consequences of any government action.22 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP7APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPonuisance” rental properties. However, creating an artiﬁ cial limit on permits will constrain supply and drive up prices, which seems incongruent with the city’s goals. It “feels good” to feel like you have control over your community, but care must be taken to remove the emotion and consider the consequences of any government action.oI think the problem statements outlined in the council memo adequately summarizes the LEO speciﬁ c concerns. Additionally, I wanted to ﬁ ll you in on a recent encounter that the APD responded to. It is mainly just informational, but I wanted to highlight this for your awareness as you continue to aggregate an approach to STR units in the City.oA local Air BnB owner seems to bait and switch incoming visitors. They come expecting to stay in one unit, but for whatever reason that unit is not available when they arrive, so he offers them another less appealing unit, renters are left to fend for themselves to ﬁ nd another place to stay during busy seasons or accept his lesser unit. He does adjust the fee, but this practice is still shady for many reasons.oAdditionally in this instance, Officers are more routinely called upon to be the enforcement arm for this property owner. Here is where it gets challenging. The owner has requested police escort a short term tenant off of his property. The tenant (or short-term renter) has some, although possibly limited rights, and any dispute about the lease or rental agreement is a civil issue. There are some distinctions, if the allegation is that the guest’s activity is breaking the law – we can investigate it the same way as any other crime – however, the end result will be either arrest or a ticket, the Police do not have authority to kick someone out of a short term rental.oAll of this is a roundabout way of explaining that violation of a contract in these cases is a civil issue. The DA explained that short term rentals provide certain rights (evictions and such) that hotels don’t and to simplify it, we are the Aspen Police not the AirBnB Police.oWithout any context, I have to say the heat maps suggesting limiting STR’s to a hundred per zone is very concerning. Our market is like other resort communities, but also totally different. To go from 1000+ STRs to just a few hundred is way more extreme that we’ve seem to be talking about the ﬁ rst 3 meetings.oIt does appear the “non-transferrable” is a theme, and maybe that’s the case to get the city to a number their more comfortable with for STRs.oI fully support our discussions of rolling this out in phases. Phase I – educate, get the permitting system and fee in place, and cleaning up the actual STR numbers. Those that apply do so for rentals less than 30 days. Just from our rentals our ﬁ rm brokers, I know many are shooting for 30+ days, and we have a lot of long term rentals too, that currently have a permit. So cleaning up the program and language would be very helpful.oJust this week, I had an owner in Pitkin County, and they were approved an COA STR. This has since been corrected, but surprised that this far in the process, that they were approved in the ﬁ rst place.oThanks for all your hard work on this and I look forward to coming to an amendable solution for the ﬁ rst phase. It would set an awful precedent to have all the time and feedback and then city council just go ahead and put the hammer down anyway.oYou asked us to give our thoughts on what the problem is that the city trying to solve with the new STR regulations. Why does City Council think there is a problem in Aspen? Why has the pressure we all feel bubbled over and become palpable in the last couple years to the point that the newspapers are ﬁ lled with opinion columns and letters to the editor about it almost daily?oI started a letter the night after our meeting two weeks ago but honestly I didn’t know where to start or stop and my heart got heavy and I put it aside. I spent the last two weeks asking my friends, family and acquaintances what they thought.• I feel like three main themes emerged.oCultural Shift (also commonly described as “Aspen losing its soul” and more recently boiled down to “Aspen Sucks”)oThere has been a major culture shift and the people who live and work here no longer feel included in the joy and spirit of Aspen. The homeowners, visitors and full-time residents have changed. The homes being built and remodeled are not like homes twenty years ago. There are “smart” systems, air conditioning, heated year-round pools, hot tubs, snow melt, and every other luxury imaginable. The people who live in these homes have no tolerance for any level of discomfort or things not working. The end result is a lot of property management and service calls up and down the valley that did not used to exist. A few weeks ago I saw a listing in the Aspen Times classiﬁ eds for a private home looking for a butler.oThe gradual change was accelerated in the last two years with the large amount of people who moved here full time and part time. Rising commercial rent and an inﬂ ux in out of town restaurants opening Aspen locations and longtime restaurant owners taking the opportunity to retire, which resulted in what felt like a whirlwind of changes to local businesses, though this is not a new phenomenon:ohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/the-past-is-showing-our-future/article_6e758160-c728-59c9-bba7- 0be21afdeaa0.htmloInexplicably one of the community’s largest stakeholders dumped gasoline on the smoldering class war being perpetuated by some, by choosing the worst time possible (if ever there was a good one) to explicitly divide us into insulting categories based on our net worth.ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-skiing-co-launches-a-new-luxury-division/oUnsurprisingly causing no shortage of backlash and general thoughts and introspection about the cultural shift (I won’t even get into the Gorsuch situation):ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/roger-marolt-aspen-sucks/ohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/parrott-if-you-can-t-duct-it/article_15766ed0-a655-11ec-9909- 4f25bfbb828a.htmlohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/brandon-duct-tape-darlings/article_06a5d0c4-a599-11ec-ae49- 6f18d5197337.htmlohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/opinion/whiting-vail-doesn-t-suck-anymore/article_68ac1eba-ab0a-11ec- 8feb-47019c172dee.htmlohttps://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/roger-marolt-learn-to-say-no-or-kiss-this-place-goodbye/oThe true spirit and joy of Aspen was that everyone, locals, both seasonal workers, ski bums, the local middle class and everyone in between, partied together, skied, ate, drank and played together with second homeowners and visitors. Cloud Nine used to be a fun place to have a fondue lunch. On-mountain picnic spots and parties that used to be free or impromptu now require reservations and cost hundreds orothousands of dollars to be a part of. Locals and visitors used to mingle at Little Annie’s and The Red Onion. Visitors and second homeowners used to want to hang out where the locals hung out. Restaurants knew that “hooking up” locals at the bar with some discounted food and drinks was good for business because the fun energy drew in visitors. The people who lived and worked here enjoyed interacting with our visitors and second homeowners. These days most locals just feel disgusted, excluded or simply uninterested in joining in the contrived excess and hope that the few remaining local gathering spots don’t disappear.• I’ll add an important sub-category here: More PeopleoThere is a higher demand live in the valley there does not seem to be any limit to what people will pay to buy or rent homes. This is true from Aspen to Carbondale (and throughout Colorado and resort communities everywhere).oThis pretty much sums it up: https://www.aspentimes.com/news 23 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP8APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPbasalt-mayor-says-urban-exodus-is-game-changer-for-towns-in-roaring-fork-valley/oThe truth is that many of the new full or part-time homeowners and guests are not here for the traditional Aspen spirit that used to attract people and draw them into the community. This culture shift is taking its toll on everyone.ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/new-marketing-plan-for-aspen-will-back-off-on-shoulder-seasons/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/acra-midway-through-journey-to-destination-marketing-plan/oThe sacriﬁ ces we make to live here always seemed more than worth the gain of living in a beautiful and joyful place where most people got along most of the time. But many locals simply don’t feel like they can thrive and enjoy their town and the community anymore.• Lack of Affordable Housing. Not new, getting worse, no one can seem to agree on the solution.oIt has also become a more heated issue at the heart of the above mentioned “class war” narrative.ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/elizabeth-milias-aspen-vs-the-worker/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/high-brow-and-tone-deaf/oAs a side note, and just based on people I know and anecdotal evidence, I think the real estate boom in Snowmass and Basalt probably has had more impact in terms of people losing housing than what’s happened in Aspen, that ship had, with a few exceptions, pretty much already sailed.• Questions about the Efficacy of City RegulationsoInﬁ ll, penthouses, not enough pillows, more density, more affordable housing, Lift One Lodge, view planes, the art museum, vacancy tax, no more penthouses, too many rentals, too many people, not the right kind of people, Gorsuch Haus.ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor/ aspen-council-not-all-there-with-vacancy-tax/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-city-council-advances-affordable-housing-efforts/ohttps://www.aspendailynews.com/council-passes-lodging-incentive-ordinance/article_c56f5939-72d1- 53c9-89fb-bdae5527291d.htmlohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/city-softens-inﬁ ll-plan/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/views-on-inﬁ ll-all-about-views/ohttps://aspenjournalism.org/frame-by-frame-how-the-aspen-art-museum-was-approved-by-the-city/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/aspen-councils-concerns-leave-lift-one-lodge-in-limbo/ohttps://www.aspentimes.com/news/hotel-boom-hasnt-offset-pillow-drain/oIt has been a long 20 years with a lot of changes. It is easy to look back and criticize when things backﬁ red, had unintended consequences or just ﬂ at out didn’t work. My very off the top-of-my-head list is not a fair or exhaustive summary nor in historical order and it does not acknowledge positive things that happened along the way, but when you talk to someone who has been around for long enough it just feels like we bounce from shore to shore like a rudderless ship, reacting to the issue of the day, losing a piece of our collective soul every step of the way. I hope that this process and all of the work and community involvement will go beyond the individual matters at hand and help the city and community ﬁ nd our North Star.oI appreciate your time and energy on this issue and the bigger issue of doing what is best for our city and our community. Public service is not for the faint hearted, I know your job is not easy and you and your team will be criticized no matter what you do. You have my thanks any my support and hope that we can all move forward together.I. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #4 A. AGENDA• Introductions• UpdatesoOpen house April 6th 4-6 @ Pearl PassoWork Session April 11th 4pm @ Council ChambersoPre-review Council work product• Discussion from last meetingo“Problem we are solving for”• PermittingoDiscussion of how to manage the permit system with limited supplyoEligibility, Lotteries, Transferability, Caps, NoticingoProcess for diff erent permit types: condo, owner-occupied, non-owner occupied• Wrap and Next Steps24 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP9APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPI. STR TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS MEETING #5 A. AGENDA• Introductions• Caps By Zone DistrictoReview of Data and MapsoThoughts on Cap Percentages by Zone District• Ordinance and Program Guidelines - Topics of consideration:oQualiﬁ ed owner’s representativeoGrandfather v. Lottery oDetails of permit application content• Wrap Up and Next StepsB. Meeting #5 Ideas on Ordinance and Guidelines• Is it possible that we could incorporate the zone in the permit number? Ex R6-100 Might help or hurt the cap per zone idea. I mean in the actual permit license number Example Bob Jones – 100 Aspen Way – His license number would be R6-089703 (identify the zone in the permit license number).• Thank you for the detailed report. I have reviewed it and have the following concerns and comments. I promise I am not trying to be sassy. I am completely blown away as the suggestions of who are the representatives. Also, I will be handing you the keys to my business if this goes through as written. Corporate Monsters like are swallowing whole as we speak. In fact, it is mere website for leads and reservationist.• A Rental Agency is the following: A property management company that has the following. 1.) Strict contracts with the owner to manage their calendar, give expert advice as to the rates, use a modern reservation system to store data and give data and pay taxes, on call 24-7 Maintenance person who knows how to ﬁ x anything, pre-arrival guest services, a front desk to ask questions, concierge services to assist in the pre-arrival planned of rental cars, taxis, grocery shopping etc., and is responsible for all aspects of the property as a full-service business. A lack of a better word, Hotel. There are professional policies, staff, and procedures in place to protect the guest, the property, and the community around them. This costs money, education and is a real commitment to the business of STR’s. Real Estate Companies have none of this nor are they willing or will ever put a penny into it because they don’t want to be known as a Rental Agency they want to be know as a Real Estate Company. They have had (10) years to do so and have done nothing. 2.) You do not need a License to be a property manager. Also, you do not need a license of any kind to do short term rentals. This will change over time but right now this is what we are working with. Continued...I read in the paper today that the following would be a qualiﬁ ed representative: A license real estate broker – why not say Plumber or Attorney here? As Plumbers – Realtors have absolutely no business doing STR’s especially in a Resort environment. Please explain to me why they are even on this list? True Rental agencies do not do RE SALES, so they are not a threat to Realtors. Realtors can still book properties (Frias-I trip – SAS ) with the PM and get their commission. The Russian Oligarchs and the bookkeeper somewhere else are working with Real Estate Brokers! There are no rules here. AIRBNB is more accountable than Realtors as the owners must be. To be on the platform there are rules, requirements, and protocols in place. They have a system of vetting the guest, vetting the owner and have a review section to voice any complaints. AIRBNBs are being managed by boots on the ground they must be, and they must be trained or the whole thing falls apart. Real Estate companies have none of the above. After a sale, the company gives the rentals to a broker who is new to the business or one broker - a one man show and they 100% cater to the owners. The contracts are written as I mentioned before which states the broker could set the house on ﬁ re and would not be liable anything, so whatever accountability we think they have – they don’t. They have contracts with the owner that not worth the paper they are written on. Real Estate companies don’t have a reservation system (MLS is not a reservation system and they all know it) or have a handle on rates. They pull pie in the sky rates ( they have no technology behind anything) and availability and then (here it comes) check with the owner to see if those dates are available and the rates are ok AFTER they have already presented it to the guest. This is unethical. But they won’t get in trouble because they are not overseen by ABOR or the CDOR. Then they add a service fee to the reservation of 3% to 7% - for what? Absolutely nothing. Pocket change for their welcome baskets that they order from AMEN WARDY. They add no value to the STR business , in fact they are the cause of the BLACK HOLE. They will do whatever the Russian Oligarch wants, where a professional will force them to honor their rates and their availability or there will be ﬁ nancial (big ﬁ nancial consequences). Brokers do not put these kinds of restriction on because they don’t want to lose the relationship with the owners – ever. This is a tragedy. Wait until every STR is Listed and marketed (NOT MANAGED) because that is NOT what they do – they LIST and Market only with realtors, because that is what is happening right now. You have 400 or more properties managed by 100 or more different brokers who have their ideas of what an STR is. Well, it is a mess. There are lawsuits. You won’t see them in the paper because they are settled out of court because the Russian Oligarch’s don’t want their name in the paper. Giving this power to Licensed Real Estate brokers is the biggest mistake – they have no reservation system – so no data (everything is on an EXCEL Spreadsheet), no protocols, no training, no requirements for the owner to deliver the product in a truthful manner, educate the guests on anything.. I could go on and on. Real Estate Brokers are the “bad actors” in all of this. I am shocked. I would prefer you put down elementary school teachers here as they would do a better job and have more compassion for the guests. Frias, Alpine Properties, Sky Run, Itrips, McCartney properties, North of Nell, The Gant or the condo-tels are professional Rental agencies. They put the time and money into it. They have all the tools in place to be a legit business that caters to the guest and make the owners income. They are all local. Believe it or not “out of town companies” don’t really exist here because the brokers will not work with them because they don’t want to lose control of the real estate asset. True Rental Agencies make the owners honor the availability, honor the rates, honor the guest with the correct insurance, maintenance and cleaning that is required to be even close to being fair on what we are charging these poor people. How did the realtors get to you? If you took them out of the equation, there would be a more organized STR business’ and all the issues you are trying to combat would be solved. I can 100% guarantee it. I would ask Joshua Landis how he feels as a realtor and realtors doing STR’s- he will be honest.• I’d like to commend you on your work so far. Although I have missed the past couple of meetings, I’ve been paying attention and watching council meetings, etc. This is a complicated task and many of my own positions and opinions have evolved throughout this process, interactions with group members, etc. I plan to join you at 2:00 today but wanted to send over of few of my thoughts and opinions ahead of time. 1. I like the idea of grandfathering with attrition and I’m happy to learn that you don’t plan to make STR permits transferable if you are going to put a limit on the number issued. It sounds like those who purchase a condo or TH in the downtown core that currently allows STR by Declaration will generally be allowed to get a permit without a waitlist - I think that’s great too. 2. I’m happy that you are addressing who is managing the STR’s for property owners. I’d like to learn more about what constitutes a “qualiﬁ ed” owner ’s rep. and how they will be allowed to market a property. A licensed Realtor typically markets through the MLS and the Broker to Broker network while a “professional AirBnb host” / property manager utilizes the online, consumer to consumer platforms. If a Realtor causes problems for owners, neighbors, etc.. they can be held accountable through their brokerages, DORA, ethics boards, etc... The same is not true for professional hosts / property managers. How will they be regulated? I think it’s great that you are requiring the property owner to hold the permit in their own name and pay their own taxes rather than allow these management companies to control the permits for absentee/ investor owners. This will hold the owners more accountable for the actions of their managers and tenants. The online platforms are powerful tools that are designed to be used in a consumer to consumer way. The 25 APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP10APPENDIX B TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUPgame changer in Aspen seems to be the use of the Consumer to Consumer platforms in a Business to Consumer way. Some of these professional hosts do a great job at maximizing revenue because they have learned how to optimize these online platforms. This has led to national corporations and/ or new residents with little connection to the Aspen community maximizing proﬁ ts for absentee investors. There is no doubt that these professional host have created a better business model and they often do a much better job than the realtors because they have the beneﬁ t of the online platforms. 3. I would suggest only allowing renters in the number of 2 per bedroom plus 1 (at least in a small condo). Some of the problem that I have encountered as the head of my association have been caused by owners packing 4 adult guests in to a small 1 BR unit (440 ft.2) with only one bathroom and sensitive plumbing. This creates much higher occupancy than intended in a small complex and many of the utility bills are shared. 2 per BR seems to be a common standard in multi family. Perhaps you could allow more in larger condos where it may be appropriate. And perhaps allow an exception for immediate family (2 adults with up to two children). https://www.wmfha.org/ news/occupancy-standard-of-2-persons-per-bedroom-challenged4. As part of the permit process and management selection for a condo, I think it would be a good idea to require a “sign off”from the home owners association just as someone would for a building permit. I’ve seen some of these outside managers refuse to provide the building rules to tenants as required and refuse to work in harmony with the association. While this can and should be handled at the association level, it would go a long way toward alleviating management problems if all rental managers were required read the governing documents and emergency protocols of the association and agree that all tenants will be provided with a copy of the rules and regulations of the building. If there are any emergency situations in a condo, common elements and neighbors will likely be affected, and it is critical that that rental manager have a relationship with the association manager and the HOA board and that they know who to contact to represent the association in the case of an emergency.• I’m sure you will want to conﬁ rm all of this but I spoke with the ﬁ re marshal today to see if there was a limitation on the number residents that could occupy a small rental unit. As I mentioned, I’ve seen an airbnb host marketing a 440 square foot 1BR for up to 4 occupants. Common sense makes this type of density seem inappropriate, and the neighbors have been complaining about the level of impact caused as a result of having this many residents in a tiny 1/1 condo, which barely seems to accommodate 2 residents comfortably. In this case, the 2 per bedroom +2 formula seems like it would not work. The ﬁ re code and IBC code seem to say the same.• Please reference the table in section 1004.1.2 that shows that for “business residential use” the limitation would be 200 gross square foot per resident. That would make 440 ft2 appropriate only for 2ppl.Perhaps 2 plus one child could work, but it seems that an owner could only market this property to a party of 2, not a party of 4. This may or may not hold true for a residence, but since a STR is licensed as a business, the ﬁ re marshall believes that this code limit would apply.• Great. More people may be appropriate if a unit is larger. I think it would be important to clarify that a 1br or studio under 600 ft. could only be MARKETED to parties of 2, but a third (overnight guest or additional family member) may not be a violation. Same for a 2br under 1,000 ft as 5ppl under 1000 may be a ﬁ re code violation. They probably should not be marketed to 3 and 5 - only to 2 and 4.IMHO I think we should speciﬁ cally state that we do have sidewalks in Aspen - so no one should walk in the middle of a traffic lane while talking on their phone.• If I understand the reduction of STR permits for consideration by council correctly then I prefer council to consider permit reduction through attrition with a goal for a cap rather than a permit reduction by percentages. I do realize that is not the direction council has voiced. If they choose reduction by percentages I suggest they will start with 75% as a pilot program to see how it goes. In time they can always reduce by more but it would be difficult to go the other direction. ACRA’S ‘GOOD NEIGHBOR GUIDE’: At a glance it seems good. Perhaps in referring to “black bears” a comment should be made that refers to the type of bear in this area not their color as we know they can be black, brown, beige etc. Minor detail.I learned to ski wearing jeans and duck tape on the toes of my Lange ski boots. Not to sound like a but I would prefer the last sentence suggested not to wear a microwave one piece. Thank you and your fellow staff members for all the research, time, efforts, drafts, teeth mashing etc that takes place to achieve a workable solution. I hope you can get to Moab when this is all over.26 APPENDIX C: ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES11APPENDIX C ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTESI.AGENDA• Presentation of Issues• Discussions with Council to Date•Overview of Research - Comparable Communities• Response to Questions for Council on 4/11• Addition of Questions and DiscussionsII.PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF MATERIALS• Looked at 12 diff erent mountain west communities• What are common themes/practices that work wellIII.6 MAIN TOPICS - BEST PRACTICES• Life SafetyoNeed building inspectionoPublic notice of new permitsoDisplay of permit #soGood Neighbor guidelines, standardized• PermittingoDistinguish the diff erence b/w nonexempt & exempt STRsoDiff erentiating lodges vs. residential etc.oOwner occupiedoNon-owner occupiedoCondo-hoteloCreating a primary resident STR permitoOne year cooling periodoAny new purchase has to wait one year before applying for STRoCap vs AttritionoNon-transferable licensesoUnlimited Licenses vs Primary Residence License• Operational StandardsoOccupancy restrictionsoSTR Holders must have representative who is able to be reached 24/7, and within 2 hour reachoSet diff . max. caps for diff erent permit typesoLive & public document of all STRs & waitlistoLive waitlist, queue check• EnforcementoA dedicated full time employee for enforcementoIssuing Liens on non-compliant propertieso“3-strike” complaint ruleo3 strikes in one year, loose license for 5 yearsoHaving conversations up frontoCity being more transparent• FinancialsoOccupational Lodging taxoApplies to STR & hotelsoProve STR owners are remitting lodging taxoStandard for renewal of permitoTax spreads better across price rangesoTax has to be brought to public voteoCharging an annual fee on each STR bedroomoBeneﬁ ts local housing programsoPer room per night fee is not recommended• ZoningoCreating Buff ersoWorked better than a cap, GWS used 250ft buff eroResidential RestrictionsoSome towns restrict STRs in residentialoConsider limiting STRs w/in multi-family unitsoR/MF is not being used as designedoMunicipalities use % RatiooZone speciﬁ c % ratios for limiting STRsIV.MEETING NOTES• Permit types is supported, helps to identify STR types•Helps support all types of STR rentals• Big goal should be information collection• Good neighbor laws could control the “loosing neighborhood” feel• Guest vs. paid guests isn’t a big diff erence• West end etc isn’t truly occupied full time anyway• STR is diff erent use than long term use• Reality is that owner occupancy is up• Feedback is happening because neighborhoods are not empty anymore 27 APPENDIX C: ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES12APPENDIX C ABOR AND ACRA MEETING NOTES• Owner occupancy of second homes is upping the stretching of city resources • Community has gotten bigger, can’t shrink it • How do we deﬁ ne property rights, regulation makes sense, not prohibit people’s property use • Local representation, local enforcement, solves a lot of problems • Good neighbor policy is a great addition, should solve a lot issues • Think about layers of regulation, more than 1 person to call for emergencies • Whatever is set up will be trial and error, make practical decisions • Do not want to see # or % restrictions • STR should be transferrable by property • Already used to rules, activity usage. Only if not renewed is STR lost. • Lottery makes it hard to plan year over year • Will not address neighborhood concerns • Attrition is better limiting factor • Should have clear objective of long term goal • What problem are we trying to solve? • Aspen is a little bit behind the times when it comes to STRs • Add regulation, management, oversite to STR • Occupancy regulations • Council does not seem to be listening, not seeing council representation at open houses etc. • Data driven regulation vs. limitation. Pro regulation now, limitation later based on data • The decisions made here aff ect the whole valley. Non-constituents livelihoods based on what happens in Aspen. Community diff erent then voters • HOAs already do STR limitation. • HOAs must give approval for STR permit • City has good count of what is being rented out • Not a good tally of occupation/pillows etc. • Real Estate community contribute to metrics for monthly reporting - Destimetrics • Willing to do it if it will help greater community • What do we do with data? • Great data to have for all versions of rentals • Long-term vs short-term rentals • Better report metrics for week by week capacity totals • Fees/taxes not very limiting as a regulation tool • Layered approach to regulation • Permitting is not an issue: capping days, permit amount etc will be an issue. • Need to be able to rent houses, not just lodges/hotels • With increase in STR, is stretching capacity beyond community ability to handle. Peak is increasing, council is aware of this. • Demand will not decrease • Need to decide what the point/goal is. • Additional Questions and Discussion • Enforcing display of permit #s and ability to remove fraudulent listings • Enforcement trip is city code • Point of contact for each residence, local, in valley. • One year cooling could present tax issues with people who buy and sell property • Tax fee is preferred over per night per bed fee • Financial incentive for long term rentals could potentially work for smaller condos/homes • Enough of an incentive to change it from STR to long term • Might be more viable the building new employee housing • Could increase tax to fund a program to manage an incentive program • Could help contribute to solving housing issues • Multi-family limits could cause lots of issues • Not all locations got a lodge overlay • Multi-family is more dense near the core, better for visitors not as great for long term residents • Very complicated zone to regulate • Current STR are 16% roughly • Stuff the core, smaller percentage in the outer zone districts • 16% is not high, why is there a problem? • Most of the neighborhoods are only around 8% • Could be slightly higher if no moratorium • Market changes could aff ect % • STRs are not transferrable from one owner to the next, reduction via attrition • Other options include lottery system 28 13APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTSCommunity Development staff hosted an Open House from 4-6pm on April 6, 2022, to offer the opportunity to the community to engage with technical experts around the topic of STR activity in Aspen now and into the future. The goal was to facilitate an understanding of the engagement process and the direction of the project, as well as collect input to present to Council to help in the decision-making process. More than 70 participants attended the Open House, engaged in conversation, and responded to questions highlighted on display boards throughout the room. Each display board question was introduced with background data and summaries to give content to the questions. While the data collected on the display boards during the event is not considered to be an accurate representation due to some attendees taking the liberty to “double-dot”, the feedback is essential to consider for the success of the development of regulations for short-term rentals. Comments made by attendees were also collected and transcribed into this report for further reference. 29 APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS14APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS30 APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS15APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS31 APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS16APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS32 APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS17APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS33 APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS18APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS34 APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS19APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS35 APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS20APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS36 APPENDIX D: APRIL 6, 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS21APPENDIX D APRIL 6 2022 OPEN HOUSE POSTERS AND RESULTS37 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #222APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2 ! " #$ % & #$##"' &() # 8 !""#$%%$&'("$&)$*)11" '') 3329 * :&5 8 :; :% :5 ; :) 68 : :<+ :1 ;+; : + :< : ; :': $ 33/=4>?=>? $%%$&'("$&)$*')%," '') 33/ 6 :5: 6 : $"6: :: :$ @ " * :%<* :'** :, A * ; := ** :? $ /3 = 49>?=>? $%%$&'("$&)$+0 '') B3 : * $ B3 * 838 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #223APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2 ! " #$ % & #$## *#+ , - , . / 0- - 1 2 2/ *$ 344/%56 3!/756 3!/756839/956%3#/!56! 3 /%56# 3$/856# 3$/856 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 3$/!56 !" #$%% & '(% '%) !" &*+,- %!) $ .!" &*/,0&1.1/ 2$%% 3.4.4,)% '1) 5.6%% 74&'1.% 1.1'*8)% 9 &' 2) # 5.'% 3,% '1%%$) *1&0 #$%% &+ ! " #$ % & #$###*#39 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #224APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2+#&2 3$/!564 3#/*568* 39%/956*4 39*/%567 3#$/856 ) )5 + '51.+*5&.+ * & :+ ! " #$ % & #$##9*#+9: $8 3!!/%56 9! 377/!56;%<"%+ ! " #$ % & #$##!*#40 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #225APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2#= ! " #$ % & #$##7*#+ & ' - & 2 - & 1 . ' . ; 1 < -- 2 - -/// $9 3!#/!56 !$ 374/%56= + ! " #$ % & #$##%*#41 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #226APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)'>'4>'.''. * ;(8 $)8 ! $) $ ?$$ 8""$ , % $)$"@$"$-$ /$$"A8 " )8)'>'>'.''.4 .4;"!8 " )8)'>'>'.''.' ' ; , 8%%$ , /%) , ") ! 8""$ B/$8B 8% 8A /$,$%$ %$!$/ /% 8"$ ) / A " A $/""A8 " )8)1>.&>'.'' 1 ;% $ ,8"$ 8"")$ !+88$)$A /$ ) $ % $"8$ 8$CD%$ %$A !+88$)% %! ,$)!/ !+88$)% % 88$%%)A8 " )8)1>.&>'.''. .;, % )$8 $ / $) 88$) %$/% )) / ) @ $8" , /$ $ " )$) ,!/ /)%"%8%AAA /)!,?8$%8 " )8)1>. >'.''.* 4 ; !+88$) /+"% ,$ / ,$" @ ) $%,% /"!!/)$8%%A / %%!%>$" !8%$" 8$ ))8$!/$% / $ !)E ) %8%@ ) ), $8 " "$8>""@ )8$$ ) % B$8B $) F+)!/ 8/ $ %) $ 8D%$ .1+@+))@8/ + / B! $%% )B $8$% % $$A ,$ %%!) $$)$%- / /%) , )%$G,$ )D$) "$$ /$$"8A8 " )8)1>.4>'.'' ' .*;H8%$) %$$ 8"$8%% $ @$"%% ! " ,)% ) / @ $8" "!/+"% /$/"8/A 8/ %8%$) $% "$$$ 8""$ ) ) $ A(8 $!/ , % % $ " $// /+"% $)$ 8A+#= ! " #$ % & #$##4*#8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.* * ;%%$"$)!/ 88$%% /$/" $%% 8$, / $%$ / $/,/) ) / 88$ / /$/,A / $"8 / $/,/) $ %!A 2$ // $ %!) $ 8"%% )$ ",$$ 8 " " $$!$/ 88$ /$/,/) ) 8!///$$ ) $8 $)$,$ /$) ) /"A % )$%8 "$% /8%) , %$$ $ / %% $" ,$%)$ 88$ /8""$A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.5 &5 ; " / , %8 /)! ,$)$-/$$)$8%% @$ "!$/ /"% / , $A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.& * ; $ ,$ ,$ / / $% / /)%) ) / " ) 8) ) /" / $$!%) / %8 A /$,%"!$/ / 8 $A / 2% $)8%$!$/ / /"%$)A %C,%% )!/$%C!%% $8 /" 8">$$%$G / /$ ) A(/ ,$ 8$ $$ !/ ) " / %8%8"!/$8/ /% "%!G8A0)C ) "%$A! "$/ ) %%$ / /% $)$/% / $% )A / ,) %G) / 8A0$/ %% / )% ) %8%% ,)$ / /% $)!/ /$G, )%$!/ 8 , )%) , / 8$ I8 " )8)1>.>'.''. & ;!!$%% /" /$$/,$/) 8)8 A8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 && ;!88$) 8%% ) $" $ / 8""$ /%%)$ / " ) / ) 8$,$ / 8""$A8 " )8)1>>'.'' ' .5; $) , / % %GD$8G$!$/ $$ $ /8""$ + "G$ )$$8$ 8%) $% ) !$/ / !!/ ,) %$ %!G% $ / "%$G%!C $ // , / !/C $$$A8 " )8)1>4>'.''. .;/ !88$)%!%) , % $,% !G$%8%A / !88$)% $%% 8%) , %8%!G/$A ! " #$ % & #$##8*#42 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #227APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>>'.'' ' ' ;!88$) ,$ / 8""$A ,%$ //" 8 / $ 88$) $"$% , $)%$"$ / $"8 /% %$G$8 $ $/,/) )$) , %8% % // /A$)8 / !88$) ) %%!G /%%! / % $/,/)A8 " )8)1>>'.''.' 1& ;" !+88$) )) / " $8"A8 " )8)1>>'.''.1 .5; )C/$G/ ) , )$%$ $% ,/ /%) , 8 8/ A %!/ %$ /" / "/ / " %$G% "$)$/ 8""$ ) / "G!%) , +8$$8$ 8/ !$%)%$ $8$ )8$ $%A !%), " 88$ / / $ /% +)A8 " )8)1>5>'.''.5 .;!!/ /"% %$ /" / "/ / %% / " 88$ / 8""$ ) "G$$ $ 8/88 " )8)1>5>'.''. &' ;/ )$$8$ $!//>- $ $"$%$)$% ,$A %%!$ ,$E!+88$)F$ $)$% 8 /$ )$)$ / $ " % $ ) $8A8 " )8)1>5>'.''.1 &1 ;!+88$) C " / % $"8 /$)$ $/,/) $ / %) )$8%%A !+88$) C 8 , %$G "$$ /%!/$8/ $ $)$% $/,/) $A8 " )8)1>5>'.''.& .; !+88$) /" ) , $)$$) ) / ,%$8) G!!/ / % / G) //$ "GA % %$G%% % 8"$ ) /,$ ! $ ) /G ) / /$ "G )$ ) $) ,8/$ / $ )$ ) %$ /" )/"G$ $ B$"$,%B %8% $% % "$%$ )$ %$ ) , / 8""$ / /!G$ " / %$) $ %% /$%$ ) 8A /B)B " ! " #$ % & #$##**#" /% 8"$% ) /,$ !!/ // / 8%) G ) /$%%!8$$- )$ / )"$8 ) /% "G " %!/ ) /$ $ )$$A /$)8$%8$ / , ) )% $)%$ )%$) , $ %8 $"")$%A /%) , 8$" )!// / )A $ $ %% $" $"$)8 / %$ $ % "/ / / $ /%) ,8$)) % ) ) 8/A8 " )8)1>5>'.''.& '* ;<" % @$8 /!$) / +!88$)/+" ) / / "8 ) 8 / / $!A%/$%8""$!/ % $ $/,/) ,$%)$ $!)A %$ $ 8) ,$%)$!$/ $ )8% / $ /"% +!/$8/ ) ,%$ / "$ $%8%% /"A 8% " /$) $ / / , $% % $ / $/!/$8/%) $ 8%% / %$8 8%" /" )!A / 8)) $$ / !)$ /!,8 ) ))") / / ,A !/$8 $%) )G%$ /" % $/ %G$ %)% ) ,D% $$ $/!/$8/%) $ % %%$ ) %""$ )A/$ / %% /)!$/$ / '!GA /$ $ )$$ / % / "$)8!/ %$ )!G/A0 / "$%$ ) ?, G8) $ %% $/A C 8$ A %$ / )$$%, $% $"8) , / %$$ /"%A8 " )8)1>'.>'.''.1 & ;2) !/ " , +!88$)A 6 "$"$)8E$$ 8) /" ,$ !/$ $% ,$% ) /">%I2)$8 ,! B/"B , $ $"8))/">8$% B,$BA / %/ $$$8 $"8 $/,/) /%) , "$) $$)$%- ) $%%!) /%) ,%) > "$$ $"8 %$G /%A 8)"$$" $ "$@) >$)$%-! %! $)) , ) /" ,$A )"$$" /"%$G%)8%$) )"$8%%$8 "% .>4.C )%" , $ !$8$ ) #()"G 8/A %$>"$$$ / /"% /%)8/A " % 88)!$/ /$/ >/$/$8$%$-$ /" $$)$%-A8 " )8)/ J!88$)% 8 $ ) / ! " #$ % & #$## $*#43 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #228APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>'.>'.''. *& ;$)A %$!$%% /%% )% " ,$ /% %8%A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.' '' ;!88$) / 8$, 8""$A88$% KGA !88$) " ,$" $A / %% )K8$,8""$ ) )8 " / $/,/)A % %% $) $ $ $/,/)!$/ 8A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.' .&;(8 $" $ /!"%!/ 8)$)$8) ) $%% $ $" /",8 " )8)1>''>'.''. &5 ;) 8""$ A 8$% 8$ /%A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4 &* ; /8$ $ $)$$)% )C8//">$ /% $A0%) / /$,%/$ /)) %8% / %8 %$A /$$ % %$G% /!$/ !88$)% % /$$8$ ) 8A0)" /$ "%A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4 &* ;"$ /%)K8% / /$ "G /!/$8/ $!/!%) / $ /$)$$8$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.4 '1 ;!" 88) / ) / 8""$ ) ? $ "G "8 " )8)1>'1>'.''. 5 ; !88$)$)8 % %,% / )8""$A / G8 ,) / 8""$ , % " %A / % "G ),% %$$ $ % %$G%A/ "$/!%/ $) 8" /$ ,$ / % $ /$8$$- /! , $$% $,$ 8""$ "", %$ /A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' .';!88$) /" $,)/!G>$A!/ %$ /" $ $! /% /$,%" $ A8 " )8) ,)$/,/) ! /%) )8 /"A ! " #$ % & #$## *#1>'1>'.'' ' .;" "88)!$/ /"!!/ $8" "$$ /$/"E) "G $ $,% /" G $F/%!/ ! /" $" $ %A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' 1* ;0 " ) / 8/$ /" %% / $ /" $ %% $" /"% $8"$A % $) / " ,$%$ /"/$$ , $ ! $ %% $" "% $8/$!/ , / $ @ ,$ ) %8$$ %A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.* *' ;!88$) %%) ,8 / !$ /%) / 88$,% ) 8"%$!$/ 8$%$ 8A %$ "%$G%,)/) , /!/ / !$ A @ 8%%8) ) $)!// !/ 8% / 888A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''. * ;K%)A %8% !$ /$)!%%$!/$%/K!'"/8$$/"8"/ / "%$% /%)$ / G$ %%$ %$!/ / $" $$/A 2!8!/ )!%%$8 1G! "/ / , )/ "$)%$ 8"!$/ "%$% /%)$$ '.G!GI8 " )8)1>'*>'.'' ' & ; ) , )$$ ) $"A K/$$ !$ !/$% !A K/$ ?$ "G " 8/!$/ $"A8 " )8)1>'*>'.'' ' & ;=!/%)$$$-! %$$ $ /$$A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. * ; !88$) $ )% $% "%8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. & ;,8 / / G$%$ /A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. .1;!!/ $)8 ,$ /%) , 8"%% ) L/! / /%) , ,?8 / " @ )%$ / /% A ! " #$ % & #$## #*#44 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #229APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>' >'.'' ' *& ;!+88$) /"!C$) % " /$ %8% / /%)C,$8) )$ /"%!/ /C $ $A )C/$G/ +!+88$) /" /%) ,$8) $/, $ " %$G / ! 88A8 " )8)1>' >'.''. * ;(8 $ " +!88$) %8 ,8" /"/!$%% , /$ % ),% % "%A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.' &' ;8G$ /!/" $%$-) ) ,$$A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.& .1;!88$) $ $%% /"/8$,$ / %8%8""$ ) 8"A 8" "% /% ") @ %$$ /!/$8/ "$" 8K , "!$/"% $8"A 8) /" ! )$ $ $") ,$ /$$"$)8 / $ ?) ,$ ,% "G " "/$ $"$%A%%%8% / " 8/) /$$)8!/$8/!%) %, 8$)) /"% , $K 8%% ,$8$% ,8 $ ,) % %$G %!G8 " )8)1>'>'.''.& ' ;!88$)!$%% %$G% ,) % ) !%)G!/ ! " $/,A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.4 1 ;!+88$) $ / 8""$A +!+88$)$ % G" / 8""$A 2% 8""$ )8% / / )C 8$, 8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' & ;$ 8""8$% ,$ $ $)$% $/,/) $0 M$ ! ,$ $ $)$% $/,/)/ 2 % ) ,$ %$8 %$G %% /,$8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 1& ; )C/$G$,, 8A /%) , %%!) !+88$)%A /$ $ /!! $ /$ ),% /$"A +! )HH 8/$ $ ) /$/" N''...; 2" $ GA8 " )8)!%) %$"$ / 8%$ - ! " #$ % & #$## 9*#1>1.>'.''.1 &1 ;8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 &5 ;H % / 8) /" % % % "% $8" %$ /"/$"A0/ C" ) / $ / % $" $ ) 8G) %% $ $/%A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.* ;+!88$) /" 8 %) ,G$!/$8/ $8 % )% / @ %!/8/ %$ )!G/A8 " )8)*>.>'.'' '.;/ !+88$) /+"% @ ) / , ,%" A 2 / "G " ) / % % ,%$ $/,/) 8""$A 36A8 " )8)*>.>'.'' ' ;/$"8/% ) %8 % %$$ )!G$/8 " )8)*>.>'.'' ' '* ;0$/ !+88$)% /%% / % $ ///%)!$%% , 8""$ % /% / ) /"%!/ / 88 " %$G% ) / % $ $ 8""$A8 " )8)*>.>'.''.& '1 ;!)$ $$ !88$)!%) , %)!/ !88$)!%) , $ %% 88 $)$%/%A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.5 1 ;;$8 +!88$)% %% , "" 8"$ / @% "/L8""$ 8%$ %)8$ 8A / $/,/)" %8G % " 88 ) 8)$ %8G8""$A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . .4;/ /%) , )$$8$ $" $A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' ' 1 ;/ " 8$ ) %8% /"%A / !" ,$)$!$/$ /% /" / $ )$$$ ) )$$$8$A $$ "$/ ! " #$ % & #$## !*#45 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #230APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2, / !) $) $ / /" , /%$)8 $88$) , /$ /"$% "", ) / /" $ 88$%%) /"/%G ) "$$ / %)8A/ 8) $$ " , 8$)) !88$) ,)$$$ , "$/ , 8$)) ) )$%$A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' ' .1; +! /%%! 8""$ , $ $/,/) $/%8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.' * ;(8 / ) )$%A8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.1 1' ;!88$) $ )$ / ,$%$ %+"H8% ) / /$/O$8 ),%$ M8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. *& ;/$G! /%) )$$$/ ,! / $ )"%%) %)$ ,$EAA "/1. .) %F) /" / $ %% 88$) ,$)!$/$D% "@$8"/"A " % %" )) D8 88 !///$ $ $ ,$!$/ " $$$8 $"8 / 8""$A !%) % , $$$8% $ %$8P" $! %%!%% ! %$"$) ,$%$ E 1.)F!$/ ,% ) !+88$)E /& 1.)F) 8$% %$8E/ %$"$) %$)F+!+88$) /!$/ "/1.)FA8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 14 ;! "$$ /"% / /%) % , %!/ 8%% %$ /"/$8A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. ' ;(8 $ !$ /% ) $)%$ %$G% , "$$)8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. *' ; % / / 2"!/ /$/ )$ / $" // /A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5 '' ;/ $((/"% "G /G$%%) /% "G %8%A8 " )8) %8% /%& "!$ ) ,/ ! " #$ % & #$## 7*#*>.&>'.'' .&;"G 8) $ !$/%/"$"$"$"!/!!A %%!$ /$! !/ ") $$,% ) "G8)$A2$/$,$%$ /" G ! " ,$%$ "$$8) $ $ ?)A0$/ /% $8 $8$)$8%% // / %% /$ / ,$%$ $!/ ! 8%) 8 / % / %%A /%) , /8) !$/ /$$ )) $ 8$%C$/ )8$) $!88$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' . ; " 8) ) /" ) ,$ $"")$% ) $/"% $D$$)$% A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.' .; +!88$) /%) / $8%$ / ,$ /8""$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.' 1' ;$"$)8 $$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1 & ;(8 !+88$)% %$ $ ) )) /8""$!/ +!88$) %% $"$ / /%%! 8""$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. '4 ;!88$) $ / 8""$A !88$) // % $">$8" $8 " )8)*>. >'.'' ' ;!+88$) " %$G%!%) )8 "$,$%$)8 / 8" )8$$ ")A !,,% %" $) $ / 8""$ ) / "A8 " )8)*>. >'.''. . ;$ / /$/ 8 %$$ / " !88$)E%8%F% / $8" ) "$ /$/"!/ %%$8 " )8)*>. >'.'' . * ;!!/ 88 /$/" % /% / "%$G%% $"$) ) $ / 8""$ ) 8$,$$"! / +$)A / % " / ")$8"/ $"$) ) $ $"% $ / $" /$8%A8 " )8)/ $/,/) / %%!+88$)%" ! " #$ % & #$## %*#46 APPENDIX F: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #231APPENDIX F ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2*>. >'.''.* &1 ;/%%!/ / /8 " )8)*>. >'.''. && ;C8- @$ %$ / ) % / 8) "$ 8""$$ ) ? %$A / !$%%$ )%!$/ / $8$8 /$ $/$8%/" /% ,)" C )"$/ / /%), %G) )$% / "">$"8" / $ $/ $ ,$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5 4 ; !8 $) $)8 %% "8/$ @8)$ "/$ %$G 2CD$" "$$/$ / /%) , ) )$% , $>8$$8$ /$ ) / $ "%>$%% $ $ /8""$A +!/%) , ) )$% /$ $% /$8% ) / " $ %$G% $ $ /8""$A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''. '4 ; ! ) / $" $ / 8""$8 " )8)*>.4>'.''. &' ;! / $" $ / 8""$8 " )8)*>>'.'' ' 1 ;/!/ %$ $ ) / /" /$$"$)8G!/$ 8""$ ) 8 , )8 /!/ $$A/ % "$/ ) / ))$$% %$$ $A /!/ )C%$$%+" " / /" %$ ,/ $ ) $) 8""$ ) C%$ %"% $8" /$$"$)8A 2$ 8) /" $ @ + 8A % 8) /" $" $ ? / + $" + )/%) , ) )$% / $"$)8A8 " )8)'>'&>'.''. '' ; $ $" 8 $8" > E'EF 1 G$)F+ ) $+9 = ! " #$ % & #$## 4*#8 " )8)'>'>'.''. '.; )$8$"$)!A8 " )8)'>'>'.'' . 14 ; $ 8% "!///$ )$$8$ $"8 " "$ 88!$/ /"%Q)%$ $ %$ 88,$%$ )$%$ $/,/)A8 " )8)1>.'>'.''. 1 ;0,/ ) 8) //! ,% "/ "8/ !!%) %$G A 2$ $) / $ ,/$$! / 8""$ // $)$ ?, /!/ G88) !%% @ 8A " !+88$) $A0!%) / 8) % % "%A0 )K)$!$ %% /D!8/G$ A8 " )8)1>.1>'.''. &1 ;$2#%$)$%%$"$8545"H /;$ #%% / G $ 551 ) $%% $$) $8 55A0 !!G $) ," @$8!$/ / B$"B / , / / / " "/G%!)%!$ % /$"8 ! $ %" / "!$/ $ / %$ /A / # /) 8"%$ $ " $/,/) " $/, /" $ % $"% ,GA/ H= 8"%$ 8$%%8$) " $/,! $ %)/" $ ;A #%% / ) ,8/ %8%!G!/ ,) / G$ $$ / ) ",% $ / /A / $/, 8%%) / /$AAA8 " )8)1>.*>'.'' ' '1 ;K % )$$8$ ) $% $/8 " )8)1>.*>'.''.4 *1 ;(8 $ $ $ A /%) !$/$) 8$ ",) )$%++/ @$ ++/ $ /%) , ,/ ,%$88"" ) )$8$A /$ /%) , ) $ / )) $/E$$% G$F%$G / 8 "$"A C ) $ " $$ $%%%A8 " )8)1>. >'.''.' *& ; /) )$$$/ ,! ) ? )) /)8/ !/$ G)!$/ 8$ /%A8 " )8)/ $ / " ? / " $") $ )$A ! " #$ % & #$## 8*#47 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #232APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>.4>'.''.4 *.;8 " )8)1>.4>'.'' '' ; 8$C,$/! !8/ /$/"A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.1 .;(8! ) % " 8/A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.' *4 ;/ " +$"$)!/ !/%/)%$) $ ) / !) $ / 8$ )E* )8) $ 8F!/% / ,$%$ 8%%8$8" " )$ / "/ / /8/$@A %%!/ ! /$ %$G%"%A0$/ / $8" " / % $"B!+88$)B$)!%) , ,% )G$/$/" $ !/$8/!%) , )$ $8$%% )"$%%A ; !+88$) !,% %$ $ %%+$"E "/ ">F /$,$>!G) ) / %@A / ! /%) , %$-) /A /$,$%$ G /$8/$/) %+$"/" $ $ )) $8) $8" 8@A </" $ % %%+$" B!+88$)B$)!%%!) /" ,$ /!%) , "8/" $8$ / %8 ! ))% /$ 8% ,$+$"$) "G" "!$/ ! 8$/A /$ $ ,) 8 ",%" $ / A0// )8$$ / !!//%%+$" +$"!/ !) $ / 8$ $ /$ "$" $ $8 $ 68", '.' /%) , )/) $ ) @8%))" $$ / "$$%A 8//%) % , %$) !/$ $ $% $/ $ $)>!!/ D%% / 8$)) /$/"A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.1 &* ;"$% / !) $ *. ) /%$) / $"A / ,$%$ ! )" 8$!/ / %%!) !/$/$ %8A0$/ /$ $!!%) , 8) %%A $ /"E % "F%%!/ %@$,$%$ $%% ? / ) !%%A )C,%$ !+88$) C /%) , %$-) ,$ ,% $) / %%+$"A % !+88$)$)8!%%!) / C/!/!%) /" " %$$%!/ %%$" ) $%%$ /$ I(/+!) !88$)$)8 / / , !)$ / 68",'.' "$"/%),,%$ /$$/ ) @8%)) " $% $$ / ! " #$ % & #$## **#"$$%A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* .5; $ ! / ) / ,$ , ) ,$"A 2% ) $ "$%$ $)% %8 8$A <"$%$) 8 )! 8"" 8/ %$$" $ /G$8/A0/!8$! $8%% /" /! 8 , 8",% ,8 /%" ? ) $ / " /$ ) $ / %A /$G, )$$$/$,! / ! ) $$8$ / /!$%%%$"$ % $"!/$8/ $!$%% / / "%% ,$A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* 4 ;!/A % %%!8""$% / $)% 8A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* '* ;$) ,) / 8"$ $ / 8""$A @ / %8% " ) )K! , %) /! "%$A " ) 8""$ "",) )K $8D8 $ " /"!/ " $ $A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* &* ;0/ /%) $ "I; ! 88 /$"EG$ */ 3% ) ", / /%$) @"% )! //$"!/ /C/A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.& 4 ;0/ $)$$)%E!/ ) /@$/!%%+$"$)F)!$/ /$$ $ /$,$ )/$,$ % ,?8 8"" %!%$"$$E$ 8FA % @%$!/ ,%" $ %I" " / /"% "G $ $ ,%"$8$C! G / 8$ $,A8 " )8)1>.>'.''. ;$ "/!"8/ $" $)$!A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.4 &* ; $ % % %8% "$ G$ 8/8 " )8)1>.>'.''.5 *.;8" !G /" 8 " )8)!/%), )!/ /!!$/$8$A /$ ! " #$ % & #$###$*#48 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #233APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>>'.''.& .';$!/ " % %$G% 8/) $ / $ %8 )!/ "G / "G !/$A % / 8"!$/ 8% " /!R8%) ,)S!/$8/ G! ,$ " / %8% "8/ ) / / %8% 8"A / % " ! ) %%!! % /$$ / "G $ / / %8% 8" ) / $ / / %8%/ ! /G "GTA / % ")% / !/!G,%8%M8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 1.;0/ $ / )$8I ! !) @A % $ %A )C/!$"/!% !%$ / /!!%)G8GA8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 * ;0 %$ $ 8 ) /%) , %%!) !")/% / @$)!/ 8/) / ) , ,$$% $/) ,8 / 8""$ !/% 8 8" !$/ %$ / 8 %$$A $C " % ))C $/ "A8 " )8)1>>'.''.* *.;/"% /"%A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.4 '.;/ 8$ "!%) % , )$ /$ "%%", %!/!%) ,$A /!%) , / $8/A8 " )8)1> >'.''.1 '4 ;/ /%) , )$8 ,! !888 )888A 2!!%) / )$ 888 , 8$")I8 " )8)1>4>'.''. ;" % ) ! /$/"A / /$/" %" % ) "$) A /!$/ ,% /$/" /" ,$ !!G/// A /$ /%) , "$)A8 " )8)1>4>'.''.4 *1 ;$/! / !%) ) , ") / " G$ $88 " )8)1>4>'.''.4 &4 ;G ! $/A ! " #$ % & #$### *#8 " )8)1>4>'.''. * ;/ %% !)% / " $" / ,% ) /A8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 ..;(8 /! / ) %$ $ %% $" / !)% / 8""$A / "$/!$" @ 8A /$/ "$/ / ? $ ")!/ ) / 8/$I8 " )8)1>>'.'' . 1& ; /"!$ $ / , 8$ %@ 8A $ / /%) , $%) $,% // $%% ,G $"!/ "% %$8) )$) ,GA8 " )8)1>>'.''.' *4 ; /$%%)!$/ )$8$"$$ /!8 " )8)1>>'.''. 1 ;! / $" $ /$$A / /%) , ,% G / $" $ / 8/ )% ! ) /A !!/ $8$$-) G "$8 /$ /8$ / C%!/$8/% /8 / $/,/)C %A8 " )8)1>5>'.''. ** ; $ 8""$ )) $ 8%%8$ %$%$/)L/% $$)8 ? "GAAAA $8%% $8 88$% % !88) , /$G$ ,) , " 8% "%% /%A))$$%%$ C $ ,$8 $/A8 " )8)1>'>'.'' . *1 ;% %A )% $ , $%,% $ ) /$A8 " )8)1>'>'.''. & ;/$!%) )% $ $ 8") 8%A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.4 .&; / /"% $ $/,/) 8%$" , !88$) , $K A /%%$ 8 ) $%% 8,%"A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.4 *.;%% /"% / / " $"8 $/,/) )/%) ,%) / " ! " #$ % & #$####*#49 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #234APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>''>'.'' ' 1 ;0/// !$ / / /%) , )$8A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.* 11 ; $ D% "A6C"G @8$ / 8%)8 ",%"A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' ..; )C )) / $A $ $ ,/$) $"8 $/, ,% ) 8" "8/$" $ %8A C% 8 $,% , %$8) / )$%,) /!" "/ " %$ /A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' ;0/ $ / )$$$ !88$)I$">$8$%$) +" %% $"$) C,%"G /$/" $%,% )%) 8$ ,$A 6 !88$) 8')/" !!/ /$$)8 /,! @IIC $"% !A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''. &5 ;/$ $ $% / 8""$ ) )K)$8% % / ,%" / 8$ 88$% 8%$" @$A / $ $ $%%) $/!A % / 2 %%!/"% )K/8$/%) , $ $%)A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.' *.;0!A % / /$$8%% 8/) // ') /" ) $$!/ /$8/)% %%!A /% 8 ?, ) $8" / !A "" ,G ) @A %$"$ $ $"/"!!$%% %$"$ / ", ?, $ %) )$$8%!$)!G8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.& && ;/ $ )$$8$ $ 888)%!/ $$)$ $ /A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.5 . ;,8 $ /!%) 8 "C% %A %$/$/!$) ""A ")!/ %% /$ 8)$)/%$G / /1 & $ $ " 8"%@" 8)!$%% % $% ,A " ? ,$ /A 8/) % ) ,8 / $!)$) $$/ /%$8$ // / $%) / @ %E%FA 8/ $ ) % /%)%$- / / )$) / A " %G$ %% , ! " #$ % & #$###9*#", .+'." ! "$/A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. . ;(8 $ "G ,%% )$8 !////" $ 88$) 1 & ) &)A "! /$/" /" $ $ /$, A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. & ; $ $%$ K 8$$%$/ )!/ /!!$/ /$$ A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. &1 ;" % 8"%$8) % ) )$A8 " )8)1>'*>'.'' . '* ; % )K /$G/ 8$ /%) %% /"%A ) /$G/8%),! "G /%$ "$ %$!$/ / $K%$ 8""$A <@"% /%$ 8%) " 8%$ $ / % "G !>$$ /!$%% % / $" /"% $8"A /$/! , %$" 8) /"! / /$$ %A $ / / $ /! ) / 8 88$$ " / /"!!%) @)/ " 8"G $% $"" % / 8 /"% $8" / )A /!) ,%$ / ", /"! ,/ $"$)) /!$ / ) , 8$)) $ /$ 8 ) /$,$%$ /" $ ) $8" ) /$$ ) 8$ ) ? /"A ) ,%$ /, /"!!$/ %$"% /$$ $ /"% ,$A $ @"% $" 8$)/$,8 " $!/"?8$% $"" ,8"; ) 8/ /" / ! " ,8)!$/ % $ / 8 /"A <$$8%$ $ /%) ) )) / !) "G/8$$E8 %$8 %)$ @ 8AF" 8% $8/ 8A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.1 1& ;,%$ !/%),,%)!/ / %!$//$ % / $/@)$$ "A)/$GC ) !G ,!/ (G ;" $8 $ $%)A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.* &* ;$C$/A $ / $) "$8 /%) , ,% )!/ !!A ! " #$ % & #$###!*#50 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #235APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>'*>'.''.& 1 ; "8/ /$G$!%) , $8 )! )$$8$ /$G$!%) , )$$8% 8 /$A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.4 .&;$/ 8/ D% +8 " )8)1>' >'.'' * ;/+"% $ /+"%A8 " )8)1>' >'.'' ' '4 ;" /$$ $) "$% ) /$!/"!%% % $A8 " )8)1>'4>'.''. '.; )) /%$ , / "!88$) 88$8 " )8)1>'4>'.''. '* ;%$ /%) , 8$ ) D%%)% !//$ $ $"$)8 A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.5 ;(8!!!/ / , 8"$ *.: ) 8$ 8""$ %$ $ A0 )C%$ /$@"/,!$"$%$>8""8$%% "$) )!%)/ , )!$/ /!/ A / //8$$ / /%) ,)$$) 8/ "%$%+$ !/$ AAAAI8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.1 & ;,,% / "?$ /"! / 8) /" /)" , / "/A $%%!)! )) / /"! @ ) %8% 8/ "G! $$$8)$) ?, %$A ))$$ /$ % / !88$) /" 8!$%% ,,% 8 8$ " / /"!/ 8%) ) / / )!%) %%A $ / %) //" $8!%) 8" )! / "/%8%!G,,%),$G$ /"A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4 4 ;0 ,/ 8$ /" $ !" )!$/ ,$ ,% !!$%% / %%A ; % $ / " , /8"!$%% 8/ $ " #$%%M ! " #$ % & #$###7*#8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' '4 ; !88$) $ /%) , ,% /"$$)$% $/,/) %%A $)$% $/,/)!)$) $ 888A /!)$)% %$ /$ 8""$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' * ; ,%$ / /!B!88$)B$)8 / /"A /$G/ ",$D$ "%% ) //$G/%$ /%) HH/"!!//$C')/" $" /"A % /$G/ )$$8$!%) , /)8P%$8A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''. 14 ; /%) / / ,$%$ /$$ /%A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.' 1.;/ 2 /%) )$$$/ / %% %$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 11 ; / /%) , % +!88$) $A; / / ) 8$% // /% / %"$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4 ;/$ $ / ,%"A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''. &5 ;0)! )$% !88$) A !88$)A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.5 * ;/"," $%,%!$%% ,$ " % // / 8 " )8)1>1>'.'' ' ;<$ ) /$G/ !%$$ $ "/'"/ $ $ "G )$8 $!/ $ 88"%$/A %C % 8/ 8% ) /$8$! )$$8% 8$- /$ 8$A !!/ %$ $ "/ )/88$%%8%))8$)"2!$$ ) %% $" ) % 8/$A /$ $ ? @"% !/ 8 "G )$$8$A / $ ) / A /$) $ ) %8$A %% /88$$8%A ! " #$ % & #$###%*#51 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #236APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>1>'.''.& .; ) "A / $ /%) %% %!/ / 8 )!$/ /$% % / 8"%$!$/ ) %8%%P%$A8 " )8)1>1>'.''.5 * ; !!/ "$%%$ )%%/$ )/% @ /%) / /$/ )!//!!$/ /$%$)C $"8 /A8 " )8)*>.>'.'' &.;!/$/A8 " )8)*>.>'.''. .';0/ ) $ "I% / $/ /$ /!/ $!// / %$ /A8 " )8)*>.>'.''.4 *.;!/$%% %%) / " 8 , %$)$"%8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . ..;0/ % )!/$ $ /$,$8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . ; +!88$)$)8 /% / 8""$ 8"$8%% ,$)$ /$ 8$% "% ) )A0$/ / /$ 8/$8 $ /)8$/$%%/) $$ "$ ) 8$% / /%)$A/$ $ $" / 8""$A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' *.;)KG!!/ / )$$$ !88$) $A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' ' '5 ; ,%$ $ "GA 8%) / ))%$$) %%$ ) %$ %% $" $ /) , ,% ) /")$" %/% !$%%8 " )8)*>.'>'.''. .4; /%) , ) D%%A !88$) $)"$,8 / 8$ ,$ "/!88$)8 " )8)*>.'>'.''. '4 ; /%) , ) / " + ) %$G?)$8 "A )C /!/ $ )$8 ,!!!/ $ %$$ $/$$)8 "/ % ) " %!/ " ,%$$ $ /$$)8 % / "/A 2!8 $ ! " #$ % & #$###4*#/ // 8$-$ /"!I2"! / + /0 /$/" ) / /%) , ,% )!//!!$/ /$/"A 8 /!/$ $ 88 / 8$ /!/ 8$ /$G / 8 %%% )$8!/ /"!)!$//$! /"M</" /$ "" $8 ) " /" $ %% / " !$ $,, /$/"A $,, ) " /" / ?8$$8 !$) $A / !$%% ) " /$! /" / 8//$/ ) $,% / ,8 / /% $ $!/ $ $ /$/"A 1) "" $8 $ %% % $) $G$ /$$) )A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' . *4 ;(/ )@8$8 %8%!G / "GA8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' ' .;K$" !" !8 " )8)*>.1>'.''. ' ;(8 $ $ ,$% /$$"$)8 ) $ $%%$/ $8A8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.& && ;/ "/% $ %$8,%A / % , "/ BB !A ))$8) $!$%% % , &.)A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''. *5 ;0/"%$%/"8 " )8)*>.*>'.''. &* ; !$ /$/" / /%) ) $ / %$ @)) $) $" / 88"")$% 1.) %AC%$$8 " /+"% /" + $ % //"$,$!/$8/ $!/!$ $)A8 " )8)*>.*>'.'' ' 1 ;(8 $ C! /%) / /$/ % 8)>/" ) $"%% !/$A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 ' ;U / " ! " #$ % & #$###8*#52 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #237APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 14 ;/$% "!/ 8 " /%,/ !8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 && ; $"% $8" %%! % !$8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 & ;(/ /%) %% )/ "$8$ )%$8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* .;0/ $%$$%)I8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* ;%$$ $ 8$$- /"!/$! $ )$8$"$ )8$8$ )$8$"$$ /%) , $ 8$% )$A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* ' ;0 /) 8) &. $ // /A"$% / $ %% * , 8$% $@"/ A!%) , $8$ 8) /" ! / 8"%!$/ "$8$%$A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* *.;/ $ )$$8$ ,! 8) /" !) % ) /" !) $" A / " / % "% 8G / %A / "%% $D ) /% !/$ 8A /%D ) ,$ %A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.& *4 ; $$$8 8" / /$ $ / $ <G#%% $)) % $8" ) 8$% $ $$A " /% $8" 8" $!$%% $$,%)8)") ) %% %A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''. *1 ;/$G/"!/ /$/ /$ $ ) / / $ @ $ / $ <G#%%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.* & ;FK / 8$K ,$ /!% 8/ /$$(F))K ,) ,!/$8/ ,% /8"$8 8$$ 8"A 6K "$ /! 88 /" A ! " #$ % & #$###**#8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 .*; $ %!/ %$ $ / A / %8!//!88$) "G % / 8 ,)) , /!G8A % " ! " / 8)/" // / %% , " , ,% "/ %A0/ /%) / , %%!) G$" 8 / 8 / I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 1* ;"$,% )8A $)) 8D8A ;))%"" /%) %K%$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 1* ;/ ! )$ ,A !88$) $ /) 88$% $ %$) $ /"!$/ "$% / )% $"A !88$) $ $ 8"$!$/ /$8) /% $ / %%!$ % ) % "/ " 8 ) 8$, 8"!/$8/ %! $ "$% )$ , $A / ) %8 A 6!! )$ $$!/! 8" G$ , 8) /H$% %%I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 && ;; ! ) / $8" G /$/"A ;! 8 % )%$$$",$ /$/" $"A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. 14 ;/$)$8 ,! !+88$) ) !+88$)A(/ 8 / ! / A / ! /%), ) D%%A / ,/ @ / / 8$ A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. &' ;!%) , /%% $ )$) / , " $ /D$A "$ / / !" , $ / $!/$%$ / )$!$/ /$A ; $$8""$! ) /$! 8 ) /$%$G/%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5 ;$)$8$"$$8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' . &' ; !88$) $ 8%% 8 % "$8$%8 ,8 % ) %$ $ 8""$ %% $"A /!) 888 " , %% )$ G , % / %%$" A ! " #$ % & #$##9$*#53 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #238APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.&>'.'' &4 ;% "%$ $ 8"%@ !88$) ) /2% /% / @ !/$8/ / 8""$!%) %$GA / 2 /%) / $8AAA8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' &4 ;% % %%+$" ! )$8 @ $ /+"% $ ) 8/$/"@ /))$$% $8"!/$% / %!$/ /$"$%$ ) ) $ )$$$/$ ,! / !A(/!+88$) ) !+88$) / " " $ @ $ 8 8 A /"A !$%% % %) " % 8%$"$ /$%%+$"$)8 $ ) ) /!$%% 8/ $ ,!/$8/ 8%) / "$)) 8D8A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' ' '* ;/$!%) %$- "$%$!///)/"$/%%" " "$%!G8$ ) /$$$ % 88$%% /% 8/ @A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1 '* ; 8%) ,8" )$8$"$ 8%) G! )" )$// ? !%8$8"8 8/ 8/ !$/ #6 "$% 8 ) 8%) )% $"8%8% ?, /%/ )!%%+,$ / 8""$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.* &5 ;(8 ) /"% / %8G /%88"")$A % " %"$%$% /$ G$8/ " /" "% 8$%% $8 8%)K / / $8 ) " %% !D$"/ $ )8 ,G$ ,%A % ) ) /$"$%$ $!GAK8$8% ) ,) /8 %8G )$$ $ /%A /K!/!/ 8) ) /" $ ))$$ ,$!$/A "$/ "$%$ % /%8% "$% % %$ $8G G$ % )D$"%A / $ % 8",$) % ) @ " ) % $ /%$ /% AH%,$ /"%!$%% % / ),% /$)$%"" $ $ "%$"$%%$ )%%$$)8 ),% /$ !G "$ / 8%%,% $ !/$8/ "8/ 8 "$ % ) @ $%@!$%% $"% $ " ) +$%$-)A 6 ;%$- / / @ /% ) /$/$,)$$8""$ 8%) D "?$ / )$ /D$ ,$%) ))$$%),% /$I(8$ I2K 8%% "$$ / , ! " #$ % & #$##9 *#) /%) , ;A /$ %$G 8$ $ 8 %$8A 6K"G ) $K,,$ %$ 88"")$ 8,$%$$A / /!$%% %%/) #$% $)A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. .4; /%) "$8 " /$ %% )$%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. .;C %% / " $%%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. 1& ;0/ !/$/"8 8 %8$ 8 !88$) ) !88$)A %% /$/ 8% /$/D%$ "$8 ) $A $ )$ / " / / 8A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5 .*;B!888B $ $$$8 $ $ %$"$$ $8%% $ / $ $ ,$ ") 88 /$ $%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5 '& ; $ $%A " " %$ $ %%+$" ) / !!A " " %$ /$$" ,! )"!/ %A " " ) "8/ $" / 8 $A0/ / !) $ 8"%% $%A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' . .5; ,$ ", ) $ / /" , / !/%)C)"$ /%$A @$ ) )$$8% "$) 8 "A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' .';(8 / % / 8" %$ $ ) %% ) % / /%G$$ ) /$ 8 "/"A / )) " " )K8 /$A // / 8"!$/ "$% 8$ %%!/%A6%%//$/) / $ /!/$8/"G %$$ )$$8% ) @$ ) $%,%A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' ' '' ;0/I/ %%% / )/ )$8$ /!A %%!) / /%) , %%!) %%A K/" $"8 ) 8$ ) / ,) $ /$ $8"%% $ 8"A ,) %8% +!/%8%$A ! " #$ % & #$##9#*#54 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #239APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>. >'.''.1 &.; " $C $ 8%$$ !/$ $ , / 8 8/ $A $ 8$ / $8 % "% 88 @%)A !!$%% 8/ " " $% %+"/$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.& * ; ) "G)$8 $ $ !88$)A / ) / ) / " /) $ ,) "G P/%/ %8% 8" %% %%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4 '5 ;% /%) , ,% )!/ /!!$/ /$A /%) , 8%%)A0/ $ / 8/ /$"$) /!%/%$$/$I8 " )8)*>. >'.''. 1* ;!/$/)$$$!+88$)A !!/ ) &"/ /I$/)$$8$!+88$)"!/ )C " / .) III8 " )8)*>.4>'.'' *.; +!+88$) /" $ 8E// B%8%BFA(%%!$ /" $8$$/ $ )))% / 8" $ @ ?, 8A !) %%!/" $8$ /!$%% / 8$, ,%% /$ 8"AE;%$G!) 8FA $ /$/% %$G% / /$8/!%)% $ " %+" % / %8%A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''. &' ; )K!/ )$8 $ /%) "GA(/ $) $% /$ $$A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.' ' ; ,%$ $ )"88 ) "G 8"$8++ ) /$/ !/$ )$ /! $ )A / $ / "$8!8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.1 * ;(8!/ )$8 ) $ "GI8 " )8)*>>'.'' . &1 ;"! $)8 1' $ A / "$$/ /$A <"%$%!$/8/ 8"%$8) , ,$%)! /$ A )C / )D % 2%8 ) /$G)%$ / $ ) $) ,) / )%" ! 88"") / %G!/ 8" ) )!$ $) @" 8A 'A 6 %%! / )G) ! " #$ % & #$##99*# ,8 /" !!/ $$)8 $ ,%!"G 8/ G$$8 G$)E" $/,/)! "8/ )$ $ 55!/ /!"$/,AA / !)$)C " /$!%% , 8C,8G/$ $ AA %$F10)C ) " )" $% 8/$"% ) )C! % "G 8) ,$%)$ / ,/ ) )%) /"% , / //) / " / "$") ) /$!$/ %% %G!%"% /$ $ !A C$,% /, $G!, ) / %G ,$ /$A *=%)//),$%)8$/; 68 $ $% @ ) @" "% ,$%) ) )% "),),%/$ $ &A " / /1'/"$" "/ $" , / " %G) )!$ $) @ " 8/$"AA $% $ ) %@% %G/,$ "$%%$ )%%$/8"A ) )C/" / $8 /8" $ ) ) )!$ $) 8A / ,%"A $ / !C"G$ , !!$/%G//!) ) ,$8$$% @$$ /"!)C%% % /$ , 88 ",%" )/% @$A / ) )%"!/$8/%% )$ / ,$%)$ % 8) $ !)/$!$%%8 ,%"A > E1EF*G$)F+ ) $ ! " #$ % & #$##9!*#55 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #240APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2+! & ' - & 2 - & 1 . . ; 2 3 6 7$ 3% /#56*7 398/856= + ! " #$ % & #$##97*#8 " )8)'>'4>'.''. * ;$)$% $ /%) $"$% %8% 8""$AH) $$ ) %8)!$/$ / $ 8A /"% /%) % , %%!) $$)8!/ / %8%% %$$A $/,/) $"8) , %!/ /B)$"B)$) $ 8""$A $ ) % 88 $ /"%AH) %)D$) "$/ $A $) /"% ) 8 , / $ % , /$ $"A8 " )8)'>'>'.''.' ' ;/A "/%) ,D$) ))"8$ $/ $/,/) $"8A8 " )8)'>'>'.'' . 14 ;= / /%) , )$$8$ , /"% /%) ,@) / " 8""8$%A8 " )8)1>.1>'.''. &1 ;0! ) ,%$ / 8 $ B%)$B-A $)$% $/,/) 8%) / ", 8%% $ /$ %) 8"%$)$ G$ $ 8A $ " $/,/) !$) , 8%%$ / %$8 /$ )$ $ " )$ B $B BHAB % % % @ / $8! ?A = "$/8$)H$ / !/ 88 " ,,%$/) 8"%$ $ $)$% $/,/)A8 " )8)1>.*>'.'' ' '1 ;/ )$% $8) ) $) )$ "$$A )8$!$%% $8 /% $8A8 " )8)1>.&>'.'' 1 ;;$)$% $/,/) $ % $"8) , / 8,$ $ * 8" / % A 8 A / / ) 8 "8/ " $ /D$ $/,A0 / / ) G/ % ,D$A8 " )8)1>.&>'.''. .;,8 / ) , $"$% / 8 / )$ / % " "G%!/$8/ $!/ " )% ) 8 / 8" ? " 2 " ," ) $)$% , ",$%)$!$/ )$ $- ) $8$!$/ $%$ +7= ! " #$ % & #$##9%*#56 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #241APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2" / , % "% %% $" %8%A0/$)!/ / , $% / !G) G$ 1&8 $)$ % "% !%! /)!%%G!$ $,8 / / /" %$A ) %$ $ $)$%- 8) ,$%)$ ,$ , + )$ % $ 8$$ 8%AH )$$ $ D$- ) ' ,%8G" 8$ "GA8 " )8)1>. >'.''.' *& ;/ %% )$ $$ ) $!)C"G )$$8$ %% $ $ !$%% 8$ /%A8 " )8)1>. >'.''.* 4 ;) /% $ / 8$ /! ,$% ,8G$/ .C ) % 4.C! )$) 88"") / A/ / "$$ ) 8%$)) $8A ; /" %8) $ / )!! 8""8$% 8 8% /$ ) 8$$$A /$$8 %!G$ ! ,$%)$// /%$ %% !A8 " )8)1>.4>'.'' ' .*;%% / 8$) , $ / $)8$ /$D$A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.* * ;0%% C "") $ !%% %)A0/ $)$% $ -) $)$% $/,/) )$ )$%8 "$% / 8%) %$ / $) 8 $ )$8 $ / $/,/) ) 8$% 8$ 8""8$%,$A /$ $!/! /-$ + 8 /D%$ %$ $$)$% $/,/)A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.5 &5 ;/ / ,$ ,$ ) /%) , /%) /" @ )-$ %! /A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.& 4 ;$ / 8) $ A! $ "$% ,,% /"/ $8%% / G$ A $ $ $! $// / $ $ $)% / "/ ,! G$ !/ ,$ $ $ I" $8" " $ @) / %$ $ " 8) @ ) / / $8 / / " $%$$8A0$/ / !%) , %$"$) ? /% ,)A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.& * ;/$G /%) /%,) / %) $)// "G$" )$$8% / 8$% A " $G/ /% $)/!$%% !/" ! " #$ % & #$##94*#% )%$ %%!A/!$%% % ) $C"/$$/ "$ ,/$) / /% / /"%"G B / %$ $%)BA /$ $ ,A // /% $ $ / )") $$A /$ $!// /"% "G 8" $ %A / "G %%!))$$% $$ 8" ) 8) /" )) /$"A= )C! " ,$ %,% /% $ A0/!%) /"A ))$$% /%!%) 8/ /8/8 / !A / /"% $) "% % @ ) $ ))$$% 8"$8 )$/ !A!/!%) ! 8/ / , ))$ !8%$I8 " )8)1>.>'.''. ;$% !)$)8 8""8$% $A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.4 &* ;$ ,/ D%%!%) ) ,) $)$% !A ; ! / /"%AH)/ %">8 ) / % ,$ " @ @"$/ $)$$)% !",$ "A8 " )8)1>.>'.''. & ;8)!$%% / +$ ""A +!+88$) /"!$%% A8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 * ; /$G"$ ,)" $ !G $" $ )$ / / /% %) / $ %% $" / ,$A/$C / /$ $ $ ) / $8" $,% / 8/ 8 / $ !A8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 && ;H) / 8$ ) $8 /$ ,G$ 8%$ 8A0/$% "$)$% $/$ / " ) ) ) / ,$ " /% ,/$)/" ,8G$A ; $ , ,% $$ %$ $ / "G $ $8$%% $,%A 2% ) $) /$A8 " )8)1>>'.'' ' .5; %) $ ,)" !,)" $ %%!) 1." ) % /" .%" + $!$%% ,,% )) 8)$ /% %)!$%% )) % 1. .8A8 " )8)1>>'.''.* *.;/ )$ !$/ )$ @8$ "A %$)$% $ %% !) ) "$$) ! " #$ % & #$##98*#57 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #242APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2, $)$$)%!/ ) / / $8$% 8"$8 %,,$!/ 8 ! /A8 " )8)1>4>'.''.4 *1 ;$)$% $ ?/AK$)8A / %8)$8""8$% ) /%) , @) 8""8$%$A8 " )8)1>4>'.''.4 &4 ;(8 / )$ !/$ 8A 8 / )$A8 " )8)1>4>'.''. .;=)8$$ , $ " ) + $8 G$ )G$8 8A8 " )8)1>4>'.''. * ;/ ')$ %AA ;, /" / !), ,$ ) ) % % /%) , ) %$G %), $)$$)% !$ /$/ /%) , %%!) $)/ ) % , ,% $ A / %$"$ / " $"/" 8%) ,) AI8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 ..;(8 / )$8 " )8)1>>'.''.' 1& ;</ ) , 8$%% H) %%%8)$ / 8$E- )$$8F/ $)) ))$) $) / $"8 8""8$% 8/ $ ) G$A #8$% / $$)$%,$%)$ $/,/) %8) $ / 8!$/) / $"8 /%!$/ ,)$ $/,K$8A @ %) ,) 8""8$% @A #8$% ,$ %8) $$)8/"8/%! @ ,)A8 " )8)1>>'.''.' *4 ;%) 8""8$%A /" $)$%8 " )8)1>>'.''. 1 ;%$ ) @ /+"% /%)D$/%%!$/,/)%A ! /%) /D$)@A8 " )8)<%% / %$) $ / @%$ , $8%% / ! " #$ % & #$##9**#1>5>'.''.5 .;88 / %) D$) ) ""$$/$$"8 / )$ A8 " )8)1>5>'.''. ** ;$)$% $ / $$$8% ! / %)8 " )8)1>5>'.''. &' ;$)!/ !$$)$% / @8$ //$$/,/)!$%%"$$)$%A $8) /+"%%$ " 8/% 8/ %$G$(P(8 D$ "$% $/,/) $ ,$ )$$8A8 " )8)1>'.>'.''.1 & ;2$/ >/$/$8$)$% $ /%) , "$)$$)$%- ,%) %$"$ /" )"$$ $"8A " % $$ %%$)$% B"$$+/%BA 8 "%%8 $)$%$ ) @$ /"%A8 " )8)1>'>'.'' . *1 ;/ )$8 , "G A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.' '' ;) /% ?//%A/$!/ / $)) ,A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.4 *.;</ ) ,)$ +$ "" ) /"$D$" /% ) %)A8 " )8)1>''>'.'' ' 1 ;(8 / %$8C% ,$ /% / $$)$%$ /%$ / , $ %8 %A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.' .&;""8$% @ /%) , ..O$ $ " $8"A /$8/ F8 " )8)1>''>'.''.* 11 ;/ $"8 $ "8/ "$$)$% /"%A / %)$ ) 8""8$% )$$8 / ,-) ))$) 88 /$ $8!/$$)$%- / @ /"% )C 8" / /$"8 $ 8 / 8% )D$ $" /!-) A ! " #$ % & #$##!$*#58 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #243APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>''>'.''. &5 ;9$A " $/,/) /%) ,$)$% " 8 ,%)$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.4 '1 ; )$8 ,8 " )8)1>'1>'.''. 5 ;/ / " ) / )$ $"8 / 8""$A( /$ +$ "" $ $/,/) 8 % / 8 ,/ /!/ %!$/%8D8A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' .';%) 8$8%% $ /" $$A$)$%$$ /!8 ) /%) , ) / % / %$)!G/A / $ /!G/ ) / %8G),% /$ $!! 8$ / /%")$8% ) /!G / "/$ ) , )A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' .;(8 / C @8% / " /$A C)"G /" % "D% $ " /% / / !8/"G$ /"$,% "$$$ ) @$ /" %$G 8""8$% , +)+ ,$ !%)C /" /"AH$G!%)CD$ " /$/) $ % /%E? $ /F 8""8$% ,%$/"A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' 1* ;/"% G$%%$ $/,/)A $/,/) $/, # H8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.* *' ; )C ,%$ / !88$) C /", $/ / /% 8) /%A ) / "G/ / /% "GA = $8/ "$8 $$ /!%)//%) )!88"")$ 8!/$% @$8$ C8$ )$$) /$A /$ $ ")$$ $ !C AC/" )$,% / 8""$ %I8 " )8)1>'1>'.''. * ;$ % ) AH) ,$ !$/$)!%%$ 8 /")$ / $ A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. . ;(8 8%% /$)$8A0%G$ , !8"%% )$ $$A ! " #$ % & #$##! *#8 " )8)1>'*>'.'' ' & ;" % ) '*>4 /$ ) $"A 8$%%8%$% / $$ /A/$G$K" / %) " / G$8/ ) /$8 / /% 8KA $ "!G !%% " , %%A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. * ;) /% ,$%$)$% $ / 8/"% )%$ $) %8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. & ;" $ %)8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.4 .&;8 -$ + ) 2% $ 8""8$% 8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. .1;=+,>8/"%$G% 8$ $ / $)8 $ ,$ ) % / $" ) / !$ $ / //$"A /$ $ $$$8 )$$8$%$ %)A8 " )8)1>' >'.'' * ;(8$)$% $ $"8!G$ %!/ )$)K /$ 8$$ %% / $ /$$/,/)A8 " )8)1>' >'.'' ' *& ;/ )$8 !$/ / $"$%$$A8 " )8)1>' >'.''. * ;(8 %% / /$ ) ,8 " )8)1>'4>'.''. '.;H) $" G8 " )8)1>'4>'.''. '* ;#$$!/ 8/ $ /+"% %% "$%$!$/G$)!/!>) "%$% ,)" $ $ ) % /$%$$" %@A % " "$%$ ) G$8/ )! /,$%$ 8G// "%A %) 8!)) / ) /)$ $$$ $ 8) ) / / / ))) ,$ +$$ A ! " #$ % & #$##!#*#59 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #244APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>'>'.''.& .1;2% ) %) ") / / 8 /$8!$/ /"A @ $)$% %$G /% $?$)$8% 8$)$ / %" $$8 " )8)1>'>'.''.& ' ;)>/% $%% ")A $)$% $ B")B , %!/ %% )C8 , /$$/,A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.4 1 ;)$8 $-$ ) $ @A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.5 ; $8%) )$$8$ "G A )$ / $ $>)$$ !%% G$ $ $/,/)! 8$ "@$"" 888 ",A8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.1 & ;%)E8) /%F" %% ) / " / 1,)"A $ /" 8 , %@)) "$%%AH) )$ /" 8)% %% /" ) 8 , $8/) $%A $ /" 8 /B)B / "$%$ A % $ / %/" ,$" $ 8""$ A / ) "$8 ) /)8$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' '4 ;$)$% $ 8""8$% ,$ ) /%) ,A /! ,$% ) )$) $/,G!8/ /A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.' 1.;/ ! )$ / 8$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 14 ;) /% / "" $ %% '*>4 " /$"A $)$% $ %% / "" / 8 , A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 &5 ;$"8 / $$)$% $/,/) ) "G $ %$,%%% $"$)A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.* ;$)$% $ -) 8""8$% $ )8 8 /8 $/,8 " )8)) /% %% ") ")A = " ! " #$ % & #$##!9*#1>1.>'.''.4 ;)$!/ ;) " $ / 8@ /D$A 8)% $%% ") ) A /$ $ /,%"A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''. &5 ;0! %) $ 8 %)A8 " )8)1>1>'.'' ' ;/$D$ $ )",A /$H6= )$$8$ ,!%) $ )% $ )!$%% H0= ,A % / % ,%% $ $8)$,% $88AAA B)8%$ /D$" %) / /$ $) D%$ $$@$8 ) 8$, K 8$%$ 8$$ 8" ) "$$ $,% " $8 $$$8% "$/ /D$) 8$%AB /$ " $ 0 M#8$% 8$, ) 8$%$ 8$$ 8"A /$% ) /!$ / %)$$ B$$$8% "$ / /D$) 8$%AB2 (MMA0/ $"8 / /"% $"8/ %%!$ $-$ / 8$,$ ) 8$%$$ $,% 8" +/G+;?$ /G/ " ) /$! 8"A +" 8%+;A#8/P 8AA + "+ % / " %!G$ / ; 8" +!%!$ $8 +/ $8 +/ , $8 8" +%8% 8/ ) 8 +%$ +88$ 8" / %$ ) M8 " )8)*>.>'.'' '.;$ ) /%) $ %)>8)>/% $/,/)A ; @$8 $ / / @ )!%8" %!/ % ) %) )$8 / %8% )8,)!$/)A8 " )8)*>.>'.'' ' ;H) ) /% $ ""8$%- , $) $88"")$ ) $8 $8 " )8)*>.>'.''.4 *.;/ , / )$8 /!/ ,$/$- ) /$// 888 C/" /",% %) ", A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.5 1 ;$)$% $/,/) ) / 8$ ) !%% ,$ /$% % " $/,8) , $" /$ )/"%A ! " #$ % & #$##!!*#60 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #245APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . .4;) + /% /$$8%% /"%8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' ' 1 ; !$/ )$8% $ )!! $ /% %) $ ) $ %%% 8A = "$%$ ) / $ / "%% %) ) G!/%) ! %$ 8""$A /$G/$)$%% 8 $) / 8""$ / $$!/%$G8D$ /"%!$/ " %8%$)A /"% /%) )$$% ))$$% 8$ 8 @E@ 8% $) $ " $8F) %%!%$!$/)G$ $ ) $/,/)%A 2!$/ %$8$ ) @ ,8" /$/ / $ $,)" $!$%%) / /% " A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''. '4 ;" + $%I/$C /$"8 $)$%!/// !$ 88$ / A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' . *4 ;(8 %) $ ,$% / $ 8/ /" "8/ !A )K /%) , 8$)) %)A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' ' .1; $/,/)!$)) 8$ ) /%8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.' * ;(8 /H)E) 2%F ) $)$% $ /)$ $"8A8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.1 1' ;" ! $ $ D$M8 " )8)*>.*>'.''. &* ;H) $ ") , $$!$/ "")$$$A ;$)$%% ") ,% ,G!/ ) "A/$$!//$%$+!"$8$)$% /+"%A8 " )8)*>.*>'.'' . .&; $ $ ,$ %) $ /%) , @) 88)$%A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 14 ;!!$/$% " , ,% 8"%!$/ /D$"A ! " #$ % & #$##!7*#8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 & ;$$)$% $ )$ $"% / 8""8$% A/ /%) , 8$)) )$% $$!/ $ 8"%$8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* ; 8/" $ /% ) $))% //A( $ % 8""8$% 8$$8 , % $ " A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* *.;H) $!-) ) "$) /"%A/ /%) 8$ $ / "!$/ %$"$$ D8 %A " , /$8$ $)$%$ " , $A <@"% %$"$$ / ",!G$)$% 8 ,) /" " ,$A %$ /%) , )$) )/"% " / % "% %A 8) /" , )$$$ /%"% %A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''. *1 ;/% )$ / $% !) $A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.* & ;/ $)) )$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. *& ;<" @ 8$ /$G$ / $"$%%)$ ,$!//8) /% $)$% $ /%) 8/ " @ ,)A <" ) $/,/) $"88$$)$% $ / %$/% )$ $"8 )@8$ ! ) ) , " 8)%$ )$)$$)% $ $ $/,/)A <@"% D )G$ $"8 8 , )! /%) 8$)% /D$ %%/ %$"$ % $ $) D$+$ + G$A0 /%) "G! %$,% )$$ 8) $/,/), EAA $8G "/ %$8 @8 $ 8$ /%) , 8-@$FA / //) $ $ $"8$8% $% $ / %%+$" $%,% '*>4A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 .*;""8$% %)$ $)$% %)$ $"$%, )$A(/ )%) )$% , $"$%%A)K /$/@ $)$% %)$ $ , / @ )/%) , "G) !G8 /$ )A / ! " #$ % & #$##!%*#61 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #246APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2 8%) , ) ,$)$- !G8A %" $8$$-! /!G8 8 , ))" /$/@A ""8$% %)$ )$)$% %)$/%) / $ "$$$ )! 8% ")%$GA $$) ) 8 , $$/%) ,$,% ) /%) $8$ $! "$$$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 1* ;</ ) $ /D$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 14 ;H) " $ 8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. 14 ;H) ) /% 8""8$% A / )$) % )A $ /" ) 8) / " 8""8$% A %% / $)) ) ) ) %),/!A / / %8/) / $ $ /!8/)!$/ / $ " $8$% /% / 8 !/$A 8// 8!!%) , )$ " $ $!A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. *' ; $ ,$) " / '!G/$/%) , 8$)) 8""8$% A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5 ;)$$)% /"! /%) , ,?8 8""8$%%$ ) @$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5 '' ;(8 / $"8 /"% $ /$)$% 8 / %$ $/,A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' . &' ;= 8 "G )$$8$ ) ,/ 8 8+@$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' .&; " / % , % / "G 8) /% ) /"% $A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' . ;U $)$% D$ $ ,$ %) )/%!/ ) / $8 ) $ ! " #$ % & #$##!4*#8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' &4 ;= /!-)H) / $)) $) /+" /%) / ))$$% $) / @ A1O%) $ %8A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' ' '* ;/ $%% )$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.' .;) /% )$ "8/ )" / 8""$ $)$% $ ) $A ) /% / %! ,/+"% $ / /$%$ $)8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.' 1' ;$-8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1 & ;(8$)$% $ 8$ "$$+%) $ ,8 /$$- ) / /%) , ) 88)$%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. .;/%$!$/H)A C//+"% $/" 8A / "?,%"A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. '4 ;H "$) %$ $$)$% $ ) $"8) ,/"% / /%) , 8)A % /% 8""8$%!/$%$)$% !$ /$$) / / 8/8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5 .*;""8$% %) $) $8 ,) / $)$% 8 " )8)*>. >'.'' ' ;(8 / )$ ) / /%) , ) )$%M" $$!/ 8" ) 8/ 8$% " %G$ )$G$) @$8//$ $8% /%A /! % B /"B// 8""8$%% /%!$/ , %,, ) '*+/$%%8A/!/ $ /$/" /%) ,$% /$)%$ %%! / %) )!$/ #( ) / %$G , ))$$% $8 $>"%$A ; 8$% ") , /$%8% !!/G!/$!$/, ) $/,/) ,M0//$/% 8$ %% " $!$%% )$ ) )A0/// $ $ %$E@$ < , ,F ,8 %% 8$$$ 8$,$ 8$$ 8" ! " #$ % & #$##!8*#62 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #247APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2$ %% ,$ $ !M @ /$//$ "$ / OD$) , #( ) / /*A*O/8$A;!%$ ? "G ) " "$ $ ) "% / ))$$%$8" 88$% $%A ""8$% ,$ 8$% $ @ @"$M8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4 &.;/$G$)8 / " / "O/%) , )")%) 8""8$% 8$$$ / /$,$) $$)$%-)8 " )8)*>. >'.''. . ;)$8% , !+88$) $ ))$8) ,$)) / % $"8 / %8% $8A 8// /%) , ) )$%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5 '& ;2 /%) , @) / ) %) /%) , @) 8""8$% $AH) ) ) $ / "/$A 2 " , %) $" A%%8$ % ) %)$ @ % / $ /A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' . * ;H)$ /%) , %8) $% $ -) 8/$8%)$ )!! A $)$% $/,/) / C-) %)$ 8""8$% $ $$ %)$A C)$ $/,/) "%$ "!A0/! %$ @ /!/ $ )$ /!%%,$ / $/,/)I/ G%% /$)!%G )C/%8$ $ 8A / 8A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' .';(8 $ /) $) %8 %$ $ %A "$ /A0",,%$,,8 " )8)*>. >'.'' ' '' ;=A / )$ , +$8%%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.1 &.;= 8C 8/ / %8$ $)$% /"% $/!) G /" / $/,/) ) 8%$)/" $ !A / $ / ,$ /% $ / /%%G / $!/! 8""$! /",$ $)$% $/,/)A ! " #$ % & #$##!**#8 " )8)*>. >'.''. 1* ; / <2 / 8% $" A / "$ )"(GE%%$"F / 8$ / @EA1OF8%%8)"%A <2 / /) 8"%$ " /$/, " $ " /$ A 8)!/$8/ /8"" A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5 4 ;/ )$8 $ "" 8 @$ )-$ 8,$)$$8$//%),8G!%))!$/$ / @8$)D$" $ ,/ A8 " )8)*>.4>'.'' *.;2% B%)B "8/%$ + ,/ $ ,$ )$ /$8% $-> A = 8 $% @8"%%$)$% /" /%)/ B"B%$ / B%)AB "$% & 8/8G$$$/!// " B $ $"8B / 8""$ )/ 2 66E/)F % 8/8G$ $> /%) 8/ ) )A/C/%$8 , ))A / $"% 8 , $!) D% 8""8$%%$A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.' ' ;H) $ / ,%$8 )"$ $%,% % ,%$88"$ 1 & ) AA $)$% /$) , !$) / !C)$8$ ) $ $%,% 1 & ) A8 " )8)*>>'.'' . &1 ;; ! ' ,A ) /% 8% $!/$8/ )$ / $8 8) )A %% )C! "/% $ A0/ $)!$/ / A / %% /"%AA / $ )!AA!/ ) % )/!) )$$$/ /AHG %% ) 8 $),% /$ ) " $ ;2 ,A=C),, !8) /% %$"$$ / " !G / 8 , /%) /"%8 " )8)'>'4>'.''.' 4 ;/D$! "$%)$L!! $/,/)!/$% $)$% %%G$) ,G$) )8% $/,L/D$ $% $$ )$$8$ > E''EF'1G$)F+ ) $+% = ! " #$ % & #$##7$*#63 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #248APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2,! ) %)$!/$8/ ) ?$$)8 " )8)'>'>'.''. '.;/ ,?8$ / $$!/$8) )) )$ /$ ) / " 8%% $ 8 $ $ ) $)A 2! $ , /$ /!! ) "G$ "! "$A <$% + % /%/ B%)C$ ! ) / '* /)G$8 + "%) / )$"+% A /%$ %! , 8)$$ + $ "$ ,$%)$ 8) " ")"G ) ' )8 8 8A ; /% 8%) % ,+$8) %$8) // /%"$ %$8$ 8A / " ,-)/$ $$$ /A (H6 "$ / / $ ) , ) $H) ) 2%!/$8/8 ) + G" + $ / / ) !,$/%)%) ) , /) $ $$)8A = ;8G!%) / 8/$ ) ) %)8 8""$$ ) / 8 ,$ / , $ ) A/)/$ " /% / $) $8 )88,$%$ / ) / %$G 8 $% , ") ,/% ,G ) "" 8""$$ $/ !A0/@8%%,G$)$ /$/ %% $8) "" $" ) 88$ 8"$ $,G$8 ) 8" $%) @$8!/$8/ !" $ )") / / %) 8/% $) %) %) )G!$/%!,!)G8%G/ )CG!"8/ , / !8 ,$)$ / @ %% $8A ) /$,$$ /$ $8"$8 "/! $% / "$% 8""$E!/$8/ 8" "%8%$) / = 2 6= F $) / $8 ) 88,$%$ // %G$ A8 " )8)1>.'>'.''. 1 ;$)$% $ ) /"% /%) $ %/ 8"%!$/ / "% 8) /%A / " ," )$8 8/ +$ $ "$)$%$ 8 , / 8 , )%!$/!$/%$ / $ ) 8/$,%A 6K/! / ,,!$/ / ,/!A8 " )8)1>.*>'.''.4 *1 ;<$$ $A" %$8"" !%) %G / ",)) / "$ $8G++$A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.4 *.;/ $"$ , $ ..O88 ) ) %8 / / $$A ! " #$ % & #$##7 *#8 " )8)1>.4>'.'' '' ;/+"% $8$ )A " "$/! "$8 % "$$ ) / % 8A C$/ /8$ )"$!/C,/ % ,%$8A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.' *4 ;;G$ )$$8$ ,! %) )$)$%!%) , %%,% %) !/$8/ $ 8"%% $$)$% !!/ /%$) /$ $8" /%$%% 8/ @"% /$/ 8 !/$ $ / 8$A8$ / " %)$ ) 8$ @ )D$$,$ %$8 ,/$)$% !P%) $ 88,%)!%8"A $"8 / 8$$8 $/,/) $ / 888$)% %%!$ "$ /$)$%$ %8) $ 8""8$%- "$@) - ) %)$-A 6 $% $/ !!/! , ,% ? /$ /"%!/$% % ,$ ,% )/8 /$A 6$%%!$$)$% $ / ,$%$ / $8) /"%!$%% % ) 8$ !!$/ /%>%) "% )$$" G/$/P!$%% $%8 " % $" !!%% $$!// 8" $)$% A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.1 &* ; ,8 /$!%) , $%% ,$8$% %) ) $)$% !/% /$ $8" $%% 8/ 8 !/$ $ A $ %)$ ) 8$ @ ),$ %$8 ,/ %) )$)$% $ $)),%A -$ $ / "$ 88 / / %$"$$ "$ $)$% $ $ "$@) ) %)$-!%) $8A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* .5;/ %$"$) %) ) 8) $ / 8 88"")% "$% !A(G$ ! /% /" " %!$%% /G$A /$G!$/ / / !!$%% $""%A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* ' ;=" , 88 88$ /"%A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* '* ; ,) $ ,))% !/ / !$A8 " )8)/$!/% $8 $$)$8%A(!!! $ ! ! " #$ % & #$##7#*#64 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #249APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>.>'.''.* &* ;$$) % $" 8/ !) 8%!G$"A /$ $ !!$/ / 8 %% / %!/! $$ $ $ $A0)/$)$ 8$ ) %% / /$ / "G %8 %! $) /+" A "$" %! /%") "$" / "! " 8$ $ 8)A % / " $$$ ))$ !/// 88/ $8%$$ , G$+$>L%8$ $/""8AC ? 8$ $"8 ! )%8"$!$/ /G$) )$$8$ / )C " $$A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.5 *.;6 $% $/ !!/! , ,% ?/$ /"%!/$% % ,$ ,% ) / 8 /$A8 " )8)1>>'.''.' 1 ;)8$ / $%,$%$ % $!$%% 8,$"/ $% $"8$ ,$ // / 8""$!/% ++!$$ $ /$$A0 $%% $/ $"8 "% / ,$!/!%) , 8) % / /$$8"!A8 " )8)1>>'.''.& .';H) @$ / % 8 $8/ %A /8""$ ) , ? / $8/ / $ ! G$%% / 8""$A % %%!% " )$ 8"$8,8G) 8" "G$$8/ ) )$8""$A % /"% "G!" ,) ) /$" / $ 8" , $%%$ %8% ,%$/"!/$8/ @ ) $8" %8%A8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 1.;%%% /%) ,,% , $ / " @A( $C/ 8""$E/ 8) 8$$ 8F$ /! %%!% ) /%)%A ) / "G )$8 / $8$))A8 " )8)1>>'.'' . .;$)$% 8$ $ $!) ) ) , $ /" /%>%)A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.4 '.;/ %) / "8/ /$/)$ % ) / 6 , @) /$/ ) / "8//$/E8""8$%F,$%)$ ))A / 8$%!88$) , ! ' "/ / / $"8 $/,/)!%) , )$ / $ / $! ! " #$ % & #$##79*#)A < % / G$ ) $ $ $$8$ / $ $ % %$A 6$%%!$%!$%% % / ,%"AH$G!$ ) GA8 " )8)1> >'.''.1 '4 ;; /R$)$%S$! ,$% , /"%A <@"% / % / A / /$" ,8" "$)8 % "%A8 " )8)1>4>'.''. ;0%$$)/8/$%)A0/ 8$$! %"%! /"A /$ %%!%%%@ ) ) ?"$% $" /%$ ,) " 8G$ / )"A 2% ) %%!/$ ) 8$8% 8$$"$%$A ; "$%$ ?$ /" $ !/ 8"$ $$ A /%) 8 /$ $ "$%$ ? /$8$ $ A0 %$ "H ) / 8/%%!$/ $/,!/ /$/" /" ,$A G$ 88 " %) $ ) $) G$ /$A 8!/)$) / D ) /!%) B$) / /$8AB8 " )8)1>>'.'' . 1& ;)% /-$ !/ 8/ !$/ /$ /%) ,$ %$8 ) %)$ @88)$%A ;$"% !!/ "% ,G) " /% /%) ,D$) %8% ""E"$ "% ,) $$G$>$%)>% $F //PC/2> %%!) 88)$%A8 " )8)1>>'.''.1 .5; /$G/$)$% $ ) , $ / " %% 8)>/% $ / "$) , + 8""$ $"8A8 " )8)1>5>'.''.1 &1 ; )) /D$ 88%A /$G$)$% $,$ ) %%+$" C /%) , ) 8""8$%$ ) @) )%) 8/A8 " )8)1>5>'.''.& .;H) $$)$% $ ) /"% $/%) %% , 8$)) / " ) %% )/ "%$ ,8 B %) $ )$$B )/%) , ) 8/A ! " #$ % & #$##7!*#65 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #250APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>5>'.''.& '* ;/+"% ,8"$ "?,$ $ /$ !A% ,$ $ ? / $ ) / $$ %$$ %% $" $ /"A / /%) %% )/ "%$ ) 8""8$% @A / /%) ,D$) / /$ $) D%$ $$@$8 ) 8$, K 8$%$ 8$$8" ) "$$ $,% " $8A < ) %$/"% /%) $) /$"8 8""8$% 8/ $ ) G$ )"$$ / $"8 /%!$/ ,)$ $/,K$8A8 " )8)1>'.>'.''. *& ; /C)/ " /$ @ /%) ,$ / 8$ )) 88)$%A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.4 .&; / ,$ ,%" /"% $ $8) $88""8$% 8"$ ) 88,% ,/$A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4 &* ;/C ,/ 8""8$% $ ) /%) ,/ , ) 8/A8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4 &* ;$)$% $!/ ,)" /!/% / $) $ /%) , ) / " %)A G! /$ %!/ %$ )!G/A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' ..;@ ,) !// "! A ;G /%"$ " @$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' ; $)E1 : F)% ,GE: F) /"!E1.:F / /)8$8"8!/! BB !$BD%$ $$@$8B ) / $8 8$, B8$$8"A /) " /" > " $/,E)%@F88$%% /$ /" + ) 8 $/,/) ) /"%E"HFA/$ ; %8% 8"E"% $8%))F!/$8/%$ /$8" " /% %$%$/)A 2$ $ " /!! $ / !/ / ) ! $,% %$ /%$%$/)!/$8/ "G %$$ $ /$@$ ! > %% $,%A ; = < AAAA# (U ! " #$ % & #$##77*#8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.' *.;%% ! /%) / D%$/ )%$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.& && ;% %M8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.5 . ;!/ %$- % "A 8" $ $8"AAAA "G / @ / "A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. & ;/$ $ % $ ) $ $ ,$A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. &1 ;/$ $ /)D$ !,8 $%% )) !//%$!$%% , !/ $ $ 8$) /$"$%$$ )$8A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.1 1& ;/$G/ /D$$ )!/!/ $ ") 8$% /!$ $-)A (G!/!G!$/ %!8%$ ) / ", % $ $/ /"A0 ) 8G/"!$/ % ,G $ ' % "A0$/ / "%$ "$%%$ )%%/" 8$G "G/!%% / $G $ )8)$$!)$%!%G// ) G// )8" / 8)$$A %% % D$) / ") $ 8 "8 )/ 88 $"$ ! $%,% '* /)$/$ ,$A !%) % / / $8$/$ "8/ $)D /)% / ! G88$ 8"%% $ $ /!%G$ "%%!/ / !" $ @)A % /$)$% / $ +8G) / /%) , $!$/ / @$$ $8A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.* &* ;!$ !A " $ " % ,$8 )$$ / !/ ! ) %8% !GA8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.& 1 ;K%% " /" 88$%%!/ " $ ! 8$) % %$G ,$ ,?8 / "%$ %)!%)"G / $8$% ,$ $ " %8A "% / "$$ ) %!/ //$8 ) $)$$)%$ / /"% /" A8 " )8) 8) B/"B $ / "!$/ / " %$8$ $ /$ ! " #$ % & #$##7%*#66 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #251APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>' >'.'' ' '4 ; %" $8" $) ) "$% $ !A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.' &' ;$$)8 /$ /"% 8 %$G %)A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4 4 ;$ / "G!$%% 8/M8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' * ;/$G%% $>/" ,$ ) $)$% )!%%$!// $$$ $ /" !$ $ /" $) !$ $ / $ / %%D$ $"$%" $8A )C ,%$ ') /"!%$ "8/ )$% / !%) $ / " A ! $%%D$"" $ G$ $ / %$ $) / 8%8 /G 8% 8A $ /$G/%$ /%) ) / %% ,) 8" %% )$ $// AH8% %$ $ / 8 /! )) , "% $% % $$8%% $" //$G/%$ /%) / B $8<$ ) $/"AB ,%$ ! /%) , ) )/$8 $ "?$ " % 8 /8) /% ) /" / !$/A8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' & ; ,%$$)$% $ ) $ /%) , /%) / "))D$) %)8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 11 ;$8!/ )$)$%% $) D%$ $$@$8 + % 8) /% 8/$ /$II/ ,/ )%!$/ /" $ ) "" " / 8) ) ">,G>!!$%% $) $!$/ %/$ $ $"8 / 8""$A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 &1 ;(8$) / ,/ /$/" ) /%) , ,% $A 6 / / /%" ) / $8$ $ /$/8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.5 * ; %) 8$, R8$$ 8"S$ $$A $ % "A $)$%% ,$ $ !A K/ $ /G 8$$ )G)/!G8%,%A ! " #$ % & #$##74*#8 " )8)1>1>'.''.& .;0/$$8%% / /) "%% /% ) %) $ $/,/) %% $) ,%8G $8%)$ / /)!;$H) ;%% $, ) A ;$-"!A$/,/) $ "$@) 8) $ /% $"% /$ ) $%+"$%$)$%A /!$/,/) $-) %% / I8 " )8)1>1>'.''.5 * ;$ ! /%) , ,% )!/ /!!$/ /$$$$8 $" $ 8$A8 " )8)*>.>'.'' &.;!/$/ ) /%) 8$ / / $ )!/ /!A ! %)$ @A % $$%$G/ $ ,) /%!/$8/ %% $8AH$"$$$!$%% "G % 88$,% / %!%//%!$%% 8$%$ $ % 8"$$ $"A %/% > %) 8 88"") % "$% !/! $ / %% /A!%) , /" 8 /$ $"$%$!/! /$ A !%) $%% %$"$ /@$8 /!/ 8 ),/"/!/$8/ $ "%% %$8 / %$A8 " )8)*>.>'.'' ' '* ;/"$)$%% /%) , ) / "! %) $A8 " )8)*>.>'.''.& '1 ;/ ,/ % %% $" / / $" )!/ /)$% $8%)$ A "$ $)$%%!$/"G8, "@$) )8I8 " )8)*>.>'.''. .'; / @) / " ) / ,$) , / " G$)) )>2%A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . ..;/ "$8$ / % )$,% $$ $ % ,8"A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . ;/!%) " %$G)$8$"$$ ?)$ 8/ A/$G/ 2 8/ ,$%)$ /%) / /$% % $ /$ 8 / A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' *.;(8 % / / ,%!,8G /"% $ ,$ )$, %) ) / ) % , / "%A ! " #$ % & #$##78*#67 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #252APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.'>'.'' ' '5 ; / , -$ ,)& ) )) /8 8"%%A ! 8% $ $ %$,$%$ $ ) , ) ,% )%$ %%%!//$ , /% $,,%A ; % ) ! /% $$$8%% $ C8"$!$/ 8/$%) ) ) /%$C ? !G,%A / $$ $ $) $ $ / 8 , ") %8% %% ) ,%" 8 , "), $"$ %$ / "" !A % %$$ $/,/) / C" / "% ) / ,%" $ / $/,/)A / %) ! "//$/8/%)$ / !8/$%)A($)%A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''. .4;(8 / ,/ %)$ / 8$ 8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' ' .; ! " $ /%% $" ,$ ) ! /$ $8 " 8$% 8$ $8"8 " )8)*>.1>'.''. ' ;8) ) /%$A ) ) /% / " )/%) , ) /A8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.& && ; % 888 @ ,$ $) ,/ /%) A/ $%% )$ ) %A ; B$)$%B $%%/ 8) /%A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''. *5 ;(8!8$))$ "88 ) %% /%), $%,% A8 " )8)*>.*>'.'' ' 1 ; /%) , 8$!/!G$8$%$$88""$ $ )$ $8$ )) % A C!//$ 8 $ ,) A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 ' ;U "8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 && ; )K"G)$8 / /"!$ " )$K/ "8 " )8)" %8) $ / 8)) , / ! " #$ % & #$##7**#*>.*>'.''.* .;) /,$D% $A0%%$$ D%$ @$8 ) G!%),% 8 %!)$ /$A0%$) '*>4 $8 ) / $"E) +$ F G8$ $ /%) /$A K /") $ '& ) / /) $ 8" /! $"")$ 88A / "$ $ $ %! /! /A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* ' ; % / 88) / / ,) /+". &.%$ A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.& *4 ;/ ,/ $) )) $8 / $ ) $$%$AH) ) !G!%% "$%$!$/ 8/$%)!/) ) ! / "$$ @)) '!GE:>+F) ,$%% " 8%A / %$ $) 8$ %! / "$$ ) , %) ) !$%%$ /"A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 1* ;/ " ", % 8 $ $!//$ $ / !A2!) /$ 8/ $8 $"8I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 && ; ) !/ / $% "$% / ) 8) /%) ,) )$%AH / 8) 8$$ $" /$!%8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. ' ;/ /%) , 8$)) / " + )8$% 8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. &' ;2% / "8/ )$>,) ) / ) G$>8%A ; $8% / G$$8$ )8$ 8 $ $ !%%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' &4 ;$ /$G/ )$$8$ /%) , ,! $% "$%$)8 )"%$ $ $A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1 '* ;6$$ $ $" / 8/8) 8%/! )8""$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.* &5 ;(8 $K)$8$"$ ! " #$ % & #$##%$*#68 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #253APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.&>'.''. .4;(8 "! ) 2 /%!/$8/ $ )$ $ ) /%) ,) 8/8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. 1& ;)8"") /! )$$ ,! 8""8$%%8$ )E@ %8) $ ;( #$%% ;)FA( #$%% $ G$ % 8"$ )$ )% G$ ) ,$88%% 8A "%% 8$ / 8$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.* &1 ; / $ 8 %$G %)>/% / ) %%!/ "%% ) %!//%8 " )8)*>. >'.''.& * ;!%) , %" $"$,% % /$A ))$$ 8$%!/$ / " !$ ) " $" % )"!GA=!%) ) /) ,$%$8V8/ A /$!%) , $,% $ " $$A% / 8)% ) ,$ %$G%/%A ) %$-!/ ! G$/8 " )8)*>. >'.''. && ;) /"% $ ? /A0//$C )%"$% /" 8) $ ,$%)$ + $C 8""8$% "C /"A @ $ %$G//"8""8$%%)$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4 '5 ;(8 !/%),,%! /$ ) / $ 8%%) , A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''. &' ; ) , /"! 88) 8""8$%$ ) $% )$ )$"$ 88$ )"" / 8)+/% $A 2" %% )K ? 8"$ 8% 8$%8)A %$G %) $$ %$,%W,$K! /$/" ) 88)D$ "$$$ )) $$) ) $)$ @8%% $D %$$ @$8 ) $8 )>"$A 2$ 8""8$% 8$$!%) $ " $!G8G ", $%,% /" %!%) ,8"8"$8A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.1 * ;/ , ) )$8 $/)$$ ? %$$88A )!%%$ $ )!%%$ $ )!%%$A "$ ! ! " #$ % & #$##% *#$ $ $ ) !>% / " " $8 )$8$D$)A 8 $$$ "$/ 8% !8A / % )$8 %$) , $ $"% A/! %) $ " "D%$ @$8 )8$%$$ 8$$ 8"A / %% "!)A8 " )8)*>>'.'' ' 1 ;/+"% /%) , 8$)) ,$ ) 8"%!$// "%$ ,$A !$ ,$ /" ) 8%$"$ $ ,$ !%) / 8"%!$/ 8$%$E@"% 88!G$" /$/" %8 ,$!%) / 8 @"%FA $"$%% 8" /%) / /8$ G!$ / / )$))!$/ / "$8 /+" $ $ %) / $/+" %)$A > E*EF G$)F+ ) $+4 . - - ;< ; ; , 1 ? @ - 2 ; 1 ?4@ ; 2 ; /0&:/ &A$)$% $/,/) $) / ),'A1"H $)$% $/,/)1A. ) $)$% $/,/)1A&*0 ) $)$% $/,/)1A&5;$@)+ 6$$8E@ ;$ F*A1H) 6$$8*A4*6!!&A. !" ! " #$ % & #$##%#*#69 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #254APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2+8 . - 2 2 2 & $8 ) G$/ )0$%)%$ $/,/) "8E@ $ !)$F$"@ <$E@A @ 8 % )H)$ @ "$8FH H8% 2$"$$ )$$%H)$ $ !/E% 8$F+ $#$9$!$7$%$4$8$*$ $$ $8#!7*7784 ** 4%8 " ! #$%&' ! " #$ % & #$##%9*#+* = < 2 ; - - ; & @)) ) 6$$$)H)$()( !8) @ 8) 8"$8 8$$; #$$!/E% 8$F+ #$!$%$8$ $$ #$ !$ %$ ! 9 * 9 # 7 ! #$%&' ! " #$ % & #$##%!*#70 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #255APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)'>'4>'.''. * ;0/!%) %%!8%%) /"% $ 8""$III 0/!$%%)8 8""$II" ) $HHC /%) , %%!) 8/$ $" /"%A % $" $ ? %$G / 8G"G + $G!$/ $"A , %)%) $) $ /!%% ,$ / 8""$ % /$$" $ A / /8 8/ / /"% !$%% ,,% ,) , / $! /$$G GA 2$ $8 "$/ 8%%)!/$8/ 8%) , ,%8% ,A % !/ / ,$ / ,$ 8%%) /"%$" %!$%% ), , /A /!$%% )A C$" G!,8G) "G $ 8""$A8 " )8)'>'4>'.''.' 4 ;A 2!) / $/, % , $I'A 2!" ,) ")$%,% / , ", $$,) 88"")$ $ ) !/ 8I1A 6 / !>)D$8G% 8"%$L8! /$% )$,$ ,/$,$)$$)%// /$,$$ ,) !/ %!% 8$$I*A2!8!D$ / 8""$ ,$ ) ,)I&A 2!"8/ $" )$)$% /"! ) $ /$ /") /!"8/ $" $) I A 2!" /"! $$$ )" 8/ / /$8 ) ;$8"I4A0/ $ / @ ,$ / $ ) IA / $ %!8"D$ / ,)%$ $$)$) %%I5A / ,$ , $)$% /" "$%$I.A0/ %!/8/$8 )!/8/ / %!/ $ / 8 8/8/$8 )!/ /%) , G) / 8I/G 6$$)8 " )8)'>'>'.''. '.; / %$8 $ %8I / $ /$@I /)IE$ !/ $ / 88,%$ /%I /$)$% $%,%%$,% )$IFA ; ;; = / )8%) $$ & / B/%$ $ / )$!//+"% 8 @$AB /$ $ $% 88A /9 8) HH= )$ -$ $ /$ !!// /"% "$)A 2!, $/I+ $ 0- ; - & ' ' 1 > . ; ! " #$ % & #$##%7*#8 " )8)'>'>'.''.' ' ;$ /! D$ /!" /" ) %%$" $"%!$/ ! % / / ) /!"$" /") 88$%%I8 " )8)'>'>'.'' . 14 ;0/ 8 8% %$8) /"% /)$ 6 $ $ /" @8)$ 1&..D I8 " )8)1>.'>'.''. 1 ;0/!%) , / % $ @ )$% $ /"%$8) 8/ / !% ,% $$ I)/!) / % $"8 K ,) ) )%" %I8 " )8)1>.1>'.''. &1 ;02 ;U 2 ;H 2 $ % $"% $% / # 26A 2!8! /% /"+", %$%% % / %% /"! " %%!!$/G$ $ 8A8 " )8)1>.*>'.'' ' '1 ;0/ /$ )!/ /%$I0$%% @$ " " ),% /$I ) /M8 " )8)1>.*>'.''.4 *1 ; $)!/!$%% %$"% , /% 8$IC)% / 8/$ 8 !"$/!%%% $ G$!/$8/ 8%) @$ / 8$A @C"%$$) , /!/% /$A0/ / /$ ),!$/ /"$"I0/ ) ) /@/)) / 8$!/!/ $ / ) $ $)$,%I8 " )8)1>.&>'.'' 1 ; / % / 8"%$$ $) I8 " )8)1>.&>'.''. .;!/ / %!/G! %$% , / ,$8 !/") $ / / %% " , "$$(,(!)8 " )8)1>. >'.''.' *& ;!%) / %%$)$% /"% /%) % ,$,% )/ %%!$% A $)$% )1.) $ %/A 'A $)$% $ 8 % ,) 8 $ $ %/ ,! 1.))'"/A1A%$"$/!" 88 $ 8/) $ 8 //"$" ))$ / $- /$)$% $A8 " )8)A0/ /%)C / ,$ /$$/)) / ! " #$ % & #$##%%*#71 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #256APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>. >'.''.* 4 ;,%" / 8I'A0/)G )8 /$ , $ ) /I1A0/%% ,$I8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.4 *.;!%) G )$%% )! / ", ) 8%$8/!"!/ $/,/) )!/ $ "$ ) /!A8 " )8)1>.4>'.'' '' ; %$8)A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.1 .;9A K / ,$!/ "! )!$//% A8 " )8)1>.4>'.''.* * ;!%)! )) /!/"% / $"8)/)$$A C /) @"% / % (8% / , B/%%!) B , )$%8$ %8%$) / $!/ ,) %$ $ " $/,/)A /$G$!%) ,!/!/$% )) / $"%$8$ /,$ $ %8!///,"%A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.5 &5 ;2!$W%$8KK/ %$8$ $ %8I D$/! $ " $ "$$"" / $ 8""$ $8!$/$ / !A8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.' *4 ;A0/ / )$$P$8$ 8%% /$P/%$I'A 2! / )$$ $ $"8 /%8% 8">,$I1A 2!8! /% "@$"$-8$%)$ @ $8"!/$% 8$ / %$%$/) ) % =$)I*A /%)! 8$)8$)$8$"$ $8 % !!/ / $8""8$%-EHP+F;$@)-E;F)H)$-EHFI&A /%)!8$))/$$%% !'>1>',@"" $,%$$ $% $"8 % $"$)>!I A 2!8! )8$) " %)$@/%)) ),% /$I8 " )8)1>.5>'.''.1 &* ;+/%) "$ , $) % !!// $ 8""8$%- %)$- ) "$@) I+2!8$ %)$ @ , "@$"$-)!/$% 8$ $)%$%$/) ) %I+0/ @8% ,$ //%), / )$$ ) !/ )I+2!8!8$$8%% $%$- ) ) , %)$ @ ) ! " #$ % & #$##%4*#,$ %$8 )% % " ) ),% /$%$I+/%) ! '>1>' , )/)$ , @" " $$ 8 ) 8%+$"$)>!I+2!!$%% /$$ 8 %% %8%,$ ) / 8" $ I8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* .5;0/ % , /$MI %!) %$G /$ $!%) 8 " /" ! %% /$/"A /$!$%% % % ! 8/$ >!" "$% 8$A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* ' ;! $ @ " %% /% $" ) " !!/ /$$ /$!A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* '* ;0/ $ $IH8% $$A G/ G$ 8 /% ,$%)$ " ),% /$A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.* &* ; /$%%A 8C$ !/ /$ / ))% ,8" ,$)%A $ @$A +$">G$ %$>/%!G/ %! 8"%$) / /$ $ ),%A %$) !" "!G !/ ! !%% ,8 $! "),%A /$G/ $ 8$% /%) , 8) //$A8 " )8)1>.>'.''.& 4 ;$!/ ,%" $%I$ ! ))$8 ) G$ / )C %%8 "8/ / 8G$ $8G %A </" $ ! @!/ "$ $8 ) G$ / 8/ /" "%$+) $/ G$ A( // /$ $ /% )C / ,%" $C , $ @ $)!$/ $ /!C$8" E8/%$ %F ) $ 8$%G)/ ,8GAAA!%) / ) " /M8 " )8)1>.>'.''.& * ;/!8!"G $ E$F / @$$ %)$>/$%$$)/$$ ,$ /$8%$%!$/ )$/ 8"%"/"% $) / ,$ "$$ " "%" ,$ A ) /!8)/!$/ 8/$ )"$8%% / 8/8) % / 88""$I0)C! " /% 8$%% ,$ /% %$G 8/$/% $ A / /+" %$ $) % $, / 8"A8 " )8)0/ 8/ " / D %% / ! " #$ % & #$##%8*#72 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #257APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>.>'.''. ;8 " )8)1>.>'.''.4 &* ;2!)! / $ %% %$ $ %$) 8 !%8"$P !/ $$!%% $/" !!/% / $8" 8 /$8"$8!%% ,$I8 " )8)1>.>'.''. & ;0/)/!G%$/G8%I8 " )8)1>.>'.''.5 *.;2! / )$$ $ $"8 / %8%8"I0/ $ 8) $% ) $$% , /)$$I8 " )8)1>>'.''.' 1 ;0/ $) $ $$$ %$8$ /!$%% /$G/ %8%8" ) / "$) // /$ G%%!/% ++! $$$) /$"$%$I8 " )8)1>>'.''.& .';2 )$) / % ) /!/ / 88%)) /"% GD$" D%$ G$!I8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 1.;2! 8 / %! / %) $ %8A / "$%! %$G)%/%!A ) ?, 8") /8$$A8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 * ;/$ ) %$G" /% D/ 8"$$ /8$"A /$%$%/$$%,%$! / $)!/ !%) , %G$ %$"$ A /%,%" $ ! $ / )%2!/ $ $$) %% /),% ) %8 )%8$ /"!$/ $8"%88$ $A % $" $) $ $ /" /!/$ / , %%!) /A ",)/$) 8") $$!$/ /$ ,$ /% $ / ) ) % ! /) % N..GA8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 && ;2!8 / 8$ ) 8""$!G/ )$$,! / !!/ ,/ %% "G$!$/ $$ )$ / %8%% )$ $"/I%!$/ "% /$ / /!8 / 8$ $ "% /$ % ,$I!%) 8$% 8$))$ /$ %$ $8G $8 ! " #$ % & #$##%**#/8) " /% )G$$E$!/" / 8",$) ..$8FA0/ /%8 , )) /$ ,%"!$/ $%,% I2!8/ 8$!G !$/ /" ,/ %% "G$ "G/ $ / 8""$I2$/@ /!/C!) , "!/ ) $" $ / 8""$I2$/@ /!/!C$) / 6 $%% ) $" /!/ ,%I / ,$)$- "% /$ $ 8/%8A8 " )8)1>>'.'' . .;!/ $ $ G8 %% / 8$%IBH8%B"% / / %$ )!$%!) /I8 " )8)1>'>'.''.4 '.;0/ $ ,/$) /$ / ) /!"8/ " ) / ) $A8 " )8)1>4>'.''. ;!%) AHG / ,$ /"% $ ))$$ /8/%%A "$) "$% %$ /"!/!8$A0 ? $" "8/ " $ /"!$/ %%$$ G$8/ ) "%$% ,)"A $ % "8/ "),% ) , ,% 8G"% ) $A0 % ?%$$ %8% %$ $ /" ) $ /%>%)A 'A )) /8/%% /"%!$/ A <$@A ,A 888%$"$$ ,) / ", ,)"A 8A )D G$$E/!/$!%) % ) , 8)!$/ %) $!!/$8/ ) %% $) G$ %% /$FA)AD$$'*>4 "" $8 $ )") 8A/)$% )!$%)%$ ! " %% $$ $8%)$ ,/ /%>%) ) /"% A8 " )8)1>4>'.''.4 *1 ;0/ ))$$% $"8 ) / 8%% 8 8$ 8I0/)$8 ) $ "G$/!$ %$ //"$$I8 " )8)1>>'.''.4 ..;//%$!/ )$ /$I / $ $)G! / /"% $8$ $8E/ $!G 8"$ ! ) %$ / ) / )F/$ "%A =!$%% / 8 " )8)1>>'.'' ' '.; ) ) /$ $8M ! " #$ % & #$##4$*#73 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #258APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>>'.'' ' ' ;2!/ /8""$$ )%!$/ /$ )!/ %$ /, 88%A8 " )8)1>>'.''.' 1& ;+0%) / /$ 8$$!/ )!! 8$ $$8$%% $% % ))8 / ","$) $ $/,/)I2!"8/ $ $%%$"%$ 8"I $!/ )$%8$ 8""$I+0$%%/D%$%$,$"8)$ " " )$$%R%) S$)$% $/,/)I+0$%% $ "$$8""$ $IE/$ $ $8 / /%%+$"$) %G$ ,F+0/!$%% $ 8 / 8$ "/+"%) 8 )$8%) /+"%EAA $8) $8 $ + G$ %$$!$%)%$ 8FI+0/ ,%$8 $ ) $ I+2!)!G /+"R88,%SI8 " )8)1>>'.''.' *4 ;/%)!$ 8 )$ / ,$8!%% , $ $ //$8 " )8)1>>'.''.1 .5;0/ $ / $$ $ !/$8/ " $%$"8 8""$ 8/8// $)$ " ,$I8% % $%$-$ / ,$%$ /$/" 8)$8" / /$/ )C $ " "/I/ !) ,HH ) $8/ % 8 $8/ /@ / 8""$A8 " )8)1>>'.''. 1 ;!%) "$ /+"%8 " )8)1>5>'.''.5 .;0/ ! 8$ %$G / 8%%I/ $/ !$8/8) $8A = ,$ /"8"%%!%),)$8% " , $ ! "$%$ /$ %8 $ " G " 8"$8 ) 8%%)$$A8 " )8)1>5>'.''. ** ;0/!%)! %%!!G$ 8% "$%!/ 8/ , "G /" /E/, G$ 8) "%/$ $F @ $8" ,$ /$ $ /$I8 " )8)1>5>'.''. &' ;!/ $ ) ,%$ ") "$88/ %$"$I ! " #$ % & #$##4 *#8 " )8)1>5>'.''.& .;!%)! %$ ,%$/) "/ $ / %8% ! %% / !%%/+"% $ ) /)) / $A !%) "G $8%) %% /! " 88)!$/ 8/ / / 8 /$),/$) ,$ "A !%) %! %$ / " @ /! $) , %% / ! 8/ /"%A$ !%) %$ 8/ ! " / / 8 /$),/$) ,$ "A8 " )8)1>5>'.''.& '* ;0/ $/ 8 , %$) /+"% / / /%) $ 8"%$8!$/%$ % "$) ) /$/ @A %!/ 8% 8 , $ %8 "$$ / $"% $"8!/$8/ $8%) G$$G$ )! $ %%AH$,$%$ $ ) ,)))!/>$ $ )")A8 " )8)1>'.>'.''.1 & ;/"% @) $ / "! %)$ $8%)$88"")$ @I2!$ /"% @ $%$-) /8$) $"8I8 " )8)1>'.>'.''. *& ; /! $8 /$ %8% $) ))$ "% $$I8 " )8)1>'>'.''. '& ; $ $ 8$))$ " /$$/I8 " )8)1>'>'.''.' '' ;6 / 8$, / 8""$ ) / )$"% /8""$ ) / / %$ / %% $"A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.* ' ; $ %) ,$% ) $ $ " %$% /" /" /$)!$)/8""$A / % ") $ / G$ %% +A " ..O% $/!$/ $%)%$A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.4 .&; / $ $ $/,/) -) %)$I8 " )8)0/!$%% , ) , / % /$ %8% $8!G ! " #$ % & #$##4#*#74 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #259APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #21>'>'.''.4 *.;, $ ) 8$$ $$)$% $/,/) ,$8) $8 $"8 ) , / 8$ , ) /!$%)%$I8 " )8)1>''>'.'' ' 1 ;0/ ,$ ) $ / 8""$P,)$$$ %$ $I0/ ) ) /% $/,!$/ $PG$ $8I%$$2!) $/,/) ) /% ) 8 / 8$$8 " )8)1>''>'.''.* 11 ;0/ / $ $ 88$ $ / , !/!%) 88 " $8$ %",$ /$8 8"A / !$ !%)C , ,% % " / 8"$ / %% ,A $)/) %$ $ / 8%) 1 ) $ $% )$$ $) " / 8%)C $) $@ //A0 / ,$% 8""$ !/! )C / / ,$ $8 8 %% $ % % / ! .....D ) /)%"A0!$/ $% / ) ,G@)$ )G ,$%)$ "!G8 $A8 " )8)1>''>'.''. &5 ; $ %) !/%") + %)$ /$ "$"A0/!%)!"$ " ) )$%I8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4 &* ;2!8! / / /"% $%8$ / %) /$$8 %8% %% $" /$ "G $ " ,/ $%,$%$ ) 8I8 " )8)1>''>'.''.4 &* ;/%) / , 8 /!" /"% %%!) $I/%) /,8!//"% / % "$ $E%8"!$/ %8% / ) /") $ ) "8/F, / 8D%$ /"%I8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.4 '1 ;8%) / % " $)$$)% !!/ /) /$%8 AH$"$ %$"$ /HH8!)8 " )8)1>'1>'.''. 5 ;6 ""G / %$ / " 8"$8%% ) 8$%%%,% "",8""$ ,!8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' .'; )$" 8$ ) !$ / / ,/$ )!% /A!$/ /!G / ,$ $8) ! " #$ % & #$##49*# / %% " / ,$ /!$%% A /$ $ ,$ %)!$/ /$ / ) %8G A //$% $ )) ) / /)$"$)$!G // / $ ,/ A / $ ,8 /%8G ),% /$A % G$8 $ %$ /$ $ G!$$ ,% )$ / G$ %$ / "/$" , )A %$ / / $ ,$ %% /$ ?$ "G ) " , % /$%%!$ $ ! / ", ? ", /$%) ) "/$ )) / ,%"A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' ..;0/ !$ 88"%$/ $ )$% )!/ 8$ "$/!G /!$%% /% 88"%$/ / %I8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' ;0/ /8) > %%/8%$") ,%" / )!$%) %$ 8A C"/8$$%) $!/$8/ 8%) ,,% , %)!$/ "$8"!/$8/ ) $8%) 8/ !$) G/" ,/A8 " )8)1>'1>'.'' ' 1* ;/;,8" "8/$" /!$%%G / /"% "$ " $ / 8$ )$ /$$/, ) $/,/)A / %$8 6A 8 , /)% " % ") /"%$A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''. &5 ; /$G$ $ $" 8%% )$ / ,%" )K/$G/88$% / )D% $8%) / 8% ,%"!/$8/ $ ) $$!/ $ $) 8%%) %$A /88$% $ %$G% / "$% 8/ // /$8 ,!$%% " %$G% 8 %/A8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.' *.;!/ 8"%$ ) "I!/ $ /$% 8 ?, $ %$"$) /"I/!" )!/8%$%!%) % $ %$"$)$)$%%I8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.* *' ;0/ $ ",%$/I8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.& && ;0/ $ /$ 88!/ / ! /$,%$/" $ $ $M ! " #$ % & #$##4!*#75 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #260APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>'1>'.''. * ; %%) /$ <( " /8"")/2%$% $ / )TR"?$ D$ )!$/ $%%$ )%% )""!$%% , $ / $/ >#8$ /" "G $ / %) 8""$$A/$@$ $ $"%A /$ $ %A 8$$A""$$ %$G ", $ )(8G$)!$%% $$ $ % @$%%A / % ) )) $8"A /!$%% / "$$"" @ ) ,$8 "$8A )!/ / 8""$$ /$/) /$ $) /" / ,$ / ")% $ %A $% / / $!$%%,$%,% // 8" /$HC)$)A " %) / / % $ ,$%%$ )%%$%)S/$ $ / / /$ 8" $ /$ $ ) G / /,$8A2!)! "$$/ / R/ H$%S!/! $ $ %% //$/ ,$))I 0/ ) / ) I0/ /%)! %% ?%%+) %%!,8"/"G/!%/I/ $ / %!" /$ / ) ) ,8" %$A 6 8 , /$ ,) " $ )@ $ /$ ! "I0/ ,D%$ %$ ) ? / /$/ ,$))IK,8"$D$ T8 " )8)1>'1>'.''.5 . ; /! %$"$ C ,$ "", )HH 8A "/!$)$ !/ / "",/HH!/$8/!%) , / " A ", " 8 % !1% $A /$ $,$%$I8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. . ;;D$ $ )!/ /$G//$/ )$8!/ " 8 8 )!$/ /$/"A @ / 8$$88% / 8 8!/))$$% 8 $8)"$$!$/ / )!/@$8 "$/ ,))A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. & ;6 / $/ $$ $ )/8$$I8 " )8)1>'*>'.''. &1 ;!%) % G8$ 88$% 8$)!/$/" $ ) /!" %$8 /%) , %%!) $ /$- ) $/,/) 8 /%/ ,%8 /8""$A8 " )8)0/!$%%! 8/ " $" ,8G ! " #$ % & #$##47*#1>'*>'.'' ' & ;)$$I%!/ / , /,$8) % ,$ ') ) 1) /" / )K %$ /%%$") 8$, / %8% 8" %% $"A " / /$/$) , ,8 )%" ) ) 8)%%,8 / !8K )/$ @A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.1 1& ; ! "", 8$ 88$% !%) $ GD$ "$)$% ) %8% ,%$8 ,$ "$" "8 ,$A /$"$) "!/ %%$) %$"$ <!$/ ,%$8 $$/ $ / "$))% / $/ $%/ ,%$/) / $8% ) %G!$ , $A $)$ )$,$!/ %8) / ,%$8 ) !$/ %% 8A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.* &* ;/!)!"G $ $!/$ CA/!8!8 "?,)G 8" $A!/!%) , $ /"I;G A8 " )8)1>'*>'.''.& 1 ; %$"$$ %8)/"% "G$ $ )$,% $,% ! 8$$ /" /!) % 88"") / )") %)$ ) $"!/$8/"G8/$% / %8% 8"I2!!$%% / 8$ ,,% 88"") "$%$ %$ // 8 $)) /%"!$/ G$)I8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. * ;2!)!! 8%%8$ @ " %% /"I2!)! ,%8 / ) 8""$!$/ / )$ $ 8) /"A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. & ;+!!/! / "$ /%) / 8!$/ $$ ) , / $ A +!/%)/ 8$% , $8 / 8" /$ / ,) )'* /A +! /%) / % "!G ) $ $ $8 $ $ $ HH2 ;M!$/ "$)$ 8AAA 8"$ A8 " )8)1>'&>'.''.4 .&;6$" + ,$AHG "% ) @"% ,) 8 " )8)1>'&>'.''. .1; ,%$ / $ /%)D$%%!!/! /$/" E/%+"F % %$$A / ! " #$ % & #$##4%*#76 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #261APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2 /%) , @) /%A / $ /%) %$"$ /%$$ $ $/",$ 8 8$$8$/,/)A8 " )8)1>' >'.'' * ;!$%%$ )!/ $ 88 / %$% )+)$)$% $/,/) )!$%)%$I8 " )8)1>' >'.'' ' '4 ;2! "@$"$- / ,$ / 8$ CA8 " )8)1>' >'.'' ' *& ;$8 / )"$8 / /$ "G / , 8-)! / / $"8 %8 , ) %8 E/ ),%FA / ),$%$ /$ / %!,$+!/$8/ $!/ "% /$ 8" ,A / %$ ,$%)"),% /$ $ $C)! %%IC"/%$ /"% $ / %$A " 8/ "G / /%) , ,% $ / %!$/$8$A8 " )8)1>'4>'.''. '* ; $% / 88$ /!/+"% G$ $! " ),% /$A / $8!$)8) $8"%% ),% / !GA $ 8$%)% ) 8 % /$ %!GA/ / ) )$$8% $)!G $ / /) / G$/$%%$)$8%8$ / %8G $,%%$ $ %$ % "%A % /$ +% /$!$%% , % /$ / ) /% $8 ) G$,%"A8 " )8)1>'>'.''.& ' ;6 / / ,$ /$$/,I8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.4 1 ;/!)!D$ $ 8$)) $ /$ 8I8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.5 ;0/ / 8$$8 88 $"$))I2!8% ) / 88I8 " )8)1>'5>'.''.1 & ; %/ , )$% $ & / /)B B 8"%$ , " A ,%$ / ", B$$8B 8"%$ "$$"%A/% /%) % ,) , %!$) ) / 8) 8)8! ! " #$ % & #$##44*#" ,$) ,A $,, ) #(!$%% G/8$!/ / / / $ /"A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4 4 ; $) /"%!/ $)%% /% /!G/"AA 8%$ $8 "$8 " " ,) 8A($!$%% /)! ,8 / " % $$$!%) ) ,$%%M8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' '4 ;2!! )$$ !I2!"8/ $8 "G, / 8/8) "G$C! )$)EH>%FA / / $)$$)% / 8$,/%/$, / ! /%) / / $>)%/ ?! /$$" )!$%% "$ / 88$%/$ $ ) !/ /! ) )%$ $A8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' * ;!%) G!/ ,%" !$ % 8""$) !IMI)/8'1,%" $)$$) / !%) // )M"% )A !%) %GB$!)$)XXXXXX$ %$AAAA /!) / 8)$ /$>% 8/ $% ! ! "G ! "% /$ ! %% $"$) $"$) G$$ " / $8 8$ $8 ) , )) /!8$$8%$!$%% 8G) 8 ) $!AB8 " )8)1>1.>'.'' ' & ;!/ ) /$G/%),@"" $ "$ )2 % $$)$% $/,/)A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''. && ;0/,$$/! 8" !/ 8K )/ 8 /%I%% $8" /%) / 88 /$ ! ) %% ! "!//%$/%),,% / /$/ 8 %$$ /,$ /$8) /" $/ )$A $ !$ , /$8/ % / )K!/!$/%$8" %% 8" A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.' ' ;2!" /"% 8%% 88$ /0 )A /!" / %$8 , /!" 8%% ) @A 2!" / !/") % / 1.) $"I8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.' 1.; /! $8$ ! 8/$ %8%!G8 /"%I ! " #$ % & #$##48*#77 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #262APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 11 ;0/ $ 8 / $ $$I0/$ "$ / $!// $I $8) , !I0/ "G /$G%! ) / 8$ )!$/ $%$ !GI8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 14 ;<" / $8% C) ) / "$ / %$) $ "/ $ 8$% $ "!$) , /"% ) / % "% /$A 2!$%$ /"% $ )) $ $%,% "% ) / /$8$$I / %$ /$/$/ /",$ / /$/%% $ "% $ / %%!) /" ,$I%% )C/$GA %% /" / 8C /" , 8 1.)E%" $N.$ @F/!"8/%@ $8"!$%% / 8$%I0/ $ / ", /"% $/ $ I $C'% $ !!!%) ? ) '+"/% ) @A 2!8! / @ $)" /"% /%!$/ / /$ 8$$I8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 &1 ;/" /$ /%) , $8% 1.) "$$""8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.1 &5 ;$ 2!) ) $/,/) , "G$ /" /%-IY'2!8 %% /$ !% ,8G $%,% $)IY /$ /%/ / 8""$I!%) /$ %$% %8% 8""$ % %$$ $ A ,$!$/ " %8% $ %% , $A %% $8G$A )C/$G$ %% 88$% %A 1& %8% " "$ !A 88$ $ )$ ,$ ,%8 ,!%8% 88$ ) $ 8M0/ )$) 8/ /% ! )$$)$%%A ) , 8%)% % / "/ '@ A/%! 8/) %%!/$ %% $8 ,) ,A $%%$)$% $/,$,% , %8% !A/! / !% ) ,%%) ,8G!/! / /$ @$8A "/!" ,) //!$%% , /A0/8/) $ %$"$ ) " / M0// 8$ 8/) /% 2 8/) 8) )8 %8 % %%!) % / ' "/A0/!)) , A0 ? /) ! $ %% ) "?,$$ / ,!/!)$)C%%!$/%% $ ,/!A %%!$ ) "$8%% $8 / % 8)A 3 = 2 # #= 0 2# 26 A ! " #$ % & #$##4**#8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.* ;2!) $8) /+"% "G/! ,%8 %$I/ / /%" ) 8) 8%$%,%I2!" "$$ 8 %8% $8E$AA G$ ! %8$8 $)8 $8 8IF8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.4 ;0/ $ )$$$ R")S/" 8$%A8 " )8)1>1.>'.''. &5 ;2!8!,$ ! 8$%% /!/ )$% $8"I8 " )8)1>1.>'.''.5 * ;/"$ " %$G%!$%% ")/$; ) "D$8G% )!$%% %%!"$ 8" $ !/!$%% , " $ !/8"AH "$!$%% 8 /$)$ ) /$ /K/%G$ ,))$ $ /$8K8"!A8 " )8)1>1>'.'' ' ;/$ G) /!D$ ) 8%% /- $$ G$ %$ / ,%"A ) %% ?! $/ 8""$ $ / 8$ ) 8$ /$ ),8%A % + ) /$G/ 8$ /%) $8G% -$ $/,/)A ;8 $ / ",4 %% / $/,/) $ A8 " )8)1>1>'.''.& .; " )$) , $ ) %$"$ /""8$ " %$$!%/ 8%+)$ 8""$ $I%$"$!$%% / %) "$))% 8% ,,% ) / /$/ /%" 8" G$ )8 $ I%$"$/!$%% / /"%$+$ "$%$!/ / )!! 8) )) ) / 8%$ 8 8$ /$"$%$I0/ " ?)$!/ /%! )!$/ /$% % / 8"%$!$/ ) %8%%!I0/ ! )$8$ /$ $!/ / / " "";$8 "I8 " )8)1>1>'.''.5 * ;/$!$%% % ),% /$ $$A %$ $%%$) ) $"$%" / /%) ,$A ) $ /8) ,%$,% $ $, $ / 8""$A ,) $ %% ))$ /$8) /" .O+'&O /$%%!/$% ,$ ,% /" ,8 / ! " #$ % & #$##8$*#78 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #263APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2%$A /$ $ $%% 88$) $ 8A ;G "G )I/ 8""$$ )% ) /$ !)/"I/" A 8) /"!!/ 8%% /$$ ) "$" /"E%$G"" 8) /" !$ ) )D$ ,$ $" $F %% )) $ /" ' "/ N'... "/E!/$8/ "! 8 /"FA! ) % ),% /$ $ , ,$%)$ "/$ $8G$ 8) /"! ) $" !A /$ $ G$ $ 8 /$ %! ) !%) @8$ %% 8$ " % $ /$A8 " )8)*>.>'.''.5 && ; " $ %% /"%8 " )8)*>.>'.'' '.;6 / !K/8>"/ %%+$"$) $ / $/,/)I0/ ,$) / %$8!$%% 8% @$$ 2I8 " )8)*>.>'.'' ' ;%$" ) / G$$!$%% )"$8%% 8 88" /!$I8 " )8)*>.>'.'' ' '* ;2!8! 8 / ) %$8$ /"% / D% %)$%I8 " )8)*>.>'.''.& '1 ;!%)! G!/!/8""$$ ))$ /$,%" ) %G 0 0HHA8 " )8)*>.>'.''. .';0/ ) / ) , %$"$)I% / $/ )!/ /!!$/ /$A / 2 %%! /"!/ /%) / $$8 /"AI8 " )8)*>.>'.''.4 *.;$" / /%)C , %%!) !/A / ,$D$ $,%8$ /" III8$% %$"$!%) $"@ , $,% / $ 8D8 A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''.5 1 ;2!"8/ $8 )!/ $ $ 88,%I!%) / /%!/ $$ ) G/"% 8 % !$8 "8/ %%$ /!/ $ /% %) %% / $8% % $ ) /$)$% $/,/) " / "$)!G) "$8 $ /$8%A /%) ! " #$ % & #$##8 *#"" 8"$ ,D$) " $8$ /$8%% 8%$ %I/%) /,$8 %$"$ $ "), 8" %)8$ ) 8$ D$"I /$8 , ") / /% )$ 8G" )$ 8"$ $$$ /!$D$ $/,/)"$" / " )I / 8G , "%%)D$) 8%I8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . ..; AH /" ) $8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . .4;!8 " $8 ,D$$ $/,$$ / %%!8"$8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' . ;6 ,$ !!/ / $) /$$) /$%$ ) $8 $G$ /$,$ ! / @$$ / ,$ $I8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' *.;0/ 8$ ) @)$ / $,$@$ / )$$ /0 )A8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' ' '5 ;/!"% ) , )$)A /! $8,8%%) $ / $ /$A 6CG$) %/ / $ $ $ /% %A(!))$/$ $$!/// 8"$!GA$" / 8/) )!%%!G "%A )C! /8$ %) ,8 / 8$ $ G$ // 8 , ") $))%8 " )8)*>.'>'.'' ' 1 ;!%) )$$%! G!/!8 /"% % $"8$ / 8$ ) 8A0/ % /"$I /$%% / / $ % "% /$I" / @ "$ " , ) $) ""% /$I0/ / /8""$$ )I/$%%D$ , !) ) )%@$8 )$%%$8!$/$ / 8$% ) ,) $) 8$ %$A8 " )8)*>.'>'.''. .4;;G / $ / /"% $ $)!$/ / 8$P/ "$8 " )8) !!/ 88$%% / $ $ /"!/ ! " #$ % & #$##8#*#79 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #264APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2*>.'>'.''. '4 ;!/ !%)! / 8$ 88$% G"!/ $ /" ) $ // / ! G$ ,$! " /%I!%) @%$ / " 8/ $ /% ,8 "$% )"$8A <@"% %)8%!$/ /$8/$%) ) $,% )8/$%) !A /" / 8 $ ) %$$ / /$G+ "% ) 8",% /!$/!$ , 8/$%)C ,/$+%//%8"$),,!$/ / )$,$ % 8A0//)"$%$!$/"",!/ $ % /)$8) +!/ /%!%) , $,% /$)) )$8/$%A 2% / "!/ /""8$ $$AE2!G!" %!/"8// $ /% / $ B" %C /"BF )!G,/!A / ," %$ // $ ! "", / !%)D$ /!!%) / ! 8%!/ " % )!$/ /$!A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' . *4 ;/ 88$% /%) 8$)$$ @ /"%A /!%%$ $ 8/ ,) /$ // ,%8)$$!/$%!G8!)A $ ! ,$$" ? ,$ $ / /%) /$$/A /@ 8 $,% /$A8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' ' .;0/ )!)/$G, /$!/ )!)"" 8% ) ""I8 " )8)*>.1>'.'' ' .1;6 C)) /D%$ %$ %8%I /%) /,D / 8 /" ",/ 8$$8% " /$8 8""$I8 " )8)*>.1>'.''. ' ;0/ / ) / 8""$I8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.1 1' ;2!)$ $ $ %+"$)8%8 " )8)*>.1>'.''.& && ;C $ @$A CH0= @$)A ,) ) /8A ;$/%A / @A ) /! / "8/ /$) 8AAAA8 " )8)0/ ! @$% 1.) "I%)! ! " #$ % & #$##89*#*>.*>'.''. &* ;@ %!$/ " )1+ "/I8 " )8)*>.*>'.'' ' 1 ;2!$ /$ $% $"8$ 8""$I8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 ' ;0/ !$ % 8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 14 ;2! / 8"%!$/R) $/,S))8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 && ;$ $$,%I$ %)$ @ 8I2 8" /) $!$/ $ 8 K // 8) / 8""$ $%I2 8""$"", > /"!G 8" 8"%$$, /$ K $"8$ /$/" $%I8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.1 & ;A / $)$$)%% !)>"$% ,$I'A 6 / / $ "I1A / G ) I8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* .;= %%!% /% 8" $ ) %G$ $8 !"$ /$/"!/ / ) )8)A / / ) 8G$/%A0$) $8 / $ ) / 8$ )$ / $8A =$8 ,) ) $8 "A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* ; ,%$ /$ $ $ 8)"$$" 8$$ $ $ 8$ 88$%A !)/"),%/$ %8%!G /%) / "@) 88$ !/! / ) 8)% 8 $8$ $ %$$ $"% /$ " A8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* ' ;!%) G, $"8 $ 8$$8 $/,/) AA /!!%) $) %$"$ %$,$%$ $ - + !%)! /!8",%$) !$/ $/,$ /$/" /+">!/ / %G%$GA8 " )8)*>.*>'.''.* *.;2!8! "$$"$-/"% % "% /$ 8G) !$/ $/$ %$$" 8) /" !!/88$%% /$/" @A ! " #$ % & #$##8!*#80 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #265APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.*>'.''.& *4 ;0$ ,) 8" ) !!/ ) ! G$%%/ / $ %$ / %) I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.* & ;0/!%)E!$8) ) ,%) ""F ($%% $%$)I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. *& ;0/$%%$ /"% "G % /!)!8 $$ $8$ ! %+" ,$ %8%$)I%! , %/ $"% $8$%$ %$"$$ % $ %$G% "$%", $ / %8%$) /$ %A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 .*;0/ "G /$G/ /R8$%S$!%) ,) )$8) % " //!G8 !/ %!/ 8%)K )"GI / ,?8$ 8 / /% $)" %$ IK @$ ) "$%%$ %! "8$ / /$,$$I! 8$% $ /8)) $8G$ / 8$% $) 8 )8) %) ,%" /! $) "$") ? %I /$ G ?G 8$ % 8"$8 /$ /!K),,) )? // / )!I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 1* ;A0/ K!EF8$ ) 8 )!/ )! %/ ) 8/ / " ) , $$ !,$ ,R$"% "8S8%%"// !$/!$/ 8%$ $68A'.'I'A 2!$ $ $,%/ 8""8$% 88$ $"% "8 ,$)$% $I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 1* ;0/ 8" $ )$ , $ )%%)!! 8 $ , % /!/8/ %%)!! ")$ I%!/ ,G!G) $((%%"8/"%,% 8%$% / /!/ ,G/$/) /% !/ 8 ) ) "/ /%$)%A/ 8$% $ $ ,%8G$$!/ / 8" G$,8 / $8$ /" A %$"$$ !$%% 8"% /$A ! " "% /$ $$ / /$ / %) @$ ,) "%A /"" " / -) "% ,8 / !!8) ,$%) /" , / ) / %% ! " #$ % & #$##87*#$8"A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 14 ;0/ )!)%8)/"!IR!G$ 8%S) $ /$A($8$ /"%!!$%% $8 / /$ 8GA(/ / "G% %$)$ .!/ $ ") / , 8) 8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.4 && ; /%/ ) ,$ )))I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. ' ; /$ )8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. 14 ;0/ $ ,%" !$ 88 ) /) 88$ 8$$8%% ))$ / ,%"I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. &' ;$ / " !! ? / /$// / )!%) $ %8%!G!/!%) / $ % ) %)$ @ $ 8$$$ ,)I)!/ $ / $"8 %8% ,$!/% $" $%I2% $ %) $8)$,% @$$ !/!%) / / $8 $ %)$ %$")I/$ $ %) $8)$,% @$ 8""$ ))8$ %!$%% %$G% !)$8 /A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5 ;2!!$%% 8 $ ) G$ )$8I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.5 '' ;206 ( < = 2 2 2 0 I8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' . &' ;! %$"$ /"%!K /$ % %$"$ ,) )8 8"$8)8$ %8% ,$I8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' .&;H / /"!)!/ / ) ) "$$ /$$>/"A0/ ) $ 8$% ) )8$)!/ ) 88 /$/"I0/! /$ )8$$ ) /)// "8I/ 8""$! % $$)) /! ) "G /$ "8A ! " #$ % & #$##8%*#81 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #266APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>.&>'.'' . ;2!$ /$ 8$ /$ %8% "% ) %8%,$I "%! / $8)$,% )$$8% $"$)$ /$ " )!G!! % / %A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' &4 ;!/ $ %I!/ / %I" /"I!/$/>$,$%$$ ) 2 / $%$>$8$ ) / %$G$/$8$$8 8""$$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' &4 ;3 ! 8$ 88$%! / / /,) !/ 8%$"! / " ,)A = G$"C ),% %)$ $ /H$"%$/ !%%N...>$/ $ E/)% ),%FA6$ / )"$8/+"% G ,8 $$!) /$! %8!//$! ,)" 8) &,)" /" / )$)C!,)) , / $ $8GA/+"% $) $$ ! /$8 8$ / A%%%!)$$ % $$ " %% 8$+8"$8 ,8G)A %$"$ /+"% "G$" )$$8% !!//%%+$"$) 8) /" !"$) / /% $/% $8!$%% % ,8" " @$ ) 8/ " %A; / $ / %)!$/$ / % 1+* ! / %+" /$ % %8%AH+" /$ 8G8G$,8 %$"$) $ ) / $8))") !%8% "$ / / / / ,$%$ !G"A0//$,%" , 8G$ !! $ / %$A $ 8$% /%) 8G),%/$ ?8 /$!$) /% $8 / $ ),% %+" /$ $) 8$% ), / )$?8 ,$ /% $ / )A $ $ 88 / / %)$%% $ %" "@) /!$) 8$!% ", %G / $% / $ 8%) 8A2!% $% / %) 8%) ,) ) ) $ $),%/$ 8""$A / %"! ))$$ , $ $ ,% $) !%% ! /$/) , / %) 8 ),% /$ /!G8I/ 8$ %$"$$%!$%% % $ %%$ / /$ 8$$A !$%% % , / 8 G$ " ) //%$$!A8 " )8)*>.&>'.'' ' '* ;2!8!,"%@$,%$/"%%$// $ $$ /$ $-$%%%$ / /,!$, / 88$%AI ! " #$ % & #$##84*#8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.' .;2!!$%% ")$ 8%% /% / %8% /$ 8$$I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.' 1' ; " /$ ,$ 8$$8) I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.1 '* ;2!" $!$%% $ 8 " / !$$ /$!%/ ! 88$%% $$ )!/!$%% , / 8%%) 8"$8 $"8 /$A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.* .*;2 // , / $"8 /$!$%%//"!L "" ,$ /!$%% / % "% ,8 /!$%% % $8"L%8% ,$ )I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''.* &5 ;0/ "$)8 !" ,) ) / ,$%$ % "$%$ /) / / ,$%$ ""%/"I0/ /!$ ! %% /$ % ) @I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. .4;0/ $ $ @ ),%/$I8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. .;/+"% "$% )8 $%,%% $ /!/! %$ / %%+$" ) )C! %$ $ $%A0/%),%G$ / %!/ %$ / %%+$"A%!/! $$ 8 $ /$ /$ 8%%) /%A8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. '4 ;/"% , $) ! /%) 8 " 8/ $) ! ) %% ,$ / 8""$8 " )8)*>.&>'.''. 1& ;$8% 8 " 88"")$ @A %% %$8 $$ $$ 8$$A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' ' ; 0/ ! ,$$ 8$%% " %8% /"! ) /$)8$$ /+" % $,% ,8 / / %" /$$8"E" !/" !$)F)!/!"G$ $ /)!$/ %% /%>%$>"$"8AAA / %8% "$$/$!MI %$ ;, @"$ $ /"!)/%$)C6$/ ! " #$ % & #$##88*#82 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #267APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28$ M8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4 &.; ,%$ / ) , %$"$ ,8 /!$ $K8""8$%8$$ ) /K $ $$)$%-$A K,)!$%)%$ ) / $"A / 8/8 $/,/) 8/$A K!/%"$ ) ) "8)A$)$%-$ $ $)$A 8$ /% " %/"A8 " )8)*>. >'.''. . ;!/!%) , / $"8 !88$)HH $ /$,$%$ )$8%% /$! G !I; // $/ "!%) , 8)%/$2;A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.5 '& ;!/ $ /!%) $ / 8$ ,/$!$/ /$I/)$8% "$$ /$$ @ 8A % /$ ) / 8$ /%) $!$/ $ $/A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' . .5;0/$/%8"$8$"8)!/!%) ?)$- / !/!/ )$ /! / "$$"%$"8 ),$%$A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' . * ;$8!C%) $ $" % @ )% 8)!/C/%)$8 C ) @ ,I6 /,$E+$)F%% !$/ / 8/%% ))" $/,/)I6 %8% % )!$) ,% $)!$/ CI$8 C)8 /$ $)/! / /%$!G$$)I$/,/)/%/$!$/ CI8 " )8)*>. >'.'' .'; %%!% / / / $$A8 " )8)*>. >'.'' ' '' ;2!) /"% $"8 / 8" ) 8$ $8E@FI /%$G,! %$8 ) $%,$%$ ),%!G/$I8 " )8)*>. >'.''.1 &.;/!/ " / ) 8 $ %"E) /"/ "F$ / & A/ 8 / )!$/ / ",$ /!$ 8%)$% %A / )C)$8 8%$) $) "$8 %$ / / /%) , ) ! " #$ % & #$##8**#"$" $% "$8 %$ 8 , $)) , /A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.* &1 ;2!, @ )G 8G!/ )!/ / $8 " )8)*>. >'.''.& * ;($ %" %$%$/) )) /"%A % /$ $8"A ? ,/ " 8) /$ %% ) $ /%$/ ) /"/@A $!%) ,/ $G!$ /$! $ /A ) G!/!/ 8$ 8 G! /"!$/A !8 " )8)*>. >'.''. && ;2!8 ")$ /$ ,$ / %8%!G$ 8%/$ $$A8 " )8)*>. >'.''.4 '5 ;6 $ $8 8"$8 8$$I $ ) ,$ $ !I $ ) /"+!I6 $ $8 %I!%)8"") %G$$ G$ $%% 8/ H8/ A / ,%$ $ /$ 8%)E"F,)A $ $ % 8) $ / $%% ,D$) $ ) ! $ " / !/$ 8"%@A )8$ /"% $ >!"!$%% / / %8% ,8 $!$%% )8%$/ "8/ )) 8%$%A "$ /+"% ,$ %/ ,+!%/ ) ) G $ 8$)$ / ) / A 6!! "G >!" " %$$ ) $+%8% !I8 " )8)*>. >'.''. 1* ;! / "$ $/ ) 8%) )$8!/ / ,%"$ %AH)$ $ "$8%% /$/ $ ) %/ 8/$8!/ / G/$"$% /$/%$)A00 /" 8/ ) %% / %8% ,$A )/"!%$G"/$@E,N'.UF% ""A / $ 8 / 8""$A$ /$) $"" 8A /) / <2 "$/ %+" %8% $ / )C//" $A /$ $ ,)A <2C/,N.;)% ),% /$A 6 " $"% "/ !/ N.; !%) ) "/% $"% 8/A 6 %8% N..U>"/ % %A 8 +<2C% !) ,! ) %%!$ $$ /!$/ /$!/% "$%!/$8/ $ / $8$% ,$ A $/ 8C$)"$%/7; $ / 8 G/$" %%$)A ! " #$ % & #$##*$*#83 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #268APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #28 " )8)*>. >'.''.5 4 ;/%) /,%$"$%$8IH$"$) )$ $->% 88"")$IH$"$) 8 / % /$$ !I!$)$8 @ C / ) ),%/$I8 " )8)*>.4>'.''. '4 ;"$ !%) )$$% / / %8% 8"A0//$K !$ $ /$>/8)>/" /"% /$8 %$ 8 $ %% / " $A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''. &' ;)% !/"% / 8" $/ "A ,$ / 8$8 " )8)*>.4>'.'' *.; !$8)E$"$% $ F/!!%)! / / /"!%) / ,) %8% $ %+"%I2!" / /" / %) %+"%8% ,I))$$%% + $ )$) @$ "+/!!%)! / %% %+" % $ >!"!$)% , %8%!G$>8$,$ / %8% 8"AE# B)$$% ")B"!G8A!$%%$>,% /$/$8 %$ /FA0/)!)!/ %$ %$>88/$< "G /$%$A $%$ 8$ /!$%%%! , $ / /$/ ,$))A/$!/ / 8 ) , )%$ " ))$8) /$ %8%"%A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''. &' ;! )$8 /"%!K!,/$8$ /)$$ ) 88$,$%$ $$ A8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.' ' ;0%%G!/! $ "%8G "% /$ +!/ @$ /!$/ /"% "% G$/$!%) , ,% ,$I8 " )8)*>.4>'.''.1 * ;2!8!"G/"% %%) ) %8"%$8)IA "@ ", ) $ 8 , ")+,8 / ,)A8 " )8)*>>'.'' . &1 ;0/ $C/ / ),% /$ /!8!,$%)") /!8! "!/! / ,I 0%) @8%$ /"% 8 %) / $/,/) ,8"8"%% 8E%$!) )$ /!$ ! " #$ % & #$##* *#$) / ) $ % $ $ ))AAF!$%% /$ , /% $% 0/! $ / %% / %G/ / 8" ) ) %@ /$ $%,% $)/ )!! )!%%! " ) ,$/% ?8C/8/" %!/ 8" / / ) ? !G)!$/ /$"$% , 8"") $/%"I6! ) / @$80/ $ / 8 %$"$$ /"% $ , $ $ %$ " 8,%" $ / ," /$ $ ,)%$ "/) $ /$ )!%8 " )8)*>>'.'' ' 1 ; / 8$8"$8 ,8" %/!$ %8% "$ $$) )!G8E/ / %$ $) 8$%$"$F$,$,%,8$$8$ $ /$8""$$E $%) %$ / / % / / /FI/$!G8 $8%) %% 8$8"$8 8%E%! "$))% /$/ )/$ $ ,!FA > E5&EF&.G$)F+ ) $ ! " #$ % & #$##*#*#84 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #269APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2 ! "#$ % $ &'#$##"()&* !"#$ %$ &'#$## +85 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #270APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2, -' . / ' %%0!$1234#! 0561#34 ! " # !" " #$ $! ! "% ! " # # % ! " $ $" $! ! "#! !$ !&! !&%, ! "#$ %$ &'#$###+,#7 /8' . 9/ : 9 ; ; ' ; 5%0<21234#!%0% 1#34'(!!, ! "#$ %$ &'#$##<+86 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #271APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2,< 7 9 ; 1 8 ' . ('/ ) ' ' ' 0118 4 !+0<%1 34#<$05%1534<$0+1!34 ") &, ! "#$ %$ &'#$##!+,!7 9 ; 1 8 ' . ('/ ) ' ' ' 66 0!21234 6!0!+1534 5 0<1+34 ")&, ! "#$ %$ &'#$##5+87 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #272APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2,5 ) (' ( .) ; ; /: 9 /' ; #!5 0561634 %!0!$1 34, ! "#$ %$ &'#$##%+,%=/' 8 '/ :;/("# *!+ !(&!,"+! !&! & +! """&!- &!., #$!$%$2$ $$ #$ !$ %$ 2$#$$ 6$%2!6 $$5% % ! "#$%& !"#$ %$ &'#$##++88 APPENDIX E: ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #273APPENDIX E ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE QUESTIONNAIRES #1 AND #2I. OPEN ENDED RESPONSES TO QUESTION 6• We need speciﬁ c City personnel that can address the impacts to the immediate neighbors of STR’s and the neighborhoods they impact. Parking, Parties and Pets!! THERE MUST BE A MECHANISM TO DENY AND REVOKE STR PERMITS FROM REPEAT OFFENDERS. The Aspen Police Department should not be the default manager of STR units. • Enforcing rules for STR’s to minimize neighborhood impact. • Pay raises for Aspen Police offi cers, child care facilities, increase Aspen food rebate amount.• Better public transport• The owners of STR properties do not care if you tax them, so just tax them. The revenue could be used for multiple programs.• General expenses• Remove funding towards destination marketing- that only makes the problem worse. The fee/tax should only go to relieving impacts.• Noise and Light Pollution abatement. Traffi c. Landﬁ ll. • What is the city’s/community’s greatest need? Where are we falling short in funding? If STRs are causing “problems” then the funds should be geared towards solving the issues/problems. This is something that I don’t the the general public should be weighing in one because we don’t have enough knowledge to know what areas the city needs more funding for.• We need a designated City personnel to address neighborhood impacts. Parking, Parties, Pets are a PROBLEM.• The round-about and TRAFFIC!!!! There should be stop signs on every corner in this town!• turning appropriate places toward long term rentals should be a primary goal. If there are far fewer STR allowed- far fewer- then those owners could see the value of long term renting.• Raising money for the city isn’t the point of this exercise. It’s about not ruining neighborhoods by this impacts of essentially living next to a hotel• The city should identify what impacts short term rental cause that need to be mitigated. The tax revenue should address those issues, • Entrance To Aspen solution• A subsidized hotel/hostel. 89 74APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWII. STR HEAT MAPI. SHORT TERM RENTAL TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDER DATA OVERVIEWA. City of Aspen STR Data Points:• There are 1,319 current active vacation rental permits (VRPs) through the City of Aspen.• 280 VRPs were issued on or after 12/8/2021, the date the emergency moratorium was announced with 78 still waiting on review or additional information from the customer.• There were only 70 VRPs issued before the City increased compliance and oversight with Council actions around business licensing requirements.• 57 properties have multiple VRPs. The top two properties are The Gant which holds 123 VRPs, and Aspen Square, which holds 106 VRPs. This means 1,262 properties have just one VRP.• The Lodge Zone District holds 316 VRPs, this is the greatest number of VRPs per Zone District. Second, is the Residential/Multi-family Zone District with 255 VRPs. R- 15 Zone District holds 186 VRPs, this is the greatest number for the residential-only districts. Second is R-6 which holds 108 VRPs. The Commercial Core holds 45 VRPs, and Commercial Lodge holds 132 VRPs.• *The Short Term Rentals by Zone District Map provides full details on the amount of VRPs for every Zone District in the COA.B. Attachments:• Short Term Rental Heat Map• Short Term Rental Density by Address• Short Term Rentals by Zone District (East Aspen to Cemetery Lane)• Short Term Rentals by Zone District (Cemetery Lane to Burlingame)• Short Term Rental by Parcel Number• Finance Summary Data – VRP Properties by Address• CAST Survey - Lodging and STR Taxes90 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW75APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWIII. STR DENSITY BY ADDRESSIV. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICTsdc91 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW76APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWV. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICTVI. SHORT TERM RENTALS BY ZONE DISTRICTsdc92 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW77APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWVII. PROPERTIES WITH MULTIPLE VACATION RENTAL PERMITSPROPERTY NAMEADDRESSCOUNT OF VRPSThe Gant610 S West End St123Aspen Square 617 E Cooper Ave106Aspen Alps 700 S Ute Ave49Mountain Lodge 311 W Main St39North of Nell 555 E Durant Ave32Chateau Roaring Fork 1039 E Cooper Ave30Lift One 131 E Durant Ave27Durant Condos 718 & 728 & 738 & 748 S Galena St23Independence Square 404 S Galena St21Chateau Chaumont 731 E Durant Ave20Chateau Du Mont 725 E Durant Ave18Chateau Eau Claire 1034 E Cooper Ave18Riverside 1024 E Cooper Ave17Fifth Avenue Condos 800 S Mill St16Fasching Haus East 747 S Galena St15Silverglo 940 Waters Ave15Chateau Aspen 630 E Cooper Ave14Fasching Haus 718 S Mill St11Cottonwoods 124 W Hyman Ave10Obermeyer Place 101 N Spring St & 501 Rio Grande Pl10South Point 205 E Durant Ave10Chateau Blanc 901 E Hyman Ave9Christiana Condominiums 501 W Main St9Cooper Condominiums 210 E Cooper Ave9Concept 600 600 E Main St8Le Clairvaux 803 E Durant Ave8Park Central West 210 E Hyman Ave8Timber Ridge 100 E Dean St8Ute Condominiums 1020 E Durant Ave8Dolomite 650 S Monarch St7Original Curve 725 E Main St7Clarendon 625 S West End St693 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW78APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWLittle Nell611 S West End St6Monarch Condos700 Monarch6Old Hundred900 E Durant Ave6Alpenblick630 & 710 S Mill St5Galena Lofts434 E Main St5Shadow Mountain Condos809 S Aspen St5Silverbell805 E Cooper Ave5St. Regis315 E Dean St5Villas of Aspen100 N Eighth St5Aspen Townhouse East835 E Durant Ave4[No Name]250 S Original St4Der Berghof100 E Cooper Ave4Mittendorf450 S Original St4Mountain Chalet711 S Galena St4Aspen Edge1235 E Cooper Ave3Aspen Townhouses108 W Hyman Ave3Black Swan Hall851 S Ute Ave3Cooper Aspen Victorian1012 E Cooper Ave3Hy-West B835 E Hyman Ave3Larkspur800 E Hopkins Ave3Monarch on the Park233 E Cooper Ave3Ritz-Carlton75 Prospector Rd3Winﬁ eld Arms119 E Cooper Ave3Riverview1028 E Hopkins Ave2Villager Townhomes1001 E Cooper Ave2Subtotal094 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW79APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWVIII. PROPERTIES WITH ONE VACATION RENTAL PERMITBIZ ADDRESSBIZ ADDRESS 2STREET #STREET NAME100 E Durant Ave1D100E Durant Ave100 E Durant Ave2A100E Durant Ave100 Park Ave100Park Ave1001 S Ute Ave1001S Ute Ave1004 E Durant Ave11004E Durant Ave1006 E Cooper Ave1006E Cooper Ave101 Park Ave101Park Ave1011 S Ute Ave1011S Ute Ave1015 E Hyman Ave21015E Hyman Ave1016 E Hyman Ave1016E Hyman Ave1022 E Hyman Ave11022E Hyman Ave1024 Vine StHunter Creek 10241024Vine St1035 E Durant Ave41035E Durant Ave1039 E Durant Ave111039E Durant Ave104 Northway Dr104Northway Dr104 W Cooper Ave2104W Cooper Ave105 E Hopkins Ave105E Hopkins Ave105 Exhibition Ln105Exhibition Ln105 Thunderbowl Ln4105Thunderbowl Ln105 W Hyman Ave105W Hyman Ave107 Aspen Mountain Rd2107Aspen Mountain Rd107 Aspen Mountain Rd9107Aspen Mountain Rd107 Park Ave107Park Ave107 S Seventh St107S Seventh St1087 Cemetery Ln1087Cemetery Ln1097 Cemetery LnB1097Cemetery Ln1098 Cemetery Ln1098Cemetery Ln1098 Waters Ave1098Waters Ave110 E Bleeker St110E Bleeker St95 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW80APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW110 Meadows Rd111110Meadows Rd1109 Waters Ave1109Waters Ave111 Neale Ave111Neale Ave111 Park Ave111Park Ave111 Stein Way111Stein Way111 W Francis St111W Francis St111 W Hyman Ave111W Hyman Ave1112 Waters Ave1112Waters Ave1115 Waters Ave1115Waters Ave1118 Waters Ave1118Waters Ave1120 Dale Ave1120Dale Ave1145 Black Birch Dr1145Black Birch Dr117 N Monarch St2117N Monarch St117 Westview Dr117Westview Dr118 E Bleeker StLower118E Bleeker St118 E Bleeker StUpper118E Bleeker St118 E Cooper Ave118E Cooper Ave1180 Dale Ave1180Dale Ave119 S Hunter St119S Hunter St1195 E Cooper AveA1195E Cooper Ave1195 E Cooper AveB1195E Cooper Ave120 E Hyman Ave3120E Hyman Ave120 S Spring St120S Spring St1205 Tiehack Rd1205Tiehack Rd1208 E Hopkins Ave1208E Hopkins Ave121 Robinson Rd121Robinson Rd1210 Snowbunny Ln1210Snowbunny Ln1215 Riverside DrA1215Riverside Dr1215 Riverside DrB1215Riverside Dr122 Eastwood Rd122Eastwood Rd122 Northway Dr122Northway Dr122 W Main St122W Main St123 E Hallam St123E Hallam St96 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW81APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW123 E Hyman Ave123 E Hyman Ave123 W Hyman Ave A 123 W Hyman Ave1230 Snowbunny Ln 1230 Snowbunny Ln1232 Mountain View Dr 1232 Mountain View Dr124 E Durant Ave 7 124 E Durant Ave124 E Durant Ave 10 124 E Durant Ave1240 Riverside Dr1240 Riverside Dr1242 Snowbunny Ln B 1242 Snowbunny Ln1245 Riverside Dr1245 Riverside Dr126 Park Ave126 Park Ave127 E Hallam St127 E Hallam St127 Powder Bowl Tr 127 Powder Bowl Tr127 Robinson Rd127 Robinson Rd1271 S Ute Ave1271 S Ute Ave1286 Snowbunny Ln 1286 Snowbunny Ln129 E Hopkins Ave129 E Hopkins Ave1291 Riverside Dr B 1291 Riverside Dr1300 Red Butte Dr1300 Red Butte Dr1305 Red Butte Dr1305 Red Butte Dr131 W Bleeker St131 W Bleeker St1335 Snowbunny Ln 1335 Snowbunny Ln1345 Sierra Vista Dr 1345 Sierra Vista Dr135 W Francis St135 W Francis St135 W Hopkins Ave 135 W Hopkins Ave1350 Mountain View Dr 1350 Mountain View Dr1350 Sierra Vista Dr 1350 Sierra Vista Dr136 Northway Dr The Reliant Group 136 Northway Dr1395 Snowbunny Ln 1395 Snowbunny Ln1412 Sierra Vista Dr 1412 Sierra Vista Dr1417 Crystal Lake Rd 1417 Crystal Lake Rd1423 Silver King Dr1423 Silver King Dr1430 Silver King Dr1430 Silver King Dr 97 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW82APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW1439 Crystal Lake Rd1439Crystal Lake Rd1445 Red Butte Dr1445Red Butte Dr145 Miners Trail Rd145Miners Trail Rd1450 Silver King Dr1450Silver King Dr1465 Red Butte1465Red Butte1470 Sierra Vista Dr1470Sierra Vista Dr1490 S Ute Ave1490S Ute Ave1495 Homestake Dr21495Homestake Dr15 Westview Dr15Westview Dr150 E Durant Ave150E Durant Ave150 N Eighth St150N Eighth St1530 Silver King Dr1530Silver King Dr155 Exhibition Ln155Exhibition Ln1564 Silver King Dr1564Silver King Dr1635 Silver King Dr1635Silver King Dr164 Eastwood Rd164Eastwood Rd171 Cascade Ln171Cascade Ln173 Skimming Ln173Skimming Ln18 Roaring Fork Dr18Roaring Fork Dr200 Prospector Rd200200Prospector Rd200 W Hopkins Ave200W Hopkins Ave201 Silverlode Dr201Silverlode Dr204 E Durant Ave204E Durant Ave205 Roaring Fork Dr205Roaring Fork Dr205 S Galena St11205S Galena St205 S Galena St12205S Galena St205 W Hopkins Ave205W Hopkins Ave205 W Main St205W Main St207 N Second St207N Second St211 W Hopkins Ave211W Hopkins Ave212 S Cleveland StUpper Unit212S Cleveland St214 E Hopkins Ave214E Hopkins Ave215 Midland Ave215Midland Ave98 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW83APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW215 W Hallam St215 W Hallam St217 E Bleeker St217 E Bleeker St217 S Third St217 S Third St217 Silverlode Dr217 Silverlode Dr219 N Monarch St219 N Monarch St220 W Main St 210 220 W Main St222 W Hopkins Ave 3 222 W Hopkins Ave222 W Hopkins Ave 4 222 W Hopkins Ave23 Smuggler Grove Rd 23 Smuggler Grove Rd233 W Bleeker St233 W Bleeker St234 E Hopkins Ave234 E Hopkins Ave234 Vine St 234 234 Vine St234 W Hallam St234 W Hallam St235 Exhibition Ln235 Exhibition Ln237 Gilbert St237 Gilbert St237 W Hopkins Ave 237 W Hopkins Ave267 Roaring Fork Dr 267 Roaring Fork Dr269 Park Ave269 Park Ave276 Coach Rd276 Coach Rd28 Maroon Dr28 Maroon Dr30 S Willow Ct30 S Willow Ct300 Lake Ave300 Lake Ave302 N Second St302 N Second St303 1/2 E Main St303 1/2 E Main St307 W Francis St307 W Francis St308 E Hopkins Ave 201 308 E Hopkins Ave310 N Sixth St310 N Sixth St311 S Aspen St 2 311 S Aspen St311 S Aspen St 5 311 S Aspen St311 S Aspen St 6 311 S Aspen St311 S First St A 311 S First St233 W Bleeker St D 233 W Bleeker St 99 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW84APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW312 W Hyman AveB105312W Hyman Ave314 E Hyman Ave102314E Hyman Ave314 E Hyman Ave200314E Hyman Ave314 E Hyman Ave300314E Hyman Ave315 Park Ave315315Park Ave316 S West End St316S West End St32 Prospector Rd32Prospector Rd320 N Seventh St2320N Seventh St320 W Main StA320W Main St322 Coach Rd322Coach Rd322 E Bleeker St322E Bleeker St322 Park Ave1322Park Ave322 Park Ave2322Park Ave324 E Bleeker St324E Bleeker St326 Oak Ln326Oak Ln326 W Hopkins AveA326W Hopkins Ave330 W Bleeker St330W Bleeker St332 W Main StC332W Main St333 Vine St333333Vine St333 Vine St333333Vine St333 W Main St1A333W Main St337 Silverlode Dr337Silverlode Dr340 Eastwood Rd340Eastwood Rd342 Summit StB342Summit St345 Park Ave2345Park Ave350 E Summit StC350E Summit St350 E Summit StC350E Summit St353 Pfister Dr353Pfister Dr355 Pfister Dr355Pfister Dr36 Roaring Fork Dr36Roaring Fork Dr387 Silverlode Dr387Silverlode Dr100 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW85APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW388 Exhibition Ln388 Exhibition Ln395 Silverlode Dr395 Silverlode Dr400 E Main St 101 400 E Main St400 W Hopkins Ave 2 400 W Hopkins Ave401 W Bleeker St401 W Bleeker St401 W Bleeker St401 W Bleeker St401 W Francis St401 W Francis St406 Aspen St 101 406 Aspen St406 E Hopkins Ave Penthouse 406 E Hopkins Ave407 N Third St407 N Third St407 Park Ave C 407 Park Ave407 S Aspen St 104 407 S Aspen St409 S Aspen St 105 409 S Aspen St410 S West End St 101 410 S West End St411 Pearl Ct411 Pearl Ct411 W Francis St411 W Francis St415 S Aspen St 202 415 S Aspen St415 S Aspen St415 S Aspen St415 W North St415 W North St419 E Hyman Ave Penthouse 419 E Hyman Ave419 S Aspen St 102 419 S Aspen St420 W Francis St420 W Francis St420 W North St420 W North St421 Aabc G 421 Aabc421 S Aspen St 101 421 S Aspen St421 S West End St421 S West End St424 Park Cir TH-3 424 Park Cir424 Park Cir TH-5 424 Park Cir425 Park Cir B4 425 Park Cir426 E Hyman Ave426 E Hyman Ave426 E Main St426 E Main St427 Silverlode Dr427 Silverlode Dr 101 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW86APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW428 E Hyman AveA428E Hyman Ave43 Smuggler St43Smuggler St437 W Smuggler St437W Smuggler St437 W Smuggler St437W Smuggler St447 E Cooper Ave447E Cooper Ave449 Mountain Laurel Dr2449Mountain Laurel Dr450 S Riverside AveB450S Riverside Ave501 W Hopkins Ave501W Hopkins Ave503 W Main StB101503W Main St505 Park CirB505Park Cir505 Park CirB505Park Cir508 E Cooper Ave201508E Cooper Ave509 Race StB509Race St509 W Hopkins Ave509W Hopkins Ave509 W Main St509W Main St51 Thunderbowl Ln1251Thunderbowl Ln511 Walnut StO511Walnut St513 W Bleeker St513W Bleeker St513 W Main StE201513W Main St515 Park Cir515Park Cir520 E Cooper Ave305520E Cooper Ave520 W Main St23520W Main St521 N Seventh StA521N Seventh St525 S Original StGlory Hole C525S Original St525 S Original StGlory Hole D525S Original St530 W Hallam St530W Hallam St532 Walnut St100532Walnut St532 Walnut StB532Walnut St537 Race St537Race St546 Walnut St546Walnut St55 Overlook Dr55Overlook Dr550 Lazy Chair Ranch Rd550Lazy Chair Ranch Rd102 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW87APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW566 Race StB566Race St570 S Riverside Ave570S Riverside Ave570 Spruce St570Spruce St575 Sneaky Ln575Sneaky Ln58 Exhibition Ln58Exhibition Ln60 Northway Dr60Northway Dr601 S Monarch St1601S Monarch St601 S Monarch St2601S Monarch St601 S West End St1601S West End St601 S West End St6601S West End St601 S West End St8601S West End St601 S West End St5601S West End St601 W North St601W North St602 E Hyman Ave201602E Hyman Ave603 S Garmisch603S Garmisch603 S Garmisch603S Garmisch604 N Eighth St604N Eighth St605 E Main St301605E Main St611 S Monarch St2611S Monarch St611 S Monarch St5611S Monarch St612 W Main St612W Main St615 W Smuggler St615W Smuggler St616 S Galena St616S Galena St616 W Main St616W Main St616.5 W Main St6165 W Main St620 E Hyman Ave1620E Hyman Ave623 S MonarchA623S Monarch623 S MonarchC623S Monarch624 W Francis St624W Francis St625 E Main St201 Penthouse C625E Main St625 S West End St15625S West End St103 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW88APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW626 W Francis StA626W Francis St626 W Francis St626W Francis St627 E Hopkins Ave627E Hopkins Ave627 S Original St627S Original St630 E Hyman Ave301630E Hyman Ave631 S Galena St11631S Galena St631 S Galena St13631S Galena St633 W Francis St633W Francis St635 Sneaky Ln635Sneaky Ln64 Prospector Rd64Prospector Rd651 Pfister Dr651Pfister Dr655 Gibson Ave655Gibson Ave660 S Galena St660S Galena St670 Moore Dr670Moore Dr675 Meadows Rd675Meadows Rd701 S MonarchCaribou Club #4701S Monarch702 E Hyman Ave702E Hyman Ave702 W Main St702W Main St704 E Cooper Ave3704E Cooper Ave704 E Hyman Ave704E Hyman Ave704 S Galena St704S Galena St705 W Main St705W Main St706 E Cooper Ave4706E Cooper Ave708 E Cooper Ave708E Cooper Ave708 E Hyman Ave708E Hyman Ave708 W Bleeker St708W Bleeker St709 E Main St303709E Main St710 N Third St710N Third St711 W Bleeker St711W Bleeker St711 W Bleeker St711W Bleeker St712 S Galena StA712S Galena St715 E Hopkins Ave2715E Hopkins Ave104 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW89APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW715 W North StCenter715W North St716 W Francis St716W Francis St717 Aspen StB717Aspen St717 W Francis StA717W Francis St720 W Bleeker St720W Bleeker St725 Cemetery LnUnits 721, 723, 725, 727725Cemetery Ln727 E Hopkins AveA727E Hopkins Ave728 E Hopkins Ave728728E Hopkins Ave730 Bay St730Bay St731 Cemetery Ln731Cemetery Ln731 S Mill St1A731S Mill St731 S Mill St1B731S Mill St731 S Mill St2A731S Mill St733 W Francis St1733W Francis St735 E Bleeker StCreektree 735735E Bleeker St735 E Francis St735E Francis St736 W Smuggler StB736W Smuggler St745 Castle Creek Dr745Castle Creek Dr75 Overlook Dr75Overlook Dr76 Exhibition Ln76Exhibition Ln77 Westview Dr77Westview Dr790 W Hallam St3790W Hallam St793 Cemetery Ln1793Cemetery Ln800 Roaring Fork Rd800Roaring Fork Rd800 S Monarch St1800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St5800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St9800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St13800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St14800S Monarch St800 S Monarch St#4800S Monarch St800 W Smuggler St800W Smuggler St801 E Hopkins Ave2801E Hopkins Ave105 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW90APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW802 E Cooper Ave2802E Cooper Ave802 E Cooper Ave3802E Cooper Ave809 S Aspen St3809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St11809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St15809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St16809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St18809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St19809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#1809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#2809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#20809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#5809S Aspen St809 S Aspen St#7809S Aspen St81 Thunderbowl Ln1681Thunderbowl Ln810 E Cooper Ave810E Cooper Ave812 E Cooper Ave812E Cooper Ave814 E Cooper Ave814814E Cooper Ave814 W Bleeker StAspen Villas C3814W Bleeker St814 W Bleeker StAspen Villas C4814W Bleeker St814 W Bleeker StAspen Villas E6814W Bleeker St815 Bonita Dr815Bonita Dr815 Roaring Fork Rd815Roaring Fork Rd816 E Cooper Ave816E Cooper Ave816 E Hyman Ave816E Hyman Ave817 W North St817W North St818 E Hyman Ave818E Hyman Ave819 E Hyman Ave2819E Hyman Ave82 Westview Dr82Westview Dr820 E Cooper Ave820E Cooper Ave820 E Hyman AveA820E Hyman Ave825 Cemetery Ln1825Cemetery Ln825 E Hopkins Ave1N825E Hopkins Ave825 E Hopkins Ave2S825E Hopkins Ave106 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW91APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW825 S Ute AveA825S Ute Ave83 Exhibition Ln83Exhibition Ln83 Ute Pl83Ute Pl835 E Cooper Ave4835E Cooper Ave855 Roaring Fork Rd855Roaring Fork Rd857 Bonita Dr857Bonita Dr865 Roaring Fork Rd865Roaring Fork Rd900 Waters Ave900Waters Ave901 E Durant AveB901E Durant Ave901 S Ute Ave901S Ute Ave901 W Francis St901W Francis St907 Waters Ave907Waters Ave909 Vine St909Vine St91 Meadows Trustee Rd9191Meadows Trustee Rd910 Gibson AveB910Gibson Ave910 W Hallam St8910W Hallam St911 Waters Ave911Waters Ave914 Waters Ave1914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave4914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave5914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave19914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave20914Waters Ave914 Waters Ave21914Waters Ave916 E Hopkins Ave104916E Hopkins Ave916 E Hopkins Ave201916E Hopkins Ave918 S Mill StA918S Mill St924 W Hallam St924W Hallam St925 E Durant Ave2925E Durant Ave926 E Cooper Ave1926E Cooper Ave926 E Durant Ave3926E Durant Ave926 Waters Ave101926Waters Ave926 Waters Ave102926Waters Ave926 Waters Ave202926Waters Ave107 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW92APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW926 Waters Ave201926Waters Ave927 E Durant Ave3927E Durant Ave928 W Hallam St928W Hallam St929 E Durant Ave4929E Durant Ave930 W Francis St930W Francis St930 W Hallam St930W Hallam St934 S Mill St934S Mill St935 E Hopkins Ave2935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave6935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave9935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave10935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave11935E Hopkins Ave935 E Hopkins Ave12935E Hopkins Ave938 S Mill St938S Mill St940 Matchless Dr940Matchless Dr941 E Hyman Ave941E Hyman Ave945 E Cooper Ave945E Cooper Ave950 Cemetery Ln1950Cemetery Ln950 Cemetery Ln2950Cemetery Ln950 Matchless DrA950Matchless Dr979 Queen St979Queen St981 King St981King St99 Northway Dr99Northway Dr990 Gibson Ave990Gibson Ave991 Moore Dr991Moore Dr108 APPENDIX F: STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEW93APPENDIX F STR DATA POINTS OVERVIEWVIII. CAST SURVEY - LODGING & STR TAXES109 OUTREACH SUMMARY MAY 5, 2022PREPARED BY DESIGN WORKSHOP AND CITY EXPLAINED INC.110 OUTREACH SUMMARY: PROJECT PLANNING AND SCHEDULEIn early January 2022, less than one month after the moratorium was declared, the City of Aspen began its planning process for the Aspen Moratorium Residential Building Project. The Residential Building Project was in response to Aspen City Council recently pausing residential development to explore solutions that will improve the Land Use Code regulations and respond to changes in the pace and scale of free-market development in Aspen. The project launched with an exercise aimed at defining engagement goals and objectives, in addition to understanding the various anticipated stakeholders involved and how best to communicate with them. This process culminated in a detailed Public Engagement Plan - utilizing values and ethics from the International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) - which defines the development context, promise to the public and how feedback would be put into action.Development Context: Aspen City Council instituted moratoria, Ordinance No. 27, Series 2021, Ordinance No. 6, Series 2022, and then Ordinance No. 8, Series 2022 (passed on May 3, 2022 and extends moratorium until August 8, 2022) on residential building to allow for a period to evaluate current and future residential community development in Aspen. The This pause allows the community space to think critically about how to address key challenges related to stressors on Aspen’s built environment, including:• Pace and scale of residential development.• Affordable housing development and mitigation.• Development procedures within the Land-Use Code including demolition.• Construction and environmental impacts of development.• Development impacts on utlities and waste.PROMISE TO THE PUBLIC:The project team identified the need to work with the Aspen community in a bespoken engagement initiative focused on targeted conversations that determine community concerns and ideas for policy change thresholds. The engagement approach focuses on:• Informingthe community-at-large (public) of the project by providing balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the “problem”, what alternatives may be appropriate, and what opportunities and/or solutions there might be to address change to current City policy. • Consulting with internal and external stakeholders to obtain feedback on current process successes and barriers, data analysis, policy alternatives, and involve them throughout the process to ensure their concerns and aspirations are consistently understood and considered. • Involving technical stakeholders on specific discrete policy questions that can further the data analysis and proposed code changes. PUTTING FEEDBACK INTO ACTION:The project team identified the need to work diligently to summarize engagement initiatives and findings in real-time to provide for a continuous information loop in and out of the policy development process in order to:• Set clear expectations with stakeholders and the community on engagement activities and how their feedback will be considered or incorporated in the policy development process. • Provide status updates through Aspen Community Voice and make engagement summaries readily available to the public. PROJECT PLANNINGJAN2022ENGAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENTFEB2022STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWSDATA ANALYSIS + CASE STUDIESINITIAL DATA FINDINGSFOCUS GROUPS AND POP-UPSMAR2022CITY COUNCIL UPDATEDATA ANALYSIS + CASE STUDIESAPR2022APRIL ENGAGEMENTCITY COUNCIL UPDATEDATA FINDINGSINITIAL DRAFT POLICY IDEASENGAGEMENT SUMMARY #1POLICY DRAFTINGENGAGEMENT SUMMARY #2MAY2022P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSIONSPOLICY DRAFTINGDATA FINALIZATION AND POLICY UPDATESJUNE2022ADOPTED ORDINANCES TAKE EFFECTThe chart below illustrates concurrent project planning eff orts and data analyses with arrows indicating where data, information, outreach results and community discussions are informing project components.1PROJECT PHASING AND DATA ANALYSIS FLOW CHARTAUG2022111 Public engagement focused on facilitating dialogue about an aspirational vision for the community. A variety of mechanisms and tools were used to share information including targeted discussions with technical stakeholders, focus groups, and informal popups located throughout the City. The project team created a webpage on Aspen Community Voice that hosts project information, outreach opportunities, key project dates, events, meeting registrations and documents for review.Through a series of online tools on Aspen Community Voice and questions developed for technical stakeholders and community members alike, the project team gathered data points to assist Aspen City Council and staff in furthering project discussions around:• The pace and scale of residential development.• The development of affordable housing.• Development procedures within the LUC.• Demolition and construction trends.OUTREACH SUMMARY: SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITIESMARCH AND APRIL OUTREACH LOCATIONS 2341657891234567891011Aspen Pedestrian Mall - Hyman Avenue (All Neighborhoods)Aspen Pedestrian Mall - Cooper Avenue (All Neighborhoods)Red Mountain Grill (Truscott/Buttermilk/Cemetery Lane)Wheeler Opera House (Central Core)Aspen Ice Garden (West Aspen/Aspen Mountain)Red Brick Center (The West End)Aspen Highlands (Aspen Highlands)Gant Hotel (East of Aspen/East Cooper/East Aspen)Burlingame Community Room (Burlingame)City Hall Pearl Pass Room (All Neighborhoods)Aspen Pedestrian Mall (All Neighborhoods)MARCH AND APRIL FOCUS GROUP EVENTS123456789Aspen Boards Focus GroupTechnical Stakeholder Focus GroupTechnical Stakeholder Focus GroupTechnical Stakeholder Focus Group (Virtual)Community Focus Group (Hybrid)Community Focus Group (Hybrid)Technical Stakeholder Focus GroupTechnical Stakeholder Focus GroupCommunity Focus Group• Environmental and climate trends.• Landfill and waste trends.• Size and scale of homes being built.• Energy impacts from residential development.These discussions, held both in-person and virtually, began with the launch of Aspen Community Voice on February 8, 2022, and continued with Round #1 engagement which consisted of stakeholder interviews throughout February and a six-day intensive engagement initiative from Saturday, March 5 through Thursday, March 10, 2022. Engagement included focus groups and a series of pop-up events at venues and locations in different Aspen neighborhoods. Each event type offered a different style of discussion with the project team:• Pop-Ups (Inform) - Information sharing and values-based discussions based upon community members experiences living and working in Aspen.• Stakeholder Interviews (Consult) - Deep dive into subject matter based upon collective expertise of interviewees to better understand existing conditions and development trends.• Focus Groups (Involve) - Data- and values-driven conversations based upon initial data findings and policy questions pertaining to discussion points outlined above.The results of these conversations informed the project team’s data analyses and development of proposed code changes for discussion in Round #2 of engagement. The second round of engagement began on March 16, 2022 and consisted on in-depth conversations focused on presenting and discussing in-depth policy changes, potential effects of change, and rollout of hanges to the Land Use Code:• Pop-Up (Inform) - Information sharing and values-based discussions based upon community members experiences living and working in Aspen.• Stakeholder Interviews (Consult) - Deep dive into subject matter based upon collective expertise of interviewees to better understand existing conditions and development trends.• Focus Groups (Involve) - Data- and values-driven conversations based upon initial data findings and policy questions pertaining to discussion points outlined above.• Open House (Consult) -Information sharing and values-based conversations based upon community members experiences living and working in Aspen.1-911102112 1TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2022Launch of Aspen Community Voice Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment: Residential Building Project and online engagement activities.T2MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.M3MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on residential development, building permits, demolition, construction, climate, and waste impacts.M4TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on utilities, consumption, residential development, and environmental impacts.5TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.T6TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on impacts of residential development, landfill patterns, and climate goals.T7WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on environmental impacts of residential development, landfill patterns and climate goals.8WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on affordable housing, mitigation, development patterns, environment, and growth management.W9WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on affordable housing costs, existing development patterns, demolition, and impacts of construction.10WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.WTt11WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.14MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.15MONDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.16WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.17WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.18SATURDAY, MARCH 5, 2022Pop-Up event at the Aspen Pedestrian Mall from 1-4:30pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.19SUNDAY, MARCH 6, 2022Pop-Up event at the Aspen Pedestrian Mall from 12-1:30pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.20SUNDAY, MARCH 6, 2022Pop-Up event at the Red Mountain Grill from 3-6pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.t21MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2022Aspen Board Member Focus Group on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.t, 22MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2022Technical Stakeholder Focus Group on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.W12132324TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022Technical Stakeholder Focus Group on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.25TUESDAY, MARCH 8, 2022Pop-Up event at the Aspen Ice Gardenfrom 4-6pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.26WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2022Technical Stakeholder Focus Group on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.27WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2022Pop-Up event at the Red Brick from 11am-1pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.28WEDNESDAY, MARCH 9, 2022Community Focus Group on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.29THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2022Community Focus Group on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2022Pop-Up event at the Highlands Ale House from 1-3pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2022Pop-Up event at the Gant Hotel from 5-8pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2022Pop-Up event at the Wheeler Opera House from 3-5:30pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIESpTTPH30WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2022Pop-Up event at the Burlingame Commons from 6-7:30pm highlighting project data and seeking feedback from community members.fTTP531mP32W33TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.3435TTT36FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.FFT38WEDNESDAY, MARCH 30, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.WTp39TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.TTTTT41TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.pTTTTT42THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.TTTTT43MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development.MT44FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.MONDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.FRIDAY, MARCH 18, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.37THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.40FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2022Technical stakeholder interview on the pace and scale of residential development, affordable housing, and development procedures.45WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2022Technical stakeholder focus group on initial policy direction for affordable housing, dimensional requirements, demolition, and mitigation.3The activities listed below illustrate the engagement activities that included technical stakeholder interviews, focus groups and pop-up events between February 8 and May 2, 2022. In total, there were approximately 330+ participants across Aspen Community Voice (47), stakeholder interviews (31), focus groups (29), and Pop-Ups (204).46MONDAY, APRIL 25, 2022Launch of Aspen Community Voice Questionnaire on proposed policy directions.47WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2022Community Open House at City Hall Pearl Pass Room from 4-6pm requesting feedback on proposed policy directions.48SATURDAY, APRIL 30, 2022Pop-Up event at the Aspen Pedestrian Mall from 11am-1pm requesting feedback on proposed policy directions.113 The City of Aspen is doing a deep dive inLand Use Code to better understand how existingse Conderststandards and regulations contribute to the vitoo 91eayou about how to shape potential policy chanthe pace and scale of development, affordable housingproduction, and development review procedures forsneeeeggpvisit AspenCommunityVoice.com.City Hall427 Rio Grande PlaceAspenCO81611SHARE YOUR VSOUTREACH SUMMARY: COMMUNICATIONS AND PARTICIPATIONIn order to meet the goals outlined by the project team, it was important to employ a variety of tools to ‘get the word out’ about the project and go to locations that were geographically spread out around Aspen. The project team utilized several channels to create project awareness, which included: Aspen Community Voice (www.aspencommunityvoice.com), Aspen Daily News advertisements, Aspen Times advertisements, Twitter (@cityofaspen), Facebook posts and advertisements, Instagram, newsletters (ACRA, Colorado Conversations, and Community Development Updates), targeted event mailers for specific neighborhoods, and project posters put up at various locations between Basalt and Aspen. This coordinated communications and outreach initiative was intended to maximize information shared with the community and clearly identify opportunities for community members to engage with the project team both in-person and virtually. Below are some of the key numbers and figures of the communications effort and community participation. The CCCCCCCCCiiiiiitttttyyyyyyy oof AAAsssssppppppppppeeeeeeennn is Land UseCCCCoodddetobeAspen,CEETTTTTTTTTTTTCCittyyofAAETTT42 DAYSContinuously running digital ads in Aspen Times and Aspen Daily Newsddddevelopppppppmmmmentttteeeeeeeerrmiiissssssditional opportunitttttiiieetteeFor mmmooooooorrrrrrreeeeeee iiiiinnnnnfffffoooooorrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmaaaaatttiion aprodurebteeinddppp-ttnifodurebmss e352Targeted Event Mailers for theAspen Highlands Pop-Upode to begggguuuulatio eeeeeeeennnvppeeeeeeeaanttttteeeeeeeeeeeeeerr111 aaaaashhaaaaaaarrrrree youu aaaaaaabbbbbboout how tttttooooooooo sssshhapthepaceeaaaannnnddddddddsssscccaalleofdeLand Ustandouaaaaaaaabboout Coeggggddd eepnshhowUsandoee595‘Aware’ Visitors to the Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment + project pagedoiinnnnggggggggg aaaa deeeppppppp dddddddddiiiiiiivvve inetter unddderrssttanddhow e. SSSSSSSSSSSSSSetTO 81611CgaaTdee. 611380K+Digital ad impressions between Aspen Times and Aspen Daily Newsootttthhe vihhhbbbbbbborr the Arts, on Marrccccccccccchhhhhhhhppprrrect updates andddd hhhhhhepe ppppppoooooootttential poliiccccyyyyyyyyy ccchaevelopmmmeeeeennnnnntttttttt,, aaaaaaaffffffffffffffffffoooorrddable hrpeons cirovrr pprrooottentroottharandal polis cir15011x17 Posters placed in venues between Basalt and Aspenppprrocedullleeeeee resttwwwwwwwwiinmmmmmmmmeee to follow regardiinnnnnnngggboutt tttttthhhhhhhhheeeeeeee eeeeeennnnnggggggggaaaaaaagggggggggeeeeeeemmment peeaopmennt monmhheewpppllleeetwwmdment mm1,344Targeted Event Mailers for the Gant HotelPop-Up1.3KVisits to the Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment + Residential Building page processsssss,, ures foidee s fodee838Targeted Event Mailers for the Red BrickPop-Up46Events including interviews, surveys, focus groups, an Open House, and Pop-Upsnto tttthhhhhhhheeeeeeee existingARE YOUR VVVVVVVVVVVVVhhheR14Newsletter updates to technical stakeholders and Aspen community members 99arr fffngesss tttttttooooo housingexisting tality 99 ffftttoong ity 579Targeted Event Mailers for the Red Mountain GrillPop-Up4330+Interviews, surveys, focus groups, and Open House and Pop-Up eventparticipants65+Hours of conversation between the project team and participantsCHllCOMMUNICATIONSENGAGEMENT EVENTSASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE31Technical Stakeholder Interviews hosted during Rounds #1 and #2 484Dot-votes on policy direction questions during Round #2 of engagement9 Technical Stakeholder and Community Focus Groups500+Open ended comments received across all engagement events11Pop-Up and Open House events between February 8 and May 2, 202222Potential policy changes discussed and vetted with technical stakeholders97Responses to online activities - Ideas, Stories, and Surveys970‘Aware’ Visitors to the Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment + project page655Total participant visits to the project page261‘Informed’ Visitors to the Shaping Aspen’s Built Environment + project page53 Unique contributors to online activities - Ideas, Stories, and Surveys28Participants downloaded Key Documents from the project page815Project page visits were in response to ACV newsletters22Surveys completed supplementing Open House and Focus Group Qs114 AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATIONTHERE ARE EASIER ALTERNATIVES TO BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING4THE CURRENT CREDIT SYSTEM IS ALMOST DEPLETED OF CREDITS TO PURCHASE5THE CITY SHOULD EXPLORE ESTABLISHING A TARGET GOAL FOR UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING 6Most participants acknowledged that the current code allows for several options to provide mitigation for affordable housing and that some have less barriers than others. Some participants suggested that the current affordable housing credit system, while very effective, has started to run out of credits and there may be new tools to re-invigorate the program including the city taking a more active roll in the program. Some ideas include the city taking a more active roll in the program by creating credits through city projects and/or looking into a dedicated staff position that could ease barriers in the application and permitting process and develop public-private partnerships. Participants suggested that the city work to identify a benchmark for the creation of housing units, which can be used to measure existing and long-term needs.OUTREACH SUMMARY: ROUND #1 KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKGeneral outreach trends included the use of virtual and hybrid meetings to allow participants to have equitable and safe access to events and discussions with the project team in response to COVID-19 restrictions. A particular focus was given to having in-depth conversations and allowing for deep-dives into the subject matter in order to attain high-quality qualitative data to support ongoing data analyses and case study work being conducted. Of particular note was the duration of time that attendees spent at events, with the majority of Pop-Up events having a significant number of participants in attendance for longer than one hour. Many participants were grateful to have the opportunity to meet with the project team ‘where they were’ and appreciated the events being spread out across town. Below is a summary of high-level findings from discussions (Aspen Community Voice, Interviews, Focus Groups and Pop-Ups) on affordable housing development, affordable housing mitigation, demolition, construction and environmental impacts, size of homes, utilities and waste. Key ﬁ ndings do not represent consensus but rather indicate either a majority response or important discovery through conversations with technical stakeholders and community members. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTTHEMEKEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.THE LARGEST BARRIER TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS COST1NEED TO MAKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THE MORE ATTRACTIVE OPTION FOR MITIGATION - TIME AND CERTAINTY ARE THE BEST INCENTIVES2INTEREST IN EXPANDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ALLOWANCES TO MORE ZONE DISTRICTS3A majority of respondents believe that affordable housing is appropriate everywhere, with many participants stating that it should be compatible with surrounding neighborhood character.Many participants noted that even if affordable housing is allowed in all zone districts, it does not diminish the need to address cost as the biggest barrier to development. Participants were interested in the City exploring additional tools (both incentives and requirements) to reduce barriers to the development of affordable housing. Participants gave recommendations on potential incentives that could be utilized to promote the development of affordable housing, such as priority permitting, superseding zoning requirements, and by-right approval as potential options to help reduce current barriers to the development of affordable housing by the private sector.When asked where they thought affordable housing was appropriate, 65% of participants felt that affordable housing was appropriate everywhere in Aspen in all zone districts. Some participants felt that affordable housing was appropriate in specific areas of town and indicated areas such as Maroon Creek, Burlingame, the West End, and the East End of Aspen as areas that may be most appropriate.65%WHERE DO YOU THINK AFFORDABLE HOUSING SHOULD GO?More than half of participants felt that all residential projects should mitigate for their impacts on the community with a smaller group of participants indicating that they would be open to full-time residences being exempt from having to provide mitigation for redevelopment. 57%MITIGATION5115 When asked about construction impacts and trade-offs, 68% of participants expressed that they would be willing to give up space in the right-of-way, including parking spaces, in the short-term in order to implement better environmental practices to reduce immediate stress on the landfill and on the community in general.OUTREACH SUMMARY: ROUND #1 KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKCONSTRUCTION AND THE ENVIRONMENTRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION HAS INCREASED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS10DECONSTRUCTION SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS RECYCLED AND REDUCES PRESSURE ON THE LANDFILL11THE CITY SHOULD EXPLORE INCENTIVIZING OR REQUIRING DECONSTRUCTION FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PROJECTS12Many participants were in agreement that construction in Aspen has had impacts on the local environment - including impacts to the longevity of the Pitkin County Landfill and increased truck traffic in and out of Aspen during active site work. Many participants noted programs and tools currently being used by construction companies in the Valley, and the County, that are significantly increasing the amount of materials being recycled from deconstruction and suggested the city adjust current demolition requirements to be more sustainable. Some participants expressed an interest in managing construction volumes and impacts to locals’ quality of life. DEMOLITIONTHEMEKEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.789In Aspen, if more than 40% of an existing structure is razed, disassembled, or torn down it is considered demolished. The Land Use Code provides calculation methods for demolition, which is applied cumulatively across the lifespan of a structure. While many participants felt that the calculation generally works, they also expressed that at times the rigidity of the calculations can be problematic and cause unintended complexities. Specifically, this is seen when home owners attempt to heavily remodel or renovate instead of fully demolish a structure. Participants felt that the different requirements across City departments also can add a layer of unintended complexity where projects can meet one department’s requirement for demolition but be above the threshold for another. Participants were highly supportive of incentivizing deconstruction and provided detailed comments on some of the new ideas and programs in the Valley that have been really effective at recycling materials. When asked about the appropriateness of deconstruction versus demolition, 72% of participants felt that projects should be encouraged to perform deconstruction over current demolition methods. Deconstruction is when a home is taken down piece by piece in order to promote the recycling or reuse of building materials. Demolition allows for a building to be razed without requiring any materials to be recycled.72%DECONSTRUCTION VERSUS DEMOLITION68%TRADE-OFFS FOR LESS CONSTRUCTIONINCENTIVIZE DECONSTRUCTION OVER DEMOLITIONCURRENT CODE THRESHOLDS FOR DEMOLITION SHOULD BE EXPLORED TO ENSURE BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES AND CITY GOALSTHE DEMOLITION CALCULATION METHODOLOGY MAY BE CREATING UNINTENDED OUTCOMES SIZE OF HOMES1314Participants had mixed feelings surrounding residential development trends. A large number of participants felt that that scale of homes was inappropriate and that newer homes were larger, but another group of participants felt that the size of homes was appropriate and that size trends have not changed. However, many participants agreed that newly constructed homes have changed in their complexity and require additional maintenance that can necessitate additional employees, caretakers, and vehicle trips in and out of Aspen. When asked about the size of new homes in Aspen, 26% of participants felt that the scale of residential projects in Aspen is appropriate. The majority, 46%, felt that the scale is inappropriate, with the remaining participants stating that the conversation may be more nuanced.26%HOMES ARE BECOMING INCREASINGLY MORE COMPLEX AND HAVE A HIGHER VALUATIONCONVERSATION AROUND APPROPRIATE SIZE OF HOMES IS NUANCEDSIZE OF HOMES6116 WASTEPITKIN COUNTY’S LANDFILL IS NEARING CAPACITY17THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN DEMOLITION WASTE GOING TO THE LANDFILL - THE MAJORITY OF WHICH IS FROM RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS18Participants noted that there are opportunities for the City to adopt and/or expand on Pitkin County waste and recycling regulations, which were adopted in 2019, and have suggested exploring additional staff positions to help monitor recycling, deconstruction, and demolition of residential developments in order to create more structure and monitoring of building material waste. Current data indicates that construction and demolition activities are contributing more that half of the waste that ends up in the landfill each year which is an increase from the 2016 Pitkin County Landfillanalysis of construction and demolition debris which indicated that 35% of the materials could have been recycled or reused.Additionally, participants felt that there may be opportunities to incentivize deconstruction over demolition and implement additional sorting facilities at the landfill. Participants highlighted the local market for recycled materials, noting that concrete, rock, dirt, steel and other materials are seeing reasonably strong demand within the Roaring Fork Valley. OUTREACH SUMMARY: ROUND #1 KEY FINDINGS AND PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKUTILITIESTHEMEKEY FINDINGS PARTICIPANT FEEDBACKNO.UTILITIES ARE LIMITED RESOURCES THAT WILL EXPERIENCE INCREASED DEMAND OVER TIME15DELIVERY OF FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS WILL NEED TO BE BETTER COORDINATED WITH LAND USE POLICIES16There is a cohesive understanding amongst participants that the due to the constraints of Aspen’s environmental and legal regulations, Aspen residents must be cautious of their utility use. Water and electricity are both limited resources. Resource scarcity, both locally and nationally, is a concern and there may be a point where the cost of utilities exceeds what the average home can afford. To be proactive, participants suggested that the City think of sustainable alternatives, and work across departments, to ensure complementary policies are put in place. Participants noted that the complexity of new homes and their associated electric usage has already started to put stress on the existing electric grid with examples of individual homes having transformers on-site. Participants also brought up ideas for this such as hardening the electricity grid and adapting infrastructure delivery to support future demands of development.7117 OUTREACH SUMMARY: ROUND #2 PARTICIPANT SENTIMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICIESDuring Round #2 of engagement, the project team honed in on specific policy statements to share with technical stakeholders, community stakeholders, and the general public in order to assess community sentiment on different ideas and solutions that emerged from Round #1 of community engagement, the project data analyses, and conversations with subject matter experts. The policies listed below showcase the overarching policy areas, topics, proposed policies, and a heat map of community sentiment that uses GREEN for “Support”, YELLOW for “Support with conditions” and RED for “Do not support”. These results are cumulative responses from the April 13-15 2022 Focus Groups, the April 27 Open House, the April 30 Pop-Up Event at the Aspen Pedestrian Mall, and the Residential Building Questionnaire from Aspen Community Voice and include the opinions of technical stakeholders AND community members illustrating the spectrum of sentiment across professionals in development and design, residents, community organizations, Aspen Board members, and local employees. More detail on the individual events can be found in the Appendices following. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTPOLICYTOPIC AREA PROPOSED POLICIESNO.LOCATIONAHOUSING MITIGATIONBFREE MARKET UNITS IN MIXED-USE ZONEC1. Allow multi-family affordable housing to be developed in all residential zone districts. Density allowances would be increased, but existing floor area and other dimensional limitations would remain in place.8COMMUNITY RESPONSE (%)2. Create an administrative review path for affordable housing projects.3. Eliminate non-conformity limitations for non-conforming lots of record for projects that are 100% affordable housing.1. Update employee generation rates to reflect impacts of construction and long-term operation of residential 2. Update mitigation calculations to be based on “liveable area” rather than “floor area.”3. Eliminate the credit for existing square footage that did not previously provide affordable housing mitigation.4. Update the deferral agreement for local residents.5. Consider and evaluate a depreciation factor for affordable housing mitigation for residents. Mitigation requirements would be deferred for local residents while living in their home, and the required mitigation due would depreciate over time.1. Allow existing free-market residential units to be updated and redeveloped in the Mixed-Use Zone District (MU), but prohibit the establishment of new free market units or existing uses being converted into free market units.5334691267 33131877 12 114126 333122 4783 9 94331 254456118 OUTREACH SUMMARY: ROUND #2 PARTICIPANT SENTIMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICIES9DEMOLITIONPOLICYTOPIC AREA PROPOSED POLICIESNO.PROPOSED ALLOTMENTSACALCULATIONSBTRACKINGC1. Implement a growth management allotment system for demolition projects. The allotments would be part of the 19 allotments currently available for free-market units.COMMUNITY RESPONSE (%)2. Use performance criteria to evaluate applications for demolition allotments.3. Creation of a framework of performance standards and expectations for demolition projects that can be adjusted over time to respond to new trends and community desires related to projects that have significant construction and other impacts1. Bring clarity to the definition and calculation of Demolition.2. Incorporate exemptions or adjusted applicability statements for certain projects to be exempt from the provisions of demolition (ex; unsafe structures, water damage, acts of god, etc.)3. Continue to evaluate Demolition threshold and calculation measurements.1. Implement a tracking system for cumulative demolition that “resets” after five (5) to ten (10) years of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO).272449413128148691 7 2 1187 2445650 31 19119 OUTREACH SUMMARY: ROUND #2 PARTICIPANT SENTIMENTS ON PROPOSED POLICIES10DIMENSIONAL AMENDMENTSPOLICYTOPIC AREA PROPOSED POLICIESNO.SETBACKSAHEIGHTBFLOOR AREAC1. Allow encroachments into setbacks for certain energy improvements, fire protection, etc.COMMUNITY RESPONSE (%)2. Allow increased encroachments into setbacks for subgrade mechanical structures.1. Allow exterior energy improvements to a building roof to exceed building height.2. Allow mechanical equipment height increases that accommodate efficient equipment.3. Increase allowances for the development of solar panels (height or setbacks) or create an administrative review path.1. Bring consistency and clarity to the terms, dimensions and calculations in measuring the internal, horizontal areas of a buildingOccupancy (CO).49 31 2056 29 1544 33 2354 25 2156 31 1321880120 APPENDICES LISTINGAPP A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPP B ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUP SUMMARYAPP C ROUND #1 ACV AND ENGAGEMENT EVENTSAPP D ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUP SUMMARYAPP E ROUND #2 APRIL OPEN HOUSE AND POP-UP SUMMARYAPP F ROUND #2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY11017212629121 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY1APPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYThe team interviewed City departments and technical stakeholders in design and development industries in Aspen. This document contains the combined comments from those meetings. Comments below are organized by major topic areas for discussion, the questions asked, and participant responses. Responses were noted by project team staff and edited for legibility, tone, and tenor. I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION A. Do you feel the full-time employee (FTE) levels established in the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) chapter are reﬂ ective of the real impact of housing on employment?• New employees include maintenance, upkeep, remodels, landscapers, and property managers. • These levels are not reﬂ ective. • No one necessarily complains about the fees. - Fees are too low given how much labor is required for property upkeep. • Most tasks within new large and complex homes may require help.• I can understand the conversation related to full-time employees, gross number calculation, and mitigation. The credits being discussed and the diff erence in what is happening is a drastic diff erence in what the City was discussing. There are no credits available, but unless the City accepts cash-in-lieu, or the City sends own then there is no way to develop.B. Do you have ideas related to what fee-in-lieu rates should include? For instance, should it cover the cost to build a new aff ordable housing unit, the cost to buy-down an existing unit, etc.? • Buying down units is a diffi cult task. Not certain where else in the community buydowns can actually be achieved. • Aspen will need to look at the impacts of constructing additional units. That has impacts of its own. • Not entirely convinced that the massive construction of units is appropriate.C. The City is exploring opportunities to change aff ordable housing mitigation requirements for residential development. A major change would require that sub-grade spaces (basements) would be counted toward mitigation requirements and the credit for existing ﬂ oor area would be eliminated in scenarios where demolition occurs. In your opinion, does this seem an appropriate response in mitigating the impacts of residential development?• It is rational, though it has an impact on people who might be wanting to do modest additions or changes. Not sure it is appropriate. • Seen excessive basement development, but that is now regulated by double basement limitation.• Residential housing is being developed at a size and scale that makes it more commercial as STR vs. being truly residential. • The City should explore as many strategies as possible to keep the community character of neighborhoods.• Some aspect of the market is ready to accept anything that is thrown at them. But need to keep being mindful of individuals and families that want to make an addition to their house but are unable to because of fee and mitigation requirements. • Cost of utility delivery in Aspen is more expensive than throughout the Valley as are a host of other well-intentioned requirements and exactions. • There is an element of mitigation that is current to the type of housing that is being built today. There is a lot of room in the proﬁ t of market rate development still. • Room to increase mitigation to bring it up to a nexus based impact on the impact of housing. There has to be demand for credits for that to be a compelling tool to get housing to be developed. • It is important to consider that higher mitigation rates may drive prices up even more.• The City and developers are really out of options for growth with the exception of redeveloping older multi-family housing. Clearing house for credits could help to support pipeline of development. It would be great to have higher production of credits than demand.• How would clients react? Could be both – cost of business and not move forward. If you include so much more FAR mitigation and increase the amount per square foot, the cost of aff ordable housing mitigation could easily get to $750- $1M for properties. That will get some people in challenging the validity of the assertion. Most of the time clients are not pushing back. They are willing to accommodate it because they don’t want to lose time with a ﬁ ght. Not sure where there is a break over point. aff ordable housing mitigation is very expensive, and it will only make the cost of property higher.• Will be a cost of the market and properties will sell for higher.• Those who can aff ord to live here is rapidly changing.II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT A. Are there particular neighborhoods or zone districts that you think should allow more density to enable aff ordable housing development?• Personally, I don’t see the clientele that want to build a house in Aspen wanting to have employee housing on their property. Some may, but likely not the majority. Incentives probably don’t matter, when there are other areas can be developed.B. Follow up: What incentives do you think would help? • Examine the ability to construct employee housing down valley where costs are lower.• Raise the fee-in-lieu, but caution from “punishing” those who develop here. C. Follow up: Is there a way to make people want to develop aff ordable housing?• The City should hire a representative or developer who is just looking out for the interest of the city to ﬁ gure out how to build housing in the most eff ective way possible. This would save money. Hire a good general contractor or development advisor to build employee units.D. Do you feel the Aff ordable Housing Credits system has positively impacted aff ordable housing development? Why or why not?• Yes, absolutely it’s positive. It has produced aff ordable housing in a beneﬁ cial way. Projects are generally good ones designed to a high standard.• Not everyone will work with the program. Working with credits requires a level of understanding with the program that not all clients have. • Don’t agree that people are using them as a commodity. It’s not like the County Transfer Development Rights program. • Can the City sell credits from the Lumberyard? There is not a negative right now – the City needs to pump credits into the economy now. It’s not really creating competition.122 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY2APPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYE. Follow up: Is there a legislative policy that should stop holding of credits? • Does not know that people are sitting on them and holding them. That may be own perception with speculative commodity. People are deﬁ nitely sitting on transfer of development rights, aff ordable housing credits shouldn’t be sold like those are.• Seems like full time employees are now a barrier because there is a lack of them. • Credit system and the number required makes it so that no one can develop aff ordable housing.• Does not see it beneﬁ ting because there are no credits available. • Going all the way to city council is not the highest and best use for approval.F. Follow up: Is there an opportunity for the city to develop a project themselves and sell credits or create them and adding ﬁ nancial value?• This would prolong the process of developing aff ordable housing. • It is working to add another layer instead of identifying the issue.G. Follow up: How would you/clients feel if aff ordable housing in all zones were incentivized and in-creased?• Success in how it is mixed into neighborhoods, so the city is not creating one neighborhood with one type of housing. • City should reach out to lots with aff ordable housing opportunities and develop a public/private type partnership. • Could this be housed under Asset Management? • Everything is well intentioned, but the load of work is creating more policy and time which drives cost and development.• Ran into an issue on a project where they needed a credit, but that was not made clear in the preliminary review process. Learned about it when they came to pay fees, but there were no credits in the market. Have become stuck behind that process.• Something needs to be done better so it doesn’t happen in the future. The process doesn’t allow for what happens when there are no full time employees – need a clearer relief valve.H. What changes to the credit market could positively incentivize the development of aff ordable hous-ing?• There is an element of mitigation that is not current with the type of housing, how it’s being built, what its being built for, etc. • An important consideration is how to avoid hurting the developers that aren’t looking to just make top dollar but are trying to develop high quality projects.• Full time employee credits program was potentially successful, and not sure about the economics.I. What challenges does developing housing within Aspen present (i.e., labor, materials, etc.)? • Super high cost of developing. These costs are rapidly escalating. Overcoming these costs is an ongoing challenge.• The City also plays a role in these increasing costs through new codes that are developed.• Diffi culties with labor markets related to subcontractors and trades.• The housing must be reliable and produce good quality. • Project contractors do not want to get involved in bonded work. • Contracts cannot always negotiate the most favorable terms related to material cost increases. J. What are your thoughts on public-private partnerships?• Public projects that are done via the public private partnership offl oads the work to private developers (public realm projects done by private).• They are very similar, but more structured in their ﬁ nances. • Heavy lifting which leads to legal and administrative costs that go into agreements.• We see that out-of-town contractors do not understand the diffi culties here in Aspen as compared to other mountain towns. K. There is the possibility that the City can develop aff ordable housing projects internally and source credits and guarantee the value of credits. What is your take on the possibility?• We often hear folks say that the market should provide aff ordable housing as needed and the city should lessen their intervention.• Aspen can be an investor in the credits. • City can do so at a fee in lieu to “ﬁ x the bottom of the market” for credits.• Private developer can buy from or sell to the city. • City would not compete, but off er a minimum price for credits.• Eliminated competitor and provided minimum guarantee on money for credits.• Developers will do the work for us, we just pay a fee.L. Are there particular neighborhoods or zone districts that you think should allow more density to enable aff ordable housing development?• Every single zone district in Aspen should allow a certain amount of 100% aff ordable housing development by right. • When a private developer buys a property, they can’t buy it if it is aff ordable housing. It should be allowed in every zone district so that I don’t have to buy a property with the risk of not being able to rezone.• Citywide districts – duplex neighborhood. Tends to be more periphery. Prefer an overlay be blanketed rather than picking on one neighborhood.• Residential multi family and mixed use. • Changing zoning by zone district that still encourages and allows aff ordable housing by right in City. • May also need to look at downtown district. M. What impacts do you see that are not currently being addressed by the code?• Current mitigation is inadequate. Cash-in-lieu does not cover costs.123 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY3• Too many exemptions – created so many ways that people can get off the hook and under mitigate and not just a gut instinct to back in up. • Existing tools for mitigation plus carrots – ﬁ nding every possible way to give people incentives. • Established low threshold for mitigation for lodges as if they don’t have employees. • Things are built into the system that they are not capturing as much as they should.• Seeing signiﬁ cantly larger homes being built. • Mitigation doesn’t capture operations and construction of it. Mitigation addresses additional employees that are generated by activity. Nothing in code that addresses current deﬁ cit of aff ordable housing. Doesn’t capture construction, employees, old houses didn’t capture mitigation. Looking at from full life cycling of building is what. • Aff ordable housing certiﬁ cate program is broken down. City makes new entitlement process overly diffi cult. N. How can the city better incentivize the creation of aff ordable housing?• Way for the City to seed the free market aff ordable housing credits. Seed marketing. • Entitlements – have aff ordable housing zoning supersede underlying zoning. • Nothing wrong with credits programs. Folks would be crazy to pursue it. Need to make it attractive option by reducing hearing processes. • Banks don’t recognize credits as having any value. City could back credit to allow them to have guarantee sale price.Some type of assurance of having value to credits. If they can improve when they release credits at diff erent times rather just at Certiﬁ cate of occupancy. City has resources available to back and guarantee credit program. Able to reduce cost of entry and address uncertainty in ﬁ nancial component. O. How many new aff ordable housing projects do you see each year? Is your department able to provide expedited review to those projects? If expedited review was required, what would not get done or take longer in order to prioritize aff ordable housing development? How can the building department alter processes to lower the cost to develop aff ordable housing?• Spending the time sometimes helps – depends on the architect’s understanding of multi family construction requirements.• Continuity of the approved plans in the ﬁ eld – there are always changes in the ﬁ eld.• Aff ordable projects step in front of the others. Not mentioning any turnaround times for free-market right now.• Having a local architect helped with the process• Issues are typically response to comments from applicant. • Getting reviews done is easy – the issue is having things that can be approvable.• Not many aff ordable housing projects, so not a lot of impact. With the public private partnership project, there was a 3 month period that people had to wait.• Fee schedule do not charge for 100% aff ordable housing projects. (Includes Zoning as well).• Code requirements could be diff erent. • Be more aggressive on energy code / green code. Could be made easier on aff ordable housing projects.• Incentives for allowed height and ﬂ oor area ration would be good incentives.• Would like to be more robust during review process. Would like to see better review process before they even submit. They approve process at conceptual nature. Require more in entitlement process and review process for expedited aff ordable housing projects. • Not a lot and they are in line with everyone else in the review process. • They want breaks from fees when it comes from all permits so this has been a discussion that hasn’t really taken off so this may be a good time to look at this. • There is a lot of grey area between public private partnership (fees, no fees, rushed, etc).III. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (BUILDING)A. Do you have any suggestions about how to simplify and improve the eff ectiveness of the measurement of demolition? Is there a building code metric that could be considered?• Do we want to capture more development as requiring mitigation? • Do the calculation each time. Understand it is a cumulative measurement, but not sure it is being tracked.• It is very diffi cult to complete. The measurements have changed overtime – it is very intricate. No one besides the architect and city reviewer understand. • Really hard to document – that is true for other things as well, but especially for demolition.• Potential to use the ICR.• Usually in favor of zoning deﬁ nition aligning with IRC. Even the gross FAR calculation is not the same as the IRC.• This is a good parameter to work with – 40% is less stuff leaving. • Can be diffi cult from a cost perspective – changing 2 windows required to create thresholds at a certain amount of work, demo calculations need to be submitted. • At this point demolition is understood well enough to work with it.• In demolition projects, there is a lot of reuse that occurs. One company takes regular construction debris and grind it down. That can reduce the volume to 50% of its original size. That equates to fewer trucks on the road and less volume in the landﬁ ll. They try to recycle as much as they can (metals, copper, etc). They then pulverize the concrete and take it to Denver or Grand Junction. • Don’t stop demolition but do it better.• If the city stays with any part of what the code section says, then it’s tough to say. The trickiest thing is measuring roof demolition related to the context of removing structure below that holds the roof up. It is complicated. It would be helpful regardless of what is used to determine demo, to make clearer. It’s too open to interpretation from project to project. • Talks of net zero – if existing structures are renovated and not demolished, there need to be provisions to allow for more insulation and changes to the envelope – rooﬁ ng is not as easy as adding layers to the roof. This will impact the ability to support snow loads, which can lead to need to demolish the roof.• If all departments calculated demo the same, it would be a huge step for community and staff . Engineering department thresholds leave grey area. This moratorium should allow us to trigger stormwater, etc compliance. Engineering currently is calculated as 50% interior remodel – all the drywall can be gutted, but they don’t trigger the engineering review. • Depending on what permit is leading, it would be good to trigger water line reviews because many of 124 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY4them are old and need to be removed. Ex: Meter pit isn’t allowed but they didn’t trigger engineering so they couldn’t tell developers to remove it. • Clean up grey areas where it can be argued both ways. • People have the ability to knock down perfectly good houses. • Controls on age and quality of construction being considered in demolition may have a big impact.• We are way too forgiving in letting people knock down perfectly good development. • Want to disincentivize demolition.• Deconstruction – plenty of examples out there but cannot do it with current staff . Need to establish a place to sell and display the materials. What is not demolished it moved to habitat.• Pitkin County is leading the charge on putting a deposit down and you get back if you separate waste. But people are only paying the deposit. Tight city lots need multiple dumpsters to separate products, but there isn’t always the space for that. • Previously didn’t have the space to comply with the effi cient building program. • Would be better to leave the buildings in place. • Internation Residential Code information from alternation level 3 – more than 50% of structure (doesn’t matter about the exterior versus fenestration). Also triggers the URMP and drainage for the property.• Would like to have a single deﬁ nition that could match building, engineering, and zoning.• It is cumbersome to with the calculations and the issues in the ﬁ eld.• Considering requiring continuous insulation on project, but that gets crossed with the land use code deﬁ nition of demolition. However, it’s needed if we want to make these older buildings more effi cient.• Zoning does want to come up with a single demolition standard, which will be helpful• 40% was way too generous. Architects could do an entirely new house with 40%. But would do through the calculations in order to maintain non-conformities.• Potential to push people toward scrape and replace because there is no advantage to not triggering demo. The only thing left is keeping non-conformities.• Having a common calculation path from departments is important. Thinking will rely on 50% trigger for energy effi ciency upgrades. Want to disincentivize people from doing demo. If don’t align, then try to simplify. It’s really tough when you get to 39% - are there exemptions that can be built in?• From a construction waste perspective, measuring ﬂ oor area ratio versus holes in the wall would be more meaningful. Include interior stuff .• Majority of homes at the 39% demo are 99% interior remodel. It isn’t meeting the spirit of the calculation. It doesn’t seem like it’s meeting the intent.B. Follow Up: How would you limit demolition?• Whatever is done with demo – language to alleviate historic resources. Don’t want historic projects to get hung up in that. Trigger for demo is moving structure not picking it up off foundation.• Three components of wall assembly: 1. Interior, 2. Sheathing, 3. Exterior• Instead of demolition measure, have retention measure.• Focusing on goal on that you don’t want people to dispose of materials. • People are always pushing for some type of exception – mold rot, something else, why didn’t you demolish the moldy part and retain the sound park.• Make the requirements for demo more stringent.• We have listened to the community and are hearing 80% of people in the community are positive on certiﬁ cation. • Certiﬁ cation drives accountability across city departments.• When city council says that they want a net-zero certiﬁ cation, departments and partners are signing up to participate in this certiﬁ cation. It is accepted that they are signing up for the same requirements and goals. C. How many single family and duplex residences do you estimate are extensively remodeled or redeveloped each year? How about multi-family units?• Taking anything down to the studs is considered extensive.• See MF one by one, don’t often have 1-2 per complex per year. Gant and Alps do a few units a year. Will not see the full package. Some exterior renovations over the last few years.• COs and Letters of Completion – 3-5 week pretty steady. Not a dramatic increase. D. City Council has raised concerns about the negative impacts of the mass and scale of new construction on community/neighborhood character, and the climate and waste impacts of developing large homes. Do you agree that mass and scale of homes contributes to these problems? If you do agree, what would be the most eff ective solutions to implement in response? • Yes, agree with this, mass and scale is an issue. It can be most seen in the changes to the West End and Shadow Mountain areas. In the past, we avoided a general downzoning of ﬂ oor area in favor of design standards. Now, I’m thinking that the RDS program needs to be augmented by downzoning. Reducing the historic preservation bonus based on lot size has helped. • We have worked to make the houses a little more street friendly but haven’t controlled mass and scale.• Demolition can impact what is going on with the landﬁ ll.• A number of people work with want to do deconstruction. A lot of people will have Habitat come in and take the items of value. • Excavation – that dirt is often not going to the landﬁ ll; it’s going to other projects. • City of Aspen used to have an effi cient building code during the recession. Programs that could be used to encourage green building to off set impacts.• Homeowners are pushing to do green building practices. Most have solar, etc. to address Renewable Energy Mitigation Program fees. • Not seeing negative impacts. • Houses today are being made much more effi cient; all equipment is being made with energy effi cient device.E. Follow up: Demolition vs Deconstruction?• The problem is there is not a market for a lot of the materials. • Creating a market goes beyond regionalism. • Material markets are nowhere near here.F. Follow up: Impacts of deconstruction vs demolition?125 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY5• Took materials down and gave it all to Habitat for Humanity and it did not take a lot more time, but Habitat won’t take items that have limited resale value. • Pitkin County drop and swaps are worthwhile.IV. GMQS AND DEVELOPMENT A. What challenges does developing housing within Aspen present (i.e., labor, materials, etc.)• Costs for labor and materials are, of course, increasing and labor is currently in short supply. Biggest issue is ﬁ nding land for aff ordable housing development, which drove the Lumberyard purchase. Problem there is that the site is outside of the Roundabout and the perception is that it is too big a project.• There needs to be an incentive for someone to develop it. It has been credits – there are not enough on the market now, which is a problem. In order for it to be feasible, it needs to cover the costs for development, plus a decent return. The credit program created that, so we need to maintain that. • With any development, there are a lot of questions and variables. It’s not a straightforward path to move through approvals and permitting even on the simplest side. With go to a board, call-up, etc. The process in unclear. Creates challenges where there is no guaranteed path and return.• Aff ordable housing project on hold because of the moratorium because it was mitigation for a free market project.• Cost of land, construction materials, and labor. • Limited developable land. • Business community needs to house their employees better, not all on COA/Pitkin County • The city should be asking people to build housing.• Past policy decisions have make developing on-site apartments more diffi cult. • Makes for vibrant neighborhoods. • May off set short term rental homes.B. Follow up: How would you/clients feel about making ADU’s mandatory?• County already requires it so making it a similar regulation would work. • Knee jerk that constantly happens focuses on 10% that will break the rules rather than the 90% that will follow them. • If the city is trying to build housing, let’s build housing and make the process less cumbersome.• Within the current programs there are not a lot of tools in the toolbox. • “Tried and true tool” are the credits, but this is not of interest to a broad spectrum of developers. • The value of credits are not based on any speciﬁ c metric, making it diffi cult for people outside aspen or outside the development community to understand. • Tax credits are good but not an easy process in Aspen. • Aff ordable housing zone district is not viable given land costs. Properties that are viable from a zoning or basic unit perspective have a signiﬁ cant barrier to entry because of the land cost.• Overall cost and location are challenges. • There are not a lot of places that people want to see employee housing. People do not seem to want aff ordable housing near them. Have seen that people would rather pay a higher cost to incentivize housing in other areas of the city. People want some privacy when they are here, and don’t necessarily want to see employee housing. • The cost will be substantial to get employee housing that is desirable. It seems that what is being developed is not meeting the speciﬁ c needs from a unit size or location perspective.C. How can the city better incentivize the creation of aff ordable housing?• Public private partnerships should be explored in ways beyond just the aff ordable housing credit program.• Unsure that the city really needs, or can aff ord to generate the number of aff ordable housing units that the regional housing study indicated need to be generated in the upper valley, it may be better to rely on employee growth management. • Any other residential project can be done by right. Creating a more administrative process would be helpful.• Pitkin County has a good loan program, is that something the city or employers may be able to replicate? Use of city collected funds designated for aff ordable housing. Instead of the City being in the development business, put the dollars to work with a program like the County uses for it’s employees for all APCHA qualiﬁ ed parties, so they can buy existing housing and convert it into aff ordable housing.• If they don’t want to mandate it, make it more attractive than cash-in-lieu. • Increase cash-in-lieu so much that it makes more sense to develop. D. Follow up: Would density allowances be helpful for aff ordable housing?• Yes, deﬁ nitely – we can’t build aff ordable housing because of parking requirements so loosening zoning requirements to allow for housing would be very helpful. • Unintended consequences – if there can be an easy conversation with engineering to understand how to master plan every block.• How to deal with transformers, etc. to master plan utilities for next 30-50 years; what will we look like and where will infrastructure go? Where are utilities needed? • Not about money anymore, all about time. • Incentivize what the city wants.E. Follow up: What timing are you seeing on projects?• We’ve gotten interior permits for the city that do not call for engineering reviews within 6 weeks. • Thresholds/levels that can easily go through reviews should be explored.• City has money and the county has land. Is there a way for the two to collaborate to build housing? F. What types of development costs are you seeing in the market today? • Used to quote a high-level ﬁ nish for $500/sf. This has doubled to about $1,000/sf• Aspen is squeezing out the middle. The affl uent developer and home buyer can navigate the cost increased but the city is unable to accommodate the middle class very well.• Cost of construction have doubled – could be COVID. Things are just going up. That’s not really city driven.• Start off telling them there are permit fees of 15% of construction cost, not including fees. Often times 126 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY6the City is making substantial revenues off projects. • Costs are extremely high – parks fees, water tap fees, parks, street fees, etc.• Some fees are waived for aff ordable housing, but they are still a barrier to entry. • Cost of permitting itself is high. • Comparison of somewhat relatable communities (Park City, Telluride, Jackson hole). • Fees in Aspen for standard size house were categorized as outside.• For multi-family housing: $900,000 – $1,000,000 per unit.• Anywhere from $1,000 to $10,000 per sf and they will continue to increase - It was $6,000 10 years ago, but now it is $10,000/sf based on material and labor. • Materials and lead time are extremely diffi cult here. Scheduling issues have caused delays. • Construction is signiﬁ cantly more costly across the board.• 5 years ago, it would be between $700 - $900 a foot. At this point was $1300 minimum (a year ago) and that’s likely gone up. • Cost for 500 sq ft to a home in cemetery lane. Mechanical proposals north of $50K, and before were about $16K. G. Follow up: Can permit fees act as a barrier to regular development? • Yes, you’re competing for same resources as billionaires and now Aspen is competing with mid-valley projects too. Aspen is based farther away so if they can get similar prices, they will take that rather than spending time in the car to get to Aspen.H. Follow up: What is the average rule of thumb per market?• Ever since the big winter storm in Texas, material costs spun out of control.• Rule of thumb no longer is reliable.• 100% increases on steel and no stabilization in lumber market.I. Do you view residential development / redevelopment on existing lots as growth? Or is this aspect of Aspen’s development context – something else? Do you agree that this type of development has impacts that should be appropriately mitigated? • It is growth in the sense that it may not mean there are more housing units, but it tends to introduce many more workers into the community. As houses expand they require a larger workforce. And there are construction impacts, including increased noise, traffi c and landﬁ ll use.• Aspen always looked at growth in terms of units, but the growth may need to have another metric.• For impacts to be mitigated, landﬁ ll impacts need to be addressed. Some projects try, but it needs to be addressed more closely. Increased construction traffi c has been very diffi cult to mitigate, cannot easily be redirected to public transportation.• Don’t see it as growth. There is not a lot left that is vacant land that can be developed. Even pushing into the county. A number of properties are not maintained – they are being sold for the and value. It’s rejuvenation, not growth. • If it’s being redeveloped, there’s a desire to get the entire family there – wants to be able to have kids and grandkids able to stay. That is driving the bedroom count. Goal 95% of the time.• It does have impacts – if you are doubling the size, pay the fees to do that. Free market development needs to pay to play. Will not go the other direction. • Single family to duplex is growth or if the lots are not speciﬁ cally used and they change the use, that is growth - Most growth that I have seen is City of Aspen driven – Burlingame and Castle Creek.• Most growth has been related to aff ordable housing projects.• Sees it as evolution; Growth is scary – growth automatically triggers people to think “bigger and bigger”. • This is deﬁ nitely growth, but existing structures are being redeveloped. There is growth in the structures getting bigger. There are really few undeveloped properties that have not been developed on. There are probably less than 50 vacant lots in the city.• Not growth. It is customizing a building to suit the new owners or replacing construction that was not done with great quality and care when it was built. With the cost of properties, clients do not necessarily want to keep them.• Some clients are moving to preserve homes and could be done more with more incentives. If the city wants to maintain the homes in their current form, then incentives would be more helpful than prohibiting things. • A component of an addition that is included in these types of projects, so potentially some incentives V. ENVIRONMENT:A. What environmental impacts, if any, do you see with the type and scale of residential development that has occurred in the last ﬁ ve years in Aspen? How does this compare with older development?• Habitat is widely used for existing furnishings. • Had some clients do deconstruction but can’t recall the last time that occurred. County now has their waste program, but it is not really an issue for clients – it becomes a contractor issue to manage with things.• Landﬁ ll is not well equipped to handle recycling of things. Maybe not as eff ective. • Not sure that environmental requirements would be a disincentive. Deconstruction takes a lot longer than just demolishing, so will add time to the construction activity in the area. Will take more trips into town so will increase traffi c. Materials need a place to go and need people capable of doing that work – it is a specialty contractor need. Not sure the market can ﬁ ll that niche.• From environmental health perspective, the impact on the waste stream has been extraordinary. The landﬁ ll is bigger and more frequent. We are seeing a tear down from the existing house and waste from consistent remodels.• A home that used to be occupied 2-3 weeks of the year is now occupied 20 weeks and this has signiﬁ cant air and traffi c impacts.• Energy use and transportation impacts from higher occupancy and people required to service the home. • Larger homes that are more effi cient but larger and have way more items in them then they used to . The residential energy use is the largest piece of greenhouse gas inventory. • Residential development is 95% of the waste coming in. • Construction demo is up 17% tonnage from last year (record year) and up 3% from 2019.• People need to be building with the future in mind when the building comes down to be more recyclable. 127 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY7• Programs like in unincorporated Pitkin County for requirements for things that are typically and easily recyclable should be enforced. • Some items are coming back around with relationship with Environmental Health. Code adoption process for environmental health and building will work on how they can be incorporated.• In the middle of an adoption of building codes. Will be focused on energy and sustainability sides of construction. All on the table in this adoption cycle.• Timeline – waiting on direction for timing. Trying to determine where can line up. Are there places where there are more stringent energy requirements that need to be in the land use code.• Is a opportunity for the codes to work together to get to where need. Some of the current land use code regulations regs make the items people want to do on energy more diffi cult.• Looking at more insulation and dealing with height and ﬂ oor area ratio.• Eastwood subdivision – series of lots platted in Pitkin County then annexed to city. No way to tell them no as long as they meet current code. In situations like that, the city should pursue purchasing properties and taking them off the books. Hillside is going to be forever scarred. Exempt from 80-40 greenline. • These are just not homes, they are built for some other purpose. Amenities or features departure from what is a home. • Notice the amount of traffi c that results from redevelopment or maintenance. Normal homes are gutted and replaced with excess and size and energy consumption. Number of people required to maintain that type of property goes up exponentially. Construction jumps exponentially. B. Have you seen an increase in runoff and negative eff ects of that? Have green best management practices kept up with this?• The codes are quite good so in theory, the city tracks the amount of sediment that they catch in their basins. • Tradeoff between redevelopment/construction and environmental impacts.• Community tradeoff s are negative, though overall the remarkable impact on landﬁ ll space and time makes a tradeoff worthy. We need to build up a full circle economy on things like waste streams. We can recycle steel, but many of the other things being constructed do not have a viable end user. • Finding a place where this stuff goes to not end up in ours or else where’s landﬁ ll. C. How are partnerships for end users created?• Pitkin landﬁ ll has a drop and swap but it is diffi cult to get information about this place out.• Garﬁ eld and mesa county do not have a cost-eff ective market to come and deconstruct.• There is no requirement or incentive for these connections.• Recycling component is great for things that can be easily processed in a local market. • There’s no space on site for a project to try and collect diff erent materials. • This has been a long-term narrative. Is this a true barrier? • Folks know how to deconstruct and know that there is money in it, but there is not enough space for workers such as parking. • Multi-tiered issue; cost of encroachment licenses. VI. UTILITIES A. Are there any current or anticipated limitations to the city’s ability to provide utility services to customers? • Electric and water are both ﬁ nite resources, our use should always be taken into account with any sort of development. To be speciﬁ c, local water is very ﬁ nite as we are in a desert-alpine environment. There are also constraints of western water law. We just completed an integrated resource analysis which looks at resources over next 50 years and aligns it with the UGB. With current resources, reuse, etc we can meet the demands over the next 50 years – this has a lot of caveats such as community development. On electric side, we are grid connected. We are 100% renewable supplied utility which creates interesting challenges for what we bring onto our grid. What lines can carry these resources? What can be created locally? Resource scarcity is going to become an issue and we are a very small ﬁ sh in a very big pond. There may be some point where the cost of renewable electricity exceeds what an average market consumer can bear. In terms of infrastructure, we believe it is the right size and scope to handle the change to EV and we are incrementally making changes to harden the grid. We are well positioned to adapt to changes in the market place. • UGB match – say 70% of use on an annual basis is outdoor, 30% is indoor. This indoor is not aff ected by density.B. How has residential electrical consumption in the last 10 years? What development activities lead to in-creased usage? Scrape and replace? Occupancy type? House size? Construction type/design? Others?• Its been very constant with maybe a slight increase through electric vehicles or electric heating, but were on that breaking point where we will see an increase in a signiﬁ cant way. C. Are there any future infrastructure projects planned that will increase the capacity of Aspen city utilities? • Establishing a maximum tap size for a particular land size/use and allowing them to back into what their building will look like is something we would be interested in. When we get territorial on people outside of our service boundaries we can get pretty tight because we are legally obligated to provide services. This potential would be inside city limits only.D. Are there signiﬁ cant stormwater impacts with diff ering residential types?• Every parcel has to detain and inﬁ ltrate run off . Residential has more ﬂ exibility to work with. The big diff erence is the ability to use greenspace for stormwater treatment. E. Follow up: Are there engineering remedies to help with runoff ?• Best management practices (BMP) – rain gardens, green roofs, etc. Built infrastructure to try and mimic the natural infrastructure that the ecology relies on.• Every parcel has to accommodate stormwater – ﬁ rst ¼ inch of a storm has to be inﬁ ltrated because it will carry all of the sediments and highest pollutions. Beyond this, the water in theory is cleaner. It is all volume based on how much impervious area the parcel has. F. How many additional taps do you see each year? Is there a limit on the number of taps that can be pro-vided?• We do not have an explicit limit of taps. We can, by ordinance, limit any new taps. Generally since we are built out, most of the tap requests are re-tapping and existing taps. We probably do about 40 of these a year. 90% of the 40 is residential.128 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY8G. How has residential water consumption in the last 10 years? What development activities lead to increased usage? Scrape and replace? Occupancy type? House size? Construction type/design? Others?• Water use has gone up, but varies year to year. Trend wise, we are using more water as a community, but it takes one summer to get back to what we used to have. • New models must follow a water budget. It is a use of high and moderate use plants off set by low and very low. We have seen very good compliance with this ordinance. Generally, aspens aesthetic is important to our dynamic, so we don’t push hard on the xeriscaping. H. Is fee based on consumption?• As you use more water, you bump up into a higher class. General users will be within the 1st and 2nd tier and large users will bump up to the 3rd and 4th to off set environmental impacts. On the electric side, this has unintended consequences. We have created a tier structure particularly for aff ordable housing to make sure that we are not unnecessarily penalizing someone. For taps, we are asking customers to incrementally pay their share. I. Follow up: Would you raise the fee?• We take into account a peak demand charge on our large commercial customers. We want to expand this to residential and small commercial at some point to capture the revenue stream but ultimately have a stream on the back end as well. These rates are trending up. Storage, development of wells will help the demand. A storage surcharge to fund, ﬁ nance, and build the infrastructure.J. Are there any neighborhoods that typically use more water or electricity?• Luxury residential use a large portion of the systems capacity. Even when they are off , the elements can use much of the energy.• Red Mountain uses more because of areas with larger lot sizes and per capita it is Cemetery Lane. During COVID we saw residential use come up as people were home more.K. Would centralized growth assist with utilities and energy use?• There are pros and cons of this. • Water side ½ of customers is outside city limits. • On electric side this concept is relatively sound.• Our transformer footprint and associated square footage will need to be taken into account. Instead of 1-2 for each block, each building may need one. • Setbacks are already helping be proactive about this. • We can also help be proactive by informing property owners of size at the beginning of the process so that it is not a surprise later on.VII. WASTEA. Are there cases where someone would be turned away from the landﬁ ll?• No, we have ﬂ ow control on the books. The county can enforce it if they choose to, but they don’t enforce it because it is not an issue at the moment. • Landﬁ ll is in charge of budget and must make revenue so let people use the landﬁ ll despite room running out. • Conserve landﬁ ll space through programs such as recycling at a lower rate.B. Implications of recycling programs – ﬂ aws, thoughts, possible improvements?• If you’re in unincorporated Pitkin County and require a waste permit for demolition, you must divert 25% of waste or you lose a deposit ($1000/ton).• $10,000 or $35,000 deposit that will be returned if recycling requirements are met.• 15 so far have fully completed program, but 100 or more that are actively going through the program. • 70% recycling rate.• Evergreen Zero Waste is one example of a company that is trying to get creative with the waste issue.C. Is there a potential for staff to go out to development sites and advise? How do you see Aspen lever-age what they already do to increase eff ectiveness?• Workers would love the ability to be more hands on, but do not have the capacity.• Staffi ng focus on this subject would be helpful.• Building inspectors – proper utilization of the recycling program is not a priority. • There is staff to do it, but not enough resources put to the eff orts. D. How do you think that the city can better incentivize recycling for projects where money is no object?• Fee structure tries to incentivize more diversion.• If you bring a load in, we have a $100 load fee. The increase in the load fee per ton does not make a diff erence until it was bumped from $100 to $1000.• Contractors are also tired of loading waste and make it a part of their program.• Convenient to have people use one container and separate it out. • Residual of larger projects are grinded and thus take a lot less space in the landﬁ ll. E. What is the capital funding and restructuring requirements needed to implement sorting? Is there a large barrier?• Money and equipment purchases.• A million and a half on equipment purchases.• On a $60 diff erential fee we brought in 1.2 million dollars.• In 2023, we hope to have basic equipment and have more automated in 2024.F. Is there a market in purchasing recyclable materials?• We see a lot of concrete which we process and sell.• Rock and dirt come in and we crush topsoil into gravel. Land clearing goes into compost. Cardboard gets shipped to Denver. • As we get more recycled products that we try to sell back, something that can be helpful is an incentive 129 APPENDIX A: ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAPPENDIX A ROUND #1 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY9to utilize recycled material in their construction practices. Right now, the economics of the two are comparable.G. What needs to be added to mitigate impacts?• Waste piece: some sort of a threshold where you’re required to mitigate in construction plan or a fee like for rampant energy consumption but for waste. This will help proactively prepare for waste. • People build giant homes and they just need to be build effi ciently which comes down to building code.• Transportation TIA work should potentially be applied to residential. H. Any communities that are exemplary on waste and transportation?• San Francisco – they have great end markets. A lot of the other places are still struggling from a waste perspective .I. Fee associated with waste collection • Privatized service so there is no set number or fee. Economies of scale will balance this. J. Is there any better coordination between things your department is focused on or the building department?• On the waste side for sure, especially when applying for general permits to track for waste. • Just an administrative switch.• Ordinance for existing construction that requires a benchmarking for buildings.• Waste would like benchmarking for all new construction using portfolio manager.• Also has been discussed for commercial buildings over a certain size. • Every other house in the west end is going to need a transformer – how will that work?• Impact of heat pump arrays, etc. A number of things that are a challenge to get to the clean electric grid.VIII. GENERAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTSA. Is there anything else you would like to share?• Is there a conversation of sorting of demolition with the environmental health program? • Presents a large community impact during construction such as parking, encroachment, etc.• Important conversation between building, water and utilities. Taps are getting more and more restrictive. We are tying up a lot of demand for these ﬁ re systems. So much so that some cases where new commercial is potentially larger than main size on the street. • Bringing constraints to the forefront of growth conversations is very important.• We have always seen signiﬁ cant impacts, but never like we have in the last few years. • GMQS is not being used to throttle development enough. • City should consider using their tools more eff ectively. • Growth in mass and scale in our neighborhoods is going to happen but should be more evenly and spread out. • Aff ordable housing is allowed to operate without people looking over our shoulder.• I wish there was a way to manage the money and time spent on growth management quota system and what has it yielded.• Conversation should be about what it has done for the community and beneﬁ ts; what does the city get out of it?• Construction and demolition diversion ordinance will be very successful. • Program for unincorporated accounts for only 10% of projects in the area. Regional collaboration and same rules across the board would be a huge impact. • Related to moratorium, we won’t see the landﬁ ll impacts until the future when the projects would be bringing waste in. • The numbers on how many transactions happen each day on is a speciﬁ c scale.• Truck traffi c, construction activity, etc numbers. Jan-Feb is supposed to be “slow”, but we are not seeing this. • Need to be more aware of we are inﬂ uencing everything people are complaining about. The city is part of the problem. Listening to public commentary not everyone things big houses are a problem or aff ordable housing is needed. • The moratorium can bring insight on what the opportunities are.• Aspen had a history of vacation rentals by owner which allowed the average homeowner an opportunity to further supplement their income. We need to ﬁ nd a way to allow that to continue, while addressing the rise of LLC ownership homes. Allow this for people who live in their homes otherwise, while regulating the STR market. That has had a major impact on the west end.• I am concerned about the mass and scale, as well as the design quality, of the proposed Lumberyard project. Several points on this: Parking 400 cars for 300 units (in rough numbers) is absurd for an aff ordable housing project. Parking and unit count should be at parity for an aff ordable housing project to not become a huge traffi c generator. Plus the visual impacts of parking are very negative.• Use of the open area fronting Deer Hill is an aff ront to everything we have tried to do in protecting open space at the Entrance to Aspen. Use that area for open recreation, not vertical construction.• Possible consider ﬁ ring CTA and Schultz and putting in place a local team that really understands Aspen and will balance housing needs with a sensitivity to our other community concerns.• Some of this is a knee jerk reaction. Most properties are owned by LLCs and trusts. These are people who have it needed for tax structure, not for companies. People need it for privacy or a tax structure. There is a misconception that all LLCs are trying to short term rent. • There should be more foresight and planning rather than reactionary moves. Reactionary drives the cost up and does not beneﬁ t the community.• We need to get speciﬁ c and data driven. • We create the moratorium, but how many buildings/lots can even be developed? • City has to ﬁ gure out where to spend time and resources.• There is a misconception in earthmoving. Irresponsible earth moving is going to landﬁ ll. They have not taken earth to landﬁ ll in ﬁ ve years, but others are. o There should be more regulations that stop people from moving earth to landﬁ ll.130 APPENDIX B: ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX B ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY10The Project Team held six (6) focus groups between the dates of March 7–March 10, 2022. The meetings were held both in person, at Pearl Hall Pass Room at City Hall and virtually, to off er multiple opportunities for community members to participate. In total, 29 members of the public participated in these focus groups which included City of Aspen Aspen Board members (Planning Commission, Historic Preservation, etc), technical stakeholders and members of the public. Common themes developed across each of these focus group meetings. This document contains the combined comments from those meetings. Comments below are organized by major topic areas for discussion, the questions asked, and participant responses. Responses were noted by project team staff and edited for legibility, tone and tenor. I. GENERAL TRENDS • What is the goal of Council and how do they want us to help get there? • Buy-down may be a good idea for ﬁ nding aff ordable housing opportunities. • The City is running out of vacant land. • There are now highly sophisticated buyers. • We need to assess the existing housing stock of aff ordable housing and requirements for who lives there. • We need to update our Aspen Area Community Plan (last updated 2012).A. What issues related to residential construction do you think are important for the city to address? • How they are going to build aff ordable housing?• Point values assessed to aff ordable housing concerns. Point value given to the continuation or time for buy-down conversation. Buy-down had a high score, but those are diffi cult. Default rate of a buy down is high because the aff ordable housing person cannot aff ord the HOA fees / assessments. 80% of the condo homeowners have written language to prohibit buy-downs. Time should not be spent on that issue (Council Housing Strategic Plan).• Buy-down may be a term used for a broader idea of ﬁ nding aff ordable housing opportunities in town.B. When thinking about development in Aspen and our neighborhoods, what has been the biggest change you’ve seen in the last 2 years? (COVID impacts) 5 years? What challenges, if any, have you seen? • Moving to remodels and additions. Running out of vacant land – demolitions and reconstructions are driving things. Getting closer to all the community being occupied. • Everyone is trying to ﬁ x an old remodel and turn it into a newer remodel. People are coming in for the advantages that are available to them through the HPC Guidelines. Advantages are being given to historic properties are opposite of what the community is trying to do in other places. HPC Guidelines provides for a path to a larger home (500 sq ft FAR bonus, setback variances, etc). People buying historic homes understand the rules and have their eyes wide open (savvybuyers), and they really do not need the beneﬁ ts – they are not going above and beyond their responsibility to the community. Off ering a lot for historic properties.• Land use codes are complicated. If you can hire those to navigate the code, you can get most out of code. Budgets are a concern, but not a barrier. Do feel like there are better projects coming through Historic Preservation Commission that are not asking for the beneﬁ ts. People are coming to the board for incentives that an applicant / designer received previously so there is an expectation that the beneﬁ ts wouldbe granted.d.Hear about projects that impact the parks. • Visually, seems like there are a lot of scrape and replace happening. Land use codes are very complicated.• No signiﬁ cant changes in what is coming to Planning and Zoning. People are selling the idea that this is their forever home, which may not be the case. Issues with local owners – looking to make changes, or made changes that were not recorded.• Sellers’ market so sales are happing in 15-30 vs 45-60. • Cash transactions happening over facetime. • Credits are dwindling. • People want personalized properties. People want to know what can we do and how long will it take. Telling people they are a year out for getting an interior remodel. • As COVID decreases, people are going back to metropolitan areas. • People are asking for the same things they always have. • Size of homes are being driven by wanting to have them, not by feasibility of them. • Highly sophisticated buyers. Understand highly complicated things and know how to assemble a team to get the job done. Sometimes they want something simple that is not simple. • There is a dislike of the city and the bureaucracy. • Pace and Scale is increasing.• Most of the people building here have more development opportunities.• It seems like the pace has always been this way. Had an offi ce in town, but construction on all sides, so moved. • Not seen a change in clients. Being careful about the clients take on. If working together, the project has to be an active agreement. Evolution and innovation – is a tool that could be powerful. Net zero house submitted in County, and that could be a model. Lean in on innovation. Look at pre-fab construction as a way to decrease traffi c and landﬁ ll impacts. Aspen is no longer on the forefront of this – we have gotten complacent. Diffi culty of housing a team and doing more with less. Engineering requirements continue to get more intense – have a master plan around that. Transformers are an issue – have to plan around and they seem to be going everywhere. HP work – gone through voluntary process and got a shortened permit time. Time is the biggest commodity. What are things that can be done on a graduated schedule? It would help the city’s load. Be thoughtful in the design – want to change the dialogue about maximizing. • The entitlement and improvement process is more onerous and takes longer than it ever has. The requirements of someone constructing a structure are extremely rigorous and getting even more rigorous as houses get more complex; both land use and permitting process • It is worth acknowledging that we are in a global up period in the cycle of construction development; we have lived through very little development in Aspen. We don’t have control nor should we have control over this. It is not a forever thing and there will be less busy periods. • We’ve recently gone through a permitting process and it is extraordinary in the amount of time it takes and total costs. Aspen is leading edge on standards in terms of climate. That doesn’t feel like the core of the issues. We have to overlay the sheer amount of volume that the city is dealing with. We should develop a policy off of the last 2 years of experience because realestate is very cyclical and we cannot 131 APPENDIX B: ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX B ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY11confer a straight line of what has happened in the last 2 years. A lot of the impacts we are feeling are from the volume and the speed that they happened.• I believe that because of COVID, town has been inundated with second homeowners coming in and wanting to stay. This will likely not remain the same. The process has become extraordinarily time consuming and diffi cult. Clients are frustrated with the professionals trying to get permits. The city should look at, because of this huge inﬂ ux, the commercial also plays a role. The city recently looked at trying to get information from diff erent departments. Can we outsource people who can answer questions and help the process? • As people are developing and complying with increased requirements and doing everything that is asked of them and paying increased fees, it feels like the service is becoming less existent. It doesn’t seem like there is any appreciation in the eff ort that goes into a permitting process from the developers. • New houses are more complex and take longer to build. • In 2010 it got really quiet. We were susceptible to market trends. Growth due to more speculation in the market and COVID; it will not be sustained in the next 20 years. II. PACE AND SCALE • Though some redevelopment provides new employees (maintenance, housekeepers, chefs, etc), there are still locals who do not require them. Those local residents should not be penalized. • Is there an opportunity to have diff erent criteria or requirements for locals? • Need to have development that is feasible for the middle class. • More requirements increase land costs. • Lack of available lots so we must focus on inﬁ ll. • Focus on the long-term issues and goals, not just today’s. • Majority of development is single-family, not multi-family. • It is a seller’s market. • People can use money to propel themselves out of certain situations.• Redevelopment is growth in terms of number of people working it and emissions, but not if it is existing and not signiﬁ cantly expanding. • Though the homes are huge, scale is appropriate for what Aspen is. People are building within the requirements of the zoning code.A. Do you consider the redevelopment / expansion of existing single family and duplex homes as growth and as development that needs to be mitigated in some way?• Diffi cult to make a distinction. The complexity of these buildings means that there is some level of growth. It takes a complex team of people to work on the buildings and service them.There is a complicated code that can get local residents stuck. Creating separate tracks could be more complicated and could be taken advantage of. Instead, maybe look at the total square footage of the house, or the cost of construction. Something that can be more easily applied. • Agree. Designing homes that are empty for a while and then it is rebuilt. When the new owners come, there are new employees that are coming.• Housekeepers, maintenance, chefs, etc. all come in to maintain a house. • Majority of homes have the ideas of bringing in workers, but not all of them. There are many local people who still live here and don’t require these services.You do not want to penalize those people. Not sure there is a way to do both though.• Redevelopment – if you go from a 1,000 sq ft to something bigger, is that growth? There is something in there do deﬁ ne, but do not want to harm local residents.• If you max your lot area – is that considered growth? Yes. Something in there that could help deﬁ ne what exactly growth is. Code makes itdiffi cult for normal residents to navigate code because thecity is trying to protect themselves from 10,000 sf. • Same as the aff ordable housing deferral, is there an opportunity to have diff erent criteria or other permitting requirements for locals. Another function of demand is price – when you sell home the new buyer will have more people working in the property. There seems to be a correlation between the price a home sells for and the amount of people needed to service it.• Creating separate tracks for people creates complicated. Can you take total square footage of house as a way to separate? Cost of project? Something that can separate out locals.• Growth is so many things. It’s the natural progression of places that are beautiful and desirable to live. It is evolution. Everything is so interconnected – as soon as we have more requirements the costs go up. How many undeveloped lots are left? (not many). Everything is redeveloping as inﬁ ll. • In the 70s it looked like growth because there were empty parcels. It doesn’t feel like growth now – there is inventory that is dated and old. If we prioritize upgrading infrastructure, then we should be in support of the old structures being updated from an energy perspective. Knee jerk reaction of change – can make people worried. Intrinsic value of property exists. Should not stop or prevent. • Most of the development is in residential areas. The growth in the last moratorium was downtown, and that was clamped down in that process. That has pushed pressure out into single family neighborhoods. Commercial redevelopment has higher mitigation requirements than residential. Community tried to ﬁ x a perceived problem of inﬁ ll, and that has pushed development out. There is not a lot of multifamily happening. Each ﬁ x creates another set of problems. • Need to deﬁ ne growth. Replacing a single family home is redevelopment, it is not growth. Unless single family homes are being converted to multi-family that is growth. It is replacement.• Question has been answered by city council. Yes and no. Largely change that is associated with redevelopment. • Mass and scale: Technology has changed. People want less log and stone and more modern. Mass and scale is largely the same. • Setbacks, FAR, etc. have not changed. Energy codes have changed.• Building department has been paced for year. What else can you pace? • This pace is happening around the world. This is more of an evolution, and we need to understand how to guide that without making it so stringent that the costs are driven up. Want to keep a balanced community with diff erent economic groups, so be careful on the code remedies. City should be building the projects instead of focusing so much on exploring and considering the options. The city needs to understand macroeconomics to see the broader forces in the world. The process is opening the door to buyers like Picassa because they can stomach it. Costs have just exponentially gone up. • The sales prices can absorb it. The regulatory environment pushes the costs up. It’s a developer or a second or third homeowner. Not sure that is new. Observing building in Aspen, there are not a lot of locals. Are we trying to stop a tidal wave that started in 1995? How diff erent is this development from previous times and the future land use map. Aspen has incredible pressures on it and the pandemic pushed it even more. How do you survive the kind of build out. All the properties that are being updated. We lost the middle class 20 years ago. • The Growth Management System (GMQS) is based on units. But we haven’t been adding new units. What is happening is seeing residential redevelopment and expansion. For some segment of 132 APPENDIX B: ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX B ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY12the population there is no tipping point for the exactions, but the middle class is being priced out. Makes timeshare units more appealing to a developer – they can handle this. A pacing system for building permits is a possibility. If there is a way to restrict ownership to real people versus corporate ownership.. • If you have an existing development and redevelop it, no. • No, there is math that we can use (net ﬂ oor area ratio change). By deﬁ nition, the only growth is the single family increase that occurs. • Seems like obvious growth to me in terms of materials brought up, people coming in, all of the resources. You are adding space/capacity then you are growing. That speaks to the taxes that you are adding by updating. • Mitigation is appropriate, but it needs to be backed by data and if we are going to talk about attendance change overnight than we should talk about implementation of that. Mitigation is appropriate, we all understand that across the board, 2022 vs 1970 house has a diff erent employee load. Mitigate appropriately with data that supports it. • How many people does this apply to? You also only need to mitigate once so at some point this will phase itself out. If it is keeping someone from updating a 1970’s home, then that is not community-oriented, but in general my opinion is you need to pick up the pieces. A large number of residents who are full time do not work the same amount of hours required by APCHA. • Local/full time residents is too hard to police. Require mitigation for everyone. • The deferral process works great for me if I try to make a tiny addition to my condo but you are taking a gamble that fees will increase dramatically. My fees would have gone from $10,000 to $60,000. It doesn’t seem reasonable to have to pay $60,000 in fees for a small condo addition. Perhaps the same fee ($10,000) with interest would be more fair. • In terms of occupancy, you have the same capacity, but are increasing economic activity. • My concern is the double standard that redevelopment is considered growth. Redevelopment of existing may actually improve the performance of a home from an energy or effi ciency perspective and while it may be “growth”, it may not necessarily be negative growth.• The complexity of the codes drives up the cost of building or remodeling, limiting the type of owners who can aff ord the process and necessary consultants. • Redevelopment/expansion brings in more workers for the homes which can be considered growth. • New development does not equal new growth, its redevelopment. B. Is pace and scale a problem? Is it just something that is part of Aspen that has always been here, or is it diff erent?• Scale and pace is directly impacts by COVID-19. It was not headed in that direction before COVID-19. Uptick in last 2-3 years, but do not see it being sustainable. The pace cannot be maintained for 10 years – can only remodel a house so many times in 3 years.Get large things on lots because they can. It was snowballed. People are investing and parking their money here. That has always been the case, but the ability to buy and sell real estate will continue. c.People are still coming up with more. Not sure if need to focus on new development or remodel more. Feel like the new lots are vastly lost.People want the most value out of their lot –that will not change. The only change to mitigation rates can recall was a reduction in them (2015 code amendments).d.Think the majority of the construction experiencing now was pre-pandemic. The next 5 years is going to the be impact of COVID because of how long it takes to go through the process. Easy to respond to what is happening in town, but what is the right amount? Understand the pace and scale, but people will always build as much as they can. What are we trying to do?e.What are we trying to solve for and what is the right way to solve it? f.We will end up with huge homes on small lots because they want they highest utility for land purchase. We should continue to focus on inﬁ ll rather than expending – updating technology and insulation etc is natural evolution of a desired space like Aspen. • No multifamily development occurring – no place to put it. • Prioritize redeveloping older homes over newer homes. • Think there is still demand because there are a lot of backlog. There are 3-4 years’ worth of backlog right now. • The basis of the problem is not right. Our average house size is similar to other places in the US. Pushing square footage underground is now seen as an issue. 3500 sq ft is not massive. Time of construction tends to be the result of the process here. Person building the home wants it done quickly. • People have been maximizing their square footage for 30 years.C. Are there things that can be done to get at mass and scale without touching ﬂ oor area? • Think that council will want a solution that limits the size of home (remove exemptions, or reduce allowable size), or make measurement changes (height, FAR exemptions, etc). • Where is the city heading with building IQ? Would the city consider a residential component? D. How do you view the overall pace, scale, and impacts of development in Aspen? How has this aff ected you personally? How has it impacted our community-at-large? • Have not really heard an articulate argument for mass and scale. • Could be perception that construction is ongoing. Because it is happening in free market area people are wondering where is the employee housing. • Impressed with the management of construction sites in aspen. If maxing out there is no where to put anything. If anywhere near it, you will feel it. The traffi c from construction seems like a lot – notably a lot. If pacing the growth, the cost will go up. Is there an alternative? It makes the people coming in more wealthy and corporate, but helping the people here now. 50 -200 years in the future? Study the impacts of development in the future – look internationally. Pacing development with there is an insatiable desire for development. Who else has done that? By keeping it livable we. All these impacts impact the people who are living down valley. The locals in Aspen are impacting the plumbers and framing groups from down valley. Clients are here because Aspen is here. • Modeling is powerful. With the pressure we have it’s redevelopment and it can only go so high. It will be similar to what it is today. What is the percentage of traffi c with other communities? Manhattan is an example – what we are faced with other communities deal with; what is the tax revenue from con.E. What is your opinion of the current pace of development in Aspen? • This is cyclical. We cant overreact to what has been happening when we don’t know what the long term is. Our funding for aff ordable housing depends on development so development is not a bad thing. The off set fees and real estate taxes beneﬁ t us. It seems intense now in terms of traffi c and construction, but we also recall periods where very little was going on and markets were depressed. • Too much overall. To the point above, there is too much of everything right now. I am much more hesitant to predict the future with what this trend has brought in the terms of current scale. I am not an architect nor a builder – just a resident living and working here. It feels like an overwhelming tsunami is hitting us. I know unregulated growth is not possible but it feels possible here. 133 APPENDIX B: ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX B ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY13• You will feel impacts of what you are surrounded by. There is short term pain associated with construction for all of us. There are always impacts of construction. We are at a high point of the cycle. • Comfortable with what is going on but also believe that it is cyclical. This is dependent on where you are. It is hard to see so much going on with all of the trucks coming in, but then you have people who have been working on plans for years and want to start building and can’t. I want to do small work on my condo and the prices have just shot up. For people who own properties and want to remodel, and then are told they can’t it doesn’t seem fair. People should have the right to develop their own properties within what the code allows. • Cyclical market, pace won’t be sustained in 2-3 years from now.F. Thinking about scale… • Scale is appropriate for the city of aspen. Maybe not when compared to other places such as Steamboat Springs, but for Aspen only it seems highly appropriate. • Homes in shadow mountain – I agree in general, but there are some homes that are monstrous and feel completely out of scale. Houses are built there and right next to each other. It depends – there are things currently being built that I am puzzled by. • Properties in Aspen are in scale. The properties discussed above are in Pitkin county. To understand this question, you need to know Aspen limits and code which is highly restrictive. • Zoning codes are very restrictive. Going through the west end, I haven’t seen any that are oversize for the lots or neighborhood. The codes we have now that restrict size are working. • My understanding is that basements have been restricted. You are restricted by total height and FAR. The restrictions meaningfully limit the size of basements. No meaningful diff erence in construction time between a thousand-foot diff erence in basement size. I don’t understand what diff erence it would make whether the basement is built a little bit bigger than not. If anything, there would be more fees to the city because aff ordable housing fee is based on square footage I would agree with this. I think also the new requirements for civil engineers have become stricter which is for the beneﬁ t of everyone. I don’t see how a larger basement would have any detrimental eff ect. • The houses that are being built are social engineering those neighborhoods. They are not being built for a local family to live in year-round, they are being built to rent out or gather and then be empty. Our code is appropriate, and we are complying, but we are changing the dynamic of our neighborhoods based on what is allowed. The houses are more or less the same size. • What would strike me is if there were huge homes next to very small homes; No sense that things are going awry. • Bonuses in development – 2 leading causes are for greater scale. • Grew up in Aspen, now live in Carbondale. I took a walk on the Rio Grande bike path. The size of the homes stunned me. Homes looked like they should be homes, offi ces, museums, or schools. III. AFFORDABLE HOUSING • If the goal is to create units, what tools do that? Not fee-in-lieu. • A consideration of a deferral agreement should be that it is limited by who monitors it. • There are no aff ordable housing credits left. • Aff ordable housing credits are not proﬁ table. • Housing comes before the impact. Bifurcate the permitting process. • Fee-in-lieu should be used by a certain time or returned. • ADU’s are a worthy consideration in solving for aff ordable housing. • Though there is a fear of second owners creating conﬂ ict and loss of control or people not using them correctly. • Aff ordable housing should be allowed, by right in every zone district with density and compatibility considerations • Incentivize development further down valley. • Monetary fees do not mean much to people here. • Existing bottle neck of building department is a barrier to aff ordable housing development. • Incentivize people giving mitigation through letting them speed through the process, grow larger, skip permits, etc. A. In general, do you believe housing mitigation should be provided through a cash-in-lieu payment, on-site housing, housing credits, built units, or that no mitigation should be required? • Deferral agreement – only concern is it’s only as good as the people who watch over that. Is it even valuable to consider that option? Support aff ordable housing certiﬁ cate program. It’s only as good as the people managing it. Every time it comes to a slow down, the ability to get a return on the investment it gets behind the curve. The studies are obsolete by the time it makes it into the code. There are no aff ordable housing credit applications because people cannot be proﬁ table. Certiﬁ cates might be but it’s not being kept up with. Aff ordable housing is the best because the housing comes before the impact. Dollars for sale of property to a single-family home versus multi-family aff ordable housing complex needs to be commensurate. Concern about cash-in-lieu because the money needs to be used by a certain time. There should be a “nuisance” number built into the fee in lieu number because the city has to build the housing. If fee in lieu number was recalculated after each city’aff ordable housing project (including 100% of staff , land, construction, design etc), then it might be more appropriate. • Fee in lieu payment should be quantitative against person paying cash-in-lieu. If you don’t use money in ﬁ ve years they have to give it back to you. When city takes cash-in-lieu they are putting city to work. Why isn’t there a nuisance number brought in to take into account that the city is providing a service. • Credits are the best way to encourage aff ordable housing development, but there are no credits available. Fee-in lieu payment should have speciﬁ c criteria.• Agree with the issues related to fee-in-lieu. The lag is a particular issue (collecting fees for projects that are constructed further down the road). One good thing about fee in lieus is that as a community we get to decide how and where those units are built. Have more agency. • No new applications for aff ordable projects because of price of land and cost of creation. Until a person who is building project can buy land competitively and until sales from aff ordable housing can make a proﬁ t nothing will get development. • Credits are not proﬁ table for anyone that wants to do it. • Is the goal to deliver units? Then fee in lieu doesn’t do that. If I am redeveloping my house for the same square footage, then I shouldn’t have to pay mitigation. APCHA units should be paying real estate transfer tax (RETT) and housing mitigation like free-market does. • How will mitigation changes impact long time locals? • If you require mitigation payments for developments for the whole – you will price out local individuals and lead to more billionaires who live here a week of the year to become our residents of the city – 134 APPENDIX B: ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX B ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY14opposite of the goal of Council. • APCHA redevelopment should be paying full mitigation fees – no exemption. B. When thinking about built aff ordable housing units, what types of units should be provided? Buy downs, on-site ADUs, off -site units? • The land is not in Aspen – work with county to incentivize development further down valley. • ADU would not work in 90% of properties. Fear is that second owner would be a bad tenant. This scenario could be avoided by selling to a qualiﬁ ed purchasher such as hospital or school so there is someone to call and account for bad behavior. • Anything that can be done to make developer aff ordable housing easier should be done. • If there was an easier way to get a unit built that would be better. • How many units have been added over the last 20 years by year? How much revenue has been generated over that same time? Need ﬂ exibility in the program – not a one size ﬁ ts all program. Allow units to be underground with good light wells, allow to be on property, etc, because there is limited land. Incentivize people to choose from a menu of options. There is a pace in the FM world that is not happening in the governmental world. People will feel better about paying in if the money was being used. Look at how much money we get from development, which translates to new housing units.• Where are you building additional units? There is no land? The land is not in Aspen, so need to be building outside. • Look at things as the upper valley – allow housing development in the region, not just in the city. • Redeﬁ ne transit oriented development (TOD). County has land and city has money. They should work together. Allow some additional transition in the system and allow people to live in other places in the upper valley. By down, new, RO deed restrictions, etc. Find mobility rather than just development. • The ship has sailed on the west end. Locals are not moving back into these homes because the prices are so high. When looking outside of the city, development is more attainable that makes more sense. • For the caliper of this resort town, the hotel product is grossly insigniﬁ cant. From a quality and number standpoint. The saving grace are these homes. Families stay in these homes and they do serve a purpose. This is a resort town ﬁ rst and foremost. The people coming here are paying for everything – RETT, sales tax, mitigation, etc.• Can develop more down valley, but there is more pushback happening there. Do not like the idea of buy-downs outside the city, because it pushes the impacts down valley. • There needs to be a mix of options and need it all. This is a valley-wide and I70 corridor problem. Getting communities together is important. Want to encourage more density – we get so focused on the people who are breaking the rules that we miss the majority who want to meet the rules. The time incentive is the most important. Buy-down down valley seems easy. Need to focus on the more diffi cult ones that can create housing here in Aspen. Want the ADU options.C. If aff ordable housing development matched the mass and scale of current single family and duplex development, would you be comfortable seeing it in Aspen’s neighborhoods? (Visual preference, or take data of new / remodels of single family and duplex and identify how many housing units could be accommodated in that space) • Does it make sense to go in and build a bunch of units through a PD process? Have more discretionary ﬂ exibility depending on where it is located. If we want more aff ordable, then let’s incentivize to get more of it. We are talking mass and scale, but maybe this is more about housing.• LA is looking back to the fourplex, which was popular in the 20s there. It would be a ﬁ ght worth ﬁ ghting. The only way to manage aff ordable housing is to sprinkle it in. It’s great to have the larger complexes, but they are out of town and have transportation impacts. Sprinkling into neighborhoods is what Aspen is about. The gondola is the great equalizer – people like how grounded the community it. People want local friends. Locals are what makes Aspen great and it’s what people want. • Incentivizing aff ordable housing is where everything should be on the table. Give more ﬂ oor area, quicker time, etc. D. Map – where do you think aff ordable housing is appropriate? (Area for “not appropriate anywhere” on the side of the map) • Pick R6 as one district where aff ordable housing should not be allowed by right. Make it by right by code in other zone district and make density tolerable. • Aff ordable housing should be allowed in any zone district, but no multi-family projects, quad or triplex in single family. • Keep housing out of commercial core – have more commercial development because that generates additional tax revenue. Let the downtown serve the purpose it needs to serve. • Overlay is great, but there has to be incentives. • Don’t see Aff ordable housing by code in R-6. If have to pick a zone not allowed by right, would be R-6. That is where historic buildings and SF homes are. We have limited it to SF homes there. But then make it by right in other areas and increase density. Requiring on-site aff ordable housing in commercial core only makes buildings larger and commercial provides a lot more taxes each year. Looking at commercial core and people put a unit there, that might be their choice, but having it by requirement is an issue for commercial space. • It will eventually circle back to parking and density. • Allow aff ordable housing in any zone district (ADUs in R-6, maybe a quad).• You can develop everywhere, you shouldn’t need an overlay. • Make sure that our solutions don’t hurt developers that pursue aff ordable housing making them lose to free-market competitors. Incentives for aff ordable housing need to be increased.• Only commercial developers are able do that type of development. Not a lot of people here can do that. • Right type of aff ordable housing can be appropriate anywhere. People have to take the idea of Burlingame out of their minds. We should make the most of our existing projects without making it too dense and uncomfortable. • The city can’t solve all of this. I don’t think we create positive incentives for developers and homeowners to contribute to the housing stock. It is “a lot of stick and not a lot of carrot”. We should leverage people’s selﬁ sh motivations to get housing built. I would be ﬁ ne with larger basements but you get the opportunity to build that if you contribute in some meaningful (bigger than normal) way to aff ordable housing whether it is a ﬁ nancial contribution or a new mechanism. Give people a fast track through the process if they’re willing to contribute more. There is a ﬁ nger wagging approach to those who want to develop properties. Why not leverage their motives to get what the city wants? I don’t think we tap into that. • From the residential side, I would think about things that people really care about. Why not give • I think you will get insane pushback on increasing density. I don’t think that’s the best route to get housing added. Buy-downs and incentives is likely a much better trade. I do think anywhere in the community is appropriate, but ADU’s must be livable and you have to allow people to be human. • I think the idea of incentives of expedited permit or increase in single family is a great idea, but I 135 APPENDIX B: ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX B ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY15am very concerned that ADU’s turn into guest bedrooms. The long time local that has been here and raised a family here and expand a house to meet the needs of the kids. They should be given diff erent opportunities than the person who came to exploit the ﬁ nancial opportunities here. Long term families that have been here, work in the community, and are fortunate to have a home should not be penalized because they have been fortunate enough to grow up here. E. Should more aff ordable housing be provided in Aspen’s neighborhoods? • Yes, throughout the city, county, and valley.• Yes throughout the city. This question begins to get complex with tradeoff s introduced. Our baseline understanding of our aff ordable housing program is limited. It feels like we need to understand the existing stock and who is in it. We also have to answer “for whom?”. This should be properly answered for the updated answer in time for where we live. Of course we want more, but this is a very complex problem. It feels like starting with the stock we have and understanding what is going on and how to use it better. I read stuff from the city and I get the impression that we don’t know what is going on with the stock and how to improve it and our value of what the community gets out of it. Yes of course we need more aff ordable housing and solutions are very complex. • I don’t think there is ever a possibility for us to add too much, so we should build as much as we can. • I know this issue is super complex and years ago when it began it was not taken into consideration that people would move in and stay and raise families. We now need to address this and come up for options for those who come in for the season. • I live in employee housing, I would never be here if it weren’t for aff ordable housing so I am supportive of more. I do see the irony in the questions that we are asking of development and building and then discussing building more aff ordable housing. I am feeling that there is too much development, but saying that there should be more for aff ordable housing. This next question of where and how to build it is very important. • Main street is a good example. Main street was always a corridor, but it has changed from what it traditionally was. What is the number that council is looking for? How are we going to get to a certain number of aff ordable housing units if we don’t have a quantitative goal?IV. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS • Need to rely on code and staff for the process, not the public. • Need a streamlining process to forgo aff odrable housing from public criticism. • The code needs incentives for aff odrable housing development. • Height, scale, permitting, and fee reduction need to be considered. • Consider the importance (or lack thereof) of parking. Projects should not rely on parking. • Demolition has become complicated and conﬂ icts with the goal of deconstruction. • People will pay more for less time and an increase in certainty. • GMQS review creates limitations on the aff ordable housing projects. • People will make tradeoff s if they can get time in turn. • The process is overly long and complex. A. From ACV: How important is it that the city create a more streamlined approach, reducing barriers, and providing more clarity in the review process for aff ordable housing projects? Do you support creating new opportunities for aff ordable housing to be built in existing residential neighborhoods? • Need to rely on the code and staff experts for density – the old parking issue needs to be ignored. Car is going away, but we are mitigating for them based on an old approach. Applications for 100% aff ordable housing and have no variances should not be subject to scruitiny by neighbors. Need an overall streamlining of process to forego public criticism where it doesn’t belong. • When we are talking about projects that conform to land use code that is valued by community then we need to prioritize those. • Need to set precedent that aff ordable housing is going to happen. • Trying to be proactive about building housing and buying credits and then thinking about the next wave to mitigate. Building 60 some apartments to balance out future. City couldn’t process them separately. • Needs some overall portfolio to work within. Easier for someone like Mark to do it, versus the one off aff ordable housing developer. Can the city guarantee the credits. • Let the city be a clearing house for the housing credits? Then the overlay makes more sense. But need more incentives. • If aff ordable housing could be administrative, that would cut years out. • A aff ordable housing should be by right. Everyone should be able to build a unit, and sometime more than one. B. Knowing the impacts development has on the landﬁ ll, should deconstruction or other requirements be implemented? • Pitkin County process works well and encourages energy effi ciency. Historic preservation guidelines are in conﬂ ict with the city’s energy and sustainability goals. • Incentivize the process. Can it be linked to other bigger items? • When create, be enforceable and getting the beneﬁ t out of them. Where does the community place its values? Would value more sustainability over maintaining a historic roof. .• Maybe focus on the remodeling of existing homes rather than full redevelopment. • If there is waste diversion, what do you do with it? • Need to be honest about the fact that the landﬁ ll is done, so what is the long term plan? Things will calm down when there is a recession. • Could a muncher be used at the landﬁ ll? • Goes back into the incentive conversation. If there is a scoring system for the pace, then include it in the system. Have a scoring system that provides points for deconstruction. • Deconstruction is not particularly labor intensive so just talking about dollars. Should be done and advocate for it. Certain buildings are easier to deconstruct. The buildings from the 60s – 70s have little value in deconstruction. What talking about is more eff ective recycling, not requiring the materials in other construction. Costs are piling on though. Some of the remodels are on houses that are less tan 10 years old, so that is concerning. Some of the stuff from 10 years old are less usable than 50 years ago. Conversation is not about requiring – the harder question is how do we make the things that we are making no more construction friendly. • The 60/40 threshold has been a powerful tool with clients. The best tool is to keep structures, and it allows you to keep 60% of the structures. What are stats around it? Going back to use tax or loads, what is the diff erence between deconstruction versus demo. (Roof is a huge percentage – minute start 136 APPENDIX B: ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX B ROUND #1 FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY16altering the roof you get to 40% really quickly. 40% is a meaningful threshold and is ﬁ ne. Can get into trouble with the building science perspective and more sheathing needs to be updated. Never been in a situation when got to 45% that go straight to a scrape. There is an incentive to do a remodel. Is there a faster process or diff erent fees? The percentage has been helpful in conversations with clients.) • Can share information – information in real estate community in transactions, etc. but construction is a black box. It shouldn’t be that way. Need to understand where things are.V. ENERGY • Encourage energy effi ciency. • Reassess guidelines (HPC) to ensure that they are not in conﬂ ict with goals. • Include scoring system that provides points for deconstruction. VI. OTHER COMMENTS• It’s been 10 years since the last AACP update. Is there a conversation about updating the plan? Perception of mass and scale being contrary to the AACP is a concern because it might be out of date. • Pacing of construction – will that result in a conversation about vesting?• If you go after ﬂ oor area and size then you’re going to get people going after you with their attorneys. You can restrict height, etc. But if you go after FAR and how it relates to gross ﬂ oor area you are going to get pushback. • Mitigation fee increasing is not going to a major dent. • Net zero is a bit of push but they have individuals that will get as close as possible. • Amount of electrical needs is large as move to more electric systems. There is a limited amount of area – look at R-15 and R-6 how would it be done if pushed the sustainability. What is happening with the loads that are going onto the infrastructure is problematic. Recent conversation with a realtor – concern about needing to update. There is a disparity between the real estate community and what is takes to do something. Did not understand the consultants and time needed to get in for permitting. Go through diff erent project types, what are loopholes, etc. Takes a minimum $500K to get through DD. People have been wanting to do more illegal things because it’s so long and expensive. Even small changes int eh process are impactful – how name sheets, etc. Is there a minimum information that is needed? • Wish people knew the costs of developing. It costs $1M - $1.5M to get into the process. There should be a loophole for the really small projects. The people who want to remodel their kitchen, add a porch, etc. Should be easier for those smaller projects. There are a lot of code violations (particularly in the County). The way the code changes and the ball moves – it is hard to keep up with them. If city of aspen and pitkin county could get on the same page it would help with predictability. Sustainability regulations in Basalt, Carbondale, Aspen, and PitCo are all wildly diff erent. • What are the three big priorities of council and measurable tactics to reach that? • Landﬁ ll seems like a sacriﬁ cial animal. Regardless of the pace, the government is responsible to solve this. It seems like no matter what we do, the landﬁ ll has a very short lifespan left. It seems like we are using this as a pawn. It is distracting and irrelevant because construction is not solely to blame for this. I am upset with the fact that it is so prominent in this information. We shouldn’t be distracting this conversation. • I agree and it is not just residential and doesn’t solve the problem to just tag it to that and not commercial. • On the issue of climate, it is a bit disingenuous for the connection of climate goals to moratorium to residential construction. The existing housing and building stock is a much bigger issue than the new stock which generates emissions as you are building. These new ones are very effi cient so we need to reassess the stock. I’d like us to be leading edge in incentivizing the installment of energy effi cient technologies. I love climate policy but we should connect it to the real problem and create incentives on that side. We need to upgrade windows and put solar on homes. • A lot of the emotion tied to development is for commercial, but being taken out on residential. • We should bring over technology and code from the Netherlands. It is the existing buildings that need to be updated. • One of my major concerns as a resident of Aspen is that I am unsure about APCHA’s residency standards and enforcement of residency requirements. What are our housing needs and the cost of housing? Are the units that we currently have occupied by those that need them? We need to eff ectively utilize the existing inventory and ensure that they are properly occupied. 137 APPENDIX C: ROUND #1 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE + ENGAGEMENT EVENTSAPPENDIX C ROUND #1 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE ENGAGEMENT EVENTS17The project team hosted a project webpage on Aspen Community Voice and posed ﬁ ve questions to gauge participants thresholds for policy changes and to garner ideas for new ways to provide aff ordable housing opportunities, re-think existing development review procedures in the Aspen Land Use Code, climate action leadership, development mitigation rates, and construction impacts.These questions were also asked at Pop-Up events in March. This document contains the combined comments from both online participants and in-person events. Comments below are organized by major topic areas for discussion, the questions asked, and participant responses. Responses were noted by project team staff and edited for legibility, tone and tenor. I. NEW WAYS TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES• Current system is mostly stick, little carrot. Focus on positive incentives for developers and owners to build and rent to local workers.What is the goal of Council and how do they want us to help get there? • Give up a little open space at entrance to town. Run HWY 82 through Marolt. Build in current HWY 82 corridor, with pedestrian thruway replacing current HWY 82.• Be creative and utilize Aspen’s extensive land use holdings - The City is the largest landholder and has many underutilized parcels that could creatively accommodate housing. The City and community need to compromise where to accommodate what it seems is our greatest need. If there’s a historic designation creating limitations, get rid of it. If there’s a zoning issue, ﬁ x it. And the City should submit an RFP for a private developer to handle the development and construction work on properties it owns. Additionally, partner with other communities in the valley and create pooled resources to develop housing, even if it’s outside of Aspen or the urban growth boundary. Who cares where the housing is exactly positioned so long as it reasonably serves our community? Woody Creek, Basalt, El Jebel, unincorporated Pitkin County - these are areas that can and should absorb some of the aff ordable housing burdens.• Transit hubs + aff ordable housing - The intercept lot needs to be developed into a mixed-use complex that has aff ordable housing. This would help encourage riding on RFTA as a transit hub. While you are at it, the City needs to provide a carbon refund, a la the food tax refund, for all downvalley employees who utilize RFTA to commute into Aspen at least 50% of the year.• We need a measurable goal before we explore ways to create more aff ordable housing. Who are we currently housing? Who is being left out? How much more do we NEED?• Homeowners gone short term after renting to long term people for years. 2nd homes allowed units that are not used for long term. Fix it.• Why aren’t we building 2/3/4/5 units wherever we can ﬁ t them? Start building smaller projects on city/county parcels. Build no matter how small the parcel. Every unit helps. We don’t have to wait for a 10 acre site and space for 300+ units to commit to more housing now.• Aspen and the RF Valley will never be a community of mid or high rises.It is therefore incumbent on the City to acquire and/or reclaim available land for development in an environmentally sensitive and transit-oriented manner. Both are challenging endeavors in themselves. To tackle the Valley’s Aff ordable Housing crises, taking a cue from how large cities are addressing such shortages would be valuable. If not already being required by Aspen, residential and mixed-use developments should be required to provide a portion of the units as aff ordable housing either on site or paying a fee to a speciﬁ cally earmarked fund for the construction of off -site aff ordable housing. Perhaps code or zoning incentives could be considered for developers to provide more aff ordable units. After all, developers are in the business of maximizing the return on investment and if it can be shown that it’s advantageous to build or contribute money for more aff ordable housing, maybe it moves the aff ordable housing needle a little bit more.• Do a better job of managing existing aff ordable housing inventory. Ie: No more single individuals living in 3-bed houses.• Aff ordable housing should encompass rental only properties. No new ownership of Aff ordable Housing units.• Units were turned into seasonal studio rentals on 2 ﬂ oors with small local owned/essential business on main ﬂ oor. No more “meeting space”!• I am trying to think bigger than just the symptoms and short term needs. If the collective desire is to signiﬁ cantly reduce vehicle traffi c coming into and out of the Upper Roaring Fork Valley (URFV) communities of Old Snowmass, Woody Creek, Snowmass Village and Aspen then we might prefer funding RFTA to an obscene amount so they can invest in an all-electric ﬂ eet prepared to accommodate every sector of our workforce. To that end, it must be aff ordable, desirable and dependable for 85 percent or more of our current commuting workers. It must be designed to grow along with our future expectations of public transportation. It must be a more expedient option to taking a personally owned vehicle and it must be able to reach to the extremities of our neighboring Garﬁ eld County, so as to provide an option for the throngs of workers coming up daily from Riﬂ e, Parachute and DeBeque (technically Mesa County). It also is critical that the new capabilities of our mass transit system include vehicles capable of transporting crews of workers and their equipment to urban and rural job sites year-round and in all conditions. Lastly we would need improved transportation “hubs” with amenities such as restrooms, vending machines and staff ed RFTA agents to assist visitors. It may come as a surprise to some, but a lot of the working class who make the commute to the URFV do not want to live here. They commute for the higher wages which allow them to enjoy a better ROI in their preferred down valley communities. I believe many of them would also gladly leave their vehicles at home if they had a reliable alternative. If the purpose is to build sustainable communities within the URFV they will almost have to be comprised of a diverse citizenry meaning people of any income will have an opportunity to ﬁ nd aff ordable housing while they work here. I’d like to see how current residents choose to reimagine our potential to build lasting communities while also ﬁ nding out who really wants to be living here long term and establish roots. In terms of constructing more aff ordable housing for current URFV employees I would recommend beginning by designing several communities similar to the recent construction Snowmass Village has done behind the recreation center. Single family homes, duplexes and townhomes were constructed with families with school-aged children in mind (the only demographic that is required to physically live within the school district boundaries). The households with school aged children who have begun their education in the Aspen School District have an even stronger resolve to make it work! By prioritizing local families in need of housing we will help to create a network of families (also known as a community) establishing roots across generations in the URFV. Working class families (I deﬁ ne as APCHA Classes 1-3 ) have shown the gumption to make it work up here in spite of the many obstacles in aff ordability. I believe they do so simply because they want to allow their kids to enjoy everything off ered and to preserve their social connections during their formative years. These families have what it takes-apart from the job alone-to ﬁ ght for their places in the URFV. Can we convert any open space parcels into housing communities? Can we accept a reduction of inﬂ uence and inventory of Historical Preservation? Are we willing to expand the boundaries for enrollment in the Aspen School District? Are we able to operate APCHA to the fullest extent of it’s abilities and still utilize our skilled valley contractors to bring existing inventory up to excellent condition? Are we determined to have our representatives direct suffi cient resources to plan for and build aff ordable housing and make investments of lands and capital until the goals have been achieved? If we can come to a conclusion on these collectively, then I have no doubts we can answer the bell on the green-construction side of things.• All aff ordable housing should be rental only. • Investigate fraud in aff ordable housing. Too many people who hide assets and claim eligibility.• Don’t build anymore until we have housed all the employees generated by projects that have already 138 APPENDIX C: ROUND #1 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE + ENGAGEMENT EVENTSAPPENDIX C ROUND #1 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE ENGAGEMENT EVENTS18been approved. Tabulate the number of employees generated, then calculate the number of units/bedrooms required to house them. Compare that to the number of employee units actually created (by both private developers and local government). Until those numbers “match” nothing else gets built.• Spend some of the City’s war chest to hire powerhouse sustainable development attorneys to claw back Gorsuch/SkiCo. Sweetheart approvals that reduced mandated aff ordable housing units will just put more underpaid employees for the proposed high-end hotel (into the general APCHA pool). More workers needed - maybe there is room along HWY 82.• House qualiﬁ ed residents in existing housing. APCHA enforcement eff orts, while improved in recent years, remain weak. Covid adaptations allowing remote access to many positions undoubtedly increased access to employment that does not meet the APCHA standard for valley employment. I suspect 10 - 20%, possibly more, of aff ordable housing occupants do not meet basic APCHA standards. 300 to 600 units can be created at little or no cost if APCHA/City/County were to better enforce APCHA residency & employment standards. I also believe APCHA employment/residency standards should be strengthened. A requirement for only 1,500 hours of annual employment is way, way lower than necessary for those living in free market housing. APCHA affi davits should be subject to robust and random audit. At a public subsidy of over $300,000 per FTE, enforcement is by far the cheapest way to create work force housing - and does not create growth.• The City of Aspen has failed to build reasonable density on very limited and expensive workforce housing sites. Every urban aff ordable project should be at least 3 stories. We have an abundance of open space. Creating small pockets of open space areas as part of AF projects is a waste of resources.• Aff ordable housing is critical to keep the work force in place. Aspen needs options in size and location. Additional units should off er more size options (3/4 bedrooms). Middle missing housing should also be considered. People need more options.• Cash-in-lieu should track with the overall free market sales prices/construction costs. • Cash-in-lieu numbers should reﬂ ect current land and construction costs. • Make aff ordable housing units high quality in town. People may downsize.• Buy the land, have the mitigation credits work toward an actual project in progress. • More aff ordable housing needed! Missing middle housing needed! • Very important to build in existing neighborhoods - we are out of land.• RETT is key and a good mechanism. • Some people are violating APCHA salary and work requirements. • Aff ordable housing can go on Red Mountain, up Castle Creek, and ABC• Appropriate where density is permitted by underlying zoning. Aff ordable housing should be dense, cant do it in single family measures. Want to be in single family area – HOA is more strict than the underlying zone (R-15 A). There may be opportunities to rezone. USFS- huge lost opportunity. City should’ve bought the lot. Appropriate for a rezoning. One site in core that should be a priority for relatively high density development. City has missed out on reasonably maximizing attainable aff ordable housing sites. Aff rdable housing needs to be effi cient given cost of land – needs to be dense. 300 units at lumberyard is not enough. Reduce open space. Sales – RETT payment is mitigation – massive amounts of mitigation. Inappropriate to say it is not mitigation.• Fee in lieu and FTE calculations should not changed to the extent that’s being proposed. Increasing fees is reasonable but not the proposed extent.• What do you do for families who own properties for 2 to 3 generations and are ﬁ nally getting ready to sell? They are not ﬂ ippers or developers. Could there be a separate category with certain beneﬁ ts.• Floor area ratio should not be increased. I do not want to jam packed residences in to City lots even if it’s for employee housing. Employee housing must comply with the zone district.• There is a built in prejudice against aff ordable housing. We need to work to bring down these barriers. I live in aff ordable housing and it is a great neighborhood.• Let’s ﬁ rst used the housing we’ve got. Make Sure APCHA Residents are complying with the rules. Incentivize residences to downsize or move but don’t force them!• It’s important to have a demographically diverse community here.• Utilize city land holdings and partner with neighboring counties.• Build outside urban growth boundary, buy down deed restrictions from multi family owners, and right sizing are all potential opportunities. Public private partnerships with competent multi family developers the city is not a capable responsible developer.II. RETHINKING EXISTING DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES IN THE ASPEN LAND USE CODE• This is not just an aff ordable housing issue. The permit process for all construction raises the barriers and cost, driving prices higher.• Misguided approach. I don’t believe that any amount of land use code language revision will result in a meaningful amount of aff ordable housing to be built by private homeowners in residential neighborhoods. It is unlikely that there will be suffi cient rewards to the private sector to develop aff ordable housing versus free market, and the free market use cannot bear the entire brunt of supporting our community’s aff ordable housing needs. The City needs to focus on creative solutions (ie repurposing land the City owns, ﬁ xing broken policies within the APCHA system, and handing off the expensive, time consuming, and risky development and construction processes to more effi cient private developers.• Development of new Aff ordable Housing is growth. From the Strategic Plan, “Alter zoning standards to permit more density, intensity, and available land for aff ordable housing development within the City Limits.” • The City should get out of the development game and incentivize private developers that know what they are doing.III. CLIMATE ACTION AND MITIGATION LEADERSHIP• The existing base of homes is bigger climate issue than new. New build standards are leading edge. Focus policies to incent ﬂ eet update.• Short-term vs long-term. Good demolition practices of outdated, energy ineffi cient structures is a short-term issue compared to the long-term beneﬁ t of signiﬁ cantly more energy effi cient structures. The new structures often have on-site renewable energy source and pay signiﬁ cant REMP fees which goes towards community energy effi ciency projects. It seems we’d make a larger climate impact by upgrading Aspen’s aging structures and infrastructure than worrying about the construction debris, which can be mitigated using good demolition practices (reuse and recycling of materials, grinding, etc) - most of which are already in place.• Develop markets for recycling and reuse. COA should work with Pitkin County, NWCOG, State of CO, and the Federal Government to develop markets for deconstruction products. This should not just apply to construction demolition. Every item that is sold and bought should be the responsibility of the manufacturer to take back at the end of its useful life. Every product, every manufacturer, or it’s not 139 APPENDIX C: ROUND #1 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE + ENGAGEMENT EVENTSAPPENDIX C ROUND #1 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE ENGAGEMENT EVENTS19available to be sold or bought.• Signiﬁ cantly limit new building permits.• Aspen is already is at the forefront of climate action – some of the most restrictive environmental codes anywhere.• Aspen should be at the forefront of climate action because we’ve got a lot of money and we can aff ord to do it. By doing so we will set an example for what is possible.• We need to set the pace CORE is taking a leadership Roll with city county and roaring Fork Valley.• Deconstruction should take place at the landﬁ ll.• City has worried about ﬁ lling up for decades. Think capacity can be increased/accommodated. For reducing waste, but no credibility. Disappointed in COA’S waste/recycling program. Rio Grande used to be a good facility and it is now limited use. No cardboard in pandemic is problem – use of cardboard dramatically increased. City advocates for composting – good idea but a bad execution. No place for low cost composting. Compost service would be 50% increase in waste hauling so no one does it. At wife’s offi ce there is a compost area but it is never full. Should be one at the recycling center and mor economical solution. Waste ordinance – no enforcement on the requirements. Don’t do the reporting. Companies required to notify customers of recycling information yearly, but it never comes. Got itonce in 15 years.. Waste companies don’t have price for 32 gallons. The idea of being waste conscious is good. Deconstruction scale: Not reasonable resolution, so not a 10 – try to be eff ective on deconstructive (5). Construction impacts are signiﬁ cant in neighborhoods and aggravated by city policies.IV. DEVELOPMENT MITIGATION RATES• Inﬁ ll development does not equal growth. We need to stop conﬂ ating inﬁ ll development (replacement of existing built environment) with growth. Replacing a 5,000 square foot structure with another 5,000 square foot structure is NOT growth. It is a basic property right to be able to improve one’s property and we need to focus on mitigating true development impacts, with data to back it up. GMQS is designed for adding new housing and commercial development where there previously hasn’t been such. It is not the City’s place to meter the pace of ordinary non-growth producing inﬁ ll development.• This question feels slanted towards housing and not the other impacts. In many ways we are fortunate to have redevelopment activity. It drives our economy, provides employment, and accounts for a signiﬁ cant portion of our tax revenue. How can we support this part of our economy while managing its impacts is a more constructive approach. Redevelopment is not the sole reason that we have a housing crisis.• Re-development is not new development.• Less is more and more is less. For every increment of new development there is a negative increment of quality of life -- just say no.• Exempt residents with a caveat – updated APCHA standards. 1500 hours is a low standard. Works full time job to live here. Fundamental error in deﬁ nition of full time. Not as simple as question. Build new house next year. 2015 was based on a 30 year working life. So full time employees (FTE) are mitigated by same standard in the 2015 study. 3000 ft house = .45 FTEs. If the house is occupied by 2 FTEs, with potentially 2 more (children), I have provided 4 times as much mitigation as required. My exemption should be 30 years divided by 4. If lived there for 30 years, I should be recognized for providing that beneﬁ t to the community. It is like a housing credit. Looking forward, lived in 1968 house for 26 years. Two parents and kids live there. If I have the ability to redevelop, I have provided mitigation again. New buyer shouldn’t have to pay because I have already paid/provided Picasso Group – should have more mitigation requirements. Diff erent homes/users have diff erent impacts. Should try to diff erentiate between the groups.V. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS• I moved here to spend time in these mountains, and raise my kids in a small quiet city. I’m a pro-progress person. But what has been happening the past 24 months has made me question the city’s thinking about the people who actually live here full-time and contribute to the fabric of the community. And I am not the only resident of Aspen to share these thoughts.I live on Castle Creek Drive and we have +37,000 sq feet of new construction on-going within 500 feet of our residence. The quality of life impact has shifted from living in one of the quietest places in Aspen to one that is a hugely negative experience from noise, to dust, to managing unruly sub-contractors parking in our yard, to a massive increase in construction traffi c on Cemetery Lane. We need to move away from Aspen being driven as an asset economy and return to the virtues of the founders. I’m sure it’s why we all live here as well. I’m thankful you are tackling this issue head on.• Spread out construction phasing so trucks aren’t contesting the roundabout.• Don’t rent parking spaces when two or more permits on one block.• Every owner has the right to develop.• Construction management plan fencing is good.• Construction is cyclical. There is a lot occurring now, but there won’t always be. The city already exacts tremendous fees to mitigate development impacts. Mitigate for real, measurable impacts and not emotion.VI. SIZE OF HOMES IN ASPEN • Subsurface development is out of control and should be scaled back. Construction impacts – not be able to build lot line to lot line. 20 ft is still too much. No basketball courts. Concerned about changing deﬁ nition of sq feet for purposes of mitigation. Ordinance on mitigation was statistically invalid. Can’t use one deﬁ nition and multiply by another. City exacerbated impacts of all development in Aspen by having unnecessarily high standards and ineffi cient/inadequate permit processing. VII. SHOULD ADDITIONAL SPACE BE MADE FOR DECONSTRUCTION?• Deconstruction for a period of time only.• Allow but don’t require. • All buildings have a lifecycle.VIII. OTHER• Thank you for opening the discussion of building development and short-term rentals in Aspen. This is deﬁ nitely something our community needs to address. I am a 5th generation Aspenite and can trace my history here back to the 1800’s, not something very many people can say. I have lived in Aspen my entire life, raised a family here, and have a daughter striving to do the same. With that in mind, I have heard no discussions on long-term locals who have lived in their family homes for generations. Aspen is a very special place with a rich history that I fear will be lost if we continue the way we are progressing. I live in a duplex on Cemetery Lane with my brother living next door. My parents built this house and wewere both raised here and I have raised my family here. We are fortunate to have our granddaughter living nearby. She loves to spend time with us. My parents could have sold our house, collected theirfortune and moved down valley. But, they chose to give their children a chance to live in Aspen. All ofus, my husband, brother, sister-in-law and myself have worked in Aspen our 140 APPENDIX C: ROUND #1 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE + ENGAGEMENT EVENTSAPPENDIX C ROUND #1 ASPEN COMMUNITY VOICE ENGAGEMENT EVENTS20entire lives. Additionally,our daughter is a teacher in the Aspen School District and has been teaching and commuting upvalley forthe last 10 years. We would like to redevelop our 1956 house to allow our daughter and her youngfamily to live there and continue the history in a community that we love. However, the City of Aspenand the building department make it very diffi cult and costly to go through the building process. There is no incentive to pass along our property to the next generation. Much consideration is given to employees in employee housing, but none is given to the locals who have remained in their homes. The only solution is to sell out for our millions and move away, now you have lost locals and employees and a deep rich history that cannot be recovered. Upon upgrading the house, the taxes will be tens of thousands of dollars, whereas subsidized housing residents pay hundreds of dollars in taxes. One way to help defray the high cost of taxes would be short-term rental of the home. We might be a small segment of the community, but I believe it is important to look at our situation as deeply as you look at employee subsidized housing.• Concern of transportation impacts. Have Aspen be Aspen. House over 6,000 sf should have quadruple taxesNo one size ﬁ ts all approach for location of aff ordable housing. Development industry feeds our community/families. Do development responsibly. Was there really an emergency? Its hard to get a permit here. Shouldn’t be a 9-10 month process. Most communities have very diff erent prices. Permits there are walk in permits, but in Aspen it’s a long and hard process. Start work more quickly. Permit fees are too much – drives locals out and pushes them into Basalt (best for locals). Turn over in Com Dev impacts timelines. Is the city having an overly tough process? Need to listen to the people in the ﬁ eld to understand the real process. Let the process ﬂ ow rather than stop and go. Create 100 yr plan with manageable pieces. Process is restrictive on what can be done. Hard to get an approval.141 APPENDIX E: ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX E ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY21The Project Team held three (3) focus groups between April 13th and April 15th. The meetings were held in person, at Aspen City Hall in the Pearl Pass Room, and at the Aspen Police Department in the Community Room. Both technical stakeholders and members of the public attended – totaling 21 individuals representing a variety of professional organizations and civic groups in Aspen.City staff presented data and background information on the potential code amendments and walked attendees through each of the proposed policy changes pertaining to:I. DEMOLITION ALLOTMENTSA. Proposed Allotments 1. Implement a growth management allotment sys-tem for demolition projects. The allotments would be part of the 19 allotments currently available for free-market units.2. Use performance criteria to evaluate applications for demolition allotments.3. Creation of a framework of performance standards and expectations for demolition projects that can be adjusted over time to respond to new trends and community desires related to projects that have sig-niﬁ cant construction and other impacts.B. Calculations 1. Bring clarity to the deﬁ nition and calculation of Demolition.2. Incorporate exemptions or adjusted applicability statements for certain projects to be exempt from the provisions of demolition (ex; unsafe structures, water damage, acts of god, etc.)C. Tracking 1. Implement a tracking system for cumulative dem-olition that “resets” after ﬁ ve (5) to ten (10) years of a Certiﬁ cate of Occupancy (CO).II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING AMENDMENTSA. Location 1. Allow multi-family aff ordable housing to be devel-oped in all residential zone districts. Density allow-ances would be increased, but existing ﬂ oor area and other dimensional limitations would remain in place.2. Create an administrative review path for aff ordable housing projects.3. Eliminate non-conformity limitations for non-con-forming lots of record for projects that are 100% aff ordable housing.B. Housing Mitigation 1. Update employee generation rates to reﬂ ect im-pacts of construction and long-term operation of residential units.2. Update mitigation calculations to be based on “liveable area” rather than “ﬂ oor area.”3. Eliminate the credit for existing square footage that did not previously provide aff ordable housing mitiga-tion.4. Update the deferral agreement for local residents.5. Consider and evaluate a depreciation factor for af-fordable housing mitigation for residents. Mitigation requirements would be deferred for local residents while living in their home, and the required mitigation due would depreciate over time.C. Free Market Units in Mixed-Use Zone 6. Allow existing free-market residential units to be updated and redeveloped in the Mixed-Use Zone Dis-trict (MU), but prohibit the establishment of new free market units or existing uses being converted into free market units.III. DIMENSIONAL CODE AMENDMENTSA. Setbacks 1. Allow encroachments into setbacks for certain en-ergy improvements, ﬁ re protection, etc.2. Allow increased encroachments into setbacks for subgrade mechanical structures.B. Height 1. Allow exterior energy improvements to a building roof to exceed building height.2. Allow mechanical equipment height increases that accommodate effi cient equipment.3. Increase allowances for the development of solar panels (height or setbacks) or create an administrative review path.C. Floor Area 1. Allow existing free-market residential units to be updated and redeveloped in the Mixed-Use Zone Dis-trict (MU), but prohibit the establishment of new free market units or existing uses being converted into free market units.I. DEMOLITION AMENDMENTS A. Participant Questions and Commends on Background Information• What is the threshold of what the Council wants to see? • On the background data, the 2021 demolitions would be impacting close to 19, but the years prior would not change anything.• Will prior year’s unused numbers roll forward?• Why do you think such a large percentage of projects would not ﬁ t into the growth management quota system projects?142 APPENDIX E: ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX E ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY22• The 2021 numbers would’ve used 15 of the 19 allotments. Were the other 4 remaining used through growth management quota system? I don’t think this change would adjust any impact that the community felt unless the allotment is set lower than 19.B. Participant Questions and Comments on Proposed Demolition Allotments• Will the demo permit allotment happen for residential development and will there be a diff erent allotment for commercial?• If there are 20, will number 20 be ﬁ rst in line for the next year?• From my understanding, we’re trying to change the growth management quota system allotment so that there will be more reviews sent to Planning and Zoning board. • Volunteer boards are the best place for reviews to go because it puts more approval capability on the community members.• This change makes it more expensive on the front end than the back end and would reduce the turnaround timeline. This would create more certainty going into the board review since design work would be front-loaded. • Are you proposing keeping the number at 19 and will it be ﬁ rst come ﬁ rst serve?• Aspen City Council, for the last 8 years, has not turned over any of the allotments. As a result, 19 seems too much, have you considered cutting this down?• If I was to make an application to make a fourplex, I would need 4 allotments. Do you believe that 4 apartments on one lot is more impactful than one single-family home on a lot? I know how little land there is left for multi-family, but I don’t see this to be true. This is food for thought.• Allotment adjustments almost incentivize a scenario where one home is preferred and instead hurts those trying to put more “keys” on the lot rather than working with them. • Is the primary goal to limit the visual and development impacts of the projects? Constraining supply strikes me as a bad idea because it will drive up the price. I am trying to ﬁ gure out what we are trying to accomplish. There are alternatives to these impacts. The development that has long impacts and properties that sit vacant, sure they can pay. If you can’t buy a house that you can upgrade then you have to worry about this. Council worries about locals and now their house is less valuable. The person who has the fancy house, theirs becomes more valuable. This has weird supply constraints and I don’t think this aff ects what you guys are really worried about. Construction projects that run 18ish months they beneﬁ t the community but those poorly run and poorly managed projects that go for 5 years they should be taxed.• I’m representing myself (a guy who owns an old house who wants to remodel at some point). In my view, you should be encouraging these old houses that aren’t effi cient to be replaced as opposed to encouraging new development in areas. Redevelopment over new development. You don’t want to discourage redevelopment. When you have someone in my position competing with the GMQS, you are restricting supply and the ability of the average guy.• You get a lot of good things out of redevelopment. Redevelopment vs. new construction helps climate change. • What are the goals of these policies? I think they sound like we want to do X but not have too much Y. We want to have more X but not too much of Z. It would be helpful to pose it in this way so that we can see the trade-off s. All of this stuff , because we are ﬁ ghting the free market, would be easier to understand if you lay out what the tradeoff is. • Constraining impacts will have negative eff ects. The unintended consequence will be to raise the property value of the people who have built high-quality homes and create lower than market value homes that might be in need of material change. You might create eff ects in the supply chain overall that raise prices. We are trying to make this an aff ordable place to live and a place that is easier to build. Constraints can create outcomes that you don’t want. It is a problem that we don’t have a priority list of goals that we’re trying to deal with. It is hard to generate good policy if you don’t prioritize goals. We are asking for everything and this will result in bad results. • I am pretty sure that part of the goal of the City Council is to reduce activity and reduce the ability to get a demolition permit. The City Council is ﬁ rst and foremost interested in reducing activity by reducing building permits. The permit process is already extremely long and diffi cult. This has contradictory eff ects. Part of the reason construction takes 5 years is because it takes months every time there is a change. • As a brief historical note, I was here when growth management quota system was ﬁ rst developed. It was developed to impact growth not construction. They were trying to clamp down growth and this was the genesis of the aff ordable housing issues. It is in there but don’t think that the growth management quota system was not originated to stop or control construction impacts. It is used as a tool for those things but that wasn’t why it originated.• How many dollars have been generated by mitigation vs what the dollar generated by real estate transfer tax?• Total mitigation is 4.9 million over the last 3 years. It is a drop in the bucket towards purchasing a deed-restricted unit. Over 3 years, this is maybe enough to purchase 3 or 4 units.• Recommendation to move away from going to Planning and Zoning board review - we don’t want to continue to backlog all of our departments. Simplify the process by starting at staff a recommendation.• Can you summarize your direction from Council? We need to look at something that simpliﬁ es the process and gives you what you want. It seems like the process is becoming more complex to slow development. Why can’t we simplify the process to make it clearer so that it works for all parties?• Having done growth management quota system (GMQS) at Planning and Zoning and been in conversations around quota sections, I feel like GMQS was changed because it was so limiting. To your point the GMQS and what growth is now deﬁ ned as and less about adding more ﬂ oor area, my recollection was that we did not want to explore permit allocations due to fairness issues – how does the City propose to prioritize? Is it limiting someone’s ability to be able to do necessary or elective things to their property? I am questioning whether GMQS as a tool and framework is right because of its current issues. There are very few opportunities for growth allocation to happen. I know starting over is never fun, but we need to try to focus the lens of “this” towards the framework of what we want. From my perspective of seeing projects move through the system, I feel like we get bottlenecked because of external factors to the process. There is never going to be a perfect ﬂ ow-through process, and I know certain areas get hit hard because that area becomes the value proposition, I don’t know how to limit this without a square footage proximity impact. • That is what the County thought they were doing, and it has backﬁ red. It requires site plan reviews for any adjustments. You must go through every one to review it. It is very tedious and a 6-month review and then you must go back in and resubmit. • Is there some sort of analysis or spreadsheet that shows the permits applied for, change order days, and how long it has taken? That’s why when it comes to pacing people get frustrated. I would like to see if there is some sort of dataset on number of permit days, change order, etc. I am not sure Council is aware that this happens.• I’ve been done with projects and been requested to submit a change order because the inspector said don’t worry about it and then once it hits ﬁ nal you have to submit. This doesn’t happen in Snowmass. • If you’re looking at demo to do this, you still have to wait for change orders. The longer this process takes the longer the owner is thinking about it and thinking about their changes. 143 APPENDIX E: ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX E ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY23• From time of completion to ownership you have vacant properties, and then this gets extended. These long periods of time become long impacts to adjacent the properties. It is not just the front end. If we can simplify the process, then you can limit traffi c and impacts from construction. Instead of 14 months, they’re taking 18 or twice as long, etc. It is something to be considered to streamline the process than getting rid of it completely. • Neighbors complain about how long things are taking, but the blame lies with the process not the contracting/consutrction community. • The 40% takes a lot for what we must go through to review this and document this. We need a simpler methodology to reach the 40% that will save us and our clients time and money.• All of us want to solve these issues and meet the goals of the AACP, but we need the tools that are the most straightforward to do it. • Must be more of a division of responsibility where you empower your inspectors to do a change order on site – change in remodel and he can approve it right then and there, I think from an overall department standpoint it seems that everything is coming to one person so there is no division of responsibility for other people to approve stuff . • I am coming at this from a selﬁ sh point, I am a “true” local. I’ve been through it all, employee housing, then was able to get a FM place which is a historical building. We are in a 3,000 sf lot, 2,000 sf house. It is hard to raise a family in this. We keep getting shut down to the point where it would have been better to have won the lottery. We are at the point that we are going to leave if we can’t ﬁ gure out a way to make the home how we want. We can’t change our windows to make our place more effi cient. There are these other places that don’t ﬁ t into a big idea of what development looks like. To us it doesn’t seem like we are big developers we’re just trying to make a house we can live in. • I’d encourage making rules and changes for the average man – ones that all can aff ord.C. Participant Questions and Comments on Proposed Calculations• What is Council using demolition as a basis for? What is the goal of combining the growth management quota system and demolition, what are they trying to do? In the end, it is going to trigger something.• How many houses are at maximum build out vs what is still out there available for growth? If we are worried about density, then that would be something to look into because I think we are very close to our maximum.• This is a reactionary measure. These issues are cyclical. • Curious about the inventory of homes sold here and what new construction is over $200,000. If you assign allotments, let’s not make them arbitrary. What was the historic nature?• I think these are great things you’re working on, but it is worth looking at these cycles and taking a step back. Will the new policies being drafted stand the test of time and not just the current market?• They are not talking about what the house looks like, it is more performance-based. All of a sudden, the competition goes to those who can aff ord to do what not everyone can. • If the AACP wants to make buildings more effi cient than just make that the standard. Instead of competing, just make effi ciency the standard. • Recession, Covid, etc, causes shifts in the market. I agree, raise the standards. You have to put arbitrary numbers out there but realize that you may have a number of permits depending on other factors. • Bringing it back to calculations, I think that the goals of both tracking and calculations are good. Depending on how it is implemented it can result in good steps forward. If we want to keep waste out of the landﬁ ll and modify existing homes rather than just take them down, it is helpful to look at what existing structures allow for. A lot of times there is not the depth allowed for these implementations. The policies need to allow for this. If some processes and some of these safety issues can be relegated to an inspector, we need to make it more speciﬁ c around those types of things such as rotting plywood etc. D. Participant Questions and Comments on Proposed Tracking• Can I also ask for some sort of tracking system that is diff erent for multi-family? I was asked to provide demolition calculations for the entire building for one small unit. • Tracking is of the sections where there have been issues in the past, resultant policies built an entire complicated system, and I don’t think people will come back and that this will be impactful. • If someone redoes their house and next year someone buys it and wants to tear it down, will this apply?• Looking ahead at property values and how this can increase the value of the property – just trying to think ahead because you are making a property more (or less) valuable.• I’d be curious to see the number of applications annually before we commit to metrics and have unintended consequences.• Ensure that this change would impact something like that through change orders. If someone would like to redo a large portion of the building that was not energy effi cient.• There are other ways to disincentivize demolition other than a tracking system.• What if the stud or joint was water damaged? If you pull off the sheeting and it has water damage, I don’t think this should count. • By adding the tracking system, it will add one extra step. It is appreciated, I think it is really diffi cult for us to go back and be asked for demolition calculations. This allows for ﬂ exibility with streamlining our process. II. AFFORDABLE HOUSING A. Participant Questions and Comments on Proposed Location• I think that the notion of south or north side of the river is antiquated. You can have an aff ordable housing projects on the south side and the number of parking spaces should have higher criteria no matter where the project is. • I’ve seen two diff erent occasions under mixed-use district where there was an allowable density and both applicants were denied their right to additional ﬂ oor area ratio through Special Review. Maybe you can get to a Special Review section of all codes to deﬁ ne 100% aff ordable to be approved through Special Review. • As an aff ordable housing developer, land costs are one of your biggest barriers. Historical properties are typically limiting to land value. Any time someone is taking a historical asset and returning it to local living, it is more valuable than a piece of vacant land. I would continue to argue that special review could and should apply. • It sounds like Historic Preservation Committee is just going to be a design review board because there will not be a discussion of mass and scale? This becomes very subjective. • Problems that have come are going to continue to happen. I think that when the hardest decisions in the community have to be made, it should be left to our electives, not volunteer boards. It is the people that have a consequence - our elected offi cials, that should choose how a project proceeds.144 APPENDIX E: ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX E ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY24• As you increase density are you also looking at City infrastructure support capaCity?• Some things have been passed over on R6 – I get the notion that this is off limits for increasing density?• I would like to see a review of parking and loosen the term so that it is not so rigid so that neighbors cannot make comments against otherwise quality products. • It makes more sense and allows for more creativity. It allows for smaller projects in other zone districts. They are smaller, 4 or 5 units rather than a huge Burlingame-style place. • It is interesting thinking about how we build it to incentivize folks to make it a really attractive place for people to live that have nowhere else to go. • The inventory of RO – is there something that this demographic needs to use as an opportunity?• Is RO more attractive to developers? There was an RO unit on APCHA that sat there and never sold because it was not aff ordable. • Right-sizingng is important – how do you incentivize making it an attractive product to get more bedrooms in the community?• Question about the concept of the review board. Aff ordable housing goes to Planning and Zoning and Historic Preservation Committee. If they are compliant, would they be streamlined?• If it is a conforming project, they should get to do it without all the overhead review. • To me as a member of the community Id desperately like our AH to be more cost-eff ective and more eff ectively house people. Also interesting about the 50% above grade housing. This just adds to the cost. People want basement space; it is desired by private sector but prohibited by aff ordable housing. • Relative to the idea of having aff ordable housing in more places than currently permitted, I am conceptually supportive but deeply troubled by it. The US service land given its proximity should be high-density aff ordable housing. It is a miss that housing was sold off to private buyers rather than bought by the City. There was a discussion in my neighborhood to put much higher density housing and my neighborhood would absolutely be opposed to this. There are locations that are adjacent to transit where higher density would make sense. • I think these are good goals in general but if you include the administrative path, it becomes how do we avoid a referendum? • I’ve worked on homes like this that are fully compliant, but we must be very clear about aspects such as parking, mass and scale, design etc. The neighbors use this as leverage. • I’d be cautious of rental vs ownership. You can have properties that the City has a partnership with and those can shift.B. Participant Questions and Comments on Housing Mitigation• How does a buyer know that the deferral agreement and an obligation exist and who is making sure that when I sell my house that this is happening?• If you put a number out there, you are forcing City to take cash in lieu. If you put a quantity out there, then the burden on the purchaser is more substantial. • Going back to calculations, have you looked at applying it to the lot area?• Shifting from ﬂ oor area to livable is a huge philosophical shift. I think you have done a great job at not touching the “hot buttons”, but I do think you’ll have another one of these issues with the local residents. You need to be prepared to address this because these are people who have lived here a long time and they feel like they’re getting burned with this. • When you were talking about livable area, does this include the basement? This is double or tripling square footage?• Consider lowering the requirements to make it more equitable and fair rather than a quadruple jump. • One option that I haven’t seen pursued very much is taking the older aff ordable housing stock and redeveloping it. Ex: units out of Truscott. You can have twice the density. • Have you run any numbers on what this will produce or how meaningful it will be based on past projects?• I wonder if the amounts are meaningful in the aggregate to the City. The whole current code is very byzantine, but this will have a huge eff ect on the development costs of a house. This will lift prices overall in the market which is counter to making it a more aff ordable place to live. This simpliﬁ es policy to some extent, but are the dollars meaningful enough relative to the per square foot cost locally?• The rate of depreciation should be directly tied to the computation of the mitigation required. In the RRC study from 2015, it was based on 30-year time period. If a full-time employee is based on 30-year period than the depreciation should be based on 30-year period. You should get 2/3 of the depreciation after 20 years. You need to be apples to apples – generating and mitigating based on the same standard. • If the real estate market slows, might there be unintended consequences through this policy? If we pace the cost and create higher barriers and friction, won’t we further slow the market. You shouldn’t make impactful changes at a high watermark. For someone thinking about where they’re going to go to develop a property, if they’re paying $480,000 on just permits, that is a huge barrier. I do worry about the consequences when times are tougher. • I wish we’d have come up with beneﬁ ts for people who put AH on their lots. I think we need more durable carrots than sticks. I would take advantage of those who are willing to pay premiums into the AH to get through. We may then deal with the fact that there are too many of those people. Same thing with basements, if we get units and money because of that then great, who does that harm?• When the idea of unintended consequences comes up, I think we don’t know if they will happen or who they will hurt. I am not moved by whether it may happen, but by who it will happen to. Who will it impact worse? It will be much more helpful if both sides were laid out in front of you. • Is there anything else that we are planning on doing to promote aff ordable housing? Do you know what is in the pipeline for aff ordable housing that is coming up? If we have no aff ordable housing then it wont really make big beneﬁ ts to our community, • I’m seeing that you are increasing the Full Time Employees (FTEs) which adds more stress to a program this is already broken. This eliminates for a development project to make sense from an FTE point. It will only make sense from a commercial project. This doesn’t seem to be matching the problem at hand. By saying basements should be included makes sense right now but instead of putting a bandage on the problem, ﬁ x the problem. This is a bigger issue than a cash in lieu for FTE credit. There is a much bigger issue – no one has credits and its two years before a credit becomes available and they are likely already called for. • If you are adding a big basement, then you are penalizing someone with a small house as opposed to those with a big house putting in a basement. You’re taxing existing to new rather than the total in general. This will tax those who you don’t want to.• Has there been a ﬂ at-tax based on evaluation? This may not be fairer, but it seems like it could have certain things built in for credit earned. • You want to encourage people to live here on a full-time basis. Maybe the depreciation factor is tied to where you pay taxes. 145 APPENDIX E: ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARYAPPENDIX E ROUND #2 APRIL FOCUS GROUPS SUMMARY25• If the goal is to create fair mitigation, it should be fair across the board. If the goal is to create housing the locals should want that just as much without the deferral. If the community’s goal is aff ordable housing, then everyone in the community needs to provide for it. Deferring mitigation doesn’t help with increasing more aff ordable housing. • You need to have people who service and maintain houses and that’s car trips etc. and short-term rentals seem to drive this more than anything else because they’re essentially small hotels. If council’s goal isn’t to develop more aff ordable housing units then the idea of instituting any kind of monetary policy to supplement local housing - what happens to the money?• Where do you apply the money? Where do you build? There is no place. Is the end goal for mitigation to build one speciﬁ c project?• This is ironic because we want to limit growth, but we want to increase density and higher traffi c in smaller areas for aff ordable housing • Industry being taxed is the industry which no employees have interest in. Maybe put the housing mitigation on restaurants and lodges? You shouldn’t penalize the smaller projects and take away the credit for what’s already been hard. Increasing mitigation makes it diffi cult for those who are locals and grew up here.• When someone is building a house and they are going to live here for 20 years, why mitigate at all if they are building it for themselves, the workers, to live in? We should welcome people who want to build their own residences and if they live in it they contributed to the solution.• If someone built a house and called it RO would you allow them to sell off the credit? You’ve just created the opportunity to sell a credit off and live in the house for 20 plus years. This may be counteractive to real estate market because why would I depreciate my home but if they need it then that gives them an opportunity. C. Participant Questions and Comments on Free Market Units• Free market residential, there is virtually no such thing as a deed-restricted house turning into free-market residential.III. DIMENSIONAL AMENDMENTS A. Participant Questions and Comments on Dimensional Amendments• What are the consequences to the neighboring property owner in allowing the owner to go from 5 to 3 feet? The consequence for neighboring properties needs to be thought out.• This will be very hard on your staff and diffi cult to administer.• I don’t think it’s necessary but allowing it is understandable. On new developments, there shouldn’t be any allowances. • Energy improvements - is there a limit to height and what you can do?• You’ll probably have to designate a no-ﬂ y zone where height additions can’t happen. • As someone who observes construction, I believe digging deep basements have disproportionate impacts. I’d ask you to ﬁ gure out if big basements have these. How long does it take? How much of the street? Etc. I’d like to know if a square foot is really just a “square foot”. From an impact point of view, my biggest issue is a project that takes a long amount of time. Being able to build a basement setback to setback when the house isn’t able to makes no sense.• On the ﬂ ip side, in our house which is historical, if we want to do anything we have to have a basement and the only way to do it is go all the way out to setbacks. I like things streamlined, but this is one of those things that just isn’t. I know it is complicated and very speciﬁ c and that’s why I’m here. • Why not say that they are to ﬁ nish instead of sheeting? Make it more consistent for everything. It just adds the ability to change by inches, not ﬂ oor area. You would be pushing the limit of setbacks rather than generating energy effi ciency. • I had a discussion with ﬁ re marshals and the three-foot window well is barely big enough for ﬁ reﬁ ghters to get through with all of their gear on. It is diffi cult to get in and out of or even get saved by. Can it be built on an angle just to be big enough for a ﬁ re marshal to get in and out of there? • You need to rewrite the deﬁ nition of a nonconforming structure. Some were built per code but with setback adjustments are nonconforming so if you change anything they have to go through many processes. People would keep their houses longer if they can renovate. 146 APPENDIX F: ROUND #2 APRIL OPEN HOUSE AND POP-UP EVENTS SUMMARYAPPENDIX F ROUND #2 APRIL OPEN HOUSE AND POP UP EVENTS SUMMARY26An Open House was held on April 27th at Aspen City Hall in the Pearl Pass Room and the second was on the Pedestrian Mall. There was a total of 27 participants that showed up.Project boards were displayed for the public. The boards contained background information on current conditions and Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) as well as several potential policy statements. The participants were encouraged to respond through dots, sticky notes, and verbal engagement. The dots signiﬁ ed one’s level of support for each policy changes. Green dots meant “Yes, I support this policy”, yellow dots mean “I could support this with conditions”, and red dots mean “No, I do not support this policy”. Summarized below are quotes from verbal engagement and the written sticky notes.I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATION• Aff ordable housing qualiﬁ cation should be more strict - 1,500 hours for a full time employee is a low standard.• Qualiﬁ ed occupancy of APCHA units should be more strictly enforced.• Appropriate enforcement equals AH units with no growth and limited cost.• Dimensional variances should be allowed for aff ordable housing projects to make more eff ective use of limited resources.• In very limited residential sound such as USFS, Main Street, location next to major travel corridors/public transit should increased units in density be considered.• Dimensional variances should be permitted to make aff ordable housing effi cient.• Saffi ng council need to remember that aff ordable housing has negative impacts two examples are density, demand for services, etc. it should not be sacred.• How can people state their concerns for the project in the new process?• Will people be notiﬁ ed of the 100% aff ordable housing project?II. DIMENSIONS• No setback encroachment variances in new construction.III. HOUSING MITIGATION AND PERMITS• Do not increase density in residential neighborhoods to create more aff ordable housing – Too many negative impacts – must comply with existing zoning including density.• Housing mitigation considered duplicate payment in aff ordable housing – RETT payments and aff ordable housing mitigation is a double dip.• Employment generation computation square footage and mitigation square footage deﬁ nitions must be exactly the same.• If you want to remodle, everyone who got in before the change gets off free, but those after get the impact fee? • What is causing the decrease in mitigation? How much comes from RETT?• What other tools are there for aff ordable housing mitigation?• Construction is the only full time eployee impact in a remodel if you keep it the same size, correct?IV. DEMOLITION• Should continue exemption for strictly square footage replacement of existing old structure should be encouraged. • Limiting demolition allotment will come with unintended consequences. Under 40% demo projects will be more intensive disruptive, take longer, etc. Focus on mitigation, smart demolition practices, energy effi ciency and don’t create a new problem.• Demolition scoring should include struct her age. Older structure equals greater access to demolition.• For the portion of your house that has not triggered demolition, do you have to remitigate?• There are a lack of beneﬁ tts for designated lots. They have decreased so much that no one cares to get it designated or preserve it.• Has the city ever thought about rent control?• I’d like there to be more about the toll that construction takes on climate and sustainability.147 APPENDIX F: ROUND #2 APRIL OPEN HOUSE AND POP-UP EVENTS SUMMARY27APPENDIX F ROUND #2 APRIL OPEN HOUSE AND POP UP EVENTS SUMMARYAnother pop-up event was held on the Pedestrian Mall on April 30th. In total, 22 members of the community participated.Similar to the Open House, six poject boards were displayed. The boards directed contributors on how to participate, off ered background information on current conditions in Aspen, emphasized statements from the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) and displayed several potential policy statements. Project team members walked community members through each board and direction statement. After thorough explanations, participants were asked to off er their opinions on each statement through dots in addition to verbal communication. The dots signiﬁ ed one’s level of support for each policy changes on a spectrum from “Yes, I support this policy” (green dots) to “No, I do not support this policy” (red dots). Summarized below are both written and spoken opinions from this event.I. AFFORDABLE HOUSING CREATION• Stop growing out, reuse what we have. Nothing should be taller than the Wheeler.• Aff ordable housing could be included in The Armory. • I would much rather see a big, very functional place for employees in town than scattered around.II. DIMENSIONS• Aff ordable housing density should be able to be “called up” to allow an increase above the code. Some places might be okay for very high density of aff ordable housing and we need it.III. HOUSING MITIGATION AND PERMITS• Allow aff ordable dwelling units (ADU’s), but do not count them as mitigation.IV. DEMOLITION• Hold open houses on permitted demos for public to recucly, use, and sell materials on that structure.148 APPENDIX F: ROUND #2 APRIL OPEN HOUSE AND POP-UP EVENTS SUMMARY28APPENDIX F ROUND #2 APRIL OPEN HOUSE AND POP UP EVENTS SUMMARYThe following table displays the combined responses from the events discussed above (those that took place between April 13th and April 30th) in addition to the responses from Aspen Community Voice. Aside from the online survey, boards were used at each event to gather feedback for support of the potential policies in the form of sticker dots. The responses for each policy are summarized below. Please note that not all potential policies were displayed through each method of outreach. This is the reasoning for some totals appearing much smaller than others. It is also important to note that not all respondents gave feedback on each potential policy. 149 APPENDIX G: ROUND #2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY29APPENDIX G ROUND #2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARYAfter the initial round of public engagement, once high level potential policy responses had been identiﬁ ed, a series of one-on-one technical stakeholder interviews were conducted by staff to further reﬁ re potential policy responses. Technical stakeholders were selected based on their involvement, understanding, and expertise in the policy areas being considered to respond to the moratorium. Each meeting was open format discussions that allowed staff and the technical stakeholder to explore potential code responses in more detail. The open format allowed each technical stakeholder to discuss opportunities based on their speciﬁ c area of expertise or opinion on best practices and approach. These interviews identiﬁ ed code responses that should be adopted to accomplish intended policy outcomes, eliminated redundant or counterproductive code responses that did not help accomplish stated policy goals, helped to identify code responses that were impractical to implement, and added speciﬁ city to potential code responses. I. DEMOLITION• Net zero would be the way to go, don’t worry about size just focus on performance and energy production. Conservation gets you to 70-80% of net zero. • Retro-ﬁ tting is the best way to improve building performance on the outside. • Commercial mechanical equipment regulations are really hard to meet. The 72” rule is not quite tall enough, and 6” is too small.• Mandate effi ciency sometimes results in reduction in cubic footage, which is not reasonable to expect owners to choose that, so have to require it. • Noise is a big issue for equipment in the setback. • Height of acoustical screens - increase allowances. • Air source heat pumps are the direction the industry is going. • Add ﬂ exibility on mechanical equipment screening visually, but mostly for acoustics. • Noise in setbacks is a concern. 60-65 decibels for equipment. Heat pump/boilers for radiant heat and cooling may be better to be in the setback. They can also go on the roof.• Ground source heat pumps are viable alternative though they will have a big cost increase and only a small effi ciency improvement.• Heating effi ciency has to be 100% - forces them to consider ground source heat pumps • Get away from natural gas. • Heat pumps are good but likely need backup heat source. • Heating with air source heat pumps in pits requires snow melt which is one negative of that option. • 48” depth only addresses cooling – not helpful for heating. At grade or above - 72-80” above roof plane would be preferred alternative. • Put enforcement into HERS system • AV/Humidity/security – “luxury load” is where the real energy consumption (heat tape, snowmelt, holiday lighting) is that we don’t regulate. • ERIs (Energy Rating Index) are a good tool. • Calres was a problem – could game the system – problem with any performance software. Instead of designing the most effi cient building in practice, you design for the best score in the software which doesn’t always translate to best design practices. • Options for compliance could include with and without PV scores, or cash-in lieu off set • Summit County requires ZERH (Zero Energy Ready Homes) on all their permits • Real crux would be ZERH + lower number ERI without PV • In terms of the carbon footprint of homes, accounting is a real challenge. You can track number, don’t require minimums right off the bat.• For remodels – smaller equipment may be more appropriate (especially in setback) maybe 30” above, 48” below • Allow for eaves to project over mechanical area/equipment even if into setback to prevent snow from being an issue. • Mechanical screening needs to be clariﬁ ed as not counting as a fence, and not ﬂ oor area. Need to require screening for visual and noise impacts. Landscaping, standard materials, etc. should all be allowed for screening. Minimum size is necessary.• Potential solution for Historic Preservation demolition projects could be a joint review – HP reviews HP and P&Z reviews everything else • Demo tracking should be 5-7 years at most, this process bogs it down and drives price up. • Demolition sheets need to be included in every permit • Duplex tracking is an issue, some potential solutions are 20% to 40% per unit. 20% per unit with an exemption under 5%.• Replacing and improving windows is key to effi ciency. Get rid of penetrations in the exterior.• For masonry structures, inside wall with phonelic foam is a barrier. For this issue, deal with surface tension water. Limiting to R-15 on interior due to space requirements.• Historic Preservation consideration, performance improvements help the longevity of the structure. • For, mechanical systems, heat pumps are not as effi cient when it gets really cold, but ground source is expensive. Make enclosure effi cient to reduce electric demand to heat.• Mechanical equipment should have no height limit on roof. • Talk to equipment manufactures about mechanical equipment size limitations for highest effi ciency.• Double walls assemblies should count to outside of inside wall.• Mandate energy recovery ventilation (ERV) on ventilation systems.II. DECONSTRUCTION• Important to distinguish between diff erent levels – deconstruction, grinding, throw it out • Drywall recycling is the biggest road block.• Be careful of whack a mole – you don’t want to push impacts somewhere else (eg. Garﬁ eld County Landﬁ ll). • Green halo is used by Pitkin County – may be worth including in City process. • A good ﬁ rst step would be education, get information out to people that are involved in demo and waste hauling – who does what? Who takes what? What resources are available? No one knows where to go. • A training program would be helpful and maybe necessary depending on requirements put in place. • Incentivization is important, for instance could PitCo pay money for scrap metal?• Repurpose on-site is big help – requires full deconstruction. The process of unbuilding will reduce the number of dumpsters needed to sort. • How do we accommodate ﬁ re/water damage? 150 APPENDIX G: ROUND #2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY30APPENDIX G ROUND #2 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS SUMMARY• You need to address land ﬁ ll monitoring. • Drop and swap – construction materials required to be submitted, could re-sell used materials to approved haulers.• Put together list of what can be recycled, and what it can be recycled into. • Metal recycling requires a trip to Denver/Grand Junction for best prices. Even at that distance it’s worth the drive. • Foam/insulation in concrete makes it more diffi cult to repurpose.• If there are trace amounts of asbestos in any materials, it cannot be run through grinder.• Sorted demolition better than non-sorted. There is an increase in cost for unsorted demolition.• For concrete and metal repurposing, steel is the best to recycle and concrete has to be clean. Silt is the closest metal facility, but Grand Junction and Denver pay the best. • Taking waste to the landﬁ ll should be the highest cost. • City should talk to south canyon about rejecting Pitkin County waste.• City of Palo Alto requires deconstruction for all SFR demolitions. They have numerous existing re-use facilities and tax beneﬁ ts are the main motivator.• It is important to quantify weight of stuff that’s salvaged for overall tracking. For example, if you sell appliances at restore, how does that weight contribute to overall diversion requirements. Reuse/resale facilities don’t always track things by weight. • Green halo is used to divert 25%, deposit is required. If they want their deposit back, they need to achieve that 25% mark. The landﬁ ll is external review agency for Pitkin County permits. • No setback encroachment variances in new construction.III. AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION • Do not increase density in residential neighborhoods to create more aff ordable housing – Too many 151 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Pete Strecker, Finance Director THROUGH:Sara Ott, City Manager MEETING DATE: May 9, 2022 RE:Short-Term Rental – Tax Questions REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Council has requested staff facilitate a Council work session to further consider a short-term rental tax that would ultimately establish resources for addressing Community impacts generated by the STR economy in the areas of workforce housing and childcare, environmental and other issues. Staff is requesting input from Council in a number of policy areas to help further this taxation question. SUMMARY / BACKGROUND: Following the adoption of the moratorium on December 8, staff has been working collaboratively with a diverse set of stakeholders in the short-term rental (STR) arena, to garner various perspectives around how to best consider regulations that might influence both community and neighborhood feel as well as fairness in the lodging industry. In tandem with these meetings, staff has had periodic check-ins with Council, to seek policy direction on the identified key focus areas: zoning, good neighbor policies, operational standards, life safety standards, permitting, financials and enforcement. At the April 11 check-in, staff asked for Council input around the desire to have an operational fee, and also the interest level for a voter-approved tax, on STRs. Staff received feedback at that meeting to proceed with an operational fee assessment and agreed for staff to return to seek answers to policy questions around the issue of taxation. DISCUSSION: Staff is continuing to work on the operational fee computation and has enlisted the assistance of a third- party consultant to develop the needed basis for nexus considerations that will equate the efforts of financial oversight; health, life and safety inspection; zoning enforcement; etc. into that rate. This fee will be presented at a future session with Council and ultimately incorporated into an ordnance for adoption. Regarding the issue of taxation, staff requires Council direction on a number of policy items before a tax question can be formulated for consideration. Depending on when Council can provide direction to these areas will play into the ultimate timing of a ballot question. POLICY QUESTION #1: What is the desired timeframe for approaching voters with a STR tax question? During the April 11 work session discussion, Council members proposed two possible dates for when to approach voters: November 2022 or March 2023. Consideration for which date would be best to ask voters for tax policy changes was reflective a November election being a major election and that the 152 City’s tax question could be lost along with other issues on the ballot and/or could be competing with other tax questions from nearby or overlapping jurisdictions. Staff has requested input from the County and other taxing entities in the upper Valley and is aware that the Ambulance District may being looking at an operational tax in 2022 and that the County had various needs (housing, jail, childcare, mental health) that might have tax needs for consideration in 2023. DECISION NEEDED: Does Council desire to place a question on the November 2022 ballot? If this is desired, staff must notify the County in June that it desires to be included on the ballot. A ballot question will need to be formalized and adopted in two readings by the Council by the end of August, and then the formal ballot question will need to be conveyed to the County by early September for certification. POLICY QUESTION #2: What are the intended uses of the tax to be levied? During previous work sessions and included in the language of the moratorium, Council has expressed the unfunded impacts associated with the robust short-term rental market that exists within Aspen. Explicitly stated impacts to affordable housing and childcare, transit and the environment were all identified as not being captured for these businesses, and unlike the realities for other commercially licensed businesses. DECISION NEEDED: Can Council affirm whether or not these impact areas are aligned with the taxation question that would be presented to voters? Are there any areas missing or are some areas of lesser priority than others? Can the Council provide direction around an allocation for a STR tax to the desired areas of impact to help steer a future ballot question? POLICY QUESTION #3: Should an existing tax be reviewed? Who should pay the tax? What level of taxation? This policy question is truly a three-in-one ask as there is an interdependence between them. The response to an initial question of how existing taxes align with Council and Community expectations can create a basis for what type of tax and level of taxation. Aspen voters have already adopted a 2.0% lodging tax that is levied not only on traditional lodge offerings, but on STRs as well. This tax is based on the nightly room rate, with proceeds (this tax generated roughly $4.2M in 2021) dedicated to two specific operations: tourism promotion ($3.1M) and transit services ($1.1M). DECISION #3A NEEDED: Does the revenue generated and use of the current lodging tax align well with Council and Community expectations? Currently, the City already levies a lodging tax that is paid on short-term rentals in both traditional lodges and in the single owner rental offerings, and is equal to 2.0% of the nightly rate (for stays up to 29 nights). This tax is currently dedicated towards two uses: no-fare transit services within the City and tourism promotion. Since there is an existing tax levied on nightly stays in these non-traditional STR lodge offerings, staff felt it is appropriate to highlight this overlap before proceeding down a new tax question and allow Council to evaluate the current tax use and whether it remains aligned with Community interests. This tax can remain in place whether a new tax is levied or not, but due to the intersection of a new tax with what 153 has already been adopted by voters is worth assessing. If changes were desired, an in-depth discussion of how best to address modifications would be required at a future work session. DECISION #3B NEEDED: Is there a preferred option for what the tax structuring would look like when addressing a tax for the short-term rental industry? For consideration of potential new taxation on the short-term rental industry, there are options as to how to structure a tax. The two most common methods for taxation would either an ad valorem excise tax or flat rate per unit excise tax. These options allow a level of scalability for the cost per room or the size of lodging offered, they are relatively simple to understand, and they are easy to pass on to the renter. That said, an excise tax on bedroom count doesn’t appear to scale up or down nearly as equitably as a percentage of nightly room rate. There is a question for the Council around the urgency of addressing the community impacts identified by Council in Question #1 which can lend itself back to what level of taxation is desired for this industry to pay its fair share. Should the targeted tax be set to fully offset the disparity in the property taxation process? Laying this on top of the existing 2.0% lodging tax, and wanting to expand uses to areas such as more affordable housing and childcare (for example), what additional percentage should be levied? This can also be considered in terms of future Community intent to use these resources as pledged sources for issuing new debt. To provide context around setting a new tax rate: Looking solely at the disparity in assessed valuation rates for commercial properties and residential properties (where STRs operate as commercial businesses but pay a residential property tax rate), a starting point for a new ad valorem excise tax on nightly room rates could be 5.4%. o This could be allocated for use based on voter approval and would not be limited to the current uses of the general purpose and clean river program mill levies, though both the Asset Management Plan and Stormwater Plan both have funding needs. The above does not necessarily then impact childcare or additional affordable housing funding needs, so the 5.4% could be further escalated to account for those needs. Researching some other communities that already have a specific STR lodging tax approved, those communities range from an additional 2% to 15% on nightly rental rates. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: Staff requires input from Council around the timing of a ballot question, the uses of existing taxes and the structure of a new tax and its intended purpose for addressing community impacts from the short- term rental economy. It is anticipated that a follow up session will be needed to address the issue of what tax rate should be pursued. If sufficient responses to all questions can be provided in the next month, the possibility of reaching the November ballot timeframe is possible, but may not be the Council preferred timeline (TBD). Whatever the outcome, staff is prepared to take the necessary steps to bring forward Council’s direction, once provided. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 154 Short-term Rentals –Financial Discussion City Council –Work Session May 9, 2022 155 Work Session on March 1: •Zoning –number, location, density/intensity of use, surrounding uses •Permitting –eligibility, transferability •Life safety –inspections, fire, signage and noticing •Financials –fees and taxes •Operational standards –days of operation/year, occupancy, nuisances, wildlife/trash, parking/access •Enforcement –staff support, enforcement plan, fine schedule Previous Council Direction & Community Engagement 156 Workgroup Meeting March 17: •Attendees –condo-hotels, real estate brokers, property management groups, individual homeowners, regulatory groups •Overview –current tax rates, who is paying, current collection levels, options for taxes vs. fees and review of other communities’ actions •Takeaways –understanding of fee to capture operational costs to run the program, support for taxes over fees to address impact concerns Work Session on April 11: •Fees –focus on regulation and enforcement cost capture (items from 3/1) •Taxes –focus on STR related impacts to Community Previous Council Direction & Community Engagement 157 1) Timing of Question? –Where are we with Community support and what are other jurisdictions considering that could affect approval of a ballot question? 2) Purpose of Tax? –What programs would we want to support with these new resources to address STR related impacts? 3a) New or Existing Tax?–How does this layer over or within current taxation in place? 3b) Who Pays the Tax? –Is this a tax that encompasses the entire lodging community or just short-term rentals? 3c) What is the Target? –Is there a level of resources desired for application with this tax? Direction Sought from Council Tonight 158 Question #1 –Ballot Timing •November 2022 –major election may lead to greater turnout, but also can have question “get lost” •March 2023 –Aspen one of few that have election at this time, but delays the implementation of tax collections •What Are Other Jurisdictions Considering? o 2022 –Ambulance Operations o 2023 –Possibly Housing, Jail, Childcare, Mental Health 159 Question What timeline does Council wish to consider around a ballot question? Policy Outcomes Support for additional tax and for its uses in tackling Community concerns Staff Notes Following voter decision, will take about 2 full months to align system changes for tax collection. January 2023 tax remittance due February 20th. Question #1 –Ballot Timing Notify County of Election Needs June Council Adopts Ordinance End of Aug Ballot Language Certified 1st Week Sept Election Day11/8/2022 Effective Date of Tax 1/1/2023 160 Question #2 –Purpose of Tax Fee (Operational Based)Tax (Impact Based)Percent or Priority Zoning and Permitting Affordable Housing ? Licensing, Auditing & Tax Collection Childcare ? Life Safety Inspections Transit ? Education of Regulations Environmental Impacts ? Enforcement Efforts “Other”? How Shall Tax Revenue Be Directed for Community Benefit? 161 Question What are the desired uses for new tax collections? Policy Outcomes Address impacts to the Community for increased visitation and residential development activity due to short-term rental lodging options Staff Notes Clearly define uses for new tax revenue Create flexibility,within defined uses, to be nimble to changes Transit impacts may not need to be prioritized at this time. Question #2 –Purpose of Tax 162 Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much Jurisdiction and Tax Type Rate Levied City of Aspen Sales Tax 2.40% Pitkin County Sales Tax 3.60% Roaring Fork Transit Authority Sales Tax 0.40% State of Colorado Sales Tax 2.90% Total Sales Tax 9.30% City of Aspen Lodging Tax (on Room Sales)2.00% Total Sales and Lodging Tax 11.30% $24.5M in 2021 $15.3M –Parks & Open Space (1.5%) $3.1M –Education (0.3%) $2.5M –Childcare (0.45% * 55%) $2.1M –Housing (0.45% * 45%) $1.5M –Transportation (0.15%) Next Slide 163 2021 Taxable Room Sales Current 2.0% Tax Percent of Total Resources STR Lodging*$82,600,000 $1,652,000 40% Traditional Lodging $126,650,000 $2,533,000 60% Total Lodging Industry $209,250,000 $4,185,000 100% Transportation (0.50%)$1,046,250 25% Tourism Promotion (1.50%)$3,138,750 75% Total Use of Resources $4,185,000 100% * Includes properties like the Gant, Aspen Square, Aspen Alps, etc. that are individually owned units. Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much Current Taxation In Place 164 Question Does the current tax use align well with Community expectations? Policy Outcomes Ensuring existing resources are allocated for desired outcomes and consistent with public interests. Staff Notes IF there were desired changes to this existing taxing authority, it would be a separate ballot question and should be discussed for timing as well. Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much 165 Flat Rate Per Bedroom / Pillow Count Least preferrable option. Not significant disparity for rentals of varying price points. Does not achieve desired fairness outcomes. Percentage of Nightly Rental Rate Aligns with current tax structure for easy of understanding and scales up to reflect premiums charged for high-end rentals. Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much Options for New Excise Tax 166 2021 Taxable Room Sales Each Add’l 1.0% Tax STR Sector of Lodging Economy $82,600,000 $826,000 Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much Possible New Taxation SHALL CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE INCREASED NOT MORE THAN $[____] COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2023, AND BY WHATEVER AMOUNTS ARE GENERATED ANNUALLY THEREAFTER BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN EXCISE TAX OF NOT MORE THAN [___]%ON THE AMOUNT CHARGED TO ANY PERSON ON A NIGHTLY ROOM RATE AT ANY ACCOMMODATION OR BUSINESS THAT IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A VACATION RENTAL PERMIT FROM THE CITY; AND SHALL THE REVENUE GENERATED FROM SUCH TAX BE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE FUNDING [________________], WITH THE RATE OF TAX BEING ALLOWED TO BE INCREASED OR DECREASED WITHOUT FURTHER VOTER APPROVAL SO LONG AS THE RATE OF TAXATION DOES NOT EXCEED [___]%; AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, KEEP AND SPEND THE REVENUES FROM SUCH TAX AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME THEREFROM NOTWITHSTANDING THE LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION? 167 What STR Industry Looks Like Today Bedrooms Per Listing Number of Rentals Number of Bedrooms Total Heated Area Average Square Feet Per Listing Total Actual Value Total Assessed Value 0 113 113*61,239 542 $117,330,500 $8,389,180 1 154 154 91,116 592 $146,012,700 $10,439,810 2 430 860 459,006 1,067 $899,114,000 $64,286,730 3 307 932 563,030 1,834 $1,153,142,000 $82,449,640 4 142 568 503,461 3,546 $945,690,700 $67,616,900 5 64 320 316,342 4,943 $544,402,000 $38,924,730 6 21 126 141,281 6,728 $259,273,900 $18,539,410 7 8 56 72,491 9,061 $155,489,600 $11,117,510 8 1 8 6,535 6,535 $18,786,000 $1,343,200 13 2 26 23,487 11,744 $34,875,700 $4,328,430 Totals:1,242*3,152 2,237,988 1,802 $4,274,117,100 $307,435,540 Not Shown: 21 Records Still Vetting * Includes properties like the Gant, Aspen Square, Aspen Alps, etc. that are individually owned units and make up a large portion of the 0-, 1-and 2-bedroom units shown above.168 Actual Property Value for STR Listings $4,274,117,100 Assessed Value at Residential Rate $307,435,540 Assessed Value at Commercial Rate $1,239,493,959 Difference in Assessed Value $932,058,419 General Purpose & Clean River Program Mill Levies 4.788 Delta in Property Tax Revenue $4,462,696 Every 1% in Lodging Tax on STR Units Generates $826,000 Excise Tax Rate to Generate Equivalent $4.462M 5.4% Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much To solely address assessment rate variance, an excise tax of 5.4% would be needed… … with these resources applied to the above noted mill levy areas or to other voter-approved purposes 169 Tax Rates Nightly Stay 29 Night Stay Nightly Rate in Aspen $1,500.00 $45,000.00 City of Aspen Sales Tax 2.40%$36.00 $1,044.00 Pitkin County Sales Tax 3.60%$54.00 $1,566.00 Roaring Fork Transit Tax 0.40%$6.00 $174.00 State of Colorado Sales Tax 2.90%$43.50 $1,261.50 City of Aspen Current Lodging Tax 2.00%$30.00 $870.00 Subtotal: Current Existing Tax *$169.50 $4,915.50 A. New STR Tax (Just Property Tax)5.40%$81.00 $2,349.00 B. New STR Tax (?)??? Total: With Any Additional STR Tax *$250.50 $7,264.50 Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much Based on 5/4/2022 Advertised Average Nightly Rate… 170 Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much What are other communities doing? Community Total Tax STR Tax STR Tax Specific Uses Aspen 11.300%TBD TBD Avon 14.400%2.00%Community Housing Crested Butte 20.900%7.50%Affordable Housing Frisco 15.725%5.00%Affordable Housing Mt. Crested Butte 16.800%2.90%Affordable Housing Ouray 27.950%15.00%Affordable Housing & Wastewater Telluride 15.150%2.50%Affordable Housing 171 Policy Outcomes Ensure alignment of existing resources is reflective of Community wishes Establish new taxes for current unfunded impacts Address concerns around fairness in lodging economy for taxation Staff Notes The timing of outcomes in areas of housing, childcare, environment, etc. depend on resources available The mill levy gap is only one area of disparity as there are other community impacts that are not currently funded Question #3 –New or Existing, Who Pays, How Much 172 Next Steps Timing Drives Everything November 2022 ballot question would force rapid process; March 2023 allows for greater flexibility in process Additional Work Session Tentatively Scheduled for June 7 Were all answers available around purpose and targeted level of resources? What questions does Council need analysis to for further consideration? 173