HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202206131
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 13, 2022
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
ZOOM
www.zoom.us
Webinar ID: 914 5232 1834
Password: 81611
Click “Join Meeting”
OR
Join by phone
US: +1 253 215 1834
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Aspen Electric Resilience Planning
I.B.2022 Aspen Community Survey Results
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steve Hunter, Utilities Resource Manager, Phil Overeynder, Special
Project Manager, Tyler Christoff, Utilities Director
THROUGH: Scott Miller, Public Works Director, Sara Ott, City Manager
MEMO DATE: May 31, 2022
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2022
RE: Local Renewable Energy Development - 2022 Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Council is requested to review staff’s proposed conceptual
project list for local renewable energy development. Staff is providing this memo to the
Mayor and City Council so that they may be informed of the status of the Aspen Utilities
Department renewable energy development 2022 options and incentives.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen’s Utility Department provides water
and electric service to approximately 7,100 meters for the health, enjoyment, and benefit
of community residents, businesses, and visitors to Aspen, Colorado. In 2014, Aspen City
Council gave direction to staff on how to best balance renewable energy supplies through
expansion of hydroelectric and wind energy sources. Following recommended actions
developed by the National Renewable Energy Labs (NREL) and Council direction, Aspen
became the 3rd municipal electric utility in the nation to achieve a 100% Renewable
Energy portfolio.
Today Aspen both produces and purchases renewable energy to meet the demands of
its customers. Aspen has a successful, longstanding relationship with the Municipal
Energy Agency of Nebraska (MEAN), a wholesale power cooperative with participant
communities in Iowa, Nebraska, Wyoming and Colorado. Demand in excess of what
Aspen can produce locally is purchased, transmitted, and managed by MEAN.
Staff believe this legacy of conscientious resource management aligns with Council and
community values. Continued planning and analysis is required to ensure Aspen’s
electric portfolio is efficient, reliable, scalable, and cost effective.
DISCUSSION:The City of Aspen Utilities Department continues to evaluate local
renewable energy production against purchased power alternatives in an effort to stabilize
and reduce the cost of energy. Additionally, these efforts seek to balance resources to
meet multiple objectives including lowest life cycle costs, long term rate stability, and
satisfaction of environmental goals. Staff continuously assesses Aspen’s energy portfolio
2
against emerging trends, the energy marketplace, community values, and local
opportunities.
Staff believe projects listed as options 1-4 below are examples of local renewable
opportunities that should be considered for development or inclusion into Aspen’s
renewable energy portfolio. With Council support staff proposes continued planning and
development of these projects. A prioritized review of these potential projects is outlined
below:
1.Existing Maroon Creek Hydroelectric - Increased Capacity
The Maroon Creek hydroelectric facility is located on City owned property
approximately 1.5 miles downstream from the Maroon Creek dam and headgate
near T Lazy 7 Ranch. The existing 500 KW powerplant generates power utilizing
one of two raw water pipelines that supply water to Leonard Thomas Reservoir
and Aspen’s potable water system. Water diverted at the municipal headgate,
which is not required to supply water to Aspen’s potable system, is utilized to
generate electric power for Aspen’s municipal electric customers. This is
accomplished through a direct power exchange with Holy Cross Energy. The
facility received a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license in the
late 1980’s. With the pending requirement for renewal of this license, the City is
investigating the addition of a second micro turbine to capture energy, primarily
from water as it is bypassed at the existing diversion structure. The existing
Maroon Creek hydroelectric facility and headgate are described as project facilities
under the existing FERC license. Changes or additions to this infrastructure, such
as a second micro turbine, are considered an expansion of the existing project and
will be required to be outlined in FERC licensing procedures. The second turbine
may also allow the State Engineer to better administer flows at the headgate. The
City’s commitment to instream flow protection in Maroon Creek would be more
effectively implemented because the portion of the City’s senior water right that
would be utilized by the second turbine also serves the purpose of maintaining
stream flows, and may exercise a “call” under certain circumstances when the
decreed instream flow could not. Staff believe this added micro turbine would
enhance the City’s utilization of existing rights, maintain the availability of water to
supply municipal water customers while increasing hydroelectric production.
Staff have identified the following considerations for Maroon Creek Project:
•The existing Maroon Creek hydroelectric facilities Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) permit needs to be reissued before June
1, 2028. FERC recommends all licensees begin this process five years prior
to the expiration date of current license or June 1, 2023.
•This must be completed to maintain our current FERC license for operation
of the Maroon Creek hydroelectric facility.
•Pitkin County 1041 Permit will be required (if adding power).
•Potential interest from local water rights holders, local caucus, and
environmental groups.
3
•Construction cost escalation potential in current inflationary market.
2.Ruedi Hydroelectric – Increased Capacity
The Ruedi hydroelectric facility is located 13 miles northeast of the town of Basalt
Colorado. The 5 MW powerplant generates power from releases from the 102,000-
acre-foot Ruedi Reservoir owned and operated by the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR). The current facility has a nameplate capacity of 5000 KW
but due to hydraulic limitations can only produce slightly over 4000 KW. The City
is investigating adding a second 1 MW turbine to bring the facility up to its 5000
KMW nameplate capacity. Currently the facility is licensed under multiple permits
through both FERC and USBR. The City has submitted an official request with
USBR for a Lease of Power Privilege (LOPP). The LOPP is a contractual right
given to a non-federal entity to use USBR facilities (i.e., dam) for electric power
generation consistent with USBR project purposes. This has multiple benefits to
the city including reducing the operational and permitting complexity of being
licensed under two federal agencies.
Staff have identified the following considerations for the Ruedi project:
•Multiple water interests are supported with release schedules and
hydroelectric production (power generation, recreation, aquatic habitat).
•Pitkin County 1041 Permit will be required (if adding power).
•Alignment with 2014 Council direction favors ownership or control of power
generation sources.
•Construction cost escalation uncertainty in current inflationary market.
•Existing Transmission expenses already cover output of 2nd turbine.
•New turbine restores capacity & energy output to 1983 levels (5000 KW).
3.Ridgway Hydroelectric – Additional Contract Energy
The City of Aspen Utilities purchase renewable hydroelectric power from Ridgway
hydroelectric facility in Ridgway, Colorado. Currently the City purchases power 8
months out of 12. This accounts for approximately 14.5% of Aspen’s renewable
energy portfolio. Through existing contact allowances, the utility is exploring
opportunities to purchase an additional 4 four months of hydroelectric power which
would increase the amount of available renewable energy. Currently, summer
energy production exceeds Aspen’s current needs, therefore it would be necessary
to find partners to maintain a balance in Aspen’s renewable energy portfolio.
Staff have identified the following considerations for additional hydroelectric power
purchase from Ridgway:
•Aspen needs other entity (municipal utility or MEAN) to partner for this
agreement.
•Hydroelectric generation may be impacted by water management
decisions.
4
•Existing contract continues Aspen’s purchase obligation for winter output
regardless of decision to exercise 1st right of refusal.
4. Local Utility Scale Solar – Project Development
MEAN published an RFP on behalf of MEAN participants in the fall of 2021 for
solar PV panels to be installed in interested communities. The community provides
the land and electrical facilities to the sites. The developer provides, installs, and
maintains the solar PV panels, the invertors, all supporting structures, and all
electrical wiring. Developer will provide a power purchase agreement (PPA) for no
less than 25 years. Although Aspen was not an initial participant, it is still open for
Aspen to join if desired. Staff has considered a 1000 KW facility at the Woody
Creek parcel that would occupy approximately 5 acres.
Staff have identified the following considerations for the development of local Utility
scale Solar project:
•Potential interest from local caucus (i.e., Holy Cross project).
•Alignment with 2014 Council direction favors ownership or control of power
generation sources.
•Committed to ~25-year contract.
•Unforeseen permit matters and timeframe.
•Equipment purchases for solar interconnection and potential unknown
upgrades to Holy Cross distribution system at interconnection point.
•Higher cost than hydroelectric options when capacity charges, transmission
and land costs are added to base energy charges.
•Sandhills Energy (solar developer) will retain the federal incentives.
5. Others
Considerations for Castle Creek Proposed Hydroelectric Facility
Aspen pursued development of the Castle Creek Energy Center which was to be
located on City owned property near the City Shops on Power Plant Road. The
project would have produced 1100 KW and would have utilized releases of water
from Thomas Reservoir. The water in Thomas Reservoir originates from diversions
at both Castle and Maroon Creek headgates. Opposition from environmental
groups and local property owners resulted in a court challenge to the water rights
necessary to supply the project. The City settled the lawsuit in 2014. Reconsidering
completion of the project would require certain actions under the terms of the
settlement agreement.
•Potential interest from local water rights holders, local caucus, and
environmental groups.
•FERC permit will be required.
•Pitkin County 1041 Permit will be required.
•Alignment with 2014 Council direction favors ownership or control of
power generation sources.
5
•Construction cost escalation potential in current inflationary market.
While not exhaustive, staff believe options 1-4, listed above provide the most cost-
effective near-term benefits to Aspen’s renewable energy portfolio at this time. Staff will
continue a periodic feasibility review of other alternatives such as the Castle Creek
hydroelectric facility to evaluate the desirability of in-City generation in the event of grid
failure.
The Aspen Electric Utility have currently allocated resources to continue to develop and
pursue these potential projects. It is likely that staff will request to augment these
resources during project exploration. Contracts, licensing, capital, and operational costs
would be brought to City Council for support before true development of any of these
resources. Additionally, staff believe it is important to assess these projects with current
Federal funding and incentive packages. Without this continued analysis and
development Aspen runs the potential risk of losing federal funding and production
incentives.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:Staff continuously evaluate financial impacts of both locally
generated and purchased power costs. These expenses are ultimately supported by rate
payers and are paid from the Utility enterprise funds. Continued diligence and long-term
planning allow the Utility and its customers to enjoy general rate stability as compared to
pricing observed in the real-time energy markets. The above outlined projects have been
reviewed against current and projected market data as well as Federal incentives aimed
at hastening the grid’s transition to renewable energy. It is important to consider the
following points regarding Federal incentives:
Federal funding available through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(2022) is included in staff’s analysis of expected energy costs. If Aspen pursued
the addition of two added turbine generators (Ruedi and Maroon Creek) Federal
grants covering approximately 30% of the construction cost and production
incentives have the potential to be realized. Moving forward with local projects at
this time will place the City in a competitive position to receive the benefit of
available funding sources under the 2022 legislation.
For solar and Ridgway projects federal incentives would be realized by the project
developers.
At this time Staff believe the cost of the outlined alternatives to expand local renewable
energy production may offer a lower cost than Aspen currently pays to MEAN for wind
energy. Since the net effect of these decisions would be to reduce the amount of wind
energy purchased at contract rates, the impact to the fund would likely be a reduction in
purchase power costs relative to current cost of purchased power through the agreement
with MEAN. Staff believe this reduction, coupled with local generation of renewables
would create additional rate stability and a connection resource use for Aspen’s
customers.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If council chooses not to continue to pursue development
of any of the expanded sources of renewable energy, Aspen could continue to purchase
6
wind energy through MEAN, thereby continuing to meet the goal of utilizing 100%
renewable energy in its municipal utility. On a grid level, more energy production is shifting
from hydrocarbon sources (coal and natural gas) to wind and solar. Recent federal
legislation has recognized that with these new intermittent sources making up more of the
energy supplied, hydroelectric sources will play an increasing role in ensuring grid
reliability. The federal grants and production incentives for improving efficiency at existing
hydroelectric facilities are designed to recognize the important role of facilities that can
meet energy needs when the sun doesn’t shine or when wind sources aren’t available. If
Aspen elects to increasingly rely on wind and solar energy as energy demands increase,
it runs the risk of decreasing grid resilience and reliability, both at a local level and on the
larger grid scale.
The City is committed to reducing its carbon and water footprint and addressing climate
change. The City’s efforts to monitor, manage and improve its renewable energy portfolio
are necessary to ensure the City’s resiliency. All alternatives require extensive
environmental review and approvals prior to a project moving forward.
RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff requests a robust discussion that includes questions and
comments from Council, direction from Council on the specific policy questions, and any
requests for additional information for Council consideration during renewable project
development
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
7
1
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
June 2022
Presented by: Elevated Insights
Debbie Balch
8
Aspen Community Survey Method Overview
2
Who?*
When?
678 Aspen Respondents
Data was weighted to represent Aspen Census Norms (Age, Gender, Income); +/- 4% Margin of Error
To ensure the community at large was able to voice their opinions, the survey was made
available to the public through varied efforts:
•6,297 letters were distributed to all registered voters and APCHA residents
•Emails were sent to prior survey respondents that opted-in to participating in future community discussions
•Paid Instagram & Facebook ads geographically targeting the Aspen area
•Notice in the City of Aspen Utility Mailer
•Posts on the City of Aspen social media pages
•Advertisements in local media such as the Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News
Surveys were collected from February 25th – March 29
th of 2022
How?
What?
Anonymous, web-based community survey
9
Updates to Method in 2022 vs. 2019
3
2022 2019
Streamlined Length 15 minutes shorter Median
completion time 12:51 27:24
More broad-based
Community
Response
Number of partial completes 1173 1019
# complete after cleaning / & removing
duplicates 678 439
# of responses from 18-34 year-old residents
(Results weighted to reflect Census norms both years)159 53
Spanish language completed responses 33 0
# of paper surveys requested/sent 19 3
Clarified Strategic
Focus Areas
How Strategic Focus Areas were presented
when asking about satisfaction (see right)
Named &
Described Named
Strategic Focus Areas
(as named & described in the survey)
10
Overall Findings
11
Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
5
Personal Quality of Life
~65% -
75%
% Satisfied / Positive
(Scale includes neutral option, excludes ‘don’t know” responses)
79%
While this level of satisfaction with personal
quality of life is good by US standards, this
represents a significant decline for the City of
Aspen overall.
Percent satisfied with their quality of life
dropped from 88% (+/- 5%) in 2019 to 79%
(+/- 4%) in 2022 (↓9 points); a 4-point
change in percent satisfied is statistically
significant with 95% confidence.
Peers and other Colorado cities were analyzed
for pre vs. post COVID shifts, and the City of
Aspen’s drop in satisfaction is more
noteworthy than comparisons. This indicates
that Aspen’s challenges extend beyond the
impact of COVID-19.
12
Satisfaction with City Services
6
Satisfaction with City Services
~50% -
60%
% Satisfied
(Scale includes neutral option, excludes ‘don’t know” responses)
52%
About half of residents are satisfied with the
quality of services provided by the City of
Aspen, about 1/4 are neutral with their
satisfaction of City services, and about 1/4 are
dissatisfied with quality of City services.
While this is in line with average satisfaction
with city services in the US, this represents a
19-point reduction vs. 2019 and the lowest
satisfaction recorded since the start of
measuring this metric in 2006.
13
7
79%
55%
Satisfied (6-10)
Very Satisfied (8-10)
88%
66%
Satisfied (6-10)
Very Satisfied (8-10)
2022
2019
79%
2022
88%
2019
% Satisfied with Personal Quality of Life
Quality of Life - Satisfaction Trends
% Satisfied with Personal
Quality of Life ↓ 9 Points
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Who is Least Satisfied?
•18 - 44 Years Old
•Household Income under $100K
•Residents negatively impacted by COVID
Whyare they Dissatisfied with Quality of Life?
•More dissatisfied with Aspen’s Livability and
Economic Vitality
•Dissatisfied with lack of affordable
shopping & restaurants
14
COVID’s Impact on Quality of Life in Aspen
8
Quality of Life is worse now versus
before the COVID-1939%
Total Worse
after COVID
Unchanged
after COVID
Better
after COVID
N = 677 258 247 160
Dissat Satisfied Dissat Satisfied Dissat Satisfied Dissat Satisfied
14%79%23%68%8%81%3%94%
Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
by Impact of COVID on Quality of Life
24%Better quality of life now vs.
before COVID-19
POST
COVID
PRE
COVID
Point
Change
City of Aspen
2022 vs 2019
79%88%↓ 9
Total US Range
Late 2021 vs 2019 65-75%65-75%↓ 2
Aspen vs. Total US -% Satisfied with Quality of Life
Post COVID vs Pre COVID
15
9
Key Driver Analysis –Strategic Focus Areas Most Impacting
Personal Quality of Life
FOR REFERENCE:
Make Aspen Livable (City government ensures Aspen is a great
place to live and work, including access to childcare, healthcare,
housing, recreation, internet, and transit)
Foster Economic Vitality (City government develops a healthy,
diverse local economy through commercial & residential
development and local shopping)
When analyzing the connection between tested strategic focus areas and
residents’ quality of life:
•Making Aspen Livable and Fostering Economic Vitality had both lowest
satisfaction ratings and the strongest connection with Personal Quality
of Life satisfaction.
•Customer-Focused Government, Community Engagement, &
Financial Health were less connected with Quality of Life but were
more connected with Satisfaction with City Services.
16
10
Quality of City Services - Satisfaction Trends
% Satisfied with Quality of
City Services ↓19 Points
52%
2022
71%
2019
2022
2019
% Satisfied with Quality of City Services
10
Who is Least Satisfied?
•Business owners
•Males
•Year-round residents
•35-54 years old
Whyare they Dissatisfied with City services?
•More dissatisfied with Aspen’s community engagement,
customer-focused government, and maintaining the
City’s financial health
•Concerns over developers/commercial development and
who the city is prioritizing.
17
45%
44%
41%
33%
32%
22%
21%
41%
19%
11%
8%
5%
7%
4%
63%
52%
42%
37%
29%
25%
11Question: For each City of Aspen priority below, please rate your level of satisfaction with the City's performance:
SCORE DETAILS
% Selecting Satisfied + Very Satisfied (Top 2 boxes among 5)
Neutral option was included in scale.
Satisfaction by Strategic Focus Areas % Satisfied
(Satisfied +
Very Satisfied)
Ensure a Safe Community 86
Protect the Local Natural Environment 63
Support Community Engagement 52
Maintain City of Aspen’s Financial Health 42
Customer-Focused Government 37
Make Aspen Livable 29
Foster Economic Vitality 25
2022 % Satisfied % Very Satisfied
18
45%
49%
44%
55%
41%
53%
33%
41%
32%
34%
22%
35%
21%
35%
41%
39%
19%
22%
11%
14%
8%
14%
5%
8%
7%
10%
4%
6%
63%
52%
42%
55%
37%
42%
29%
45%
25%
41%
12Question: For each City of Aspen priority below, please rate your level of satisfaction with the City's performance:
SCORE DETAILS
% Selecting Satisfied + Very Satisfied (Top 2 boxes among 5)
Neutral option was included in scale.
Trended Satisfaction by Strategic Focus Areas % Satisfied
(Satisfied + Very Satisfied)
Point
Change
2022
REF
2019 2022
vs 2019
Ensure a Safe Community 86 88 ↓ 2
Protect the Local Natural Environment 63 77 ↓ 14
Support Community Engagement 52 67 ↓ 15
Maintain City of Aspen’s Financial Health 42 55 ↓ 13
Customer-Focused Government 37 42 ↓ 5
Make Aspen Livable 29 45 ↓ 16
Foster Economic Vitality 25 41 ↓ 16
2022 % Satisfied % Very Satisfied
2019 % Satisfied % Very Satisfied
19
Findings by
Strategic Focus Area
20
14
Customer-Focused Government
About half of the residents agree that the City provides a welcoming environment for citizen involvement
(56%) and provides value overall for the taxes paid (49%)
Only about 1/3 of residents agree that that the City matches spending with community priorities (32%)
and that the City can be trusted to look out for residents’ interests (30%)
The City provides a
welcoming environment for
citizen involvement
The City provides value
overall for the taxes paid
The City matches spending
with community priorities
The City can be trusted to
look out for my interests
7%
11%
15%
17%
11%
16%
28%
28%
26%
25%
25%
25%
44%
40%
27%
24%
12%
9%
5%
6%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
21
15
Fiscal Health & Economic Vitality
81% are dissatisfied with affordable shopping
opportunities in Aspen (just 7% are satisfied)
69% are dissatisfied with commercial and
residential development in the City (15% are
satisfied)
Employment
opportunities
Overall economic health
Commercial and
residential development
in the City
Affordable shopping
opportunities
6%
8%
37%
50%
12%
17%
32%
31%
32%
34%
16%
11%
37%
36%
11%
6%
13%
5%
4%
1%
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
22
Specific Areas
of Interest
23
17
Infant Care and Early Childhood Needs
% Rating
Important
% Rating
Not Important
Expand high-quality early
education programming 60 14
Increase the number of early
childhood education space 60 12
Increase the number of infant
care spaces 58 15
Most placed importance on taking action to improve childcare needs
24
Patrolling on foot /
Talking to residents
& tourists
58%
Wildlife interaction
education (bears,
moose, deer, elk,
mountain lions, etc.)
44%
Patrolling on bikes 34%
18
Community Policing
Top Community Policing Priorities
More
LessThe
Same
Other
Desired Amount of Community
Policing in the Future
Most desire the same amount of
community policing efforts
About 1/4 desire more community
policing efforts
25
19
Evacuation Concerns
13%24%29%24%9%
Level of Concern Regarding Evacuating Town in the Event of an Emergency
Extremely concerned Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned
37% of residents are very concerned about evacuating town in the event of an
emergency, 29% are somewhat concerned, and 34% are not concerned
26
20
Castle Creek Bridge Priorities
59%
49%
38%
34%
12%
Reduce peak traffic automobile travel time
Double the number of west-bound emergency evacuation
routes by adding a second bridge over Castle Creek
Reduce travel time for those using public transit
Create a new wildlife corridor the connects the golf course
to Marolt open space
None of the above - the current entrance to Aspen is fine
Top Castle Creek Bridge Replacement Priorities
Reducing peak traffic automobile
travel time (59%) and doubling the
number of west-bound emergency
evacuation routes (49%) were the top
2 priorities cited by over half of the
residents
Only 12% of residents think the
current entrance is fine
27
Open-Ended Bridge & Traffic Feedback from Respondents
21
“That bridge into town needs to be
replaced tomorrow! 15-20 years is
ridiculous!”
“About the Castle Creek Bridge. If you
want to build a second one for cars and
keep the old one for pedestrian and bike
use only that would be awesome and in
case of emergency cars can use it to
evacuate.”
“Improve traffic with bermed
entry/corridor through Marolt open
space and a beautifully landscaped
pedestrian bridge that still allows open
space usage of Marolt. Build bridge over
Castle Creek to Main Street.”
Example of car bridge with pedestrian walkwayExample of separate bike/pedestrian bridge
Highway 82 looking east over
the Castle Creek Bridge in 1986
Castle Creek Bridge photographed in October 2011
28
22
Parks and Open Space Amenities
32%
33%
40%
35%
35%
34%
32%
32%
56%
50%
29%
27%
24%
22%
17%
15%
89%
83%
69%
63%
59%
56%
49%
47%
Trails
Open spaces
Recreation facilities and programs
Quiet spaces
Fitness facilities and programs
Gardens
Playgrounds
Public event space
Very Important Extremely Important
Trails (88%) and open spaces (83)% were important to the largest proportion of residents
29
Recommended
Action
30
Recommended Action
Elevated Insights - Recommended Action Steps
24
•Better communicate the strategic plan, goals, and priorities for the City
- Clarify who being prioritized and action being taken
- Clarify what is being prioritized and action being taken on this front
- Consider educating the community on strategic focus areas and action plans one focus area at a time
-Launch community action/involvement groups to encourage involvement
•Launch an effort to improve affordability and reduce income inequalities - this is an urgent need
- Learn from other cities facing similar challenges with income inequalities and high cost of living
•Prioritize continued efforts to address affordable housing for the whole community (both workforce and community)
•Further involve the community with commercial and residential development decisions
- Ensure community engagement sessions are held at a time when working residents can attend
- Prioritize developments that address City gaps - affordable shopping, dining, spots where locals can gather
- Revisit checks/balances and controls with developers
•Focus on bringing diverse groups together to strengthen sense of community
•Continue community policing efforts with an emphasis on patrolling (on foot and/or on bikes) and wildlife interaction
education
•Develop a plan for the Castle Creek Bridge replacement, prioritizing reducing peak traffic automobile travel time and
increasing evacuation routes
31
25
THANK YOU
32
City of Aspen
2022 Community Survey
MAY 2022
FULL FINDINGS REPORT
33
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
& SHARING/PERMISSIONS
Although this project was managed by the City of Aspen-Strategy & Innovation Office,
we established a great partnership with our external consultant, Elevated Insights,
which provided an unbiased voice and valued expertise throughout this project.
In addition, the City’s Communications Office was instrumental in developing
creative outreach methods to effectively engage the community.
After a couple of years without a community survey in the field due to COVID, we opted
to take a more streamlined approach than in past years, focusing our efforts on
an online survey experience and reducing the number of questions, with a goal
to increase participation and decrease the amount of time to take the survey.
Secondly, we hoped to uncover overall community sentiment and
obtain general direction after two unique and difficult years.
The City of Aspen appreciates this year’s strong survey response and the
ideas generated from the Aspen community, and we will make every effort
to put the community’s priorities into meaningful action.
I want to thank the community for their engagement in this year’s survey
and taking the time to give us their input.
Sincerely, Patrick Quick and the City of Aspen
Permission is granted to reprint from this report with citations to the
City of Aspen &Elevated Insights.
City of Aspen
Patrick Quick, Director of Strategy and Innovation
427 Rio Grande Place
Aspen, CO 81611
Phone: (970) 429-2069
Email: patrick.quick@cityofAspen.com
Web: www.cityofAspen.com
Elevated Insights
Debbie Balch, President
525 N Tejon St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
Office: (719) 590-9999
Email: debbie@elevatedinsights.com
Web: www.elevatedinsights.com
For further information, contact:
234
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Background & Method Overview 4
Key Findings & Recommendations
Executive Summary
Key Findings
Scorecard
Recommendations
9
11
13
17
Full Findings
Satisfaction by Strategic Focus Area 20
Personal Health, Quality of Life, COVID Impact
Physical & Emotional Health
Personal Quality of Life
Personal Quality of Life -Key Drivers, Subgroup Deep Dive
Impact of COVID on Quality of Life
27
28
30
32
37
Quality of City Services
Quality of City Services-Correlations, Subgroup Deep Dive
Likelihood to Recommend Living in Aspen
43
45
50
Specific Areas of Interest
Community Policing
Town Evacuation/Bridge Replacement
Infant Care & Early Childhood
Parks & Open Space Amenities
52
53
56
58
60
Community Suggestions for Aspen
Overall Suggestions
Suggestions by Category
62
63
64
Demographics 78
ATTACHMENTS
A -Strategic Focus Area Descriptions
B –Aspen vs Peer Communities Pre vs. Post COVID
C –Data Tables
86
87
90
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
335
Background &
Methodology
436
5
Survey History & Changes
The City of Aspen has conducted a Citizen Survey since 2006. The annual survey provides a great opportunity
for the City to gather feedback and ensure City services are adequately meeting the needs of Aspen residents.
In 2019, the City transitioned to new leadership and Strategic Focus Areas. At this time, the City commissioned
Elevated Insights, a strategic insights agency, to help update the survey method and approach. This updated
approach utilizes a streamlined survey for a barometer on satisfaction by Strategic Focus Areas, netting an
annual scorecard. Each year, the survey will dive deeper into a few Strategic Focus Areas with more detailed
questions on a rotational basis.
With the scorecard approach, shifts in satisfaction in all Strategic Focus Areas will be apparent; a meaningful
drop in satisfaction will highlight the need to understand community desires in this area on a deeper level.
A great example of this in action can be found from the 2019 Resident Survey results. Lower satisfaction with
the City’s communication highlighted the need for the City to better understand communication preferences;
Updating the City’s communication plan became a large focus after 2019 survey results were in.
Background & Objectives
Survey Objectives
•Listen to resident needs & thoughts using a statistically valid approach to gather feedback
•Understand the state of the City; satisfaction with services, and opinions (both overall and within
Strategic Focus Areas)
•Assess trends over time and versus strategic goals/targets
•Provide a solid foundation to guide strategic planning
•Recommend action steps to improve Quality of Life and Satisfaction with City Services
2022 Survey Content
After a 2-year survey suspension due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the 2022 survey was fielded among the
community at large. Most responses (92%) came from residents living in Aspen 7+ months out of the year while
about 10% of responses came from part-time residents, second homeowners, and some who work in the
community but live outside the City of Aspen. The chart below highlights specific topics & strategic areas
receiving expanded emphasis in 2022:
Strategic Focus Areas Specific Areas of Interest
Customer-Focused Government
Fiscal Health & Economic Vitality
COVID-19 Impact on Residents
Physical Health & Emotional Well-being
Safe & Lived-In Community
•Recreation/Open Space Preferences
•Community Policing Preferences
•Infant/Early Childhood Ed Preferences
•Evacuation Preferences
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
37
6
The City of Aspen seeks input from the public annually. This enables the City to gather resident
feedback and ensure City services are adequately meeting the needs of Aspen residents.
Who?*
What?
When?
678 Aspen Respondents
Data was weighted to represent Aspen Census Norms (Age, Gender, Income)
Anonymous, web-based community survey
The online survey enabled randomization and survey logic to be implemented.
Residents could also request a paper survey which was mailed to them along with
return postage.
56% of responses were completed on a desktop/laptop computer, 33% were
completed on an iPhone, 8% were completed on an Android, and 3% were
completed on a paper survey. This is a noticeable shift from the 70%
desktop/laptop, 35% iPhone, 4% Android, and 1% paper in 2019.
To ensure the community at large was able to voice their opinions,
the survey was made available to the public through varied efforts:
•6,297 letters were distributed to all registered voters and APCHA residents
•Emails were sent to prior survey respondents that opted-in to participating in future
community discussions
•Paid Instagram & Facebook ads geographically targeting the Aspen area
•Notice in the City of Aspen Utility Mailer
•Posts on the City of Aspen social media pages
•Advertisements in local media such as the Aspen Times and Aspen Daily News
Surveys were collected from February 25th –March 29th of 2022
How?
Survey responses were reviewed prior to weighting and tabulation; any duplicate responses
were removed from the source data file. After removing duplicates, 633 Aspen residents
completed the entire survey, and an additional 45 completed at least 50% of the survey.
Please see the APPENDIX document for a detailed methodology employed for the 2022 City of
Aspen Community Survey.
Aspen Community Survey Method Overview
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
38
7
Methodology Updates to Method in 2022 vs 2019 2022 2019
Streamlined length 15 minutes shorter Median completion time 12:51 27:24
More broad-based
community response
Note: 2022 and 2019 responses were
balanced to census norms to more
accurately reflect overall City
population.
In prior years, City of Aspen results
were balanced to match registered
voter demos.
Number of partial completes 1173 1019
# complete after cleaning / & removing duplicates 678 439
# of responses from 18-34 year-old residents
(Results weighted to reflect Census norms)159 53
Spanish language completed responses 33 0
# of paper surveys requested/sent 19 3
Clarified Strategic Focus Areas How Strategic Focus Areas were presented
when asking about satisfaction (see below)
Named &
Described Named
•The 2022 survey provided descriptions to clarify the Strategic Focus Areas prior to respondent ratings
•Strategic Focus Areas were presented in randomized order
•See Attachment A for Side-by-Side view of survey descriptions vs. current City Strategy
Explaining Margin of Error, Confidence Level, & Statistical Significance
Margin of Error /
Confidence Level for
2022 Results
The Margin of Error (MoE) clarifies how well the survey results reflect the views of
the entire population. For this 2022 survey, given the base size of 678 and City of
Aspen population of about 7,100, the margin of error is +/-4% for most questions
when setting the level of confidence at 95%.
Statistical Significance
for Change vs 2019
Statistical significance testing of satisfaction vs. 2019 was conducted at the 95%
confidence level using a 2-tailed Z test. This indicates the likelihood that the
data/difference is true (vs. sampling error after factoring in margin of error for both
sets of data being studies). When comparing satisfaction among 0-10 scales within
strategic focus areas of quality of life, a 4-point change was statistically significant at
a 95% confidence level.
Method Overview, continued
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
39
Key Findings,
Recommended Action,
& Scorecard
840
9
The City of Aspen fielded its last Resident/Community Survey in September of 2019, about 2 ½ years ago.
Significant events and changes have taken place during this timeframe, including the COVID-19 Pandemic,
commercial and residential development, and an influx of new full and part-time residents into Aspen.
The City currently has a temporary moratorium on building in place and is managing challenges with short-term
rentals and affordable housing.
This year’s community survey garnered strong participation and engagement from the Aspen community with
678 community members participating (vs. 438 in 2019), a 55% increase in response rate. In addition to
answering questions posed, residents contributed nearly 1800 unique suggestions for improving Aspen, averaging
more than 3 suggestions each.
Most City of Aspen residents continue to enjoy a positive quality of life; 79% are satisfied with their personal
quality of life. Positive aspects of living in the City of Aspen include health/wellness, safety, and environment:
•88% of residents report positive physical health and 77% report positive emotional well-being
•86% of residents are satisfied with the City of Aspen for Ensuring a Safe Community
•63% are satisfied with the City for Protecting the Local Natural Environment
•While this level of satisfaction with personal quality of life is good by US standards, this represents a
significant decline for the City of Aspen overall, as 88% were satisfied with their quality of life in 2019
•Lower satisfaction levels and greater declines vs. 2019 are present among younger residents, those earning
under $100K per year, and those negatively impacted by COVID
•Respondents dissatisfied with their Personal Quality of Life shared challenges with affordable shopping,
restaurants, and housing and shared how these challenges are impacting their lives.
•Declines in satisfaction are especially significant with Livability & Economic Vitality. 1 in 3 respondents
shared that Aspen needs to be more affordable to live in. Feedback also indicates an increasing divide
between income groups, between full-time residents and part-time residents/tourists, a lost sense of
community, and a feeling of being ‘pushed out’ for many residents.
.
About half of residents are satisfied with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen, about 1/4 are
neutral with their satisfaction of City Services, and about 1/4 are dissatisfied with quality of City services.
•While 52%satisfaction with City Services in line with US averages, this represents a 19-point reduction vs.
2019 when 71% were satisfied with Aspen City services and marks the lowest satisfaction recorded since
the start of measuring this metric in 2006.
•Lower satisfaction levels and greater declines vs. 2019 are present among 35-54 year-old residents,
business owners, males, those earning under $100K per year, and year-round residents.
•Satisfaction with Quality of City Services has a clear connection with ratings for community engagement,
customer-focused government, and ratings for maintaining the City’s financial health; those dissatisfied
strongly disagree with how the City matches spending with community priorities. They shared concerns
over development, expansion/growth, and which groups of residents are being prioritized.
Make Aspen Livable (City government ensures
Aspen is a great place to live and work, including
access to childcare, healthcare, housing,
recreation, internet, and transit)
Foster Economic Vitality (City government
develops a healthy, diverse local economy
through commercial & residential development
and local shopping)
Maintain City’s Financial Health
(City government responsibly
manages taxpayer dollars,
community investments, and
financial reserves.)
Support Community Engagement (City
government regularly shares information
that is helpful & trustworthy, is responsive,
encourages and listens to feedback, and
provides meaningful ways to participate.)
Customer-Focused Government
(City government continuously
improves services and processes
based on feedback, data, best
practices, and innovation.)
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
Executive Summary
41
10
Impact of COVID and Aspen vs. Total US & Benchmarks
Many cities across the US have reported slight reductions in satisfaction with Quality of Life after the COVID
pandemic; most US cities have reported increases in satisfaction with quality of City services post COVID.
In 2019, City of Aspen’s resident satisfaction with personal Quality of Life and Satisfaction with Quality of
City Services were well above total US norms. With these 2022 results, Aspen ratings are now close to US
Norms and below most benchmarks (Colorado or mountain cities with publicly available data .) Peers and
other Colorado cities were analyzed for pre vs. post COVID shifts, and the City of Aspen’s drop in
satisfaction is more noteworthy than comparisons. This indicates that Aspen’s challenges extend beyond
the impact of COVID-19.
Additionally, when isolating City of Aspen residents who claimed an unchanged quality of life after COVID,
satisfaction with personal quality of life dropped by 7 points vs year ago among these 247 residents.
While satisfaction with the quality of City Services increased in most cities post COVID, the City of Aspen
experienced a 18 point drop in satisfaction with the quality of city services.
The following report clarifies areas where the community is more satisfied and less satisfied and includes
recommended actions to reverse these declining trends in satisfaction.
* TUS, Aspen, Pitkin CO, Fort
Collins, and Colorado Springs
satisfaction scales include a neutral
response option; Steamboat and
Estes scales do not include
neutrals, so percent satisfied is
elevated / not comparable –
however the relative point change
provides perspective on COVID’s
impact.
Personal Quality of Life
(% Satisfied)
Quality of City Services
(% Satisfied)
City of Aspen
2022 vs 2019
POST
COVID
PRE
COVID
Point
Change
POST
COVID
PRE
COVID
Point
Change
79%88%↓ 9 52%70%↓ 18
Total US Range
Late 2021 vs 2019 65-75%65-75%↓ 2 50-60%45-55%+ 5
Personal Quality of Life
(% Satisfied)
Quality of City Services
(% Satisfied)
POST
COVID
PRE
COVID
Point
Change
POST
COVID
PRE
COVID
Point
Change
Pitkin County
Fall 2021 vs 2018 87%96%↓ 9 69%75%↓ 6
Fort Collins
2021 vs 2019 85%88%↓ 3 80%80%↔
Colorado Springs
2021 vs 2019 85%83%↑ 2 N/A N/A N/A
Steamboat Springs
Nov 2020 vs 2017 *↑ 1 *↑ 7
Estes Park
2021 vs 2018 *↑ 5 *↑ 1
Percent Satisfied reports the
percent of positive responses when
using scales with a neutral
response option.
National Norm/Average
satisfaction estimates derived from
publicly available US city
satisfaction reports and US studies
conducted by a range of research
and polling companies In the pre
and post COVID-19 timeframes.
Total US point change vs. Pre-
COVID reflects averaged point
difference from Total US
satisfaction levels (% satisfied)
across benchmarked examples.
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
Executive Summary, continued
42
11
➢4 in 5 (79%) are satisfied with their Personal Quality of Life in the City of Aspen
•88% of residents report positive physical health and 77% report positive emotional well-being
•86% of residents are satisfied with the City of Aspen for Ensuring a Safe Community
•63% are satisfied with the City for Protecting the Local Natural Environment
•While this level of satisfaction with personal quality of life is good by US standards, this represents a
significant decline for the City of Aspen overall
•Percent satisfied with their quality of life dropped from 88% (+/-5%) in 2019 to 79% (+/-4%) in 2022
(↓9 points); a 4-point change in percent satisfied is statistically significant with 95% confidence.
•Lower satisfaction levels and greater declines vs. 2019 are present among younger residents, those
earning under $100K per year, and those negatively impacted by COVID
-For 18–34-year-olds, percent satisfied dropped from 91% in 2019 to 73% in 2022 (↓19 points)
-Among those earing under $100K per year, % satisfied dropped from 90% in 2019 to 74% in 2022
(↓17 points)
-23% of those negatively impacted by COVID are dissatisfied with their quality of life in Aspen vs.
8% dissatisfied among those claiming their quality of life was unchanged after COVID.
•The decline in satisfaction with personal quality of life was partially impacted by COVID, however COVID
doesn’t fully account for the decline in overall satisfaction. Total US and benchmark cities with publicly
available data are collectively reporting a 2 point drop in personal quality of life vs pre COVID.
Additionally, when isolating City of Aspen residents who claimed an unchanged quality of life after
COVID, satisfaction among these 247 residents dropped by 7 points vs year ago.
•Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life is strongly associated with how residents rated their
satisfaction with Aspen’s Livability and Economic Vitality, as described below. as described below:
•Respondents dissatisfied with their Personal Quality of Life are especially dissatisfied with affordable
shopping, restaurants, and housing and shared many challenges with affordable living in the City of
Aspen. They are less likely to trust the City of Aspen to look out for their interests.
➢Satisfaction with City performance by Strategic Focus Area is varied and has dropped in all areas
except Safety vs. 2019
•Broad-based reductions indicate that adding descriptions/clarifying the strategic focus areas prior to
ratings may have uncovered a more accurate level of satisfaction vs. 2019 ratings
•86% are satisfied with the City of Aspen for Ensuring a Safe Community
•63% are satisfied with the City for Protecting the Local Natural Environment
•29% are Satisfied with the City’s efforts to Make Aspen Livable
•Only 25% are satisfied with the City for Fostering Economic Vitality
Key Findings
Make Aspen Livable (City government ensures
Aspen is a great place to live and work, including
access to childcare, healthcare, housing,
recreation, internet, and transit)
Foster Economic Vitality (City government
develops a healthy, diverse local economy
through commercial & residential development
and local shopping)
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
43
12
➢About half of residents are satisfied with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen,
about 1/4 are neutral with their satisfaction of City services, and about 1/4 are dissatisfied with
quality of City services.
•While this is in line with average satisfaction with city services in the US, this represents a significant
decline for the City of Aspen and the lowest satisfaction recorded since the start of measuring this
metric in 2006.
•Percent satisfied with the Quality of City Services in Aspen dropped from 71% (+/-5%) in 2019 to 52%
(+/-4%) in 2022 (↓19 points); a 4-point change in percent satisfied is statistically significant vs. 2019
with 95% confidence.
•Lower satisfaction levels and greater declines vs. 2019 are present among 35–54-year-old residents,
business owners, males, those earning under $100K per year, and year-round residents.
•Satisfaction with Quality of City Services has a clear connection with ratings for community
engagement, customer-focused government, and ratings for maintaining the City’s financial health.
•Those dissatisfied with Aspen’s Quality of City Services strongly disagree with how the City matches
spending with community priorities and feel they can’t trust the City to look after their interests,
sharing concerns over development, expansion/growth, and which groups of residents are being
prioritized.
➢Community seeks more affordable living, more affordable housing, and reductions or changes
with development
•1 out of every 3 respondents shared that living in Aspen needs to be more affordable, sharing a
genuine need for affordable restaurants, retail, bars, groceries, recreation, parking, and public
transportation
•31% shared specific needs with affordable housing –for the whole community
•28% passionately shared desired changes with development including reducing development,
helping local restaurants, bars, and retail stay in business, and increased controls over commercial
developers
➢Widening gap between disparate groups and reduced sense of community
•Some residents are asking the City to help reduce economic inequalities between visitors and
locals; many residents feel they’re being pushed out.
•Residents shared more divisive language and suggestions for the City vs. 2019, with
recommendations and requests for the City leadership to prioritize full-time residents/workers over
tourists or newer ‘wealthy’ guests
•A number shared that Aspen has lost a sense of community since COVID, requesting that leadership
help provide opportunities and/or spaces that locals can afford to visit and connect
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
Key Findings, continued
44
13
OVERALL IMPRESSIONS
% Satisfied (Rating 6-10 on 0-10 scale)2022
REF:
2019
Point
Change
2022 vs 2019
Personal Quality of Life 79%88%↓ 9
Reference: Overall Quality of Life 80%90%↓ 10
Likelihood to Recommend Aspen as Place to Live 59%80%↓ 21
SATISFACTION BY STRATEGIC FOCUS AREA
(% Satisfied -Rating 4-5 on 5-point scale)2022 REF:
2019
Point
Change
2022 vs 2019
Overall Quality of City Services 52%71%↓ 19
Ensure a Safe Community 86%88%↓ 2
Protect the Local Natural Environment 63%77%↓ 14
Support Community Engagement 52%67%↓ 15
Maintain City of Aspen’s Financial Health 42%55%↓ 13
Customer-Focused Government 37%42%↓ 5
Make Aspen Livable 29%45%↓ 16
Foster Economic Vitality 25%41%↓ 16
See Attachment A for presented description of Strategic Focus Areas
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
City Scorecard –Overall Metrics
45
14
➢Satisfaction declined vs 2019 in the areas of customer-
focused government and fiscal health/economic vitality
% Satisfied (Rating 4-5 on 5-point scale)2022 2019
Point
Change
2022 vs 2019
Customer-Focused Government (Overall)
City government continuously improves services and processes
based on feedback, data, best practices, and innovation.
37%42%↓ 5
The City provides a welcoming environment for
community involvement 56%63%↓ 7
The City provides value overall for the taxes paid 48%62%↓ 14
The City matches spending with community priorities 32%41%↓ 9
The City can be trusted to look out for my interests 30%46%↓ 16
% Satisfied (Rating 4-5 on 5-point scale)2022 2019
Point
Change
2022 vs 2019
Maintain City of Aspen’s Financial Health (Overall)
(City government responsibly manages taxpayer dollars,
community investments, and financial reserves)
42%55%↓ 13
Foster Economic Vitality (Overall)
(City government develops a healthy, diverse local economy
through commercial & residential development and local shopping)
25%41%↓ 16
Overall economic health 41%51%↓ 10
Employment opportunities 50%47%↑ 3
Commercial and residential development in the City 15%29%↓ 14
Affordable shopping opportunities 7%9%↓ 2
SMART CUSTOMER-FOCUSED GOVERNMENT
FISCAL HEALTH & ECONOMIC VITALITY
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
PERFORMANCE –HIGHLIGHTED STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS
46
15
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 respondents; 1798 suggestions
➢Respondents offered significant feedback for the City; 515 respondents averaged 3-4
unique comments/suggestions for Aspen, yielding nearly 1800 suggestions
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
➢32% (165 respondents) shared that Aspen needs to be more affordable
(living, dining, shopping, recreation, parking, etc.)
➢31% (160 respondents) specifically shared a need for more affordable
housing
The chart below highlights the types of suggestions made along with the % of residents requesting this
specific action. ‘-’ indicates that less than 1% (less than 5 residents) made this specific suggestion.
32%
31%
28%
17%
10%
7%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Affordable Living
Affordable Housing
Change/Reduce Development
City Strategy/Prioritization
Traffic/Congestion
Security/Safety
Changing Community
Community Engagement
Parking Preferences
Street/Road Maintenance
Recreation/Open Space
Environment/Climate Change
Childcare/Daycare
Healthcare
Aesthetics/Beautification
% of Respondents Suggesting Improvements
in the Following Areas
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
Community Suggestions for Keeping Aspen a
Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
47
16
Recap of Community Suggestions for Aspen
from Open-Ended Responses
TOP COMMUNITY REQUESTS
Recap of open-ended suggestions by category for
Keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play
% CITING
2022
N = 515
REFERENCE:
2019
N =275
1) Make living in Aspen more affordable
Residents shared they need affordable restaurants, retail, bars,
groceries, recreation, parking, and/or discounts for locals.
They want the City to help reduce economic inequalities
between visitors and locals; some residents feel they’re being
pushed out.
32%19%
2) Affordable housing –provide more or change
Residents requested more affordable housing for both
employees and community members, especially young people,
families, and more dense options closer to the city core.
31%30%
3) Change/lessen commercial and residential development
Residents shared a desire for less commercial development and
changes with residential development (most want STRs limited).
They requested that Aspen shift focus from developer projects
to help local, small, and affordable businesses stay in town.
Residents offered many suggestions for specific developments
they feel could improve the sense of community in the City.
28%30%
4) Change City prioritization, strategy, or tactics
Many feel the City is prioritizing tourists/guests or second
home-owners over year-round residents and feel the City’s
action benefits groups other than themselves. They encourage
leaders to make decisions for the good of the whole town vs.
preferences or pressures.
17%18%
5) Address traffic, including entrance and exit into town
Expressed frustration with congestion / traffic especially at
roundabout; many comments about needing to improve the
entrance/exit into town along with suggestions to encourage
carpooling and use of public transportation.
10%11%
➢The types of resident suggestions for the City of Aspen were similar in 2022 vs 2019,
with affordable housing and living rising to the top of cited comments
Community members offered many thoughtful and specific suggestions; see pages 62 -77
for more details on suggestions and the Appendix report for verbatim comments.
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 respondents; 1798 suggestions
➢Requests for more affordable living, especially restaurants/bars and shopping
increased by 13 points since 2019, the most notable increase in suggestions made since 2019
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
48
17
Review the full summary report, findings, and verbatim comments from the Appendix Report to get
fully grounded in community feedback.
Top Recommended Action Steps:
•Launch an effort to improve affordability and reduce income inequalities -this is an urgent need
•Prioritize/continue efforts to address affordable housing
✓Incorporate feedback from residents to address APCHA challenges and possible abuse
✓Ensure affordable housing is available for the community at large, not only the lowest-income residents/workforce
•Further involve the community with commercial and residential development decisions
✓Better communicate the strategic plan and goals of the City; clarify and communicate that the City is prioritizing full-
time residents over tourists and second-home owners
✓Create a strategy and incentives to help affordable local businesses remain open in Aspen
✓Consider prioritizing developments that help address needed affordability
✓Revisit checks/balances and controls with developers as residents voiced significant frustration
•Focus on bringing diverse groups together to create community
✓Consider new developments that fill a need, such as affordable gathering places for locals
✓Create a strategy/effort to foster a sense of community; seek out strategies that are working in markets with
significant tourism and higher income inequality (see chart above)
✓Utilize evidence-based community-building and restoration approaches
•Return to annual cadence with satisfaction tracking; provide follow-up opportunities for resident feedback
based on survey input.
✓Based on 2022 input, consider follow-up learning and or community action groups on Affordable Living,
Community-centric Development, and Community-Building
✓Add a ‘sense of community’ metric to future community satisfaction studies
✓Consider dividing the aspects included in Making Aspen a Safe & Livable Community of Choice, either strategically or
with satisfaction survey metrics, as Livability encompasses a broad range of factors
•Continue community policing efforts with an emphasis on patrolling (on foot and/or on bikes) and wildlife
interaction education
•Develop a plan for the Castle Creek Bridge replacement , prioritizing reducing peak traffic automobile travel
time and increasing evacuation routes
✓Many residents shared specific examples/tactics followed by other cities they’ve lived in
✓Hold listening sessions with plenty of advance notice at times when working residents can attend;
take action based on input and keep the community full updated on progress
✓Engage with the hundreds of residents who want to be a part of affordable living solutions
✓Study tactics used to lessen inequality in other US cities with high levels of income inequality and tourism (See
possible markets to learn from with higher GINI Indexes
5 Year ACS GINI Index 2020 5 Year ACS GINI Index 2020
City of Aspen, CO .60 Santa Fe, NM .48
Vail, CO .57 Napa/Sonoma, CA .48
Park City, UT .57 Steamboat Springs, CO .47
Palm Beach, FL .57 Las Vegas, NV .47
Boulder, CO .55 Fort Collins, CO .44
New York City, NY .55 Big Sky, MT .44
Palm Springs, CA .54 Maui County, HI .44
Pitkin County .53 Colorado Springs, CO .43
South Lake Tahoe, CA .52 Telluride, CO .43
Hilton Head, SC .51 Crested Butte, CO .41
Estes Park, CO .49 Summit Park, UT .40
Jackson, WY .49 Breckenridge, CO .35
GINI INDEX
Source: ACS/CENSUS
< 0.2 represents perfect income equality
0.2–0.3 relative equality
0.3–0.4 adequate equality
0.4–0.5 big income gap
0.5 or higher -severe income gap.
Note: the GINI Index reported on the left is a
5-year measure ending in 2020, the GINI Index
available in 2024 would more accurately report
Aspen’s shifts with income inequality post COVID.
The CO Demographer’s office can likely provide
added input on shifts in population and income
inequality since COVID-19.
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
Recommended Action
49
Support Community Engagement
(City government regularly shares information that is helpful & trustworthy,
is responsive, encourages and listens to feedback, and provides meaningful
ways to participate)
18
Customer-Focused Government
City government continuously improves services and processes based on
feedback, data, best practices, and innovation
This strategic focus area description and image reflects actions that would indicate a customer-focus
This strategic focus area description and image connote the process of continual quality improvement
Consider renaming/defining these as
•Customer Focus & Engagement
•Continuous Improvement
•Continue varied outreach methods to more fully represent community sentiment;
include efforts targeting more representation of low-income residents for 2023
•Drop or rephrase the NPS/Net Promoter question to account for resident desires to
minimize more migration into Aspen
•Begin tracking satisfaction with the City of Aspen’s sense of community, as a lessened
sense of community was mentioned by a number of residents.
•Drop the overall quality of life question; the City now has 2 years of overlap/tracking
data since shifting to personal quality of life metric
•Change the open-ended question from what suggestions do you have to improve
Aspen to one that explains their current rating for either personal quality of life OR
satisfaction with quality of City services; this will provide more balanced feedback
(positive and negatives) and will more directly provide answers to ‘why’ for any
future shifts in satisfaction
•Continue to define/frame the meaning of strategic focus areas; consider further
clarifying and separating Support Community Engagement and Customer -Focused
Government:
City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey
Recommended Action -Methodology
50
Full Findings
1951
Satisfaction by
Strategic Focus Area
2052
45%
44%
41%
33%
32%
22%
21%
41%
19%
11%
8%
5%
7%
4%
63%
52%
42%
37%
29%
25%
➢Satisfaction varied by strategic focus area; most are satisfied with Safety and
Environment; Less than 1/3 are satisfied with Aspen’s Livability and Economic Vitality
21
2022 Satisfaction by Strategic Focus Areas
QUESTION DETAILS
For each City of Aspen priority below, please rate your level of satisfaction with the City's performance:
Protect the Local Natural Environment: N=667 Maintain City of Aspen’s Financial Health: N=609
Customer-Focused Environment: N=634 Ensure a Safe Community: N=677
Foster Economic Vitality: N=662 Make Aspen Liveable: N=673
Support Community Engagement: N=652
Satisfaction with the City of Aspen
By Strategic Focus Area -2022 % Satisfied
(Satisfied +
Very Satisfied)
Differences by Group Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100 -
$149.9 $150K+
Live
7-12
Months
Work
In
Aspen
Own a
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 678 334 323 183 118 134 77 110 169 159 97 115 563 475 129 27
Ensure a Safe Community 86%85%88%92%84%80%85%84%87%85%88%85%85%86%80%92%
Protect the Natural Environment 63%62%66%69%63%66%63%59%65%65%58%73%63%64%58%52%
Community Engagement 52%49%54%57%46%57%57%47%54%54%58%50%50%52%37%50%
Maintain Financial Health 42%38%46%38%40%43%45%44%32%43%53%53%41%42%40%49%
Customer-Focused Government 37%36%40%42%37%37%35%37%42%39%41%38%35%38%23%39%
Make Aspen Livable 29%28%30%18%19%36%31%41%30%21%26%34%27%26%29%48%
Foster Economic Vitality 25%25%25%25%21%31%17%26%30%19%19%26%21%24%22%40%
2022 % Satisfied % Very Satisfied
2019 % Satisfied % Very Satisfied
Year-round residents are less satisfied with most Strategic Focus Areas, especially Economic Vitality
Ensure a Safe Community 86
Protect the Local Natural
Environment 63
Support Community
Engagement 52
Maintain City of Aspen’s
Financial Health 42
Customer-Focused
Government 37
Make Aspen Livable 29
Foster Economic Vitality 25
53
45%
49%
44%
55%
41%
53%
33%
41%
32%
34%
22%
35%
21%
35%
41%
39%
19%
22%
11%
14%
8%
13%
5%
8%
7%
10%
4%
6%
63%
52%
42%
55%
37%
42%
29%
45%
25%
41%
22
QUESTION DETAILS
For each City of Aspen priority below, please rate your level of satisfaction with the City's performance:
Protect the Local Natural Environment: N=667 Maintain City of Aspen’s Financial Health: N=609
Customer-Focused Environment: N=634 Ensure a Safe Community: N=677
Foster Economic Vitality: N=662 Make Aspen Liveable: N=673
Support Community Engagement: N=652
Satisfaction with the City of Aspen
By Strategic Focus Area
Shifts vs 2019:
•Livability and Economic Vitality had the largest declines in satisfaction vs. 3 years ago
•Outside of Ensuring Safety and Protecting the Environment, less than 1 in 10 are Very Satisfied with
the City’s performance in remaining Strategic Focus Areas
2022 % Satisfied % Very Satisfied
2019 % Satisfied % Very Satisfied
% Satisfied Point
Change
2022
REF
2019
2022
vs 2019
➢Satisfaction with Safety was high and consistent with 2019;
All other focus areas had declines in satisfaction rates
Trended Satisfaction by Strategic Focus Areas
Ensure a Safe Community 86 88 ↓ 2
Protect the Local Natural
Environment 63 77 ↓ 14
Support Community
Engagement 52 67 ↓ 15
Maintain City of Aspen’s
Financial Health 42 55 ↓ 13
Customer-Focused
Government 37 42 ↓ 5
Make Aspen Livable 29 45 ↓ 16
Foster Economic Vitality 25 41 ↓ 16
54
23
QUESTION DETAILS
The next section is about how well your local government is customer-focused in providing value through our
services. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about the City of Aspen.
The City provides a welcoming environment for community involvement: N=653
The City provides value overall for the taxes paid: N=640
The City matches spending with community priorities: N=618
The City can be trusted to look out for my interests: N=658
The City provides a
welcoming environment
for citizen involvement
The City provides value
overall for the taxes paid
The City matches spending
with community priorities
The City can be trusted to
look out for my interests
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live
7+
Months
Work
In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 678 334 323 183 118 134 77 110 169 159 97 115 35 563 475 129 27
Welcoming environment
for community
involvement
56%54%60%61%56%61%55%55%58%56%63%57%63%55%56%45%48%
Provides value overall
for the taxes paid 48%46%51%46%51%52%48%52%49%44%59%54%46%48%47%42%43%
Matches spending with
community priorities 32%28%36%30%30%43%26%37%31%31%37%36%36%30%31%28%23%
Can be trusted to look out
for my interests 30%27%34%32%30%33%27%34%33%32%30%28%24%28%29%19%13%
Demographic differences:
•Residents 45-54 are much more likely to agree that the City matches spending with community priorities
•Residents with a household income of $50K -$99.9K are les likely to agree that the City provides value overall for the taxes
paid
7%
11%
15%
17%
11%
16%
28%
28%
26%
25%
25%
25%
44%
40%
27%
24%
12%
9%
5%
6%
Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
➢About half of the residents agree that the City provides a welcoming environment for citizen
involvement and provides value overall for the taxes paid. Only about 1/3 of residents agree that
that the City matches spending with community priorities and that the City can be trusted to look
out for residents’ interests
2022 Satisfaction with Customer-Focused Government Statements
55
24
7%
4%
11%
5%
15%
9%
17%
10%
11%
13%
16%
13%
28%
26%
28%
18%
26%
20%
25%
21%
25%
25%
25%
26%
44%
51%
40%
48%
27%
34%
24%
35%
12%
11%
9%
14%
5%
6%
6%
11%
QUESTION DETAILS
The next section is about how well your local government is customer-focused in providing value through our
services. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about the City of Aspen.
The City provides a welcoming environment for community involvement: 2022 N=653; 2019 N=431
The City provides value overall for the taxes paid: 2022 N=640; 2019 N=428
The City matches spending with community priorities: 2022 N=618; 2019 N= 402
The City can be trusted to look out for my interests: 2022 N=658; 2019 N=432
Agreement with Customer-Focused Statements
% Agree
2022
REF
2019
➢Fewer residents agreed with the different Customer-Focused Statements in 2022
compared to 2019. The City can be trusted to look out for my interests saw the
biggest decrease by 16 points
Trended Satisfaction with Customer-Focused Government
The City provides a welcoming
environment for citizen
involvement
2022
56 63
2019
The City provides value overall
for the taxes paid
2022
48 62
2019
The City matches spending
with community priorities
2022
32 41
2019
The City can be trusted
to look out for my interests
2019: I trust the City of Aspen
Government
2022
30 46
2019
56
25
QUESTION DETAILS
Now, we'll transition to a question about the local economy in Aspen. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each
of the following in Aspen?
Employment opportunities: N=627
Overall economic health: N=652
Commercial and residential development in the City:N=663
Affordable shopping opportunities: N=664
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live 7+
Months
Work
In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 678 334 323 183 118 134 77 110 169 159 97 115 35 563 475 129 27
Employment opportunities 50%49%53%59%45%45%57%40%48%55%55%50%55%49%53%49%53%
Overall economic health 41%42%43%29%42%48%48%48%29%43%43%54%49%40%39%46%52%
Commercial and
residential development
in the City
15%16%14%12%15%22%13%10%16%9%13%17%25%13%15%19%19%
Affordable shopping
opportunities 7%9%6%8%8%8%10%4%8%4%4%6%25%6%7%12%23%
Demographic differences:
•Residents 18-34 and residents with a household income less than $50K are less likely to be satisfied with the overall
economic health of the City
Employment opportunities
Overall economic health
Commercial and residential
development in the City
Affordable shopping
opportunities
6%
8%
37%
50%
12%
17%
32%
31%
32%
34%
16%
11%
37%
36%
11%
6%
13%
5%
4%
1%
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
➢81% are dissatisfied with affordable shopping opportunities in Aspen (just 7% are satisfied)
69% are dissatisfied with commercial and residential development in the City (15% are satisfied)
2022 Satisfaction with Fiscal Health & Economic Vitality Statements
57
26
QUESTION DETAILS
Now, we'll transition to a question about the local economy in Aspen. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each
of the following in Aspen?
Employment opportunities: 2022 N=627; 2019 N=405
Overall economic health: 2022 N=652; 2019 N=427
Commercial and residential development in the City:2022 N=663; 2019 N=430
Affordable shopping opportunities: 2022 N=664; 2019 N=440
Trended Satisfaction –Fiscal Health & Economic Vitality
6%
5%
8%
4%
37%
18%
50%
44%
12%
19%
17%
16%
32%
33%
31%
37%
32%
29%
34%
29%
16%
19%
11%
10%
37%
37%
36%
40%
11%
25%
6%
7%
13%
11%
5%
11%
4%
4%
1%
2%
% Satisfied
2022
REF
2019
Employment opportunities
2022
50 47
2019
Overall economic health
2022
41 51
2019
Commercial and residential
development in the City
2019: The City does a good job of dealing
with development pressures (commercial
and residential) –Agreement Scale
2022
15 29
2019
Affordable shopping
opportunities
2022
7 9
2019
Satisfaction with Aspen’s Local Economy
➢Increased satisfaction with Employment Opportunities in Aspen; 50% are now satisfied.
➢Commercial and Residential Development in the City and Overall Economic Health saw lower
satisfaction scores in 2022 vs. 2019
➢Noteworthy increase in the number who are Very Dissatisfied with Development (37% Very
Dissatisfied) and Affordable Shopping Opportunities (50% Very Dissatisfied)
58
Physical & Emotional Health
Quality of Life in Aspen
Impact of COVID-19
2759
28
QUESTION DETAILS
Thinking of yourself personally, how would you rate... Please click or drag the slider to a point on the scale. 0 (far left) =
Very Poor; 10 (far right) = Excellent
Your physical health: N=656
0-3
2%
4
2%
5
8%
6
7%
7
14%
8
26%
9
20%
10
20%
Physical Health
Among Total Residents
Very Poor
0
Excellent
10
88% Good/Very Good/Excellent Physical Health
Demographic differences:
•Residents with a household income of $150K+ were more likely to rate their physical health as
good to excellent (6-10)
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live
7+
Months
Work In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 656 325 314 180 116 125 75 106 169 159 97 115 34 559 474 128 26
6 –10 (Positive)88%88%89%90%81%87%88%90%86%85%87%93%84%88%88%87%84%
0 –4 (Negative)4%3%4%3%8%4%5%3%2%7%4%4%4%4%5%5%8%
➢88% of residents rated their physical health positively (selecting 6-10 on 0-10 scale)
Physical Health
60
29
QUESTION DETAILS
Thinking of yourself personally, how would you rate... Please click or drag the slider to a point on the scale. 0 (far left) =
Very Poor; 10 (far right) = Excellent
Your emotional well-being: N=656
0-3
8%
4
6%
5
9%
6
8%
7
16%
8
19%
9
17%
10
17%
Emotional Well-Being
Among Total Residents
Very Poor
0
Excellent
10
77% Good/Very Good/Excellent Emotional Well-Being
Demographic differences:
•Residents with a household income of less than $50K were much less likely to rate their
emotional well-being positively (6-10) and were more likely to rate their emotional well -being
negatively (0-4)
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live
7+
Months
Work
In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 656 323 315 181 116 123 75 106 169 159 97 115 34 559 472 126 26
6 –10 (Positive)77%78%77%72%69%82%78%87%64%76%77%89%81%76%74%83%86%
0 –4 (Negative)15%14%14%23%22%11%7%3%26%16%12%6%6%16%17%14%5%
➢77% of residents rated their emotional well-being as good to excellent (6-10)
Emotional Well-Being
61
30
QUESTION DETAILS
On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with your personal Quality of Life in Aspen? Please click or drag the slider
to a point on the scale. 0 (far left) = Extremely Dissatisfied; 10 (far right) = Extremely Satisfied
N=677
Differences by Demographic Group:
•Older respondents (65+), those with higher incomes ($150K+), business owners, and those who own a second home in Aspen
are more likely to be Very Satisfied (8-10) with their Personal Quality of Life in Aspen.
•Conversely, younger residents and those earning under $100K per year are less likely to be Very Satisfied with their Personal
Quality of Life in Aspen.
<4
9%
4
5%
5
8%
6
8%
7
15%
8
21%
9
21%
10
14%
55%
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Extremely
Satisfied7.2
Mean
Differences by
Group Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100 -
$149.9 $150K+
Live
3-6
Mos
Live
7-12
Mos
Work
In
Aspen
Own a
Busines
s
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 677 334 323 183 118 134 77 109 169 159 97 115 35 563 475 129 27
Very Dissat 0-2)4%5%3%8%4%-1%4%8%3%4%2%5%4%4%2%-
Somewhat Dissat (3-4)10%8%11%11%13%5%10%7%14%11%6%5%2%10%11%8%5%
Neutral (5)8%9%6%8%7%9%9%3%5%11%6%6%4%7%7%3%7%
Somewhat Sat (6-7)23%20%26%24%22%29%27%17%23%28%31%15%32%23%25%22%24%
Very Satisfied (8-10)55%58%54%48%54%56%53%68%49%47%52%72%56%56%52%66%63%
are satisfied with their Personal Quality of Life in Aspen
(Selecting 6-10 on 0-10 scale)79%
When using a scale from 0-10, where 0 = Extremely Dissatisfied and 10 = Extremely Satisfied,
are very satisfied their Personal Quality of Life in Aspen
(Selecting 8-10 on 0-10 scale)55%
79%
➢About 4 out of 5 residents are satisfied with their Personal Quality of Life in Aspen
2022 Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life in Aspen
62
1%2%
1%3%3%2%5%17%27%19%19%
1%3%5%5%8%
Neutral 8%15%21%21%14%
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
31
QUESTION DETAILS: On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with your personal Quality of Life in Aspen?
Please click or drag the slider to a point on the scale.
0 (far left) = Extremely Dissatisfied; 10 (far right) = Extremely Satisfied N=677 in 2022; 439 in 2019
Personal Quality of Life Trend Over Time
Shift vs. 2019:
•% Satisfied with Personal Quality of Life decreased by 9 points; % Very Satisfied decreased by 11 points
•% with Neutral Satisfaction quadrupled vs 2019
•% Dissatisfied with Personal Quality of Life increased from 10% in 2019 to 14% in 2022
•Net Satisfaction (% Positive less % Negative) dropped by 13 points
Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life in Aspen
% Selecting 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2022 1%0%3%5%5%8%8%15%21%21%14%
2019 1%2%1%3%3%2%5%17%27%19%19%
55%Very Satisfied
79%Satisfied
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
14%Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Net Satisfaction Mean (0-10)
2022 14%8%79%65%7.3
2019 10%2%88%78%7.7
88%Satisfied
66%Very Satisfied
10%Dissatisfied
2022
Reference:
2019
To note, the City of Aspen shifted from General Quality of Life to Personal Quality of Life metric in 2019
% Selecting 0 -10
Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life in Aspen
% Selecting 0 -10
Note: a 4-point change in % satisfied is statistically significant with 95% confidence.
Z-Test of Proportions with N = 677 and N = 439; T-test of independent means with +/-4% in 2022 and +/-5% in 2019
Margin of Error:
With 95%
confidence
4%
Significantly more are dissatisfied and are neutral; Significantly less are satisfied
Mean Satisfaction decreased significantly vs. 2022
➢% Satisfied with Personal Quality of Life is down 9 points vs 2019, with 79% satisfied in 2022
➢% Neutral increased by 6 points vs 2019; 8% are neutral about their personal QOL in 2022
Satisfaction Trends –Personal Quality of Life in Aspen
63
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
32
When analyzing the connection between tested strategic focus areas and residents’ quality of life:
•Making Aspen Livable and Fostering Economic Vitality had both lowest satisfaction ratings and the
strongest connection with Personal Quality of Life satisfaction.
•Customer-Focused Government, Community Engagement, & Financial Health were less connected
with Quality of Life but were more connected with Satisfaction with City Services.
The Details:
•Impact on Personal Quality of Life was calculated using multi-variable regression analysis, using individual
satisfaction ratings for each strategic focus area as independent variables and individual Personal Quality of Life
ratings as the dependent variable.
•573 observations with complete data were utilized; analysis was conducted at 95% confidence level and
yielded an R2 of 92%. The relative coefficients for each strategic focus area were plotted on the Y axis above.
Satisfaction was plotted by using the percent of all respondents who were satisfied with the City’s performance
in each strategic focus area (Top 2 Box; % Satisfied + % Very Satisfied).
•Medians were used to generate quadrant lines.
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREA
IMPACT ON QUALITY OF LIFE
Livable Community
Protecting
Environment
Ensuring
SafetyEconomic
Vitality
Financial Health
Customer
Focused
Community
Engagement
FOCUS EFFORTS HERE
Least Satisfied and
More Linked To Quality of Life
SATISFACTION (% Satisfied)LOWER SATISFACTION HIGHER SATISFACTIONIMPACT ON PERSONAL QUALITY OF LIFELESS IMPACTMORE IMPACTMake Aspen Livable (City government ensures Aspen is a
great place to live and work, including access to childcare,
healthcare, housing, recreation, internet, and transit)
Foster Economic Vitality (City government develops a
healthy, diverse local economy through commercial &
residential development and local shopping)
Key Driver Analysis
Strategic Focus Areas vs Personal Quality of Life
➢Improving Aspen’s Livability and Economic Vitality are more likely to improve
the personal quality of life for Aspenites
MAINTAIN
More Satisfied and
More Linked to Quality of Life
Less Satisfied yet
Less Linked to Quality of Life
More Satisfied yet
Less Linked to Quality of Life
64
33
QUESTION DETAILS: On a scale of 0 to 10,
how satisfied are you with your
personal Quality of Life in Aspen?
Please click or drag the slider to a point on the scale.
0 (far left) = Extremely Dissatisfied;
10 (far right) = Extremely Satisfied
N=677 in 2022; 439 in 2019
Additional Highlights:
•Residents dissatisfied with their quality of life were more likely to hear about the survey from a social/public post or Word of
Mouth; Residents very satisfied with their quality of life were more likely to reply to a mailed survey.
•Those satisfied with their quality of life were less likely to have low income
•Very Dissatisfied residents were disproportionately 18-34 years old, male and had income of less than $50,000
•Those with neutral Quality of Life ratings skewed male whereas Somewhat Satisfied/ Somewhat Dissatisfied skewed female.
➢Those dissatisfied with their Personal Quality of Life are more likely to have been negatively
impacted by COVID; they also skew younger and lower income vs. total respondents.
➢Those dissatisfied with their Personal Quality of Life are more dissatisfied with City Services and
are less likely to recommend Aspen.
* Caution, low base size; ** -Very low base size Use directionally to compare differences between groups
Subgroup Analysis by Levels of Satisfaction
with Personal Quality of Life
Skews vs. Total Responses are shaded
SEE KEY BELOW
Levels of Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
0-10 Scale; 0 = Extremely Dissatisfied; 10 = Extremely Satisfied
Total
Very
Dissatisfied
(0-2)
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
(3-4)
Neutral
(5)
Somewhat
Satisfied
(6-7)
Very
Satisfied
(8-10)
Base Size 678 28**65*52*157 375
Gender
Female 49%36%56%36%55%48%
Male 51%64%41%62%44%52%
How Heard
About Survey
Mail 53%20%58%43%48%58%
Digital Ad 12%29%11%24%15%8%
Word of Mouth 3%21%4%6%3%2%
Household
Income
Less than $50,000 31%55%45%23%30%28%
$50,000 -$99,999 47%37%44%60%56%43%
$100,000 to under $149,999 18%17%11%15%23%17%
$150,000 or more 21%8%10%17%13%28%
Age
18-34 29%60%35%33%30%26%
35-44 19%18%26%19%17%19%
45-54 22%-12%26%26%22%
55-64 12%4%13%15%14%12%
65+18%18%14%8%13%22%
Relationship
with Aspen
Live in Aspen 12 Months/Year 82%72%89%86%80%83%
Live in Aspen 7-12 Months/Year 92%87%99%97%85%94%
Live in Aspen 0-6 Months/Year 8%13%1%3%14%6%
Work in Aspen 75%80%86%78%80%70%
COVID Impact
on QOL
COVID Impact: % Better 24%-7%10%21%32%
% No Change 37%37%28%41%29%42%
COVID Impact: % Worse 39%63%65%50%50%26%
NPS Likelihood to Recommend Aspen
(% Promoters -% Detractors)-29%-94%-92%-88%-47%3%
Satisfaction
w/City Services
Net Satisfaction
(% Satisfied -% Dissatisfied)29%-38%-14%16%17%48%
Shading Net Satisfaction
Difference vs Total Responses
+ .10 -.29 -.10 -.29
+ .30 -.49 -.30 -.49
+ .50 -.69 -.50 -.69
+ 70 or more -.70 or less
Shading Index of
Frequencies vs Total
120-149 70-85
150-299 50-69
300-499 30-49
500+<30
Demographic Analysis: Personal Quality of Life in Aspen
65
➢Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life is linked with how residents rated their satisfaction with Aspen’s Livability
and Economic Vitality; these areas have NET Satisfaction below -80% among those dissatisfied with their personal
quality of life.
➢Those less satisfied with their Personal Quality of Life are especially dissatisfied with affordable shopping and
development and are much less likely to trust the City of Aspen to look out for their interests
* Caution, low base size; ** -Very low base size Use directionally to compare differences between groups
Additional Highlights –Skews vs. Total Respondents
•Residents dissatisfied with their quality of life are much more likely to suggest improvements to community engagement
and are much less likely to agree that the City provides a welcoming environment for involvement
•Those satisfied with their quality of life are more satisfied with Aspen’s Livability and are more likely to feel that the Ci ty
matches spending with community priorities.
•Very Dissatisfied residents were more likely to mention income inequalities, the need community input to be acted on,
concerns with specific developers, and the need for more affordable housing for the community (not just the workforce).
Subgroup Analysis by Levels of Satisfaction
with Personal Quality of Life
Skews vs. Total Responses are shaded
SEE KEY BELOW
Levels of Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
0 = Extremely Dissatisfied; 10 = Extremely Satisfied
Total
Very
Dissatisfied
(0-2)
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
(3-4)
Neutral
(5)
Somewhat
Satisfied
(6-7)
Very
Satisfied
(8-10)
Base Size 677 28**65*52*157 375
Strategic Focus
Areas
NET Satisfaction
(% Satisfied –
% Dissatisfied)
Ensure a Safe Community 78%62%76%78%77%80%
Protect Local Natural Environment 46%-6%1%27%46%60%
Support Community Engagement 28%-22%-4%28%27%38%
Maintain City’s Financial Health 10%-63%-18%12%9%21%
Customer-Focused Government 6%-30%-41%13%3%18%
Make Aspen Livable -28%-89%-82%-39%-49%-3%
Foster Economic Vitality -32%-84%-74%-57%-33%-16%
Customer-
Focused
Government
NET Agreement
Welcoming environment for involvement 38%-39%13%28%27%54%
City can be trusted to look out for my interests -16%-81%-53%-47%-22%3%
City matches spending with community priorities -11%-63%-48%-34%-25%9%
Economic Vitality
NET Satisfaction
Affordable shopping opportunities -74%-100%-99%-88%-85%-60%
Commercial & Residential development -55%-83%-90%-76%-60%-42%
Employment opportunities 50%23%33%40%48%58%
% Citing this
Suggestion
Affordable Living (NET)32%61%38%46%35%27%
Change/Reduce Development 28%40%31%38%30%26%
Create More Affordable Housing 27%65%43%15%24%24%
Budget/ prioritization/ strategy/tactics 17%20%19%19%18%15%
Need affordable/ subsidized restaurants 16%44%24%29%16%12%
Need affordable groceries/ shops/ retail 11%38%23%17%12%6%
Traffic/ congestion/ road design 10%11%12%21%7%10%
Need more affordable housing for the community 9%38%11%12%6%7%
General affordability/ reduce inequalities 8%28%13%5%5%7%
Reduce commercial development 6%15%13%2%8%4%
Change residential development (STRs)6%14%6%8%6%5%
Don't cater to developers 5%15%11%2%6%4%
Community Engagement/Listen to residents 2%15%1%0%3%2%
Shading Net Satisfaction
Difference vs Total Responses
+ .10 -.29 -.10 -.29
+ .30 -.49 -.30 -.49
+ .50 -.69 -.50 -.69
+ 70 or more -.70 or less
Shading Index of
Frequencies vs Total
120-149 70-85
150-299 50-69
300-499 30-49
500+<30
QUESTION DETAILS: On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied
are you with your personal Quality of Life in Aspen?
Please click or drag the slider to a point on the scale.
0 (far left) = Extremely Dissatisfied; 10 (far right) = Extremely Satisfied
N=677 in 2022; 439 in 2019
Analysis of Personal Quality of Life in Aspen vs. Other Ratings
34
66
35
QUESTION DETAILS: On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with your personal Quality of Life in Aspen?
Please click or drag the slider to a point on the scale.
0 (far left) = Extremely Dissatisfied; 10 (far right) = Extremely Satisfied N=677 in 2022; 439 in 2019
➢Declines in satisfaction with personal quality of life were statistically significant among
all subgroups with the exception of 45-54 year old respondents
➢Largest declines in 2022 vs 2019 were among 18-34 year olds and those with household
income under $100K per year
Satisfaction with
Personal QOL
2022 vs 2019 Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100 -
$149.9 $150K+
Total Responding 2022 677 334 323 183 118 134 77 109 169 159 97 115
2022 % Satisfied 79%78%81%73%76%86%80%85%73%75%83%88%
2019 % Satisfied 88%89%92%91%90%87%86%89%87%93%89%91%
Difference ↓9 ↓11 ↓11 ↓19 ↓4 ↓2 ↓6 ↓4 ↓15 ↓18 ↓6 ↓4
2022 % Dissatisfied 14%13%14%19%17%5%11%11%22%14%10%6%
2019 % Dissatisfied 10%9%6%8%8%9%10%9%12%4%9%5%
Difference ↑4 ↑4 ↑8 ↑11 ↑8 ↓4 ↑1 ↑3 ↑10 ↑10 ↑2 ↑2
2022 NET Satisfaction 65%65%67%54%59%80%68%74%50%61%73%81%
2019 NET Satisfaction 78%80%86%84%82%78%76%81%75%89%81%87%
Difference ↓13 ↓14 ↓19 ↓30 ↓22 ↑2 ↓8 ↓7 ↓25 ↓28 ↓8 ↓8
Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
Rating from 0-10 where 0 = Extremely Dissatisfied; 10 = Extremely Satisfied
% Satisfied = % Selecting 6-10
NET Satisfaction = % Satisfied (6-10) -% Dissatisfied (0-4)
Note: a 4-point change in % satisfied or % dissatisfied is statistically significant with 95% confidence.
Z-Test of Proportions with N = 677 and N = 439
Analysis of Personal Quality of Life in Aspen vs. Other Ratings
67
➢About 60% of those dissatisfied with their personal quality of life continue to be satisfied with the quality of
city services; about 40% are also dissatisfied with city services
➢Looking at those dissatisfied with their personal quality of life yet satisfied with the quality of city services
highlights concerns with affordable living, housing, shopping, and prioritizing year-round workers and
residents
36
Unfortunately, affordability and services to support the working class need
to remain big priorities for the town. Like many full-time workers, my
partner and I are being pushed out of town due to high housing and living
expenses. We make $200,000 between the two of us. I never would have
thought we would be seriously contemplating leaving Aspen, but like many
of our friends, it seems more and more financially irresponsible to stay
here. I have dissuaded friends from moving to town because of the high
cost of living. It just feels more unfriendly to local full-time workers with
every year that passes.
It's too late...the harm has been done to our dear little town... Decent, fun,
affordable places to eat are gone....summer traffic is a misery...music
school cannot find places for students and faculty to rent for the summer...
Someone, somehow needs to address the lack of affordability for the
working class. No services (no laundromat?), restaurants (no bar menus),
stores (really??), etc. that we can afford anymore. Excludes us from being
part of & interacting in the community which is disenfranchising. It is still a
great place to play but not a great place to live and work anymore.
Need more local businesses, restaurants, retail, hotels -this builds more
community, it make items affordable. Lower rents! Don't get caught up in
the VIP experiences or the hard gets, this is driving up the pricing on what
people are willing to spend on a contract at Cloud Nine or the Snow Beach
top of Aspen. At least Belly Up as GA pricing along with the Reserved
seating.
Continue to make things affordable and cater to the local population a
little more. Locals needs affordable housing, specifically for families living
in the area.
…Real estate is being grabbed up by investors who care little about the
average Joe or Jane's quality of life and we're actually pushing the locals
out. It makes me sad as I love it here, but for me and my husband to have a
quality of life where we can get out and play on a budget, we will have to
move. I'll also add that I appreciate all that the City is doing to keep us
informed on their efforts like the current moratorium and have noticed
more that the City is reaching out regularly to listen to us residents on
different community topics. It just may be too late to keep us local.
In the last five years, I have seen the quality of life (related specifically to lack of
affordable housing, lack of childcare and fewer jobs that pay enough to
maintain the cost of living) decline significantly for the people I engage with
who work in the community and want to live in or near the community.
The town has become so commercial and not a place where people can afford
to live and work. As someone who was born here, it is devastating to me that a
majority of business are franchises and the people that service the wealthy can
not afford to live here. Most businesses have help wanted signs in their
windows as no one can afford to live here and work a regular job. How do
visitors and second homeowners accept to be accommodated when there is no
housing for workers?! Aspen has also lost a lot of its character as retail and
restaurants are becoming businesses where you can find at any elite place. Do
we want to be just another Hamptons? New York? Napa?
Had you asked 10 years ago, I would have highly recommended Aspen as a
place to live. [Developers and real estate ventures] are ruining this town.
Aspen’s natural resources are wonderful and It is a great place to play. If you
can afford it… As far as a place to live, it's not bad so long as you are willing to
support Amazon Prime more than 'local' institutions.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AFFORDABLE RESTAURANTS. We do not need
another Prada or Gucci and another restaurant where every plate is $35. This is
destroying this beautiful town.
Finding housing solutions.... many younger people must work multiple jobs
averaging 60hrs per week with a min requirement of $20/hr wage just to barely
make rent. $1600 a month for a single person who isn't salaried is hard. Aspen
needs to retain seasonal and long-term locals to keep up with tourism.
We need to step back about catering only to the tourists. I understand that they
pay our bills, but this is OUR home, and it feels as though the city prioritizes the
tourists and doesn’t care about the community…We don’t need another bank.
9+ banks for 7,500 people is far too many. We do need more gas stations, and
we need more restaurants for locals. We need more shopping accessibility that
doesn’t break the bank because most of us make minimum wage. To buy 3 days
of groceries in Aspen for 2 people shouldn’t cost almost $200 when it costs $70
in Denver or even $40-$50 in a place like Houston… We need more people to
listen when we say we’re unhappy with the direction this town is going.
Sample of suggestions from those dissatisfied with their quality of life yet satisfied with quality of city services:
QUESTION DETAILS; Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 respondents provided suggestions; N = 75 residents dissatisfied with their personal quality of life
Specific Suggestions from Residents Dissatisfied with their Personal Quality of Life
68
37
QUESTION DETAILS
And comparing your life before the COVID-19 pandemic to where you are now... How has your personal Quality of
Life in Aspen changed?
N=666
Claimed their Personal Quality of Life in Aspen is worse now versus
before the COVID-19 pandemic 39%
8%30%37%20%4%
Changes in Personal Quality of Life Since COVID-19
Significantly Worse Somewhat Worse No Change Somewhat Better Significantly Better
Differences by Group
•Impact of COVID varied by age; 18-34 are more likely to claim their Personal Quality of Life is better;
55+ are more likely to claim their Personal Quality of Life is worse
•35-54 are more likely to claim their Personal Quality of Life is significantly worse
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K
-
$149.9 $150K+
Live 3-6
Mos
Live
7-12
Mos
Work
In
Aspen
Own
A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total
Responding
666 328 318 174 117 134 77 108 162 157 96 115 35 555 467 129 27
Better 24%23%26%37%24%22%17%8%23%26%27%24%32%22%27%24%11%
No change 37%42%31%26%39%42%37%47%35%39%29%43%40%38%33%42%55%
Worse 39%35%42%37%36%36%46%45%42%35%44%33%28%40%39%35%34%
Significantly
Worse 8%6%10%5%14%12%8%2%8%8%8%5%5%9%10%12%-
➢Following the pandemic, Personal Quality of Life worsened for 39%, improved for 24%,
and stayed about the same for 37%
Impact of COVID on Personal Quality of Life
69
Analysis of COVID & Personal QOL –Dissecting Responses by COVID Impact
Total QOL Worse
after COVID
QOL unchanged
after COVID
QOL Better
after COVID
% of responses 100%39%37%24%
Base Size 677 258 247 160
Satisfaction w/
Personal
Quality of Life
Dissat Neutral Satisfied Dissat Neutral Satisfied Dissat Neutral Satisfied Dissat Neutral Satisfied
14%8%78%23%9%68%8%11%81%3%3%94%
93 52 532 60 23 176 28 19 200 5 5 151
➢To explore the relationship between COVID’s impact on resident quality of life and Aspen’s overall quality of
life scores, two views of the data were analyzed:
1)Analyzed Satisfaction w/Personal Quality of Life by COVID Impact
2)Analyzed COVID Impact by Satisfaction w/Personal Quality of Life
38
2) COVID Impact by Satisfaction w/Personal Quality of Life
•Among those very satisfied with their personal QOL in Aspen (rating 8-10), 26% claimed that COVID
negatively impacted their quality of life
•Looking at those dissatisfied with their personal OQL in Aspen (rating 0-4) about 64% claimed that COVID
negatively impacted their quality of life
Satisfaction with
Personal Quality of Life
by COVID Impact
% Satisfied with Personal Quality of Life; Rating from 0-10
Total
Very
Dissatisfied
(0-2)
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
(3-4)
Neutral
(5)
Somewhat
Satisfied
(6-7)
Very
Satisfied
(8-10)
Base Size 678 28**65*52*157 375
COVID Impact
COVID Impact: % Better 24%-7%10%21%32%
% No Change 37%37%28%41%29%42%
COVID Impact: % Worse 39%63%65%50%50%26%
* Caution, low base size; ** -Very low base size Use directionally to compare differences between groups
1)Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life by COVID Impact:
•23% of respondents whose QOL worsened after COVID were dissatisfied with their Personal QOL in Aspen
whereas only 3% of those with improved QOL after COVID were dissatisfied with their Personal QOL in Aspen
The impact of COVID on residents’ quality of life clearly affected how satisfied
residents are with their personal quality of life in Aspen
How COVID Likely Impacted City of Aspen’s
2022 Personal Quality of Life Scores
70
39
It’s impossible to isolate whether COVID’s negative or positive impact was the only
rationale for respondents’ level of satisfaction with their quality of life in Aspen.
Many other factors play into satisfaction with personal quality of life, including age,
income, physical/emotional health, etc.
It’s problematic to remove disadvantaged community members from analysis as
these residents may have some of the greatest needs.
Further, some respond more negatively throughout the survey and others
rate/respond more positively throughout.
Finally, analytically removing those with a worsened quality of life after COVID
without also accounting for those those whose personal quality of life was improved
by COVID would present an incomplete look at the data.
For perspective:
•60 residents whose quality of life had worsened during COVID are dissatisfied
with their quality of life
•160 residents whose quality of life had improved during COVID are satisfied
with their quality of life
Therefore, the ‘cleanest’ read of COVID’s impact on Personal QOL rating in Aspen
may be to look at those claiming that COVID had no impact on their quality of life
and compare % satisfied with personal QOL among this subgroup vs. the total group
of responses.
Challenges with Isolating Impact of COVID;
Recommended Analytical View
71
8%
(52)
5
23%
(157)
6-7
55%
(375)
8-10
4%
(28)
0-2
10%
(65)
3-4
79%Satisfied
66%
8-10
4%
0-2
6%
3-4
2%
5
22%
6-7
40
REFERENCE: 2019 Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
Among All Respondents (n=439)
QUESTION DETAILS: On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with your personal Quality of Life in Aspen?
Please click or drag the slider to a point on the scale. 0 (far left) = Extremely Dissatisfied; 10 (far right) = Extremely Satisfied
N=677 in 2022; N = 439 in 2019
62%
(154)
8-10
4%
(10)
0-2
7%
(18)
3-4
8%
(19)
5
19%
(46)
6-7
2022 Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
Among those claiming unchanged Quality of Life after COVID (n=247)
2022 Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
Among All Respondents (n=677)
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
81%Satisfied
88%Satisfied
Personal Quality of Life Trends –3
Base
Size Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Net
Satisfaction
2022-Total Responses 677 14%8%79%65%
2022 Unchanged QOL Post COVID 247 11%8%81%70%
2019 –Total Responses 439 10%2%88%78%
To note, the City of Aspen shifted from General Quality of Life to Personal Quality of Life metric in 2019
City of Aspen’s drop in Percent Satisfied and Net Satisfaction vs. 2019 are statistically significant
among total respondents AND among those claiming an unchanged quality of life after COVID.
This, along with total US and peer city comparisons indicates that other factors are playing a role
in the reduced ratings.
Note: a 4-point change in % satisfied is statistically significant with 95% confidence.
Z-Test of Proportions with N = 677 and N = 439; Z Test of Proportions with N = 247 and N = 439
➢81% of those with minimal COVID impact are satisfied with their personal QOL in Aspen
compared to 88% in 2019 satisfied with their personal quality of life in Aspen
Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life
Among Those Reporting Minimal COVID Impact
72
<4
7%
4
5%
5
8%
6
8%
7
19%
8
23%
9
16%
10
14%
41
QUESTION DETAILS
On a scale of 0 to 10, in general, how would you rate the overall Quality of Life in Aspen? Please click or drag the slider
to a point on the scale. 0 (far left) = Very Poor; 10 (far right) = Excellent
N= 678 in 2022; N = 439 in 2019; Among those with an Opinion (not neutral), N = 625 in 2022, 426 in 2019
rated the Overall Quality of Life in Aspen positively (selecting 6-10 on 0-10 scale)80%
When using a scale from 0-10, where 0 = Very Poor and 10 = Excellent,
94 95 95 98 95 97 96 95 95 94 95 93 93 86
Overall Quality of Life in Aspen Trends –% Positive (with No Neutral Option)
Note: The Overall Quality of Life scoring and scale were refreshed with the new survey instrument:
•For 2007 –2018, the QOL score represents the % citing Good or Excellent on a 4-point scale.
•From 2019 forward, this trended QOL score represents the proportion of responses that were positive after
removing ‘5’ (neutral) responses.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2022
When equalizing scales and removing neutral responses (to allow comparison with prior years),
2022 marks the lowest Quality of Life ratings recorded over the past 14 years
Trend Over Time (% Positive with No Neutral Scale Option):
7.2
Mean
Very Poor Excellent
80%(vs. 90% in 2019)
53%(vs. 69% in 2019)
(7.9 in 2019)
rated the Overall Quality of Life in Aspen as Very Good (selecting 8-10 on 0-10 scale)53%
➢Overall Quality of Life in Aspen ratings dropped to the lowest level recorded since the
start of tracking this metric in 2007
Reference: The Overall Quality of Life in Aspen
Important: 2022 represents the last year this metric will be reported, as the City of Aspen has shifted to measuring
Personal Quality of Life
73
Satisfaction with City Services;
Likelihood to Recommend Aspen (NPS)
4274
7%16%25%43%9%
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
43
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen? N=670
5-point satisfaction scale: Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied
are satisfied or very satisfied with the qualify of services provided by the
City of Aspen52%
2022 SATISFACTION WITH QUALITY OF CITY SERVICES
Using a 5-point satisfaction scale from Very Satisfied to Very Dissatisfied
DIFFERENCES BY
SUBGROUP Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100 -
$149.9 $150K+
Live
3-6
Mos
Live
7-12
Mos
Work
In
Aspen
Own A
Bus-
iness
Own A
Second
Home
Base Size 670 332 318 179 118 132 75 109 166 156 97 115 35 556 471 128 27
Very Satisfied 9%7%10%9%8%7%12%11%5%11%8%12%10%8%8%3%7%
Satisfied 43%41%48%45%39%43%48%47%47%42%52%45%63%42%43%40%56%
Neutral 25%26%23%24%26%23%24%18%26%29%14%18%17%24%24%20%13%
Dissatisfied 16%18%13%15%12%22%8%20%15%11%19%20%7%17%17%26%11%
Very Dissat 7%8%6%8%14%5%8%3%7%8%8%4%3%8%8%10%12%
Sat+ Very Satisfied 52%48%58%54%47%50%60%58%53%52%60%57%73%50%51%43%64%
Neutral 25%26%23%24%26%23%24%18%26%29%14%18%17%24%24%20%13%
Sat+Very Dissatisfied 23%26%19%22%26%27%16%24%22%19%26%25%10%25%25%37%23%
NET Satisfaction 29%22%39%31%21%23%44%34%31%33%33%32%63%25%26%6%41%
23% Dissatisfied 52% Satisfied25% Neutral
Differences by Group
•Business owners are least likely to be satisfied
•Females are more satisfied than males; younger and older residents are more satisfied than middle -aged residents
•Those living in Aspen part-time are more likely to be satisfied with quality of city services than those who live year-
round.
NET Satisfaction is % Satisfied less % Dissatisfied
➢About half of residents are satisfied with the quality of city services, 1 in 4 have neutral
satisfaction with quality of city services, and about 1/4 are dissatisfied
2022 Satisfaction with Quality of City Services
75
92 89 92 89
84
89 92 89 86 87
83
76
83
69
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen?
5-point satisfaction scale: Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied
2022: N=670; N = 504 after removing neutral responses; 2019: N = 408; N = 347 after removing neutral responses
Trend Over Time:
Note: The Overall Satisfaction with City Services scale points and names were refreshed with the new survey instrument:
•For 2007 –2018, the OSAT score represents the % rating Somewhat Satisfied or Satisfied on a 4-point scale
•From 2019 forward, this trended Overall Satisfaction score represents % rating Satisfied or Very Satisfied from 5 scale point s.
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2022
When equalizing scales and removing neutral responses (to allow comparison with prior years),
2022 marks the lowest satisfaction with Quality of City Services over the past 14 years
Trended Satisfaction with Quality of City Services (% Positive/Satisfied with no neutral option)
52% Satisfied25% Neutral23% Dissatisfied
2022 Satisfaction with Quality of City Services
52% are Satisfied and 23% are Dissatisfied Yielding NET Satisfaction of 29%
2019 Satisfaction with Quality of City Services
71% were Satisfied and 14% were Dissatisfied Yielding NET Satisfaction of 57%
7%16%25%43%9%
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
71% Satisfied15% Neutral14% Dissatisfied
3%11%15%58%13%
Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very Satisfied
➢Satisfaction with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen dropped almost 20
points since 2019; those claiming neutral satisfaction increased from 15% to 25%
➢% Dissatisfied with the Quality of Services provided by the City of Aspen dropped almost 10
points since 2019; % Very Dissatisfied increased from 3% in 2019 to 7% in 2022
Trended Satisfaction –Quality of City Services
44
76
Support Community Engagement
(City government regularly shares information that is helpful & trustworthy,
is responsive, encourages and listens to feedback, and provides meaningful
ways to participate)
45
➢Satisfaction with Community Engagement and Customer-Focused Government
are more correlated with Satisfaction with City Services ratings than other
Strategic Focus Area ratings
CORRELATION ANALYSIS
Satisfaction by
Strategic Focus Area
Satisfaction with
Quality of City ServicesVS
More
Correlated
Less
Correlated
•Some specific resident requests/ideas for improving Community Engagement in the
open-ended suggestions from residents include asking the City of Aspen to:
✓Listen to feedback/ suggestions from residents (don't just ask/listen or act on it)
✓Encourage involvement/ Require 10 hours of community service a year
✓More community involvement from companies/ developers
✓Have more community efforts/ sharing sessions
✓Hold community engagement sessions at times when working locals can attend
✓Seek input/ ideas from local owners/ local business people
✓Provide adequate notice of public sharing sessions
•After Community Engagement, being Customer-Focused was is also correlated with
satisfaction with the Quality of City Services.
✓One key element of being Customer-Focused is for the community to trust the City to look after its
best interests. This area saw a significant decline this year (moving from about 1/2 of residents
trusting the City in 2019 to less than 1/3 trusting in 2022.)
The Details:
•Correlation was conducted using individual-level satisfaction ratings for each strategic focus area and individual
satisfaction ratings for Quality of City Services; 573 observations with complete data were utilized
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen? (N=670)
5-point satisfaction scale: Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied
Key Driver Analysis / Correlation
Strategic Focus Areas vs Satisfaction with City Services
77
46
Additional Highlights:
•Those more likely to be satisfied with the quality of city services skew female, live in Aspen part-time, have
improved quality of life since COVID and/or are satisfied with their personal quality of life.
•Those satisfied with the quality of city services are more likely to have heard about the survey from a digital ad;
those dissatisfied are more likely to have heard about the survey from word of mouth.
Shading Net Satisfaction
Difference vs Total Responses
+ .10 -.29 -.10 -.29
+ .30 -.49 -.30 -.49
+ .50 -.69 -.50 -.69
+ 70 or more -.70 or less
Shading Index of
Frequencies vs Total
120-149 70-85
150-299 50-69
300-499 30-49
500+<30
QUESTION DETAILS
N = 670 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the
quality of services provided by the City of Aspen?
5-point satisfaction scale:
Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied
Demographic Analysis by Levels of Satisfaction
with Quality of City Services
Skews vs. Total Responses are shaded
SEE KEY BELOW
Total
Dissatisfied
with Quality
of City
Services
Not Satisfied
or Dissatisfied
(Neutral)
Satisfied with
Quality of City
Services
670 155 166 349
Gender
Female 49%42%45%54%
Male 51%58%54%46%
How Heard
About Survey
Mail 53%47%57%53%
Digital Ad 17%12%16%21%
Word of Mouth 3%7%-3%
Household Income
Less than $50,000 31%30%35%30%
$50,000 -$99,999 47%46%48%48%
$100,000 to under $149,999 18%21%11%20%
$150,000 or more 21%24%17%22%
Age
18-34 29%28%30%29%
35-44 19%22%22%17%
45-54 22%25%21%20%
55-64 22%25%21%20%
65+18%18%14%19%
Relationship with
Aspen
Live in Aspen 7-12 Months/Year 92%95%95%89%
Live in Aspen 0-6 Months/Year 8%4%4%11%
Own a Businesses in Aspen 20%31%18%17%
Work in Aspen 75%79%78%72%
COVID Impact
COVID Impact: % Better 24%15%20%31%
% No Change 37%33%39%38%
COVID Impact: % Worse 39%51%41%32%
NPS Score Likelihood to Recommend Aspen -0.29 -0.56 -0.48 -0.07
Personal QOL
% Satisfied 79%69%65%90%
% Dissatisfied 14%24%23%5%
➢Those dissatisfied with the quality of city services skew male, are more likely to
have a worsened quality of life after COVID and/or are dissatisfied with their
personal quality of life, live in Aspen 12 months out of the year, and are more
likely to own businesses in Aspen.
Demographic Analysis: Satisfaction with City Services
78
QUESTION DETAILS
N = 670 Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen?
5-point satisfaction scale:
Very Satisfied, Satisfied, Neutral, Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied
Shading Net Satisfaction
Difference vs Total Responses
+ .10 -.29 -.10 -.29
+ .30 -.49 -.30 -.49
+ .50 -.69 -.50 -.69
+ 70 or more -.70 or less
Subgroup Analysis by Levels of Satisfaction
with Quality of City Services
Skews vs. Total Responses are shaded
SEE KEY BELOW
Total
Dissatisfied with
Quality of City
Services
Not Satisfied or
Dissatisfied
(Neutral)
Satisfied with
Quality of City
Services
670 155 166 349
STRATEGIC FOCUS AREAS -NET SATISFACTION
Foster Economic Vitality -32%-69%-48%-7%
Make Aspen Livable -28%-69%-43%-3%
Customer-Focused Government 6%-63%-5%42%
Maintain City’s Financial Health 10%-50%-7%44%
Support Community Engagement 28%-41%15%65%
Protect Local Natural Environment 46%7%37%68%
Ensure a Safe Community 78%49%84%88%
CUSTOMER-FOCUSED GOVERNMENT-NET AGREEENT
Welcoming environment for involvement 38%-34%31%74%
City can be trusted to look out for my interests -16%-80%-37%22%
City matches spending with community priorities -11%-71%-36%28%
ECONOMIC VITALITY -NET SATISFACTION
Affordable shopping opportunities -74%-74%-87%-67%
Commercial & residential development -55%-62%-72%-43%
Employment opportunities 32%4%17%52%
% OF RESPONDENTS CITING THIS SUGGESTION
Change prioritization/strategy/tactics 17%25%14%15%
More Affordable Housing for employees 16%8%24%6%
Security/Safety -Enforce Laws 7%11%5%4%
Less Commercial Development 6%10%8%3%
Help small businesses stay in town 6%8%4%17%
Don’t cater to developers 5%10%7%5%
Community engagement changes 4%7%5%3%
Prioritize residents over tourists or wealthy 4%1%3%2%
Restrict Short-Term Rentals 4%1%2%1%
Limit how much one entity can own in core 3%6%3%1%
Do more to protect the environment 3%1%4%2%
Make decisions for good of whole town 2%6%N/A 1%
More plowing and ice removal 2%5%1%1%
Make recreation more affordable for locals 2%5%N/A 1%
Local discount for restaurants/rec/parking 2%4%N/A 6%
Ensure APCHA is working/not being abused 1%4%N/A 3%
Handle COVID restrictions differently 1%3%N/A 6%
Shading Index of
Frequencies vs Total
115-149 70-85
150-299 50-69
300-499 30-49
500+<30
47
➢Satisfaction with Quality of City Services has a clear connection with ratings for community engagement,
customer-focused government, and ratings for maintaining the City’s financial health.
➢Those dissatisfied with Aspen’s Quality of City Services strongly disagree with how the City matches
spending with community priorities and feel they can’t trust the City to look after their interests.
Analysis of Satisfaction with City Services in Aspen vs. Other Ratings
79
48
Reduce the development, building and noise. My answer of very
dissatisfied regarding commercial and residential development in the city
means that there is too much of it. At some point, everything reaches a
limit. We cannot keep adding housing and traffic to Aspen and expect it
to be the charming place that attracted residents and visitors here.
Make sure the town is not just for the elitist. Having grown up here and
watched how this town has changed, it's not only about the private jet
crowd, the relators and developers who sell themselves to that crowd.
The main reason most folks moved here was for the beauty and openness
that surrounds. Protecting what's left should be paramount!
Keep up maintenance of trails, help fund groups like Aspen Public Radio,
Aspen Words etc. that hold events for children and families. Increase and
improve plowing after storms; Penalize stores that let ice build up in
parking lots; use sand or some such thing at all intersections in the core.
Find a way to help fund reasonably priced restaurants.
Do a better job of snow/ice removal of the core streets. It seems the past
couple of years have been very hazardous.
Affordable restaurants and/or locals discounts. In Hawaii they offer 15 to
20% discounts on food. Affordable clothing or again discounts for locals. I
hate to be redundant basically this is what’s needed.
Hire prosecutors who do their job and keep criminals off the streets and
implement actual punishment NOT PROBATION to deter crime and keep
our community safe.
Improve roads to allow traffic to flow in and out of Aspen. Allow shoppers
to park near stores. Make decisions for the good of the town.
Take care of working class locals and long time residents!
Penalize developers for not completing projects in a timely manner.
Support local businesses that provide affordable products
Reduce the pace of development, support more affordable local-serving
businesses
We need to limit development and keep a manageable amount of
residents and visitors. We are loving this amazing town to DEATH!
I understand that this town's main income is tourism, I own a hotel in
Aspen, but we are killing the reasons that people like to visit and live here
by embracing the MORE, MORE, MORE, philosophy. There is too much
traffic, there is no place to park in town, all the trails are crowded, Tihak
parking lot is full by 9:00 on weekends, Thousands of people float still
water every day in the summer, It takes my fellow teachers who live in
Carbondale and work in Aspen more than an hour to get to work every
morning, and the list goes on and on everywhere you turn.
LESS IS MORE!!!
LIMIT HIGHEND CHAIN STORES. Help local essential businesses stay in
town. Slow down major development at the same time don’t make it
impossibly restrictive to fix your own garage. Don’t let the realtors take
over completely! Protect the local environment that is really what most
visitors appreciate. Less is more! We don’t need any more people during
high season.
Let businesses make business decisions. Imposing your will on preschool
providers who know their business just hurts the preschools. Shutting
down residential development in response to a perceived crisis in
residential supply just exacerbates the problem. Letting permit
applications pile up, preventing businesses from doing business despite
their ongoing obligation to pay rent.
Help the locals out a little and create the local discount. In the summer I
basically work paycheck to paycheck to pay for a golf CART at the
Municipal course. The greens fees are already pushing it and then $20 per
person in a cart on top of that is just straight up stealing. If carts were free
or just cheaper it would create a much happier and less dramatic
environment there. Make parking in town more affordable, the prices are
so high, sometimes it’s a better idea to just risk getting a ticket.
Sample of suggestions from those dissatisfied with City Services yet satisfied with their quality of life:
QUESTION DETAILS; Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 respondents provided suggestions; N = 127 residents dissatisfied with the quality of city services
➢About 70% of those dissatisfied with Quality of City Services remain satisfied with their personal quality
of life; 1/4 of those dissatisfied with quality of city services are also dissatisfied with their quality of life
➢Looking at those dissatisfied with the Quality of City Services yet satisfied with their personal quality of
life highlights concerns over development, expansion/growth and prioritization
Specific Suggestions From Residents Dissatisfied with City Services
80
49
Satisfaction with
Quality of City Services
2022 vs 2019 Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100 -
$149.9 $150K+
Total Responding 2022 677 334 323 183 118 134 77 109 169 159 97 115
2022 % Satisfied 52%48%58%54%47%50%60%58%53%52%60%57%
2019 % Satisfied 71%66%81%78%81%78%67%68%78%73%75%73%
Difference ↓19 ↓18 ↓23 ↓24 ↓34 ↓9 ↓7 ↓20 ↓25 ↓21 ↓15 ↓16
2022 % Dissatisfied 23%26%19%22%26%27%16%24%22%19%26%25%
2019 % Dissatisfied 14%15%7%8%9%9%16%13%9%6%8%19%
Difference ↑9 ↑11 ↑12 ↑14 ↑23 ↑18 ↔↑9 ↑13 ↑13 ↑18 ↑6
2022 NET Satisfaction 29%22%39%31%21%23%44%34%31%33%33%32%
2019 NET Satisfaction 57%51%74%70%72%69%51%54%69%66%67%54%
Difference ↓28 ↓29 ↓35 ↓39 ↓51 ↓46 ↓7 ↓20 ↓38 ↓33 ↓34 ↓22
Satisfaction with Quality of City Services
Rating as Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied
NET Satisfaction = % Satisfied (Very + Somewhat) -% Dissatisfied (Very + Somewhat)
Note: a 6-point change in % satisfied or % dissatisfied is statistically significant with 95% confidence.
Z-Test of Proportions with N = 670 in 2022 and N = 408 in 2019
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen? N=670
5-point satisfaction scale: Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied
➢Declines in satisfaction with Quality of City Services were statistically significant among
all subgroups and were especially pronounced among 35–44-year-olds
➢NET satisfaction dropped by about 50 points among 35–54-year-old residents
2022 vs 2019 Satisfaction with City Services in Aspen
81
50
Likelihood to Recommend Aspen as a Place to Live -2022
QUESTION DETAILS N=638
Now let’s talk about Aspen overall. How likely would you be to recommend Aspen as a place to live?
Please click or drag the slider to a point on the scale. 0 (far left) = Very Poor; 10 (far right) = Excellent
of residents rated their likelihood of recommending Aspen as a place to
live as 8, 9, or 10, versus 53% in 201935%
When using a scale from 0-10, where 0 = Very Poor and 10 = Excellent,
0
8%
1
4%
2
5%
3
6%
4
7%
5
10%
6
11%
7
13%
8
12%
9
7%
10
16%
Not at
all Likely
Extremely
Likely
35%
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live 3-6
Months
Live
7-12
Months
Work
In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 638 315 304 174 111 122 74 103 167 158 96 115 35 558 471 129 27
Very Likely (8-10)35%34%38%32%33%40%35%34%39%29%26%44%49%35%34%41%46%
Positive (6-10)59%58%62%56%58%69%58%55%57%59%57%67%72%59%60%61%69%
Negative (0-4)31%32%28%36%28%21%35%32%32%32%32%23%22%31%31%30%19%
53%
35%
2019 2022
% Very Likely to Recommend Aspen as a Place to Live
Trend Over Time (% selecting 8-10 on 0-10 scale)
Differences by Group
•Less likely to recommend living in Aspen (8-10): those aged 18-34, living & working in Aspen, and earning between $50-%150K
•More likely to recommend living in Aspen: those aged 45-54, earning $150K+ , living in Aspen 3-6 months and/or owning a second home
➢35% would be very likely to recommend Aspen as a place to live in 2022;
This represents a 34% decrease versus 2019 when 53% would be very likely to
recommend living in Aspen
Likelihood to Recommend Living in Aspen
82
51
QUESTION DETAILS
Now let's talk about Aspen overall. How likely would you be to recommend Aspen as a place to live? Please click or
drag the slider to a point on the scale. 0 (far left) = Very Poor; 10 (far right) = Excellent
N=638
Aspen’s Net Promoter Score (% Promoters -% Detractors), is -29
with more than twice as many detractors (52%) versus promoters (23%).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Promoters –Detractors = -29 NPS Score
Detractors
52%
Passives
25%
Promoters
23%
4
-29-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
City of Aspen Net Promoter Score
Trend Over Time
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
To note, 55% rated their Satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life in the City of Aspen as 8-10 or
Very Good. Even among this very satisfied group of residents, their 2022 NPS is +3 (just slightly
positive). This indicates that the Net Promoter Score is linked to more than current satisfaction
with living in Aspen and is impacted by desires to limit more migration into the area.
➢City of Aspen’s Net Promoter Score fell from +4 in 2019 to -29 in 2022, with more
detractors than promoters
Likelihood to Recommend Living in Aspen
Net Promoter Score & Trends
83
Specific Areas of Interest
52
•Community Policing
•Town Evacuation
•Castle Creek Bridge Replacement
•Infant Care & Early Childhood Needs
•Parks & Open Space Amenities
84
53
QUESTION DETAILS
How should the Aspen Police Department approach community policing in the future?
N=645
26%
4%
62%
8%
Desired Approach to Community Policing in the Future
More community policing
efforts
Less community policing
efforts
The same amount of
community policing efforts
Other
Demographic differences:
•Females are more likely to desire the same amount of community policing efforts; Males are more likely to say Other
•65+ are more likely to desire more community policing efforts; 18-34 and 45 –54 are more likely to desire less community
policing efforts
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live
7-12
Months
Work
In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 645 319 307 176 112 123 74 106 169 159 97 115 35 563 475 129 27
More community
policing efforts 26%27%24%21%25%29%27%37%24%30%22%29%35%24%24%24%31%
Less community
policing efforts 4%4%4%8%1%6%1%1%8%1%4%3%9%4%5%4%2%
Same amount of
community policing 62%59%67%66%61%56%64%58%57%60%67%64%50%63%62%62%62%
Other 8%10%5%6%13%9%8%4%11%9%6%3%5%8%9%10%5%
➢Most desire the same amount of community policing efforts
➢About 1/4 desire more community policing efforts
Desired Amount of Community Policing in the Future
85
54
•Actually manage the streets, where are they during
peak season?
•APD was community policing before it was a thing
•Apprehend drivers who run stop signs and red lights,
endangering walkers and cyclists. I no longer feel safe
riding my bike for transportation in town.
•Be honest and gain trust
•Be there when we need you most...when someone
runs a red light or gets hit and run and never finds the
perp
•Build relationships with community
•Change fines from a fixed amount to percent of income
•Limit speeding in the City
•Continue to foster local individuals to join the force to
have an organization by the people for the people.
•Do something other that issuing tickets and harassing
teenagers
•Enforce current laws. No biking on the sidewalks and
malls. Stopping at stop signs.
•Enforce laws during peak hours. it seems like nobody
gets pulled over except for off season yet peak season
people are allowed to do whatever they wish to.
•Enforcement of anything
•Enforcing laws for tourists and the ultra wealthy
•Focus on mental health treatment and de-escalation
•I guess I’d defer to the police
•I worry about bicycles on sidewalks! The elderly and
children are in danger
•Increased policing and all hours patrol of village and
neighborhoods
•It’s nice to visually see the uniformed officers in public
•Just do the amount of community engagement better
•Make the rich obey the same laws as the rest of us.
•Maybe finally tackle the massive drug problem in
Aspen
•More awareness and help for teens: drugs/alcohol/
suicide
•More community interaction, not policing
•More frequent and Required Psychoanalysis and
Psychotherapy.
•More funding to issues actually affecting our area, less
funding to police, less community police efforts
•More policing on foot talking with kids often
•More service, less “protection”
•No victim, no crime.
•Not sure what they currently do.
•Slowing down traffic
•Speeding Tickets in Town for Fast drivers
•STOP SPEEDING CARS!! Main Street & In Town
•Take off the armor. Armor/bullet proof vests makes
officers unapproachable
•Taking accurate report of a theft
•Texting and driving and drunk driving are rampant
•The amount of younger people doing ungodly
variations of drugs should really be talked about
•They have been invisible in community since the
COVID 2020 shut down, what is going on
•Too vague to answer. how are we defining 'policing'?
do they need to be out an about as a source of
intimidation and surveillance, or out and about as a
community asset providing assistance such as rides
home on cold nights when RFTA drivers decide to leave
early and the employees refuse to let people inside to
stay warm for the next bus?
•What does community policing mean to the survey
writer?
➢8% had other suggestions regarding the amount of community policing efforts
Other Requests With Amount of Community Policing
86
55
58%
44%
34%
25%
22%
19%
16%
11%
11%
5%
4%
3%
2%
8%
Patrolling on foot / Talking to residents and tourists
Wildlife interaction education (bears, moose, deer, elk, mountain lions, etc.)
Patrolling on bikes
Collaborating with community groups
School visits / School events / Career Day
Street Law classes at the high school
Supporting non-profit events (Ducky Derby, Boogie's Race)
Picnic in the Park / Ice Cream in the Park / Cocoa with the Cops
Saturday Farmer's Market booth
Reading with preschool kids
Kids Parade / Kids Bike Rodeo
Offering tours of the police office
Bingo at the Senior Center
None of these are important to me
Top Community Policing Priorities
QUESTION DETAILS
While the City will always prioritize preventing crimes and responding to crimes, we'd like resident input on
connecting with the community through community policing efforts: Select up to three community efforts that are
most important to you.
N=645
➢58% said patrolling on foot/talking to residents and tourists was the most important
community policing effort; Wildlife interaction (44%) and patrolling on bikes (34%) was
important to many
Community Policing Priorities
87
56
QUESTION DETAILS
What is your level of concern regarding evacuating town in the event of an emergency?
N=650
are very or extremely concerned regarding evacuating town in the event
of an emergency37%
13%24%29%24%9%
Level of Concern Regarding Evacuating Town in the Event of an Emergency
Extremely concerned Very concerned Somewhat concerned Not very concerned Not at all concerned
Demographic differences:
•Females are much more likely to be very or extremely concerned regarding evacuating town in a
case of an emergency
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live
7+
Months
Work In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 650 320 311 174 116 128 73 103 161 156 95 113 35 552 466 126 27
Extremely concerned 13%12%14%14%19%9%9%13%11%18%15%11%5%13%13%8%4%
Very concerned 24%21%28%19%23%27%30%29%23%24%25%27%16%25%24%32%16%
Somewhat concerned 29%27%30%27%18%37%32%30%27%26%22%33%37%27%26%30%32%
Not very concerned 24%27%22%27%30%17%23%25%27%22%30%21%34%24%25%22%37%
Not at all concerned 9%13%5%14%10%10%7%3%12%10%8%8%8%11%12%9%11%
T2B: Concerned 37%32%42%33%42%37%39%42%34%43%40%38%21%39%38%39%20%
B2B: Not concerned 34%40%27%41%40%26%30%28%39%32%38%29%42%34%37%31%48%
➢37% of residents are very concerned about evacuating town in the event of an
emergency, 29% are somewhat concerned, and 34% are not concerned
Concern Regarding Town Evacuation
88
57
59%
49%
38%
34%
12%
Reduce peak traffic automobile travel time
Double the number of west-bound emergency evacuation routes
by adding a second bridge over Castle Creek
Reduce travel time for those using public transit
Create a new wildlife corridor the connects the golf course to
Marolt open space
None of the above - the current entrance to Aspen is fine
Top Castle Creek Bridge Replacement Priorities
QUESTION DETAILS
Knowing that the Castle Creek Bridge needs to be replaced in 15-20 years, please choose the top 3 priorities you'd like
the City to consider: Select up to three
N=662
Demographic differences:
•Residents with an income of $150K+ are much less likely to prioritize reducing travel time for
those using public transit; while younger residents 18-34 are more likely to prioritize reducing
travel time for those using public transit
Total Male
Femal
e 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live
7+
Months
Work
In
Aspen
Own A
Busines
s
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 662 327 315 181 116 125 75 109 169 159 97 115 35 563 475 129 27
Reduce peak traffic
automobile travel time 59%56%61%59%65%65%61%53%53%62%66%63%54%61%59%64%62%
Double the number of west-
bound emergency evacuation
routes by adding a second
bridge over Castle Creek
49%49%50%47%49%49%52%54%48%50%46%47%62%48%49%45%53%
Reduce travel time for those
using public transit 38%39%37%49%38%29%33%41%47%45%42%30%33%40%40%34%23%
Create a new wildlife corridor
that connects the golf course
to Marolt open space
34%28%40%43%37%29%31%27%42%34%38%29%54%34%37%40%29%
None of the above -the current
entrance to Aspen is fine 12%14%9%12%9%14%9%11%8%13%8%14%3%11%11%11%9%
➢Reducing peak traffic automobile travel time (59%) and doubling the number of west-
bound emergency evacuation routes (49%) were the top 2 priorities cited by over half
of the residents; Only 12% of residents think the current entrance is fine
Castle Creek Bridge Replacement Priorities
89
58
QUESTION DETAILS
Now let's talk about infant care and early childhood needs. How important is it for the City government to do the
following?
Expand high-quality early education programming: N=526
Increase the number of early childhood education spaces: N=519
Increase the number of infant care spaces: N=517
36%
35%
34%
24%
25%
24%
60%
60%
58%
Expand high-quality early education programming
Increase the number of early childhood education spaces
Increase the number of infant care spaces
Very Important Extremely Important
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live
7-12
Months
Work
In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 678 334 323 183 118 134 77 110 169 159 97 115 35 563 475 129 27
Expand high-quality early
education programming 60%49%72%62%73%55%52%57%61%59%69%61%60%58%60%52%32%
Increase number of early
childhood educ spaces 60%53%68%59%70%54%58%61%57%62%68%63%53%59%60%56%32%
Increase the number of
infant care spaces 58%50%67%56%68%52%62%56%56%56%65%60%55%56%59%55%33%
Differences by Group:
•All infant care are early childhood needs were more important to females and 35 –44 year olds
➢Many placed importance on taking action to improve childcare needs
2022 Infant Care and Early Childhood Needs
90
59
2022 QUESTION DETAILS
Now let's talk about infant care and early childhood needs. How important is it for the City government to do the
following?
Expand high-quality early education programming: 2022 N=526; 2019 N=367
Increase the number of early childhood education spaces: 2022 N=519; 2019 N=365
Increase the number of infant care spaces: 2022 N=517; 2019 N=362
To note, in 2019, an educational lead-in statement on the number of births and available spaces preceded
the question on importance of infant care and early childhood actions.
This explanatory lead-in statement on number of births & spaces was deleted in 2022 to minimize likelihood
of leading the respondent. This change in methodology likely suppressed importance scores vs. 2019.
➢The importance of infant care and early childhood needs remained mostly consistent
with 2019
Trended Infant Care & Early Childhood Needs
36%
31%
35%
28%
34%
34%
26%
32%
24%
31%
25%
28%
26%
24%
28%
27%
60%
62%
60%
56%
60%
58%
54%
0.59
Importance of Infant Care and Early Childhood Needs
% Important
2022
REF
2019
Expand high-quality early education
programming 60 62
Increase the number of early
childhood education spaces
2019: Increase the number of early childhood
education spaces within the roundabout
2019: Increase the number of early childhood
education spaces outside the roundabout
60
Within:
57
Outside:
59
Increase the number infant care
spaces
2019: Increase the number of infant care spaces
within the roundabout
2019: Increase the number of infant care spaces
outside the roundabout
58
Within:
53
Outside:
59
2022 % Very Important % Extremely Important
2019 % Very Important % Extremely Important
91
60
32%
33%
40%
35%
35%
34%
32%
32%
56%
50%
29%
27%
24%
22%
17%
15%
89%
83%
69%
63%
59%
56%
49%
47%
Trails
Open spaces
Recreation facilities and programs
Quiet spaces
Fitness facilities and programs
Gardens
Playgrounds
Public event space
Very Important Extremely Important
Total Male Female 18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Less
Than
$50K
$50K -
$99.9K
$100K -
$149.9K $150K+
Live
3-6
Months
Live
7-12
Months
Work In
Aspen
Own A
Business
Own A
Second
Home
Total Responding 678 334 323 183 118 134 77 110 169 159 97 115 35 563 475 129 27
Playgrounds 49%47%51%42%57%55%49%48%51%46%55%51%54%46%49%50%41%
Quiet spaces 63%55%73%64%64%53%67%69%79%64%58%55%67%61%63%58%52%
Recreation facilities
and programs 69%66%72%72%75%60%70%64%79%69%70%64%73%69%71%63%52%
Public event space 47%43%53%53%51%43%36%48%60%46%44%43%54%46%48%49%36%
Open spaces 83%79%88%85%81%88%83%81%91%81%84%83%91%82%84%85%79%
Trails 89%88%90%90%92%88%90%85%87%90%90%91%85%88%89%89%93%
Gardens 56%47%67%58%54%60%45%60%58%59%56%52%66%54%55%57%55%
Fitness facilities
and programs 59%56%64%69%57%50%63%53%76%56%60%50%66%58%61%51%46%
Demographic differences:
•Open spaces, quiet spaces, fitness facilities and programs and public event spaces are more important to those with
household income of less than $50k
•Open spaces, recreation facilities and programs, quiet spaces, fitness facilities and programs, gardens and public event spac e
are more important to females
QUESTION DETAILS
Now let's move on to parks and open space amenities. Please rate the importance of each of the following City of
Aspen Parks and Open Space amenities to you:
Playgrounds: N=625 Open spaces: N=653
Quiet spaces: N=647 Trails: N=651
Recreation facilities and programs: N=645 Gardens: N=647
Public event space: N=648 Fitness facilities and programs: N=650
➢Trails (88%) and open spaces (83)% were important to the largest proportion of
residents
2022 Importance of Parks and Open Space Amenities
92
61
QUESTION DETAILS
Now let's move on to parks and open space amenities. Please rate the importance of each of the following City of Aspen
Parks and Open Space amenities to you:
Playgrounds: 2022 N=625; 2019 N=412 Open spaces: 2022 N=653; 2019 N=431
Quiet spaces: 2022 N=647; 2019 N=426 Trails: 2022 N=651; 2019 N-429
Recreation facilities and programs: 2022 N=645; 2019 N=422 Gardens: 2022 N=647; 2019 N=426
Public event space: 2022 N=648; 2019 N=421 Fitness facilities and programs: 2022 N=650; 2019 N=424
32%
37%
33%
35%
40%
36%
35%
37%
35%
35%
34%
36%
32%
32%
32%
27%
56%
55%
50%
49%
29%
33%
27%
33%
24%
26%
22%
25%
17%
19%
15%
17%
62%
59%
61%
56%
61%
49%
51%
47%
44%
Important of City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Amenities
% Important
2022
REF
2019
➢The importance of City of Aspen parks and open space amenities remained mostly
consistent with 2019
Trended Importance of Parks and Open Space Amenities
2022 % Very Important % Extremely Important
2019 % Very Important % Extremely Important
Trails 89 92
Open spaces 83 84
Recreation facilities and programs 69 69
Quiet spaces 63 70
Fitness facilities and programs 59 61
Gardens 56 61
Playgrounds 49 51
Public event spaces 47 44
93
Community Suggestions
Analysis of Open Comments on
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Live, Work, and Play
6294
➢Affordable was a top-cited word in suggestions for keeping Aspen a great place to
work, live, and play
63
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515
515 respondents provided suggestions in the open -response question
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
Suggestions for Keeping Aspen a
Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
95
64
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 respondents; 1798 suggestions
32%
31%
28%
17%
10%
7%
6%
4%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
2%
2%
Affordable Living
Affordable Housing
Change/Reduce Development
City Strategy/Prioritization
Traffic/Congestion
Security/Safety
Changing Community
Community Engagement
Parking Preferences
Street/Road Maintenance
Recreation/Open Space
Environment/Climate Change
Childcare/Daycare
Healthcare
Aesthetics/Beautification
% of Respondents Suggesting Improvements
in the Following Areas
➢Respondents offered significant feedback for the City; 515 respondents averaged 3-
4 unique comments/suggestions for Aspen, yielding nearly 1800 suggestions
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
➢32% (165 respondents) shared that Aspen needs to be more affordable
(living, dining, shopping, recreation, parking, etc.)
➢31% (160 respondents) specifically shared a suggestion for affordable
housing
The chart below highlights the types of suggestions made along with the % of residents requesting this
type or category of comment or needed improvement
Suggestions for Keeping Aspen a
Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
96
Affordable Living Suggestions
65
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Affordable Living Suggestions 32%165
Need affordable/ subsidized restaurants or discounts for locals 16%84
Need affordable/ subsidized restaurants & bars or local discounts 16%82
Create a local discount pass for restaurants, recreation, parking 2%9
Add a food court with affordable independent options 1%7
Add food trucks around town -1
Need more affordable groceries/ shops/ retail (or discounts for locals)11%57
Need more affordable retail & grocery shops (or discounts for locals)11%54
Open an affordable food mart in City Hall 1%3
General affordability/ reduce inequalities 8%40
Make recreation affordable for locals 2%10
Local discounts needed -skiing, golf, no fees to hike on forest land 2%10
Provide free access for residents to Aspen Rec Center -1
Discounted/ free parking for local workers 1%4
Keep taxes affordable for local workers 1%5
Need more affordable healthcare/ insurance -1
Lower cost of public transportation -1
The divide between those who have excessive wealth and
those who do not is becoming greater and greater. I am not
sure it is the City of Aspen's job to help the divide feel less,
emotionally and spiritually, but this is the greatest challenge
facing our community. It affects all people and all aspects of
life in Aspen
Aspen has become a town for the wealthy with no concern
for the locals who keep it going. Picnics in the park are the
only option to socialize with friends in the summer--the price
to eat out costs as much as a weeks worth of groceries.
Make a food court at the Armory -bring the vitality back to
what Aspen was---for all of us---visitors and locals.
Someone ,somehow needs to address the lack of
affordability for the working class. No services (no
laundromat?), restaurants (no bar menus), stores
(really??), etc. that we can afford anymore. Excludes us
from being part of & interacting in the community which
is disenfranchising. It is still a great place to play but not
a great place to live and work anymore. Such a shame.
Money is driving the trajectory of Aspen and the
community is losing its soul. It is nearly impossible for a
non millionaire to live and work here.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
32% (165 respondents) discussed a need for more affordable restaurants,
groceries, retail, recreation, parking, taxes, and/or affordable inequalities
97
Affordable Housing Desires
66
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Affordable Housing Suggestions 31%160
Have more affordable housing 27%139
More Affordable Housing for employees (permanent and temporary)16%84
More affordable housing for the COMMUNITY (in addition to workforce housing)9%45
More housing for singles/ young people 1%7
More affordable housing for families with children 1%6
More employee/ affordable housing in the City/ in the Core 1%4
Require developers or employers to provide housing for employees 1%4
More single-family homes for employees 1%3
More town-house style affordable housing -2
Add caretaker units to existing homes for more employee housing -1
Don't tear down Centennial -1
Create online platform to list affordable homes -1
More employee housing outside the roundabout -1
Create more units near Buttermilk -1
Change APCHA/ Affordable Housing 5%26
Change APCHA/ Affordable Housing 2%10
Ensure system is working/ not being abused 1%6
Get existing units in better condition/ have proper maintenance -2
Ensure APCHA policies favor long-term residents -2
Encourage/ Incent retirees to move out of affordable housing -2
City shouldn't act as developer -use another plan -2
Provide opportunities to right-size units -1
Lower property taxes/ Lower HOA fees with affordable housing -1
Limit number of dogs at affordable housing -1
Less affordable housing/ less density/ utilize current inventory 1%3
Affordable housing! Without housing, working people can’t live here. Reform on current income caps for housing!
So many can barely afford to eat because rent is at least half of their income. If suggested rent amounts are 1/3 if
your monthly income and the average person is paying 2k a month (minimum!) they should be making 6k a month
to afford cost of living, especially here! 6x12=72k a year. How many ppl can live a decent life, save any money at all,
pay for health care, groceries, utilities, and god forbid have any sort of enjoyment with their families (ski passes, rec
center passes, eat a meal out of the house once a month) on 72k a year in Aspen CO! And remember, 2k a month is
a very LOW/AFFORDABLE monthly rental cost by most cases.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
31% (160 respondents) shared suggestions for affordable housing in Aspen, with
most discussing the need for more affordable housing.
98
Suggestions for Development –Commercial & Residential
67
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Change development 28%146
Reduce/ lessen development 14%70
Reduce development/ Less construction/ Overcrowding 7%36
Less commercial development 6%31
Don't cater to developers/ MH/ Greed 5%28
Limit how much one entity can own in commercial core 3%15
Less commercial development in general 2%8
Less residential development 2%8
Less residential development in general 1%4
Limit permits and increase controls for houses that aren't owner-occupied -2
Don't tear down good residential homes -2
Less/ no affordable housing mitigation -1
Change commercial development 11%50
Help small businesses/ affordable businesses stay in town 8%35
Other Help small businesses/ affordable businesses stay in town 6%30
Lost character of shops and restaurants -Retain small shops/ character 4%22
Promote/ support local businesses 1%7
Create/ add new development 2%11
Create spaces for only locals to enjoy/ no tourists 1%4
Create community space in armory building 1%4
Need more fun local bars 1%3
More outdoor seating with venues/ restaurants -1
Put a dance floor in old City Hall basement -1
Implement Galena plaza improvements -1
Control/ reduce commercial rents, affordable commercial real estate 2%9
Ensure new development meets a community need 1%7
Eliminate/ no chain stores/ restaurants 1%6
Less empty or incomplete buildings 1%4
Hold developers to timelines and zoning requirements 1%3
Make development rights non-transferable -1
Change residential development 6%31
Restrict short-term rentals 4%21
Limit new home sizes, no more billionaire houses 1%5
Lessen restrictions, regulations, fees on owner-occupied homes 1%5
Add vacant home tax 1%5
Retain culture of neighborhoods with new development -1
Honor property owner rights -1
Clarify who owns property -1
Lower property taxes -1
Fix permitting process/ red tape/ lessen restrictions 1%7
End moratorium/ move towards controlled growth 1%5
Limit size of structures –both commercial and new homes -2
•28% of respondents addressed development, with most requesting that
development be reduced overall
99
Desires for Strategy, Prioritization, Tactics
68
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play –Community Suggestions
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N =515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
I would like to see clear goals from the City; prioritized and some specific measurable deliverables on
each goal. There needs to be a high level view with incremental steps needed to start making
progress on these goals. Reverse engineer a path to reach the goals. Community involvement from
diverse groups in the community with a balanced cross section of the citizens. More transparency
from the City Council on their motives and actions.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
17% (88 respondents) provided suggestions about strategy, who the town
should prioritize, or tactics to follow
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Strategy, Prioritization, Budget 17%88
Prioritize specific groups 9%46
Prioritize residents/ long-term residents over tourists/ wealthy guests 4%21
Prioritize working class locals 2%11
Make decisions for good of whole town vs. preferences of leadership 2%10
Balance needs of tourists with residents -need each other 1%6
Prioritize small business over box stores -1
Review city staffing and pay/ conduct analysis 2%9
Higher pay for lower and mid-level City employees 1%4
Less City staff/ more subcontracting -2
Other review City staffing and pay/ conduct analysis -2
Other ensure paying staff adequately -2
Reduce marketing/ Aspen needs less people/ less tourists 2%9
Reduce City budget and/or City bureaucracy 2%9
Comments about leaders, council members or specific employees 2%8
Let free-market, businesses, and residents make decisions 1%5
Be more transparent (with motives, budget, or spending)1%3
Less use of consultants -2
Survey complaints/ survey wording -2
Clarify goals, vision -2
Promote Aspen more -need the jobs -1
Embrace policies that will create jobs vs. moratorium -1
Ensure City uses space efficiently -1
Be proactive -see a need/ problem and fix it vs. wait for residents to ask for it -1
Value retirees and their contributions to the town -1
Work with other Valley communities -1
Don't act/ give power to vocal minorities/ dissenters -1
Link all policies to municipal code -1
Dissolve ACRA -1
100
Addressing Traffic & Congestion
69
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Traffic/Congestion/Road Design 10%52
Address traffic problem/ traffic at roundabout 7%36
Reduce traffic/ congestion/ fix traffic problem 5%26
Need more than one lane in/ out of town 1%8
Encourage carpooling and bus use 1%3
Improve exit from Aspen 1%3
Make bus lanes available for HOV, merge bus and HOV lanes -1
Make city more walkable/ make downtown mall area larger -1
Require new development to address traffic -1
Get rid of HOV lane after roundabout -1
Require Hospital and Ski Co to run their own parking/ transport
system -1
Plan on a toll road -1
Build a better/ more welcoming entrance into the city 1%7
Add stop signs or lights to all downtown intersections for safety 1%3
Replace or repurpose bridge into town -2
Change/ reduce speed limits -2
Add more sidewalks -2
Bike lanes on road or eBike paths separate from others -1
Convert more of downtown to pedestrian-only -1
Make streets less confusing/ less one-ways -1
Highway 82 traffic is severely affecting quality of life in the Valley. City of Aspen needs to address
the Entrance to Aspen issue. It seems like City leadership avoids the issue because Aspen voters don't
want to address it since they don't deal with traffic in the same way as commuters, but it is affecting
quality of life for Aspen residents as well. Also, it is not environmentally acceptable to have a huge
line up of vehicles idling on Main Street every evening!
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
10% (52 respondents) provided suggestions about traffic,
congestion, or road design
101
Safety & Security Suggestions
70
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
Pedestrian safety is very poor. I look four times before crossing streets, b/c so many people have
been hit. I am nervous in the core on my bike. Reduce and slow traffic. Make streets for people.
When providing open response to
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
7% (34 residents) provided suggestions about improving safety
The chart below highlights the types of safety suggestions made along with the % of residents requesting
this specific action. ‘-’ indicates that less than 1%/5 residents made this specific suggestion.
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Security/Safety 7%34
Enforce laws/maintain order 4%19
Slow down speeding cars in town 2%8
Enforce bicycling restrictions 1%5
Enforce drug and alcohol laws, reduce party culture 1%3
Enforce laws/ speed limits on West side -2
Keep pedestrians off roads/ enforce pedestrian restrictions -2
Crack down on large parties/ noise ordinances -1
Enforce dog poop laws -1
Enforce trash/ garbage compliance (bears)-1
Enforce leash laws -1
Enforce traffic lights -1
Restrict vehicles driving without clearing snow/ no visibility -1
Enforce 'No decorative exterior lighting after 10 PM' rule -1
Change/ reduce speed limits -1
Make Aspen safer for pedestrians/More streetlights and
signs at cross walks 1%6
More community police presence 1%5
Punish criminals (keep off streets) vs. probation -2
Better training for police -1
Follow through with immigration laws -1
Need less enforcement -2
102
Changes in the Community, Creating Community
71
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Aspen is changing -since COVID –
lost sense of community 6%29
Aspen is changing -since COVID -lost sense of community 6%11
Educate newcomers or visitors about living in Aspen, encourage Aspen 101 2%6
Unite the diverse groups of Aspen -tenure in Aspen, wealth, business
owners, etc.1%5
Newcomers care less about environment, locals, connecting with
community 1%4
Try to foster community despite imbalance in community 1%4
Be nice/ welcoming to newcomers from past 2 years, niceness campaign 1%2
Be inviting to part-time residents –they’re part of the community -1
Help those in need -1
Focus on evidence-based community building and restoration -1
The divide between those who have excessive wealth
and those who do not is becoming greater and greater. I
am not sure it is the City of Aspen's job to help the divide
feel less, emotionally and spiritually, but this is the
greatest challenge facing our community. It affects all
people and all aspects of life in Aspen.
I would recommend that local government
work hard to restore trust and justice for and
with true locals. I’d recommend evidence-
based community building and restoration with
a focus on optimum mental health and well-
being. Something needs to be done about
income inequality and locals need to not be
seen as “the workforce” but as the people.
Research needs to be done that is specific to
our community to address mental health
disparities which result from unique
community factors which erode social capital
in our community.
Aspen is getting overcrowded and our identity and culture are
changing. Young families and talented young professionals
cannot afford housing and are choosing to leave the valley. This
will be detrimental to our community in the long run. I wish
there were more locally-owned shops and boutiques, not just
high-end designer stores and expensive restaurants. Please put
our local community first when making decisions. A campaign
communicating who Aspen is, our history, and what we as a
community value might help our new residents appreciate and
assimilate (and it would be a good reminder for us all).
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
6% (29 respondents) provided thoughts on how the City of Aspen
had lost its sense of community since COVID
103
Community Engagement Feedback
72
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Community Engagement 4%22
Listen to feedback/ suggestions from residents
(need to listen & really understand before acting based on feedback)2%12
Encourage involvement/ require 10 hours of community service/ year 1%4
More community involvement from companies/ developers 1%3
Have more community efforts/ sharing sessions -1
Hold community engagement sessions at times when working locals can
attend -1
Seek input/ ideas from local owners/ brilliant businesspeople -1
Provide adequate notice of public sharing sessions -1
We need the brilliant businesspeople that are so
invested in this town to have a voice in the city. Some of
the most successful people in the world are right under
our noses and a business group would approach
problem solving differently than any existing arm of the
city government or volunteer boards.
When important issues come up, like the moratorium,
there should be adequate public notice and when a
chance to speak to the issue is forcibly made available
the Mayor and Council should listen and act
accordingly. The hearing which was held was almost
entirely against the moratorium and in spite of this, it
passed as though no one’s voice meant anything. I was
left thinking that no citizens opinion had any value.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
4% (22 respondents) provided suggestions about improving
community engagement in the City of Aspen
Despite a very engaged parent group
participating in the January kids first meeting,
the city clearly didn’t listen to any of those
concerns, or stats, and created an
environment to lose a valuable early childcare
provider. Very disappointed in this.
104
Suggestions for Parking & Streets/Road Maintenance
73
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Parking Preferences 4%20
Need more parking in town/ stop eliminating parking spaces 3%13
Enforce parking lot time limits (for both cars and construction
equipment)-2
Mandate new parking with new development -1
Replace meters -1
Let shoppers park near stores -1
Lower parking rates -1
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Street/Road Maintenance 4%19
More plowing and ice removal 2%11
More plowing on side/ residential streets 1%7
Ice and snow removal in the core -2
Ice off sidewalks -2
Fix potholes 1%7
Better street maintenance -2
Penalize stores that less ice build up -1
Use sand at all intersections in core/ combat ice -1
More street parking! Very difficult to enjoy Aspen when there is no parking. Eliminate
taking out spots for restaurants and snow piles so more parking is available.
Make parking in town more affordable, the prices are so high, sometimes it’s a better
idea to just risk getting a ticket.
Better snow removal in outlying neighborhoods, especially the East End. The winter of 2022
has been crippling for pedestrians.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
4% (20 respondents) provided suggestions about improving
parking conditions in the City of Aspen
4% (19 respondents) provided suggestions about improving
the streets and roads in the City of Aspen
105
Environment/Climate Change Suggestions
74
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Environment/Climate Change 3%16
Do more to protect environment/ address climate change 3%14
Require recycling/ restrict use of plastic bags 1%4
Require composting/ encourage composting 1%3
Better manage risk of forest fires -2
Plant a ton of trees -2
Less private jets/ tax private jets -2
Limit electricity available -1
Reduce the number of lit butts (cigarettes/ marijuana) being tossed -1
More electric vehicle charging stations -1
Minimize idling of planes, vehicles, city trucks -1
Provide options to offset carbon footprint of personal travel -1
Address impact of development on environment -1
Do less to address climate change, focus elsewhere -2
Be more friendly to wildlife -1
Create a trash/ compost system similar to the one in San Francisco, make it mandatory for
everyone to compost and separate trash and recycling. Keep Aspen green, nature, the mountains,
trails and parks are the best asset that the city has, we live here because we love the outdoors.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
3% (16 respondents) provided suggestions about protecting the
environment in the City of Aspen
106
Recreation/Open Space Suggestions
75
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Recreation/Open Space 3%14
Trails and parks -maintain, add 2%10
Maintain trails in both summer and winter 1%3
More off leash dog trails/ parks -2
More investment in biking/ running/ hiking trails -1
Remove dog waste from parks -1
Minimize ebikes, charge ebikes for use on trails -1
Improve playgrounds/ parks -Glory Hole Park -1
Add snowshoe trail -1
Improve or add rec facilities 1%4
Better recreation facilities/ invest more in rec facilities -1
More classes at Red Brick or Ice Rink -1
Add outdoor hot tub at the ARC -1
Build multipurpose indoor sports fields/ facility -1
Less open spaces in town 1%3
Finish 1A mountain development/ upgrade lifts 1%4
Bring back World Cup Races -1
Keep open spaces untouched/ natural -1
We should increase the investment into recreational trails for biking, hiking, & running. As well as the
investment into local recreation facilities. The Aspen rec center used to be a popular location for locals
to not only enjoy fitness classes but engage with the community. Now with its hours and scaled back
offerings it is rarely visited. Providing free access to the Aspen rec center for Aspen residents would be a
reason to start increase usage there.
The chart below highlights the types of suggestions made along with the % of residents requesting this
specific action. ‘-’ indicates that less than 1% (less than 5 residents) made this specific suggestion.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
3% (14 respondents) provided suggestions about improving
recreation or open spaces
107
Childcare, Healthcare, & Aesthetics
76
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
3% (15 respondents) provided suggestions about healthcare % of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Healthcare 3%8
Handle COVID differently/ align restrictions with science 1%8
Community/ City shouldn't support party lifestyle 1%5
Provide mental health resources for adults and kids -2
Need drug/ alcohol resources for teens & adults -1
Need more healthcare providers/ healthcare options/ insurance options -1
% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Aesthetics / Beautification 2%10
Clean up garbage more often/ more trash cans in the core 1%4
Clean the highway more often 1%3
Maintain town's historical nature/ Victorian town -1
Less use of bollards -1
More flowers/ planter boxes -1
Remove Cottonwood trees -1
Aspen is incredible in almost every way. Since moving here a couple years ago, I’d say the hardest thing
for me to get used to was that everyone here partied daily. Within two months of moving here, I found
my neighbor dead. He overdosed. He was 27. I’ve never experienced depression like I have here until
being here for a couple years and finding a group of friends that didn’t rely on cocaine or Adderall to
make it through their workday. I just wish mental health was improved and I’m not sure how the city can
help, but I think starting the conversation is something. The only crimes I’ve witnessed here is the theft of
someone’s life from how prevalent drug abuse is here. And no one cares because it’s a small, ski town.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
3% (15 respondents) provided suggestions about childcare or daycare % of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Childcare/Daycare 3%15
Need more affordable childcare/ more early education development 2%10
Don't drive out established childcare providers 1%3
Improve quality of local childcare 1%3
Make Armory and Powerhouse childcare facilities -1
Educate residents to plan on their own for childcare -1
3% (15 respondents) provided suggestions to beautify Aspen
108
Wages, Events, Public Transportation, Utilities
77
Keeping Aspen a Great Place to Work, Live, and Play
QUESTION DETAILS
Overall, what suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work and play?
N = 515 (A dash indicates less than 1% of respondents made this suggestion)
1% (7 residents) shared the need for higher wages % of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Higher Wages/Job Growth 1%7
1% (6 respondents had suggestions for community events)% of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Community Programming/Events 1%6
More community events, keep up community events -3
Provide more events/ activities for kids and teens -2
Reduce event frequency -2
More events at the New Armory -1
Enable affordable rental of community spaces for local employees -1
More co-mingling spaces/ opportunities for people of all economic levels -1
1% (6 residents) had suggestions for public transportation % of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Public Transportation 1%6
Maintain routes for RFTA year-round, more fully utilize busses -2
Improve the airport -1
Less public transportation/ limit public transportation -1
Have developers/ corporations pay for mass transit -1
1% (4 residents) made recommendations for utilities % of
Respondents
# of
Respondents
Utilities 1 4
Reduce electric fees -1
Buy power lines -1
Address sewer smell -1
Provide more trash cans -1
Hide/beautify water meters or electric meters -1
Organize more community events, because the pandemic made everything so
private and our lives so small that we need help experiencing extroversion again.
When providing open response to:
What suggestions do you have for keeping Aspen a great place to live, work, and play?
109
DEMOGRAPHICS
78
110
Weighted Demographic Data
Demographics
The data for the City of Aspen 2022 Community Survey was weighted to Aspen Census norms for
gender, age and income to ensure responses reflect population at large.
These norms were derived from the American Community Survey 2020 5-year estimates.
The following slide shows a full comparison of unweighted responses vs. weighted values.
How do you identify? respondents who said
«prefer not to answer» removed have been
removed: N=662
51%49%
Gender
18-34
29%
35-44
19%
45-54
22%
55-64
12%
65+
18%
Age
What is your current age? respondents who said «prefer not to
answer» removed have been removed: N=621
31%29%18%21%
Household Income
Less than $50k $50k - $100k $100k - $150k More than $150k
Which of the following best describes your household income level? (this would include
the total income from all sources for your household). respondents who said «prefer not to
answer» have been removed: N=540
5%
12%
82%
Months of the Year Living in Aspen
6 months or less
7-11 months
12 months
About how many months out of the year, if any, do you live in Aspen?
respondents who said «prefer not to answer have been removed: N=612
75%
20%
4%
18%
I work in Aspen
I own a business in Aspen
I own a 2nd home in Aspen (vacation home,
rental property, etc.)
None of these apply to me
% Survey Takers Who Work, Own a Businesses, and Own Vacation Homes
Please check each of the following that apply to you: N=633 [multi-select with ‘None of these apply to me’ exclusive
79
111
80
Weighting Scheme –2022 City of Aspen Community Survey
Demographic Survey
Responses
Census
Norm
Prefer Not
to Answer
Adjustment
Final Dataset
(Weighted) %
Gender:
Male 40%50.8%x (1-PNA%)49.3%
Female 58%49.2%x (1-PNA%)47.7%
Transgender/Non-
Binary/Non-Conforming
<1%-x (1-PNA%)-
Prefer Not to Answer 2%-2.4%3.0%
Age:
18-34 21%29.5%x (1-PNA%)27.0%
35-44 16%19.0%x (1-PNA%)17.4%
45-54 14%21.5%x (1-PNA%)19.7%
55-64 15%12.3%x (1-PNA%)11.3%
65+25%17.7%x (1-PNA%)16.2%
Prefer not to answer 8%-8.4%8.4%
Income:
Less than 50k 13%31.3%x (1-PNA%)24.9%
50-100k 26%29.4%x (1-PNA%)23.4%
100-150k 15%18.0%x (1-PNA%)14.3%
150k or more 26%21.4%x (1-PNA%)17.0%
Prefer not to answer 20%-20.4%20.4%
Responses by Demographic Group;
Data Weighting Scheme
Demographics
112
58%
I would like to
stay informed
and participate
in discussions
about key
community
topics
42%
I would NOT like
to stay informed
and participate in
discussions about
key community
topics
Interest in Being Kept Informed about
Discussions on Key Community Topics
Among residents who wanted to stay informed -
proportion interested in key community topics:
77%
54%
28%
25%
22%
21%
11%
5%
Make Aspen livable
Protect the local natural environment
Support community engagement
Ensure a safe community
Foster economic vitality
Customer-focused government
Maintain City of Aspen's financial health
None of these interest me
QUESTION DETAILS
And would you like to be kept informed and participate in discussions about key community topics? Please note: Your
contact information will be provided to the City so they can reach out, but your survey answers will remain anonymous.
N=354
Below are 7 key areas where you can be kept informed and participate in discussions about key community topics.
Which areas would you be most interested in? Select up to three
N=
Note: the following data is unweighted.
➢Nearly 60% want to stay informed and participate in future discussions;
➢Topic with highest level of interest from community is how to best Make Aspen Livable
Interest in Future Involvement
81
113
28%
Yes, I would be
interested in
providing
feedback on
community
policing
72%
No, I would not be
interested in giving
feedback on
community policing
Interest in Providing Feedback on Community Policing
QUESTION DETAILS
Would you be interested in providing feedback on community policing -either by participating in focus groups or
surveys like this?
N=645
Note: the following data is unweighted.
➢28% of respondents (188 residents) would like to provide additional feedback on
Community Policing
Future Feedback on Community Policing
82
114
56%
15%
14%
9%
5%
4%
2%
2%
Direct mail (letter mailed to me)
Email invitation
City social media post
Digital ad
News article
Utility bill mailer
City website
Word of mouth
How Did You Hear About This Survey?
QUESTION DETAILS
How did you hear about this survey?
N=678
Note: the following data is unweighted.
Note: emails invitations were sent to email
addresses previously retained (with
permission) from prior survey submissions.
Ages 2022 2019 Census
Norm
Base Size 678 408
18-34 23%13%29.5%
35-44 18%17%19%
45-54 16%17%21.5%
55-64 17%23%12.3%
65+27%30%17.7%
Language
Completed 2022 2019 Census
Norm
Base Size 678 408
Other 8%
Spanish 5%0%5%
English 95%100%87%
➢A variety of methods were utilized to get the word out about the survey.
➢Varied methods helped increase overall response rate and involvement from younger
community members and Spanish-speaking community members.
How Respondents Heard About the Survey
83
115
➢Survey responses are continuing to shift to mobile platforms, highlighting the need for future
versions to remain mobile-friendly
➢Significantly more paper surveys were requested this year; 22 paper surveys were sent to
residents in 2022 vs 3 in 2019
Note: the following data is unweighted.
Desktop iOS/iPhone Android Paper
2019 70%25%4%1%
2022 59%33%8%3%
How Respondents Took the Survey
84
116
See supplemental APPENDIX report for
•Detailed Methodology & Marketing
•Survey Instrument
•Holistic Strategic Scorecard
•Verbatim Comments to Open Response
•Historical Benchmarking
ATTACHMENTS
A -Strategic Focus Area Verbiage
B -Peer City Comparisons –Pre/Post COVID
C -Data Tables –Responses to all questions
85
117
Strategic Focus Areas -2022 Strategic Focus Area Survey Descriptions
PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT:
Ensure that policy decisions, programs and
projects manage impacts to the environment,
climate, and public health and well-being
Protect the Local Natural Environment
City government decisions, programs, and projects
minimize negative impacts to the environment, climate,
public health, and well-being
SMART CUSTOMER FOCUSED GOVERNMENT:
Provide value to the community by continuously
improving services and processes based on
feedback, data, best practices, and innovation.
Customer-Focused Government
City government continuously improves services and
processes based on feedback, data, best practices, and
innovation
FISCAL HEALTH & ECONOMIC VITALITY:
Promote economic sustainability of the Aspen
community by advancing a healthy, diverse local
economy while responsibly managing revenue
streams, community investments,
and financial reserves.
Foster Economic Vitality (City government develops a
healthy, diverse local economy through commercial &
residential development and local shopping)
Maintain City of Aspen's Financial Health
City government responsibly manages taxpayer dollars,
community investments, and financial reserves
SAFE & LIVED-IN COMMUNITY OF CHOICE:
Ensure Aspen is an attractive, diverse, and safe
city to live, work and visit year-round. This
includes opportunities to access childcare,
healthcare, housing, transit, parks, recreation,
and technological connectivity.
Ensure a Safe Community
City government ensures Aspen is a safe City to live,
work, and visit
Make Aspen Livable
City government ensures Aspen is a great place to live
and work, including access to childcare, healthcare,
housing, recreation, internet, and transit
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Ensure a trusted dialogue and relationship in the
community that encourages participation,
consensus building, and meaningful engagement.
Support Community Engagement
City government regularly shares information that is
helpful & trustworthy, is responsive, encourages and
listens to feedback, and provides meaningful ways to
participate
86
Strategic Focus Area -City Descriptions & Survey Language
Attachment A
•The 2022 survey provided descriptions of the Strategic Focus Areas in addition to the focus area names
to provide clarity prior to respondent ratings. (Review of 2019 results highlighted some inconsistencies
between overall focus area satisfaction and their components.)
•Descriptions were slightly modified to avoid leading words, avoid government speak, highlight how focus
areas may impact the community, and to separate focus areas that combined different domains of livability.
•Safety & Livability were separated into two separate metrics, consistent with focus areas tested in 2019.
•Fiscal Health & Economic Vitality were separated into two separate metrics, consistent with focus areas
tested in 2019. The focus area descriptions were also updated to align with changes to these focus areas
over the past few years.
118
87
ATTACHMENT B
Comparisons vs Peers
119
88
ATTACHMENT B
COMPARATIVE METRICS -Personal Quality of Life
POST COVID-19 VS PRE COVID-19
➢Personal Quality of Life dropped more in Aspen than in comparable cities
post COVID-19
% Satisfied / Positive
(Scale includes neutral option, excludes ‘don’t know” responses)
% Positive (No Neutral Option)
(4-point scale with no neutral option; excludes ‘don’t know’ responses)
•Aspen’s more notable decline in satisfaction with Personal Quality of Life relative to
other regions indicates that the decline may be due to more than the pandemic alone.
•While % Satisfied with Personal Quality of Life is still ahead of most US cities, less
residents are satisfied with their Personal Quality of Life in the City of Aspen than in
Pitkin County, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, or Steamboat Springs.
US Norms:
⁓65-75% Satisfied
with their Quality of Life
National Norm/Average satisfaction
estimate is derived from publicly available
US city satisfaction reports and US studies
conducted by a range of research and polling
companies In the post COVID-19 timeframe.
Percent Satisfied reports the percent of
positive responses when using scales
with a neutral option, excluding
‘don’t know’ responses.
Post
COVID
Pre
COVID
Point Change
Post vs Pre COVID
City of Aspen
2022 vs 2019 79%88%↓ 9
Pitkin County
2021 vs 2018 87%96%↓ 9
Fort Collins
2021 vs 2019 85%88%↓ 3
Colorado Springs
2021 vs 2019 85%83%↑ 2
Post
COVID
Pre
COVID
Point Change
Post vs Pre COVID
City of Aspen Estimate
2022 vs 2019 85%90% ↓ 5
Steamboat Springs
Nov 2020 vs 2017 91%90%↑ 1
Park City
TBD vs 2017 N/A 94%N/A
Estes Park
2018 vs 2021 81%76% ↑ 5
Boulder
TBD vs 2018 N/A 92%N/A
Denver
TBD vs 2018 N/A 79%N/A
City of Aspen Question:
On a scale of 0 to 10 where 10=Extremely Satisfied and 0=Extremely Dissatisfied, in general, how satisfied are you with your
personal Quality of Life in Aspen? Note: see Appendix for links to comparison city reports
120
89
% Satisfied/Positive with Quality of Services
(Scale includes neutral option, excludes ‘don’t know’ responses)
% Positive (No Neutral Option) with Quality of Services
(4-point scale with no neutral option; excludes ‘don’t know’ responses)
•About half of residents are satisfied with the Quality of City Services in Aspen, well
below other comparable cities with data-points post COVID-19.
•Aspen’s more notable decline in satisfaction with Quality of City Services relative to
other regions indicates that the decline is likely due to more than the pandemic alone
US Norms:
⁓50-60% Satisfied
with City Services
National Norm/Average satisfaction
estimate is derived from publicly
available US city satisfaction reports
and US studies conducted by a range
of research and polling companies In
the post COVID-19 timeframe.
Percent Satisfied reports the percent
of positive responses when using
scales with a neutral option,
excluding ‘don’t know’ responses.
City of Aspen Question:
Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen?
5-point satisfaction scale: Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral, Somewhat Dissatisfied, Very Dissatisfied
Post
COVID
Pre
COVID
Point Change
Post vs Pre COVID
City of Aspen
2022 vs 2019 52%71%↓ 19
Pitkin County
Fall 2021 vs 2018 69%75%↓ 6%
Fort Collins
2021 vs 2019 80%80%↔
Post
COVID
Pre
COVID
Point Change
Post vs Pre COVID
City of Aspen Estimate
2022 vs 2019 69%83%↓ 14
Steamboat Springs
Nov 2020 vs 2017 90%83%↑ 7
Park Cities
TBD vs 2017 N/A 94%N/A
Estes Park
2018 vs 2021 71%72% ↓ 1
Boulder
TBD vs 2018 N/A 92%N/A
Denver
TBD vs 2018 N/A 79%N/A
ATTACHMENT B
COMPARATIVE METRICS –Quality of City Services
POST COVID-19 VS PRE COVID-19
➢Satisfaction with Quality of City Services dropped more in Aspen than in
comparable cities post COVID-19
121
ATTACHMENT C
2022 Data Tables
(All Questions)
90122
Data Tables
91
Q.4: For each City of Aspen priority below, please rate your level of satisfaction with the City's performance:
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=609-677
Very
Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very
Dissatisfied
Net Satisfied
(Very Satisfied +
Satisfied)
Net Dissatisfied
(Dissatisfied +
Very
Dissatisfied)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Protect the Local
Natural Environment 127 19%295 44%128 19%81 12%35 5%422 63%116 17%
Customer-Focused
Government 33 5%204 32%199 31%126 20%73 11%237 37%199 31%
Foster Economic Vitality 26 4%139 21%122 18%248 37%127 19%165 25%375 57%
Maintain City of Aspen’s
Financial Health 52 8%203 33%158 26%126 21%70 12%255 42%196 32%
Ensure a Safe
Community 276 41%303 45%49 7%34 5%15 2%579 86%49 7%
Make Aspen Livable 47 7%147 22%98 15%211 31%170 25%194 29%381 57%
Support Community
Engagement 70 11%266 41%162 25%111 17%43 7%336 52%154 24%
Q.5: On a scale of 0 to 10 where 10=Excellent and 0=Very Poor, in general, how would you rate the
overall quality of life in Aspen?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=675
10
Excellent
9 8 7 6 5
Neutral
4 3 2 1 0
Very Poor
Net
Positive
(6-10)
Net
Negative
(0-4)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Total 91 14%107 16%158 23%126 19%54 8%55 8%32 5%24 4%16 2%4 1%7 1%537 80%83 12%
Q.6: On a scale of 0 to 10 where 10=Extremely Satisfied and 0=Extremely Dissatisfied, in general, how satisfied are you with
your personal quality of life in Aspen?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=677
10
Extremely
Satisfied
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Net
Satisfied
(6-10)
Net
Dissatisfied
(0-4)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Total 93 14%141 21
%142 21
%100 15
%57 8%52 8%34 5%32 5%22 3%1 -5 1%532 79%93 14%
Q.7: And comparing your life before the COVID-19 pandemic to where you are now...
How has your personal quality of life in Aspen changed?
Significantly
Better
Somewhat
Better
No
Change
Somewhat
Worse
Significantly
Worse
Net Better
(Sig + Somewhat Better)
Net Worse
(Sig + Somewhat Worse)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Total 27 4%133 20%247 37%203 30%56 8%160 24%258 39%
123
Data Tables
92
Q.8: Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=670
Very
Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very
Dissatisfied
Net Satisfied
(Very Satisfied +
Satisfied)
Net Dissatisfied
(Dissatisfied +
Very Dissatisfied)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Total 58 9%291 43%166 25%108 16%47 7%349 52%155 23%
Q.9: Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about the City of Aspen:
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=618-658
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Net Agree
(Strongly Agree +
Agree)
Net Disagree
(Strongly Disagree
+ Disagree)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
The City provides a
welcoming environment for
community involvement
82 12%285 44%169 26%69 11%48 7%367 56%118 18%
The City can be trusted to
look out for my interests 36 6%158 24%164 25%186 28%113 17%195 30%299 45%
The City matches spending
with community priorities 29 5%167 27%155 25%173 28%94 15%196 32%267 43%
The City provides value
overall for the taxes paid 55 9%253 40%157 25%105 16%69 11%308 48%174 27%
Q.10: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with each of the following in Aspen:
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=627-652
Very
Satisfied Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very
Dissatisfied
Net Satisfied
(Very Satisfied +
Satisfied)
Net Dissatisfied
(Dissatisfied +
Very
Dissatisfied)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Overall economic health 34 5%232 36%219 34%111 17%55 8%266 41%167 26%
Affordable shopping
opportunities 8 1%42 6%76 11%205 31%334 50%50 7%539 81%
Employment opportunities 83 13%231 37%200 32%76 12%37 6%314 50%113 18%
Commercial and residential
development in the City 24 4%74 11%105 16%214 32%247 37%97 15%461 69%
124
Data Tables
93
Q.11: What is your level of concern regarding evacuating town in the event of an emergency?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=650
Extremely
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Not Very
Concerned
Not At All
Concerned
Net Concerned
(Extremely + Very
Concerned)
Net Not Concerned
(Not Very + Not At
All Concerned)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Total 85 13%158 24%188 29%157 24%62 9%244 37%219 34%
Q.12: Knowing that the Castle Creek Bridge needs to be replaced in 15-20 years, please choose
the top 3 priorities you'd like the City to consider:
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=662
Selected
N %
Reduce peak traffic automobile travel time 392 59%
Double the number of west-bound emergency evacuation
routes by adding a second bridge over Castle Creek 326 49%
Reduce travel time for those using public transit 254 38%
Create a new wildlife corridor that connects the golf course to
Marolt open space 223 34%
None of the above -the current entrance to Aspen is fine 79 12%
Q.13: Thinking of yourself personally, how would you rate ... on a scale of 0 to 10 where 10=Excellent and 0=Very Poor:
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=656
10
Excellent
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Very Poor
Net
Positive
(6-10)
Net
Negative
(0-4)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Your
physical
health
132 20%133 20%171 26%85 14%45 7%53 8%10 2%10 1%5 1%1 -1 -576 88%27 4%
Your
emotional
well-being
114 17%111 17%124 19%102 16%52 8%58 9%39 6%28 4%17 3%3 -8 1%503 77%95 15%
125
Data Tables
94
Q.14: How important is it for the City government to do the following:
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=517-526
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not Very
Important
Not At All
Important
Net Important
(Extremely +
Very Important)
Net Not
Important
(Not Very + Not
At All Important)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Expand high-quality
early education
programming
126 24%190 36%135 26%41 8%34 6%316 60%74 14%
Increase the number
of early childhood
education spaces
128 25%183 35%145 28%39 6%34 7%311 60%64 12%
Increase the number
of infant care spaces 124 24%174 34%141 27%40 8%37 7%298 58%77 15%
Q.15: Please rate the importance of each of the following City of Aspen Parks and Open Space amenities to you:
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=625-653
Extremely
Important
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
Not Very
Important
Not At All
Important
Net Important
(Extremely + Very
Important)
Net Not Important
(Not Very + Not At
All Important)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Playgrounds 105 17%200 32%221 35%70 11%30 5%305 49%100 16%
Quiet spaces 177 27%228 35%154 24%53 8%35 5%406 63%87 13%
Recreation facilities
and programs 187 29%258 40%164 25%21 3%14 2%445 69%35 5%
Public event space 97 15%209 32%222 34%86 13%34 5%306 47%120 19%
Open spaces 328 50%216 33%84 13%17 3%7 1%544 83%24 4%
Trails 366 56%210 32%63 10%6 1%5 1%576 89%12 2%
Gardens 142 22%221 34%201 31%65 10%18 3%363 56%83 13%
Fitness facilities
and programs 157 24%226 35%183 28%58 9%25 4%384 59%83 13%
126
Data Tables
95
Q.16: While the City will always prioritize preventing crimes and responding to crimes, we'd like
resident input on connecting with the community through community policing efforts. Please mark
up to three community policing efforts that are most important to you.
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=645
Selected
N %
Patrolling on foot / Talking to residents and tourists 377 58%
Wildlife interaction education (bears, moose, deer, elk,
mountain lions, etc.)284 44%
Patrolling on bikes 218 34%
Collaborating with community groups 163 25%
School visits / School events / Career Day 139 22%
Street Law classes at the high school 122 19%
Supporting non-profit events (Ducky Derby, Boogie's Race)101 16%
Picnic in the Park / Ice Cream in the Park / Cocoa with the Cops 73 11%
Saturday Farmer's Market booth 70 11%
Reading with preschool kids 32 5%
Kids Parade / Kids Bike Rodeo 27 4%
Offering tours of the police office 22 3%
Bingo at the Senior Center 15 2%
None of these are important to me 49 8%
Q.17: How should the Aspen Police Department approach community policing in the future?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=645
Selected
N %
More community policing efforts 169 26%
Less community policing efforts 27 4%
The same amount of community policing efforts 400 62%
Other 49 8%
Q.19: On a scale of 0 to 10 where 10=Extremely Likely and 0=Not At All Likely, how likely would you be to recommend Aspen as a place
to live?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=638
10
Extremely
Likely
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Not At All
Likely
Promoter
(9 –10)
Passive
(7 –8)
Detractor
(0 –6)
N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %N %
Total 101 16%46 7%76 12%83 13%71 11%64 10%43 7%41 6%35 5%24 4%53 8%147 23%159 25%332 52%
127
Demographics Tables
96
Q.1: How did you hear about this survey?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=678
Selected
N %
Direct mail (letter mailed to me)259 53%
City social media post (Twitter, Facebook,
Instagram, YouTube, Nextdoor, etc.)119 17%
Email invitation 88 13%
Digital ad (social media or newspaper)82 12%
News article 28 4%
Word of mouth 23 3%
Utility bill mailer 23 3%
City website 13 2%
Poster 2 -
Other 18 3%
Q.2: How do you identify?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=662
Selected
N %
Male 334 51
Female 323 49
Non-binary/non-confirming 2 -
Transgender 2 -
Not listed --
Prefer not to respond --
Q.3: What is your current age?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=621
Selected
N %
18 –34 183 29
35 –44 118 19
45 –54 134 22
55 –64 77 12
65+110 18
128
Demographics Tables
97
Q.21: About how many months out of the year, if any, do you live in Aspen?Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender,
Age, Income); N=612
Selected
N %
Less than a month 5 1%
1 month 4 1%
2 months 5 1%
3 months 5 1%
4 months 9 1%
5 months 6 1%
6 months 14 2%
7 months 4 1%
8 months 16 3%
9 months --
10 months 18 3%
11 months 20 3%
12 months 504 82%
Q.22: Which of the following best describes your household income level?
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=540
Selected
N %
Less than $50k 169 31%
$50k -$100k 159 29%
$100k -$150k 97 18%
More than $150k 115 21%
Q.23: Finally, please check each of the following that apply to you.
Weighted: Aspen Census (Gender, Age, Income); N=633
Selected
N %
I work in Aspen 475 75%
I own a business in Aspen 129 20%
I own a 2nd home in Aspen (vacation home, rental
property, etc.)
27 4%
None of these apply to me 111 18%
129
City of Aspen Quality of Life Trends –Personal vs. Overall
With & Without Neutral Response Options
98
Quality of Life Ratings
Question Scale 2022
REF:
2019
Point
Change
2022 vs 2019
Personal Quality of Life % Satisfied (Rating 6-10 on 0-10 scale)
Includes a neutral option 79%88%↓ 9
Personal Quality of Life
*Estimate
% Satisfied (Rating T2B on a 4-point scale)
Does not include a neutral option 85%90%↓ 5
Question Scale 2022
REF:
2019
Point
Change
2022 vs 2019
Overall Quality of Life % Satisfied (Rating 6-10 on 0-10 scale)
Includes a neutral option 80%90%↓ 10
Overall Quality of Life
*Estimate
% Satisfied (Rating T2B on a 4-point scale)
Does not include a neutral option 86%93%↓ 7
Question: On a scale of 0 to 10, how satisfied are you with your personal quality
of life in Aspen?
Question: On a scale of 0 to 10, in general, how would you rate the overall
quality of life in Aspen?
130
THANK YOU
Office (719) 590 –9999 info@elevatedinsights.com
Elevated Insights is a full-service market research agency headquartered in Colorado
Springs that provides qualitative and quantitative research, evaluation, and data
mining for both the private and public sectors.
EI prepared this report under contract to and in collaboration with the City of Aspen.
Note: Elevated Insights is a dba for Balch Consulting, a 100% female-owned S-Corp registered in the
state of Colorado since 2000.
131
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
CC: Patrick Quick, Strategy and Innovation Director
THROUGH: Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager
MEMO DATE: June 6, 2022
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2022
RE: 2022 Aspen Community Survey Results
_________
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
No formal Council action is requested at this time. This memo is to provide City Council with a summary
of the results of the recent 2022 Aspen Community Survey. The survey vendor, Elevated Insights (EI),
is presenting key findings at the June 13, 2022 work session. In addition, extensive survey details are
available in the Attachment as the Full Findings Report.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
Since 2006, the City of Aspen has distributed a community survey to Aspen residents to gather
aggregate information on the status of community outcomes, the quality of City services, and community
sentiment. In 2019, the City transitioned the survey to increase the focus on the City of Aspen’s strategic
focus areas and at this time, the City commissioned Elevated Insights (EI) a strategic insights agency
to help update the survey method and approach while utilizing the survey as a barometer on satisfaction
within each strategic focus area.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic along with the timing of recent community surveys completed by ACRA
and Pitkin County, the Aspen Community Survey was strategically delayed, preventing overlap in the
field. With this in mind, the City of Aspen Community Survey was sent out in February through March
of 2022. A wide-ranging communication plan ensued to promote the survey including Spanish language
notifications and a Spanish survey option. Because of the expansive communication net that was cast,
678 completed responses were received. This is an increase from 439 in 2019 which translates to 54%
additional respondents from 2019. The growth in survey responses resulted from the communications
plan and represents robust community participation and engagement along with a more diverse
demographic of responses.
The overarching goal of the community survey is to gather a statistically valid number of confidential
responses to help the City understand the current outlook of the community. The aggregate feedback
will be available to the public online and can be used by Staff and Council to evaluate and guide City
direction. To track trends, some of the survey questions remain unchanged year to year. Others are
updated to provide feedback on emerging needs and issues such as the impact of the COVID pandemic.
132
2
In differentiating this year’s survey, further improvements were made. For 2022, enhancements made
to the survey include but are not limited to:
• Streamlined length of survey – The length of the survey was shortened which yielded a higher
completion rate. Questions were more strategically focused and results of the survey along with
the analysis continue to become increasingly helpful in developing a roadmap for City
improvements.
• More broad-based community response – Through Spanish translation services and Spanish
language responses along with a significant increase in 18–34-year-old respondents, a more
representative outcome of the Aspen community was received.
• Strategic Focus Area described in survey questions. The City of Aspen’s current strategic
focus areas include (as named and described in the survey):
o Make Aspen Livable (City government ensures Aspen is a great place to live and work,
including access to childcare, healthcare, housing, recreation, internet, and transit)
o Foster Economic Vitality (City government develops a healthy, diverse local economy
through commercial and residential development and local shopping)
o Customer-Focused Government (City government continuously improves services and
processes based on feedback, best practices, and innovation)
o Ensure a Safe Community (City government ensures Aspen is a safe City to live, work,
and visit)
o Maintain City of Aspen’s Financial Health (City government responsibly manages
taxpayer dollars, community investments, and financial reserves)
o Support Community Engagement (City government regularly shares information that is
helpful and trustworthy, is responsive, encourages and listens to feedback, and provides
meaningful ways to participate)
For the 2002 survey with the size of 678 respondents and the City of Aspen population of about 7,100;
the Margin of Error (MoE) was determined to be + /- 4% with a 95% level of confidence for most
questions, clarifying how well the survey results reflect the views of the entire Aspen population.
Describing the strategic focus areas within the survey likely contributed to shifts in satisfaction.
Meaningful drops in satisfaction highlight which strategic focus areas may need further exploration or
community discussions to fully understand community desired direction.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was isolated and analyzed within the Full Findings Report
(Attachment), highlighting that while the pandemic accounted for some of the City’s decrease in
satisfaction, the pandemic did not fully account for the City’s drop in satisfaction. Additionally, the impact
of economic inflations is an area that may have influenced the survey results. Further follow up on
these variables is necessary to refine the most appropriate and relevant actionable steps for the long
term and sustainable betterment of the Aspen community.
Lastly, it is important to recognize that many of the recommendations provided in the Full Findings
Report (Attachment), complement the current direction of the City.
See below for an excerpt of how the strategic focus areas were clarified in the 2002 community survey:
133
3
DISCUSSION:
General Findings
In comparison with other jurisdictions in the United States, respondents rated the Quality of Life, as
well as their Satisfaction with City Services are about in line with the national benchmark data. About
4 in 5 residents are satisfied with their Personal Quality of Life. Positive aspects of living in the City of
Aspen include health/wellness, safety, and environment. About half of residents are satisfied with the
quality of services provided by the City of Aspen, about 1/4 are neutral with their satisfaction of City
services, and about 1/4 are dissatisfied with Quality of City Services. While this is in line with average
satisfaction with City services in the US, this represents a 9-point reduction in satisfaction in Quality of
Life and a 19-point reduction in satisfaction with Quality of City Services vs. 2019 and the lowest
satisfaction recorded since the City started measuring these metrics in 2006.
Figure 1: Overall Ratings of Quality of Life and Satisfaction with City Services
134
4
Figure 2: Quality of Life – Satisfaction Trend Analysis
In comparing 2019 and 2022, the decrease around Quality of Life is attributed to a dissatisfaction with
the lack of affordable shopping and restaurants along with Aspen’s livability and Economic Vitality.
Moreover, in assessing COVID-19’s impact on Quality of Life in Aspen, 39% of respondents stated
that their Quality of Life is worse now than before the pandemic while 24% concluded their Quality of
Life is better now versus before COVID-19.
Figure 3: Key Driver Analysis – What Impacts Personal Quality of Life
135
5
Since 2019, EI has begun to conduct an additional level of analysis to help ascertain where it is most
important to assess further. This analysis is called, Key Driver Analysis and delves into the
correlation between satisfaction levels for each of the Strategic Focus Areas and the values of an
overarching dependent variable. This can be helpful in identifying dependent variables where
satisfaction may be low with a service or topic but where an action to address that same low rating
may not have the same level of impact on overall satisfaction as taking action related to a different
Strategic Focus Area. In reviewing the Key Driver Analysis, Making Aspen a Livable Community of
Choice and Economic Vitality are areas that have the lowest satisfaction and the most impact on
Personal Quality of Life. Therefore, improving Aspen’s Livability and Economic Vitality are more likely
to improve the personal quality of life for the community.
Respondents dissatisfied with their Personal Quality of Life are especially dissatisfied with affordable
shopping, restaurants, and housing and shared many challenges with affordable living in the City of
Aspen. They are less likely to trust the City of Aspen to look out for their interests.
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that within the demographic analysis, of Personal Quality of Life,
those dissatisfied with their Personal Quality of Life are more likely to have been negatively impacted
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
In addition to the above, Council may consider the below key findings:
• 88% of residents report positive physical health.
• 77% report positive emotional well-being.
• 86% of respondents are satisfied with the City of Aspen for Ensuring a Safe Community.
• 63% are satisfied with the City for Protecting the Local Natural Environment.
• Satisfaction with City performance by Strategic Focus Area is varied and has dropped in all
areas except Safety vs. 2019.
o 86% are satisfied with the City of Aspen for Ensuring a Safe Community.
o 63% are satisfied with the City for Protecting the Local Natural Environment.
o 29% are Satisfied with the City’s efforts to Make Aspen Livable.
o Only 25% are satisfied with the City for Fostering Economic Vitality.
• About half of residents are satisfied with the quality of services provided by the City of Aspen,
about 1/4 are neutral with their satisfaction of City services, and about 1/4 are dissatisfied with
quality of City services.
• Community seeks more affordable living, more affordable housing, and reductions or changes
with development.
o 1 out of every 3 respondents shared that living in Aspen needs to be more affordable,
sharing a genuine need for affordable restaurants, retail, bars, groceries, recreation,
parking, and public transportation.
o 31% shared specific needs with affordable housing – for the whole community.
o 28% passionately shared desired changes with development including reducing
development, helping local restaurants, bars, and retail stay in business, and increased
controls over commercial developers.
• Widening gap between disparate groups and reduced sense of community.
o Some residents are asking the City to help reduce economic inequalities between visitors
and locals.
136
6
Figure 4: 2022 Satisfaction by Strategic Focus Area:
Figure 5: Trended Satisfaction by Strategic Focus Area – Comparison of 2019 to 2022:
137
7
Specific findings by Strategic Focus Areas include:
• About half of the respondents agree that the City provides a welcoming environment for
involvement (56%) and provides value overall for the taxes paid (49%).
• About 1/3 of respondents agree that the City matches spending with community priorities
(32%) and that the City can be trusted to look out for residents’ interests (30%).
• 81% are dissatisfied with affordable shopping opportunities in Aspen.
• 69% are dissatisfied with commercial and residential development.
Furthermore, for the 2022 Community Survey, specific questions and areas of interest were included.
These areas of interest are:
• Infant Care and Early Childhood Needs
• Community Policing
• Evacuation Concerns
• Castle Creek Bridge Priorities
• Parks & Open Space Amenities
In summary, 62% of survey respondents stated that they would like the same amount of community
policing, and 37% are very or extremely concerned regarding evacuating the City in the event of
emergency. Many placed an importance on taking action on infant and early childhood needs.
Moreover, trails (88%) and open spaces (83%) were important to the largest proportion of residents
while 69% felt recreation facilities and programs were important.
For the Castle Creek Bridge Replacement, responses are as follows:
EI Summary of Recommendations:
Based on the results of the survey, EI as an objective evaluator and with the understanding of the lack
of deep knowledge around current community issues, has developed the following high-level summary
of recommendations for Staff to further evaluate:
• Enhance communication in the goals and priorities for the City of Aspen
138
8
• Focus on improving affordability and reducing income equalities.
• Prioritize continued efforts to address affordable housing for the community (workforce
and community).
• Further involve the community with commercial and residential development decisions.
• Focus on bringing diverse groups together to strengthen sense of community.
• Continue community policing efforts with an emphasis on patrolling (on foot and/or on bikes)
and wildlife interaction education.
• Develop a plan for the Castle Creek Bridge replacement, prioritizing reducing peak traffic
automobile travel time and increasing evacuation routes.
The comprehensive listing of the recommended items can be found in the Full Findings Report
(Attachment).
It is important to recognize that many of the City’s departmental work plans currently are aligned with
many of the initiatives stated above including but not limited to:
• Development and completion of a city affordable housing strategic plan.
• Coordination of diversity, equity and inclusivity training, gap analysis and continued
community listening sessions.
• Continuation of community policing efforts.
• Continuation of communication and community engagement initiatives with further
refinements.
To optimize EI’s recommendations and for the continual betterment of the Aspen community, the current
listing is under review by the Strategy and Innovation Office (SIO), City Manager’s Office and
Department Directors.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
No funds are being requested.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
The survey was administered electronically, reducing paper usage. A paper option was available for
those who requested it.
ALTERNATIVES:
Information only. No alternatives are proposed.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Information only. Recommendations based on the survey results are provided in the Full Findings
Report in the Attachment. No formal recommendations are being brought forth by Staff at this time.
However, the survey is intended to assist the City in its continual effort to identify and respond to
feedback as well as to provide data in helping determine the priorities for the community through future
strategic work plan development, policy analysis and recommendations, and through the annual budget
planning processes.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
None.
139
9
140
10
141