HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150331
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
March 31, 2015
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Employee Generation Study
II. Housing Cash-in-lieu Policy Discussion
III. Transportation Mitigation Update
Residential employment study – page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Work Session: Single-Family and Duplex Employee Generation Study
DATE: March 31, 2015
BACKGROUND:
The City requires the redevelopment (“scrape-and-replace”) of single-family and duplex properties
to provide affordable housing mitigation. The requirement was established in 1990 and uses an
employment generation factor of one employee per 3,000 square feet of residential floor area.
Standard practice suggests impact fee studies be renewed every 5-10 years. This impact fee
requirement has not been analyzed or updated since its inception, 25 years ago.
Determining the employees generated from the construction and operation of residences is a highly
technical exercise. The City contracted with RRC Associates of Boulder, Colorado. RRC
specializes in these technical planning studies and is very familiar with
Aspen and other mountain resorts. Employment needs for construction
were derived from government and private sector data correlating valuation
and labor reports. RRC also interviewed several local contractors in-depth
regarding specific recent projects and their exact labor needs. Ongoing
employment needs for homes were derived from a comprehensive survey
sent to all residents and in-depth interviews with property managers
regarding specific properties.
RRC’s analysis suggests a home of 3,000 square feet of floor area
generates .445 employees, accounting for both the initial construction and
ongoing operations. (Please see chart on page 2). This is less than the 1990
standard of one employee. Using today’s cash-in-lieu figures, the
affordable housing mitigation requirement for home construction is $79.97
per square foot of floor area. This is assessed at building permit and, like
all other impact fees, is only assessed on net new floor area. Using the
RRC study, this requirement becomes $35.59 per square foot of floor area.
TONIGHT’S WORK SESSION:
Tonight’s work session will include a brief overview of the report from RRC and will cover a series
of policy questions for City Council. Direction on these policy questions will allow staff to proceed
to next steps.
RRC’s report has been on the City’s web site and staff has done public outreach to the general
public and interested boards. Specifically, staff sought questions about the report for RRC to
answer and policy topics for City Council to address. That feedback has been incorporated into
tonight’s memo and presentation.
Link to Report:
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Po
rtals/0/docs/Residential%20E
mployee%20Generation%20St
udy%203-4-2015.pdf
P1
I.
Residential employment study – page 2
STUDY RESULTS:
Estimated Employment Generation Associated with Free-Market Residential Units, by Unit Type
Notes:
• Operations and maintenance employment excludes “owner FTE labor,” i.e. labor contributed by the owner and
household members to unit upkeep.
• Results exclude employment associated with personal service employees who travel with the household. The
results do not deduct for other types of employees (such as caretakers) who may be housed by the owner.
• Operations and maintenance employment for single family/duplex units larger than 7,000 sqft may be assumed
to grow by 0.128 employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 sqft. Operations and maintenance
employment for condominium/townhome units larger than 3,500 sqft may be assumed to grow additional 0.041
employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 sqft. Construction employment is assumed to
grow linearly beyond 7,000 sqft, at 0.110 employees per 1,000 sqft for single family/duplex units, and 0.096
employees per 1,000 sqft for condominiums/townhomes.
POLICY QUESTIONS:
Should the City continue to require affordable housing mitigation for single-family and duplex
development? This first question is fundamental to the remaining questions. If the community no
longer needs or wants to require mitigation for residential development, staff can proceed with code
amendments and the remaining questions are irrelevant.
Development in Aspen brings impacts and the community has imposed various requirements for
those impacts to be mitigated or lessened. Affordable housing continues to be an important
community issue. Staff recommends the City continue requiring mitigation for residential
development. Continuing the mitigation requirement is consistent with the AACP and is in keeping
with community expectations for all types of new development. This requirement was first adopted
in 1990 and there is no support for abandoning this policy in the community plan or other
documented city goals.
Floor Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/
area duplex townhome duplex townhome duplex townhome
500 0.055 0.048 0.034 0.085 0.089 0.133
1,000 0.110 0.096 0.043 0.126 0.153 0.222
1,500 0.165 0.144 0.055 0.167 0.220 0.311
2,000 0.220 0.192 0.070 0.208 0.291 0.400
2,500 0.276 0.239 0.090 0.249 0.365 0.488
3,000 0.331 0.287 0.115 0.290 0.445 0.577
3,500 0.386 0.335 0.146 0.331 0.532 0.666
4,000 0.441 0.383 0.187 n/a 0.628 n/a
4,500 0.496 0.431 0.239 n/a 0.735 n/a
5,000 0.551 0.479 0.306 n/a 0.857 n/a
5,500 0.606 0.527 0.391 n/a 0.997 n/a
6,000 0.661 0.575 0.499 n/a 1.161 n/a
6,500 0.716 0.623 0.638 n/a 1.355 n/a
7,000 0.772 0.671 0.816 n/a 1.588 n/a
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYMENT
P2
I.
Residential employment study – page 3
Is the RRC report sufficient?
Staff is satisfied with the work product, but suggests one additional area of study – remodeling
activity. The study (as was requested) addresses initial construction and ongoing operations.
Within the estimated 40-year life of a structure, several remodels should be expected which also
incur certain employee demands. Staff suggests the study be broadened to include remodel activity.
Outreach reflected this same desire. The Housing Board in particular noted their concern that
remodel activity is not addressed in the study.
The information needed for this analysis is readily available and can be accomplished quickly.
Additional costs can be covered with department savings.
Should mitigation requirements include both construction and operations?
Affordable housing mitigation requirements for commercial uses are based on the number of
employees generated by the end uses. Mitigation requirements for commercial properties
downtown, for example, are based on the number of employees necessary to operate a blend of
retail shops, restaurants, galleries, etc. Commercial mitigation does not account for the employees
necessary to build a commercial building.
The RRC study details residential employment generation from both construction and operations,
with the majority of impact coming from construction. Staff recommends the mitigation
requirements be based on the sum total of construction and operations. This is a more accurate
representation of actual community impacts and an approach supported by the AACP. The
community plan calls for a complete accounting of impacts as a basis for informed policy making.
Should the requirement affect all residential expansions?
The current requirements only apply when an old home is “demolished” and the new home is larger.
Often this forces contractors to manage precise construction parameters to avoid technically
demolishing the structure and requires staff to monitor these projects more closely. Staff believes
managing demolition incorrectly focuses on the process of construction as opposed to the impacts of
the end product on the community. All other impact fees apply to any increase in size, regardless
of whether the building was demolished or simply made larger. Staff suggests the same approach of
focusing on the end product be applied to housing mitigation.
Staff also believes the residential impact fee should apply to townhome and condo expansions.
From a community impact standpoint, these types of residences are no different than single-
family/duplex and should be treated equally.
Should the City provide a “credit” for RETT taxes?
City Council asked staff to research the accumulated RETT payments made by a typical home as
part of this study. The Real Estate Transfer Tax assesses a tax of 1% on property transaction values
above $100,000. The funds are designated for the construction of affordable housing.
P3
I.
Residential employment study – page 4
Andrew Ernemann, the City’s real estate broker, determined that residential properties pay
approximately $26.26 per square foot of floor area over the life of the structure. The same set of
assumptions for structure life span and floor area ratios used in the RRC study were used in this
analysis. The full report is attached.
Lowering the impact fee commensurate with the value of historic RETT payments would reduce the
fee to $9.33 per square foot of floor area.
Staff suggests the impact fee not be lowered based on presence of this tax. Taxes are voter adopted
to address specific community issues while impact fees are used to insure the community is not
financially burdened by additional development. Providing an impact fee “credit” to compensate
for the historic value of this tax effectively waives a voter-approved tax. Staff suggests that the
question of waiving this tax for residential properties is a question that should be asked of the
voters, not City Council. (Also see next question).
Should the City assess the full impact fee?
If the impact fee is considered disproportionate, the City has the ability to assess less than the full
amount, shifting some or all the burden to the general public. Communities often assess less than
the full impact fee for political acceptance reasons or to promote or incentivize certain types of
development. The School District, for example, collects 1/3 of their possible fee for new
development.
It is important to remember that the remainder of the burden then falls to the general public. Staff
suggests the question be stated as: what portion of the impact should be paid by developer and what
portion should be paid by the general public, and why? Free-market residential construction has not
been identified as needing incentives or subsidy. In this context, staff suggests that none of the
affordable housing impacts of residential construction be borne by the public.
Should the City provide an exemption or waiver for “small” projects?
Previous discussions on this topic included this policy question of whether this fee should only
apply to houses over a minimum size. For example, exempting the first 1,000 square feet and
assessing the fee from 1,001 and above. Staff does not consider this to be necessary. The context of
this idea envisioned a fee twice or triple today’s rate and the need to lessen its effects for political
acceptance reasons. There is no similar exemption today and staff does believe one is necessary.
Should the City continue to allow payment deferral as an option for local working residents?
The current policy allows homeowners who are local working residents to defer payment of this
affordable housing impact fee until the property is transferred to a non-working owner. Deferral
agreements are recorded against the property and are typically addressed upon sale. This policy
acknowledges that current working residents essentially mitigate their own housing impacts. Staff
believes this policy has worked well and does not recommend altering the policy moving forward.
P4
I.
Residential employment study – page 5
Should Accessory Dwelling Units continue as a mitigation option?
Mitigation options for residential projects currently include
providing an off-site affordable unit, payment of a cash-in-
lieu fee, providing an affordable housing certificate, or
building an ADU on the property. An ADU is an accessory
dwelling unit that must be separate from the main house
and may only be rented to a local worker. Occupancy of
these units has been much lower than desired by many.
The most-recent study estimates ADU occupancy at 39%.
The “ADU option” has been criticized for not providing
enough actual benefit to the community’s housing
dilemma. The AACP, and other ongoing community
discussions have suggested elimination of this mitigation
option.
Staff recommends the ADU option be eliminated as a
mitigation choice. This is consistent with policy discussions to date. Eliminating the ADU option
will leave cash-in-lieu and housing certificates as the two likely choices for developers.
Should there be a voluntary process to eliminate existing ADUs?
There is no process currently for a homeowner wanting to retire an ADU and eliminate the deed
restriction on their property. The deed restriction is often a discussion point during property
transactions and it appears there would be interest in a program to “unwind” existing ADUs and
relive a property of the deed restriction. This has been reinforced by local real estate agents who
often witness the effects of the deed restriction being “discovered” by a purchaser during due
diligence. Staff recommends property owners be allowed to eliminate ADUs if they so choose.
Staff also suggests some replacement mitigation be provided for those ADUs originally developed
to meet the City’s requirements.
Should cash-in-lieu continue as a mitigation option?
Mitigation options for residential projects currently include providing an off-site affordable unit,
payment of a cash-in-lieu fee, providing an affordable housing certificate, or building an ADU on
the property. The Affordable Housing Certificate program didn’t exist until recently but is now a
viable mitigation option preferred by APCHA. Previously, cash-in-lieu represented the only
reasonable option for certain types of projects. Small expansions, for example, where the impact is
very minor are enabled to mitigate commensurate with their impact via the cash-in-lieu option.
The significant downside to the cash-in-lieu option is the shift of responsibility from the private
sector to the public. Writing a check is much simpler than finding a property, negotiating the
development review process, and producing the affordable housing. There can also be a significant
delay between the impact and provision of the affordable housing mitigation. These downsides do
not exist with the AH Certificate program.
P5
I.
Residential employment study – page 6
As the AH certificates program matures, the cash-in-lieu option will become less necessary. Staff
suggests the certificates program could replace the cash-in-lieu option altogether. The question is
when. Currently, there is one primary developer utilizing the credits program. Staff would be more
comfortable recommending elimination of the cash-in-lieu option if more developers held credits.
Staff suggests this may soon come, but the cash-in-lieu option should remain for the time being.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on tonight’s feedback staff would like to move forward into code amendments. There has
been widespread support for eliminating the ADU option and significant amount of time invested
into this project. The report is comprehensive and a solid basis for a revised fee structure. If
additional work regarding remodels is desired, this work can be accomplished and discussed during
the adoption process.
Staff also suggests that the prospect of significantly lower mitigation fees will create a bottleneck as
building permit applicants wait for new fees to take effect. Through recent outreach, staff has
already heard that some applicants are delaying their project. Placing applicants in a pay more now
or delay your project position may become burdensome if adoption of this new standard is
significantly delayed.
Assuming City Council is comfortable moving into code amendments, the next step would be
consideration of a policy resolution during a public hearing. This would provide staff with official
direction to draft a code amendment and could be scheduled as soon as April 27th. First and second
readings of an ordinance would follow.
EXHIBITS:
A – RRC Residential Employment Generation Study, March 4, 2015. Attached by reference -
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/Residential%20Employee%20Generation%20Study%203-4-2015.pdf
B – Ernemann RETT Analysis, March 24, 2015.
P6
I.
RRC Associates Contents
Prepared for:
City of Aspen
Prepared by:
RRC Associates
4770 Baseline Rd, Suite 360
Boulder, CO 80303
303/449-6558
www.rrcassociates.com
Aspen Residential
Employment Generation Study
March 4, 2015
P7
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Background .................................................... 1
Methodology ................................................................................ 2
Summary of Residential Employment Generation ................... 3
Employment Associated with Construction of Floor Area ..... 5
Estimates of Construction Employment ........................................................................... 5
Average Construction Value per Square Foot – Single Family Units ................................ 6
Average Construction Value per Square Foot – Duplexes and Condos/Townhomes ...... 7
Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Valuation Ratios ........................ 7
Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Labor Income Ratios ................. 9
Final Estimates of Construction Employment ................................................................ 10
Interviews with Building Contractors ............................................................................ 10
Residential Operations and Maintenance Employment ........ 11
Utilization of Service Providers for Home Operations and Maintenance ........................ 11
Conversion of Expenditures on Home Services to Jobs ................................................... 17
Relationship between Employment and Floor Area: by Unit Type ................................. 19
Relationship between Employment and Home Size: by Unit Type and Occupancy ......... 24
Total Labor Associated with Home Operations/Upkeep (Including Owner Labor)........... 26
Aspen Property Management Company Survey ............................................................. 28
Employment Relationships Based on Multi-Community Data (Heated Square Feet) ....... 29
Total Residential Employment Generation ............................. 33
Appendix A: Homeowner Survey Results – by Unit Type .... 35
Respondent Housing Characteristics ............................................................................. 35
Unit Usage Characteristics ............................................................................................ 46
Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics ................................................... 48
Intended Future Use of Unit .......................................................................................... 53
Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep .......................... 55
Appendix B: Homeowner Survey Results – by Occupancy . 64
Respondent Housing Characteristics ............................................................................. 64
Unit Usage Characteristics ............................................................................................ 76
Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics ................................................... 78
Intended Future Use of Unit .......................................................................................... 83
Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep .......................... 85
P8
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 1
Introduction and Background
This report summarizes findings regarding the employee generation associated with free-market single-
family/duplex and condominium/townhome floor area in Aspen.
By way of background, the Aspen Land Use Code requires the provision of affordable housing for the
development of free-market single family and duplex units (26.470.060). One of the options for fulfilling
the affordable housing requirement is paying an affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the APCHA
Housing Guidelines (Guidelines Part VII, Section 12, 3 – Payment in Lieu Fee). Per the Guidelines, the
payment in lieu formula “…assumes that for every 3,000 square feet of new single-family or duplex floor
area, the public will be required to provide housing for one moderate income employee…”. This
requirement (of one employee per 3,000 square feet of floor area) was established per City of Aspen
Ordinance 1 (Series of 1990). The primary purpose of this study is to update this aspect of the payment-
in-lieu formula for free-market single-family and duplex units, based on an empirical analysis.
Additionally, this study extends the employee generation analysis to free-market condominiums and
townhomes as well, insofar as those units are also subject to an affordable housing payment-in-lieu
structure.
This study evaluates two types of residential employment impacts for each of these categories of
housing units:
1. Employment impacts associated with the construction of new floor area; and
2. Employment impacts associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance of the home (and
particularly services delivered to/provided at the home).
Based on conversations with staff and Aspen City Council on April 22, 2014, it was determined that a
third category of employment impacts, i.e. as associated with associated with public safety services
delivered at residences (i.e. police and fire), would not be examined, primarily since public funding for
those services is provided via a variety of other means.
Note that other types of employment impacts associated with residential units, such as construction-
supporting architecture and engineering services, services related to purchasing and financing the
home, and employment stemming from occupant purchases of retail goods and services at commercial
establishments, are excluded from the residential employment calculation, since those employment
impacts (and associated housing mitigation requirements) are assigned to the development of
commercial floor area in Aspen. Additionally, construction employment associated with residential
alterations and remodels which don’t add floor area is also excluded from this analysis.
Both of the categories of residential employment outlined above (construction and operations) have
been evaluated through their own methodologies and data sources, as described in the following
Methodology section. The two categories are then summed to derive total residential employment
generation.
In addition to providing Aspen-specific data, this report also provides comparative community data as a
point of reference, to the extent identified and available.
P9
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 2
Methodology
As noted previously, this study evaluates two types of residential employment, which are then summed
to estimate total employment:
1. Employment associated with the construction of new floor area; and
2. Employment associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance of the home (and
particularly services delivered to/provided at the home).
The study focuses particularly closely on the relationship between employment generation and
residential floor area. For purposes of this study, “floor area” is defined pursuant to section
26.575.020.D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations (“Measuring Floor Area”). As described in the
regulations, “floor area” is generally defined as above-grade interior space, plus basement space
proportionate to the share of basement wall area which is above grade. Additionally, floor area also
encompasses space above certain size thresholds for certain structural elements in some circumstances
(garage, porch, deck, etc.), and also encompasses other adjustments. The terms “floor area” and
“square footage” are used interchangeably in this report unless noted otherwise.
Following is a brief overview of the methodology used to evaluate each category of employment.
Additional methodological details are contained in the respective sections of the report.
1. Calculation of employment associated with construction of floor area
Two complementary efforts were undertaken to estimate employment generation associated with
construction of floor area, as outlined below.
a. Derivation of employment generation from data on local construction economics. This
methodology involved the use of a variety of data on the economics of construction in Aspen
and the Roaring Fork Valley, including construction volume and valuation, employment, labor
income, and materials costs. The analysis attempted to account for complexities of the Aspen
market, where many construction firms doing business in Aspen are located downvalley, and
many construction workers are sole proprietors rather than working for employers (and are thus
excluded from employer statistical series). A variety of governmental and private sector data
sources were used to derive factors used in the analysis, such as construction
valuation:employment ratios and labor income:employment ratios. Details are described in the
associated section of the report.
b. Interviews with contractors regarding employment patterns. RRC conducted interviews with a
sample of Aspen contractors in order to gain a better understanding of the factors impacting
local residential construction employment needs, as well as to examine employment
requirements for a sample of homes built in Aspen. The data is primarily intended as a
complement and reasonableness cross-check of the results gained through the analysis of
secondary data described above.
2. Calculation of the employment associated with the operation and maintenance of homes
P10
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 3
For purposes of estimating the employment associated with operating and maintaining homes in Aspen,
RRC undertook two efforts, as follows:
a. Aspen homeowner employment generation survey. RRC conducted a mailback survey of owners
of free-market single-family, duplex, condominium and townhome units located in Aspen. The
survey questionnaire collected a variety of information regarding the physical characteristics of
the home, homeowner demographics, unit occupancy patterns, and the use of (and
expenditures on) various service providers (homeowners associations, property managers, etc. –
including the homeowner’s own time spent maintaining the home). The survey form was
introduced by a letter outlining the purpose of the study that was signed by Chris Bendon,
Director of the Aspen Community Development Department.
The survey was fielded in late August/early September 2014. A total of 3,465 non-duplicated
owners of free-market homes in Aspen, as identified through Pitkin County Assessor records,
were mailed a survey, of which 56 were returned as undeliverable. A total of 849 usable survey
responses were received, for a strong net response rate of 24.9 percent. Given the breadth of
information collected on the survey, the results may be of interest for other policy, planning and
research purposes in addition to employment generation.
b. Property management company interviews/surveys. As a complement to the household survey,
interviews and/or surveys were conducted with a sample of property management firms in
Aspen. The research sought to better understand the employment dynamics of property
management firms generally and for a sample of illustrative “case study” homes. The data has
been used in this analysis as a “reasonableness check” on the homeowner survey results, as well
as an additional source of insight on the employment generation associated with the provision
of property management services to homes.
Summary of Residential Employment Generation
Total employment associated with free-market residential units had been calculated as the sum of
construction employment associated with new floor area and operations and maintenance
employment. The results using factors specific to Aspen are summarized in Table 1 to follow, for 500
square foot increments of floor area. As shown, total employment generation for a single family/duplex
unit with 3,000 square feet of floor area is estimated to be an average of 0.445 workers.
Looking at each category of employment generation separately:
Construction employment is estimated to increase with floor area at a linear rate of
approximately 0.110 employees per 1,000 square feet for single family/duplex units and 0.096
employees per 1,000 square feet for condominiums/townhomes.
Operations and maintenance employment is estimated to grow with floor area at an
exponential rate for single family/duplex units, and at a linear rate for condominium/townhome
units.
As the sum of construction and operations/maintenance employment, total employment is
estimated to grow quasi-exponentially for single family/duplex units, and linearly for
condominium/townhome units.
P11
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 4
Table 1
Estimated Employment Generation Associated with Free-Market Residential Units, by Unit Type
Notes:
Operations and maintenance employment excludes “owner FTE labor,” i.e. labor contributed by the owner
and household members to unit upkeep.
Results exclude employment associated with personal service employees who travel with the household. The
results do not deduct for other types of employees (such as caretakers) who may be housed by the owner.
Operations and maintenance employment for single family/duplex units larger than 7,000 sqft may be
assumed to grow by 0.128 employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 sqft. Operations and
maintenance employment for condominium/townhome units larger than 3,500 sqft may be assumed to grow
additional 0.041 employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 sqft. Construction
employment is assumed to grow linearly beyond 7,000 sqft, at 0.110 employees per 1,000 sqft for single
family/duplex units, and 0.096 employees per 1,000 sqft for condominiums/townhomes.
The body of the report also includes estimates of operations and maintenance employment by unit type
by occupant type (owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year vs. other occupancy types). The analysis found that
for single family/duplex units, employment generation appears to be relatively similar for owner and
non-owner-occupants across the home size spectrum evaluated (up to 5,500 sqft). For
condominium/townhome units, non-owner-occupied units tend to generate somewhat more
employment than owner-occupied units across the size spectrum evaluated (up to 2,500 sqft).
While the preceding discussion has focused on the relationship between paid employment and unit
size/type/occupancy characteristics, it is important to note that many homeowners spend a
considerable amount of their own time on home operations and maintenance tasks. Based on results
from the Aspen homeowner survey, it was found that owner-occupants tend to supply more labor for
maintaining their home than non-owner-occupants in both absolute and relative terms. In particular,
for single-family/duplex units, owner-occupants are estimated to supply an average of 49 percent of the
total labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants supply an average 11 percent of
Floor Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/
area duplex townhome duplex townhome duplex townhome
500 0.055 0.048 0.034 0.085 0.089 0.133
1,000 0.110 0.096 0.043 0.126 0.153 0.222
1,500 0.165 0.144 0.055 0.167 0.220 0.311
2,000 0.220 0.192 0.070 0.208 0.291 0.400
2,500 0.276 0.239 0.090 0.249 0.365 0.488
3,000 0.331 0.287 0.115 0.290 0.445 0.577
3,500 0.386 0.335 0.146 0.331 0.532 0.666
4,000 0.441 0.383 0.187 n/a 0.628 n/a
4,500 0.496 0.431 0.239 n/a 0.735 n/a
5,000 0.551 0.479 0.306 n/a 0.857 n/a
5,500 0.606 0.527 0.391 n/a 0.997 n/a
6,000 0.661 0.575 0.499 n/a 1.161 n/a
6,500 0.716 0.623 0.638 n/a 1.355 n/a
7,000 0.772 0.671 0.816 n/a 1.588 n/a
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYMENT
P12
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 5
the labor needed for their units. Similarly, for condominiums/townhomes, owner-occupants are
estimated to supply an average of 35 percent of the total labor required to maintain the home, while
non-owner-occupants supply an average of 10 percent of the labor needed for their units.
The body of the report also includes estimates of the operations and maintenance employment
observed in a cross-section of mountain resort communities. The analysis suggests that operations and
maintenance employment in Aspen is similar to the multi-community average for single family/duplex
homes (up to approximately 6,000 sqft, after which Aspen homes appear to generate somewhat more
employment). For condominiums/townhomes, Aspen operations and maintenance employment
generation appears to be somewhat higher than the multi-community average, particular as units get
larger. Insofar as the multi-community database has a larger sample size, including for very large units,
it can be considered as an additional possible resource by the City when developing employment
generation mitigation policies and formulas.
In addition to the bottom-line conclusions summarized here, the data collected as part of this study, and
particularly the homeowner survey results, provide additional insights that may be useful for a variety of
informational and policy purposes as related to the free-market housing stock and potentially other
topics. As such, the survey results, summarized in Appendices A and B, should be viewed as an
informational resource for other possible uses as well, as the underlying survey results can also be
segmented and analyzed in a variety of other ways.
Employment Associated with Construction of Floor Area
The objective of this element of the analysis is to estimate the average number of construction
“employee-years” and “permanent construction employees” required to build 1,000 square foot of new
free-market residential floor area in Aspen, with floor area defined consistent with section 26.575.020.D
of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Included in the calculations are employees classified as being in the
construction industry, including general contractors and specialty trades contractors. Excluded are
employees classified as being in allied industries, such as architectural and engineering services, building
materials wholesalers and retailers, utility providers, etc. (insofar as the associated employment impacts
and housing mitigation requirements of those activities are assigned to the development of commercial
floor area in Aspen.)
Construction employment was primarily estimated via an analysis of a variety of secondary data on
pertaining to construction economics. Additionally, for additional perspective and as a reasonableness
check, construction employment was also evaluated on a case-study basis for a sample of single family
units via interviews with contractors in Aspen.
Estimates of Construction Employment
Two primary approaches were used to estimate construction employment: 1) employment based on
employment:construction valuation ratios, and 2) employment based on employment:labor income
ratios. The results of the two approaches were then averaged to develop final employment estimates
for the respective unit types.
P13
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 6
Average Construction Value per Square Foot – Single Family Units
Both construction estimation techniques listed above first required the estimation of average
construction valuation per square foot of floor area in Aspen. For purposes of single-family homes, four
sources were consulted, with the Pitkin County Assessor data ultimately chosen as the most complete
and reliable source, while the other three sources serve to provide reasonableness checks.
1. Pitkin County Assessor data: The Pitkin County Assessor database contains data on various
categories of residential spatial area (e.g. basements, above-grade area, etc.), as well as the
value of improvements. From this data, RRC derived a close equivalent to floor area defined by
section 26.575.020.D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations.1 Based on these measures for a
sample of 104 single family units constructed in 2006-13 with no accessory buildings, the
average improvement value per square foot of floor area is $802 / sqft. 2 (The median
improvement value across the units evaluated was $883/sqft.)
2. City of Aspen impact fee data: The Aspen Community Development Department maintains
detailed data on projects that are required to pay impact fees as a result of adding floor area.
Based on a sample of 26 new residential projects built in 2012-14 for which valuation and new
floor area is available and construction valuation is at least $175/sqft (the minimum value
threshold observed in the Assessor data), the average construction value per square foot of
floor area from this source is $705 / sqft.
3. Construction valuation per Dodge Data and Analytics: This national firm estimates that a total of
881,500 square feet of space (i.e. square footage “under the roof,” but excluding basements)
was built in new one-family houses in Pitkin County over the 2006-2014 period, at a total
construction value of $477 million, for an average of $571 in construction value per square foot.
The average value per square foot varied by year from $441/sqft to $691/sqft ($476/sqft in
2014). While of interest, this data should be interpreted with caution insofar as garages are
presumably “under the roof,” making this an imperfect measure of construction value per
square foot of floor area as defined by Aspen land use regulations. Additionally, the data
reflects all of Pitkin County, rather than Aspen only.
4. Aspen Building Division guidance: For additional perspective, a “Memorandum of Policy” dated
11/19/07 by Stephen Kanipe, Aspen Chief Building Official, provides the following figures as
“reasonable” estimates “to begin determining permit valuation”: deed restricted - $250/sqft;
good: $400 - $600/sqft; luxury: $600 - $1,000/sqft.
Insofar as it has the largest sample size, while also roughly aligning in logical ways with other local data
sources, the Pitkin County Assessor data is felt to provide a reasonable representation of average
construction value for new single-family units in Aspen, at $802 per square foot of floor area.
1 Specifically, RRC calculated floor area as equivalent to above-grade heated area (excluding heated garages), plus
an assumed 25 percent of garden-level basement area, plus pro-rated garage area above the size thresholds
identified in 26.575.020.D. No adjustments were made for decks, porches, balconies, sheds, storage areas, and
other categories of space which can in some instances be counted as floor area, due to data limitations and the
assumption that such adjustments would likely be minor.
2 Of note, the average improvement value per square foot of heated area (excluding heated garages and
unfinished basements) is a much smaller $480. This reflects the fact that the ratio of estimated floor area to
heated area for the subject properties is 0.60.
P14
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 7
Average Construction Value per Square Foot – Duplexes and Condominiums/Townhomes
Based on a review of Assessor data, duplexes (i.e. duplex condominiums, as classified by the Assessor)
are assumed to have the same improvement valuation per square foot as single family residences, i.e.
$802 / sqft. Duplex condominiums built in Aspen over the 2006-13 period have a ratio of floor area to
heated area (excluding heated garages and unfinished basements) of 0.59, similar to the ratio for single
family units (0.60). Additionally, duplex condominiums built over the 2006-13 period have an average
total valuation (land plus improvement) per square foot of floor area ($1,537) which is similar to that
observed for single-family residences ($1,568).6 These design and valuation similarities suggest that
construction valuations, on a per unit of floor area basis, are likely to be similar for new duplex condos
and new single-family homes.
Condominiums/townhomes (other than duplex condominiums) are assumed for purposes of this report
to have a construction valuation per square foot of floor area which is approximately 13 percent less
than that for single family/duplex units, or $697 / sqft. This is based on Assessor data showing that for
Aspen units built in the 2006-13 period, average total (land plus improvement) valuation per square foot
of floor area is 13 percent lower for condominiums/townhomes ($1,352) than for single family/duplex
units ($1,561). For additional perspective, Dodge Analytics data also indicates that for Pitkin County
units built over the 2006-14 period, attached units have a lower average valuation per square foot than
single family units (specifically 37 percent lower, at $305/sqft vs. $480/sqft), although the Dodge figures
would be expected include deed-restricted affordable units as well as Pitkin County units outside of
Aspen, and thus may not be representative of free-market condominium/townhome units in Aspen.
Also of note, Assessor data indicate that condominiums/townhomes built recently tend to have less
basement space than single family/duplex homes, which (all else held equal) would tend reduce their
construction cost when evaluated per unit of floor area (recall that floor area calculations exclude
basement square footage in proportion to the share of basement wall area below grade). Conversely,
condominiums/townhomes in some cases have common circulation areas, structured parking, and
common amenities (partially or entirely excluded from floor area) which may increase their relative
construction costs on per unit of floor area.
Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Valuation Ratios
As noted previously, one method used to derive construction employment was via the use of
construction employment:valuation ratios, as shown in Table 2 to follow. As shown, the analysis
involves dividing the average construction valuations per 1,000 sqft (i.e. $802,000 for single
family/duplex units and $697,000 for condominiums/townhomes, as derived previously) by the average
construction value per employee (estimated at $207,124 for residential construction in Pitkin County;
assumed to be the same for both single family/duplex units and condominium/townhome units). For
single family/duplex units, this results in an estimated 3.872 construction employee years required to
construct 1,000 square feet of floor area. Assuming an average construction employee career length of
40 years, this results in an estimate of 0.097 permanent construction employees per 1,000 square feet
built. For condominium/townhome units, the figures are about 13 percent lower, at 3.365 employee-
years per 1,000 square feet, and 0.084 permanent construction employees per 1,000 square feet.
6 The Assessor does not report estimated improvement valuation for duplex condos or other types of
condominiums, but rather just total valuation.
P15
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 8
Two of the factors involved in this calculation warrant additional explanation. The estimate of average
construction valuation per construction worker is derived from economic modeling data produced by
IMPLAN, an economic modeling system sold by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group. The valuation estimate
reflects a one third/two-thirds blend of ratios for Pitkin County and the State of Colorado respectively.
The State of Colorado was chosen as a proxy for construction establishments based in Eagle and Garfield
Counties but doing work in Pitkin County, insofar as average wage rates for construction workers in
Garfield County and Colorado are similar. The 33 percent/67 percent Pitkin/Colorado weighting was
chosen to approximate the location of construction establishments doing business in Pitkin County (with
most construction employment in Pitkin County estimated to be attributable to downvalley firms). This
is based on a finding that in 2006-10, among construction/agriculture/mining employees working in
Pitkin County and living in the Roaring Fork Valley, 32 percent lived in Pitkin County and 68 percent lived
in Eagle and Garfield counties.8
Regarding employee career length, it is common to assume 35 or 40 years. Pitkin County currently
assumes 40 years for purposes of its housing impact fee calculations, so 40 years is used here for
consistency.
Table 2
Derivation of Construction Employment from Employment:Valuation Ratios
OPERATION
SINGLE
FAMILY/
DUPLEX
CONDO/
TOWNHOME DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE
$802,000 $697,000
Construction valuation per 1,000 sqft. (Source: RRC estimates, per previous
section)
$247,587 $247,587
Construction valuation per employee-year: persons employed at construction
establishments based in Pitkin County. (Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012,
inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector 37 - new residential permanent site
single- and multi-family structures.)
$186,892 $186,892
Construction valuation per employee-year: persons employed at construction
establishments firms based in Colorado (as a proxy for Roaring Fork Valley
construction firms based in Eagle and Garfield counties). (Source: Colorado
IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector 37 - new residential
permanent site single- and multi-family structures.)
/ $207,124 $207,124
Blend: Average construction valuation per construction job, 33%/67%
Pitkin/Colorado weighting.
= 3.872 3.365 Average construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft of new residential construction
/40 = 0.097 0.084 Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career)
8 Census Transportation Planning Products 2006-10 (place of work by place of residence); RRC Associates. Also
supporting an estimate of significant Aspen construction work done by downvalley firms are data indicating that
Pitkin County accounted for 60 percent of the combined valuation of Pitkin County/Garfield County new residential
and nonresidential building construction over the 2006-14 period (per Dodge Analytics), but Pitkin County
construction establishments accounted for just 23 percent of employees in the two counties in the building
construction and specialty trade contractor sectors over the 2006 -13 period (per Colorado State Demographer).
P16
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 9
Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Labor Income Ratios
The second primary method utilized to derive construction employment was via the use of
employment:labor income ratios, as shown in Table 3 and described to follow.
The analysis first involved determining the share of construction valuation attributable to labor; this was
inferred from City of Aspen use tax audit data, which (based on data from 48 reviewed residential
projects) suggests that materials account for an average of approximately 44 percent of project
valuation (with the remaining 56 percent attributable to labor), with roughly similar ratios observed for
single-family and multi-family units. Thus, it was inferred that construction labor costs per 1,000 square
feet of floor area averages $449,120 for single family/duplex units and $390,320 for
condominium/townhome units. These labor values were then divided by average labor income per
employee, estimated to be $90,812 for residential construction in Pitkin County (again based on a blend
of factors for establishments located in Pitkin County and in Colorado-as a proxy for downvalley firms).
This results in 4.946 construction employee years per 1,000 square feet of single family/duplex floor
area, and 4.298 employee years per 1,000 square feet of condominium/townhome floor area. Assuming
an average construction employee career length of 40 years, this results in an estimate of 0.124
permanent construction employees per 1,000 sqft of single family/duplex floor area, and 0.107
employees per 1,000 sqft of condominium/townhome floor area.
Table 3
Derivation of Construction Employment from Employment:Labor Income Ratios
OPERATION
SINGLE
FAMILY/
DUPLEX
CONDO/
TOWNHOME DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE
$802,000 $697,000 Construction valuation per 1,000 sqft. (Source: RRC estimates, per above)
44% 44%
Percent of construction value attributable to materials. (Source: City of Aspen use tax
audit data for 48 projects involving new single-family or multi-family floor area; RRC
Associates.)
$352,880 $306,680 Average materials value per 1,000 sqft (derived)
x 56% 56% Percent of construction value attributable to labor (inferred).
= $449,120 $390,320 Average labor value per 1,000 sqft (derived)
$131,904 $131,904
Average labor income per employee, including employee compensation and proprietor
income, for persons employed at construction establishments based in Pitkin County.
(Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector
37 - new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures.)
$70,266 $70,266
Average labor income per employee, including employee compensation and proprietor
income, for persons employed at construction establishments based in Colorado (as a
proxy for Roaring Fork Valley construction firms based in Eagle and Garfield counties).
(Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector
37 - new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures.)
/ $90,812 $90,812 Blend: average labor income per employee, 33%/67% Pitkin/Colorado weighting.
= 4.946 4.298 Average construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft of new residential construction
/40 = 0.124 0.107 Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career)
P17
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 10
Final Estimates of Construction Employment
Final estimates of construction employment were derived by taking an average of the two methods
outlined previously. As illustrated in Table 4 to follow, for single family/duplex units, this results in an
estimate of approximately 4.409 construction worker-years per 1,000 square feet of floor area, or
approximately 0.110 permanent construction workers per 1,000 square feet (assuming a 40 year
career). For condominiums/townhomes, the corresponding figures are 3.832 construction worker years
and 0.096 permanent construction workers per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Employment demands are assumed to grow linearly, so that 2,000 square feet of floor area requires
twice as many workers as 1,000 square, and so forth as unit size increases.
Table 4
Final Estimates of Construction Employment
SINGLE
FAMILY/
DUPLEX
CONDO/
TOWNHOME DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE
3.872 3.365 Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: method 1 (employment:valuation ratios)
4.946 4.298 Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: method 2 (employment:labor income ratios)
4.409 3.832 Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: Average of two methods
0.110 0.096 Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career)
Interviews with Building Contractors
With outreach assistance from the Aspen Community Development Department, RRC conducted
interviews with three residential general contractors active in Aspen.9 The contractors each provided
information about a single-family unit they had recently constructed in Aspen. The contractors
estimated employment associated with their project by estimating the average number of construction
workers on site at a time throughout the duration of the project, and/or through job logs documenting
workers on site each day of construction. From this information, along with data on construction
duration and floor area, RRC was able to estimate the number of “employee-years” required to
construct 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Altogether, the three projects are estimated to have required an average of 4.6 employee-years per
1,000 square feet of floor area. The three projects had an average of approximately 3,300 square feet of
floor area, and an average construction valuation (labor plus materials) of approximately $880 / square
foot of floor area. The projects varied considerably in their employment generation, likely in part
reflecting differences in the complexity of the projects and on-site staffing levels. The average
employment generation rate indicated by these contractors is similar to the estimate derived in the
prior section (approximately 4.4 employees per 1,000 sqft for single family units), providing a degree of
corroboration, although it should be recognized that a sample of three projects is limited.
For additional perspective from other communities, Rees Consulting and RRC Associates conducted
similar interviews and surveys with builders of residential units in four resort counties (Gunnison, San
9 A fourth contractor was contacted but did not respond to invitations to participate.
P18
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 11
Miguel, and Summit, CO; and Teton, WY) in 2000, as part of a multi-county residential employment
generation study. Again, contractors were asked to estimate the average number of workers onsite
throughout the duration of the project. Altogether, across 33 projects (including custom single-family,
single family projects with multiple similar units built by a single contractor, and multifamily projects),
there were an estimated 2.3 jobsite workers per year per 1,000 square feet of heated space. For custom
single family home projects only, there were an average of 2.9 jobsite workers per year per 1,000 square
feet of heated space (sample of 22 projects). Importantly, these figures are benchmarked to heated
area, which is typically significantly larger than floor area defined pursuant to the Aspen Land Use
regulations, if the employment generation rates derived in this research would be accordingly higher if it
were possible to restate the figures in floor area terms. Notwithstanding this caution, as well as the fact
that the data is dated and covers different geographic areas, the results (particularly allowing for
upward adjustment to floor area terms) are “in the same ballpark” as the Aspen estimates.
Residential Operations and Maintenance Employment
This chapter summarizes findings regarding employment associated with home operations and
maintenance.
Utilization of Service Providers for Home Operations and Maintenance
Following is a summary of findings pertaining to the types of service providers used by Aspen
homeowners for home operations and maintenance, based on the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey. The
analysis examines the use of employment-generating service providers (as well as owners’ own labor) by
unit type, occupancy, and floor area. Results are for free-market units only. Subsequent analysis
quantifies employment demand associated with use of these service providers.11
Utilization of service providers by unit type: As shown in Figure 1 to follow, most single family
home/duplex households hire contractors/employees/specialty services (87 percent) and/or
perform household operations/maintenance tasks themselves (78 percent). Much smaller
shares hire a property management company (27 percent), belong to a homeowners association
(21 percent), or hire an on-site caretaker (8 percent). In addition, 27 percent obtain other
services locally, such as chef/kitchen help/catering (18 percent), pet sitter (7 percent), and child
care provider/nanny (6 percent).
Condominium and townhome owners primarily take care of home maintenance via a
homeowners association (98 percent), as well as doing the work themselves (64 percent).
Progressively smaller shares hire a property management company (57 percent),
contractors/employees/specialty services (55 percent), and/or an on-site caretaker (11 percent).
Additionally, 15 percent obtain other services locally, such as a pet sitter (5 percent) and
miscellaneous other services.
Comparing the two unit types, single family/duplex owners are relatively more likely to hire
contractors (87 percent vs. 55 percent), perform work themselves (78 percent vs. 64 percent),
11 Note as well that additional detailed Aspen Homeowner survey results by unit type are also cont ained in
Appendix A, while additional survey results by occupancy type are contained in Appendix B.
P19
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 12
and obtain miscellaneous personal services locally (27 percent vs. 15 percent). By contrast,
condominium/townhome owners are more likely to belong to a homeowners association (98
percent vs. 21 percent) or hire a property management company (57 percent vs. 27 percent).
Figure 1
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and
Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home: by Unit Type (Free-Market Units Only)
Utilization of service providers by occupancy type: Use of service providers has been examined
for two occupancy groups: 1) owner occupants (defined as owner occupancy at least 40 weeks
per year), and 2) all other occupancies (i.e. owner-occupied less than 40 weeks per year,
including households using their unit primarily as second homes, short-term rentals, long-term
rentals, and/or other uses or combinations of uses).
As illustrated in Figure 2 to follow, most owner-occupants report that operations and
maintenance is performed by themselves or by family members (90 percent). Additionally, 74
87%
78%
27%
21%
8%
1%
27%
18%
7%
6%
6%
1%
2%
1%
1%
55%
64%
57%
98%
11%
1%
15%
4%
5%
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Hire contractors/employees/specialty services
Work is performed by myself or family members
Hire a property management company
Use or belong to a homeowners association
Hire an on-site caretaker
Other
Total share obtaining other services locally (net)
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Personal trainer
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium / townhome
Which of the following do you use to
maintain and operate your Aspen residence?
What other services do you obtain
in your home when in Aspen? (Percent
obtaining services locally only; providers
traveling with household excluded)
P20
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 13
percent hire contractors/employees/specialty services, while 45 percent belong to a
homeowners association and small shares hire a property management company (14 percent)
or an on-site caretaker (4 percent). In addition, 20 percent obtain miscellaneous personal
services locally, such as a pet sitter (7 percent), chef/kitchen help/catering (7 percent), and child
care provider/nanny (5 percent).
Non-owner-occupants mainly take care of work through homeowners associations (73 percent),
contractors/employees/specialty services (67 percent), doing work themselves (62 percent), or
hiring a property management company (59 percent). An additional 13 percent indicated that
they hire an on-site caretaker. In addition, 20 percent obtain miscellaneous personal services
locally, such as chef/kitchen help/catering (12 percent) and child care provider/nanny (5
percent).
Comparing the two occupancy types, owner-occupants are relatively more likely to perform
work themselves (90 percent vs. 62 percent) and are slightly more likely to hire contractors (74
percent vs. 67 percent). By contrast, non-owner-occupants are relatively more likely to belong
to a homeowners association (73 percent vs. 45 percent), hire a property management company
(59 percent vs. 14 percent), or hire an on-site caretaker (13 percent vs. 4 percent). Both groups
are about equally likely to obtain other miscellaneous personal services (20 percent each).
It should be recognized that results by occupancy type and unit type are interrelated. In the
survey response, most owner-occupants lived in single family/duplex units (66 percent), with 31
percent living in condominiums/townhomes and 3 percent living in other unit types. By
contrast, other occupancy groups were less likely to own a single family/duplex unit (32
percent), and more likely to own a condominium/townhouse unit (66 percent), with 2 percent
owning other unit types.
P21
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 14
Figure 2
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and
Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home: by Occupancy Type (Free-Market Units Only)
Utilization of service providers by floor area – single family/duplex units: Generally speaking, for
single family/duplex units, the use of paid service providers increases with floor area. As home
sizes rise from under 2,000 square feet to 5,000+ square feet, use of the following service
providers increases: contractors (73 percent to 90 percent), homeowners associations (16
percent 49 percent), property management companies (13 percent to 47 percent), caretakers (3
percent to 16 percent), and miscellaneous personal services (10 percent to 32 percent). These
results would support an expectation that employment needs accordingly rise as home sizes
increase, potentially at an increasing rate as homes get larger (insofar as more types of service
providers are used, and as the space needing service increases).
90%
74%
45%
14%
4%
0%
20%
7%
10%
5%
5%
2%
1%
0%
0%
62%
67%
73%
59%
13%
2%
20%
12%
4%
5%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Work is performed by myself or family members
Hire contractors/employees/specialty services
Use or belong to a homeowners association
Hire a property management company
Hire an on-site caretaker
Other
Total share obtaining other services locally (net)
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Personal trainer
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40
weeks/year
All other occupancies
Which of the following do you use to
maintain and operate your Aspen residence?
What other services do you obtain
in your home when in Aspen? (Percent
obtaining services locally only; providers
traveling with household excluded)
P22
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 15
Figure 3
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and
Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home:
Single Family/Duplex Units, by Floor Area (Free-Market Units Only)
92%
73%
16%
13%
3%
2%
10%
5%
3%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
86%
92%
10%
21%
1%
1%
27%
14%
9%
8%
3%
1%
0%
0%
0%
74%
93%
20%
26%
9%
1%
27%
23%
5%
5%
6%
1%
0%
0%
0%
64%
89%
27%
42%
18%
0
37%
23%
12%
7%
14%
2%
7%
0%
2%
63%
90%
49%
47%
16%
2%
32%
20%
5%
9%
7%
2%
7%
7%
2%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Work is performed by myself or family members
Hire contractors/employees/specialty services
Use or belong to a homeowners association
Hire a property management company
Hire an on-site caretaker
Other
Total share obtaining other services locally (net)
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Personal trainer
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
1,999 sqft or less
2,000 - 2,999 sqft
3,000 - 3,999 sqft
4,000 - 4,999 sqft
5,000+ sqft
Which of the following do you use to
maintain and operate your Aspen residence?
What other services do you obtain
in your home when in Aspen? (Percent
obtaining services locally only; providers
traveling with household excluded)
P23
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 16
Figure 4
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and
Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home:
Condominium/Townhome Units, by Floor Area (Free-Market Units Only)
99%
65%
55%
50%
6%
1%
10%
3%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
97%
66%
57%
57%
14%
0%
16%
4%
4%
5%
3%
4%
1%
1%
1%
91%
66%
57%
71%
18%
2%
33%
11%
13%
4%
5%
9%
0%
4%
2%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Use or belong to a homeowners association
Work is performed by myself or family members
Hire a property management company
Hire contractors/employees/specialty services
Hire an on-site caretaker
Other
Total share obtaining other services locally (net)
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Personal trainer
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Under 1,000 sqft
1,000 - 1,999 sqft
2,000 - 2,999 sqft
Which of the following do you use to
maintain and operate your Aspen residence ?
What other services do you obtain
in your home when in Aspen? (Percent
obtaining services locally only; providers
traveling with household excluded)
P24
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 17
Utilization of service providers by floor area – condominium/townhome units: For
condominium/townhome units, the use of paid service providers generally shows more
moderate variation by floor area than for single family/duplex units, at least across the size
groupings analyzed. As condominium/townhome floor area rises from under 1,000 sqft to
2,000+ sqft, there is increased use of contractors (50 percent to 71 percent), on-site caretakers
(6 percent to 18 percent), and miscellaneous personal services (10 percent to 33 percent). By
contrast, use of HOAs decreases slightly with size (99 percent to 91 percent), while use of
property management companies holds relatively steady with size (55-57 percent), as does the
incidence of self-performed work (65-66 percent).
Conversion of Expenditures on Home Services to Jobs
In addition to tracking the incidence of use of services, the Homeowner Survey also gathered data on
annual expenditures made for each type of service provider. These results were converted into
estimates of employment associated with home maintenance and upkeep, through the use of
expenditures per employee ratios. This section outlines the methodology utilized to convert
homeowner expenditures to employment. The employment findings themselves are analyzed later in
this chapter.
The Homeowner Survey collected data on five different types of home operations expenditures, as listed
below:
Expenditures on homeowner association (HOA) dues / assessments
Expenditures on property management company (PMC) services
Expenditures on contractors / employees / specialty services hired by the household
Expenditures on on-site caretakers
Expenditures on an array of other services obtained in the home (e.g. kitchen help/catering,
childcare/nanny, personal assistant, etc.).
For most types of home service providers, annual spending amounts were converted into employees12
based on published economic data on average business revenue per employee for the applicable
service, per the 2007 U.S. Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014 (on the basis of the Denver-
Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index [CPI], or Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages [QCEW]
wage rates). Where available, Pitkin County factors were used; if Pitkin County data was unavailable,
Colorado (preferably) or U.S. nationwide data was used instead. For some expenditure categories, other
or additional conversion approaches were used. The methodology is summarized by type of service
provider below.
Property management companies (PMCs): We assumed a conversion ratio of $93,974 in
homeowner expenditures on PMC services per job. This is based on the 2007 Pitkin County ratio
of revenue per job for NAICS13 industry sector 531311 (residential property managers) per the
US Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014 based on the 2007-2014 change in average
12 Employees represent the number of workers that would typically be employed to complete the service, based
on existing employment patterns in the respective industries, which generally includes a blended hybrid of full-
time and part-time employees.
13 North American Industry Classification System.
P25
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 18
QCEW wage per employee for this sector in Pitkin County (resulting in a figure of $103,173 PMC
expenditures per PMC job). The $103,173 figure was then divided by 1.1, to reflect a finding
from an RRC survey of Pitkin County PMCs (discussed in a separate section later) that PMCs
purchase an average of approximately 0.1 FTE in subcontracted labor for every 1.0 job they have
on in-house staff (i.e., approximately 0.1 additional service jobs is directly associated with every
1.0 PMC job).
Homeowners associations (HOAs): We assumed a conversion ratio of $99,059 in HOA
expenditures per job. This reflects an 80 percent/20 percent weighted blend of
expenditures:jobs ratios for PMCs (per above) and HOAs respectively.14 For HOAs serving as
employers, the expenditures:jobs ratio is based on 2007 U.S. revenue per job for NAICS sector
8139904 (property owners’ associations), adjusted to 2014 based on the 2007-2013 change in
average wage per employee for the most similar comparable sector nationwide (NAICS sector
813990 – “other similar organizations, except business, professional, labor, and political
organizations”), and the 2013-14 Denver CPI. This resulted in an estimate of $132,134 per HOA
direct job. The PMC and HOA expenditures:jobs ratios were then blended on a weighted 80
percent/20 percent basis, and divided by 1.1 to account for subcontracted labor.
Other contracted services: We assumed a conversion ratio of $109,882 in other contracted
services expenditures per direct job. This is based on a 67 percent/33 percent blend of
expenditures:employment ratios for NAICS sector 5617 (services to buildings and dwellings) and
maintenance and repair construction (IMPLAN industries 39 and 40) respectively. Looking at
each of these in turn, the expenditures:job ratio for NAICS sector 5617 is based on the 2007
Pitkin County ratio of revenue per job for that sector, adjusted to 2014 based on the 2007-2014
change in average wage per employee for that sector in Pitkin County. The IMPLAN
expenditures:employment ratio comes from the IMPLAN modeling system for Pitkin County in
2012 (based on the aggregate for residential and nonresidential structures), inflation-adjusted
to 2014.15
Caretakers: We assumed a conversion ratio of $51,924 in expenditures on caretakers per direct
job. This is based on a 75 percent / 25 percent weighted blend of wage rates for private
household employees as reported by QCEW (industry 814 – private households, in Pitkin
County, in 2014), and as estimated by IMPLAN (IMPLAN sector 425 – private household
operations). The blended average wage was divided by 0.85, to reflect assumed total
compensation costs of approximately 82% wages / 18% benefits.
Other services obtained in the home: Expenditure:employment ratios were developed for other
services obtained in the home on a case by case basis, depending on the service received.
Generally, the ratios were either assumed to be similar to caretakers (and more generally,
private household employees), or were derived from an averaging of business
sales:employment ratios (from the 2007 US Economic Census data for Colorado, inflation-
14 While some Aspen HOAs directly hire their own in-house staff to manage the property (and thus the HOA
functions as an employer), most appear to contract with property management companies to manage HOA
business.
15 IMPLAN is a proprietary economic modeling system, along with associated location-specific economic data, sold
by the Minnesota Implan Group.
P26
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 19
adjusted based on CPI to 2014), and average occupational wages (as reported for Colorado in
2013 by the Occupational Employment Statistics & Wages Program).
It should be noted that only locally-hired employees were included; employees who traveled
with the household (as identified on the survey) were excluded from the employment
estimates.
o Chef/kitchen help/catering: We assumed a conversion ratio of $58,192 in expenditures on
chef/kitchen help/catering per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the
sales:employment ratio for NAICS 72232-catering businesses (in Colorado, per 2007
Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the 2013 Colorado average annual wage
for chefs and head cooks (multiplied by 1.25 to reflect compensation in the form of
benefits).
o Child care provider/nanny: We assumed a conversion ratio of $36,063 in expenditures on
child care services per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the
sales:employment ratio for NAICS 6244-child care businesses (in Colorado, per 2007
Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the 2013 average annual wage for
childcare workers (multiplied by 1.25 to reflect compensation in the form of benefits).
o Personal trainer: We assumed a conversion ratio of $47,648 in expenditures on personal
training services per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the
sales:employment ratio for NAICS 7139409-other fitness and recreational sports center
businesses (in Colorado, per 2007 Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the
2013 average annual wage for fitness trainers and aerobics instructors (multiplied by 1.25 to
reflect compensation in the form of benefits).
o Driver/pilot: We assumed a conversion ratio of $102,964 in expenditures on driver/pilot
services per direct job. This reflected a combination of sales:employment ratios in Colorado
for NAICS 485320-limousine services and NAICS 488190-other support activities for air
transportation, as well as average occupational wages in Colorado for taxi
drivers/chauffeurs and airline pilots, copilots and flight engineers.
o Concierge/butler, personal assistant, and other household employees: We assumed a
conversion ratio of $51,924 in expenditures per direct job, equivalent to the average used
for caretakers, and more generally for private household operations/employees (per above).
Relationship between Employment and Floor Area: by Unit Type
A total of 680 survey responses were available to evaluate the relationship between floor area and
employment, by unit type. As shown in Table 5 to follow, most available survey responses were
concentrated in the lower to middle home size categories, and were less numerous in the largest size
categories, although it is notable that several larger units were included in the sample.
For purposes of evaluating the relationship between home size and employment, homes were grouped
into 500 square foot (sqft) increments, and the average floor area and the average employment were
P27
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 20
calculated within each increment. The home size groups were then arrayed on a sqft:employment
scatterplot, and trend lines were fitted to the data to model the sqft:employment relationships.16
Table 5
Average Floor Area, Average Employment, and Number of Usable Survey Cases
by Floor Area Size Category and Unit Type
The results of this analysis for single family/duplex homes and condominiums/townhomes are shown in
Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively to follow. For both unit types, floor area:employment relationships
were only evaluated across home size ranges (in 500 sqft increments) up to 7,000 sqft for single-
family/duplex residences, and up to 3,500 sqft for condominium/townhome residences (larger units
were excluded due to small sample sizes).17
16 This approach to evaluating the relationship between home size and employment was chosen to give equal
weight to homes in different size categories. Additionally, the approach also strips out the significant variation
that exists between homes within a given size increment, and thus emphasizes an understanding of the “average”
employment within a given size grouping. This approach was also found to yield a closer fit between modeled and
average actual employment for most size groupings than other statistical approaches (particularly curves fitted to
ungrouped data).
17 For single family/duplex units, the <500 sqft and 500-999 sqft categories were consolidated for analysis
purposes, as were the 6000 – 6499 sqft and 6500 – 6999 sqft categories, due to limited sample sizes in these
ranges.
Floor area Average Average # of Average Average # of
square footage floor area employment survey floor area employment survey
category per unit per unit responses per unit per unit responses
Under 500 sqft 240 0.085 1 389 0.047 30
500 thru 999 812 0.022 6 768 0.107 147
1000 thru 1499 1,223 0.043 15 1,171 0.167 132
1500 thru 1999 1,678 0.073 24 1,698 0.211 39
2000 thru 2499 2,217 0.076 34 2,151 0.205 24
2500 thru 2999 2,673 0.092 48 2,629 0.262 12
3000 thru 3499 3,135 0.109 39 3,213 0.294 5
3500 thru 3999 3,657 0.204 32 n/a n/a n/a
4000 thru 4499 4,120 0.367 28 4,400 0.215 2
4500 thru 4999 4,703 0.255 14 4,750 0.280 2
5000 thru 5499 5,083 0.301 17 n/a n/a n/a
5500 thru 5999 5,706 0.178 6 5,700 0.309 3
6000 thru 6499 6,039 1.514 3 n/a n/a n/a
6500 thru 6999 6,619 0.435 4 n/a n/a n/a
7000 thru 7499 7,169 0.420 2 n/a n/a n/a
7500 thru 7999 7,500 2.077 2 n/a n/a n/a
8000 thru 8499 8,000 0.549 1 n/a n/a n/a
8500 thru 8999 8,650 0.510 2 n/a n/a n/a
9000 thru 9499 9,100 0.478 3 n/a n/a n/a
9500 sqft or more 12,000 2.347 3 n/a n/a n/a
Total 3,419 0.217 284 1,212 0.149 396
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOMESINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE/DUPLEX
P28
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 21
For both unit types, there is a statistically significant relationship between home size and floor area. In
the case of single family/duplex units, the relationship appears to be exponential, with an accelerating
level of employment as floor area increases. For condominiums/townhomes, the relationship between
employment and floor area appears to be more linear in nature across the size range evaluated.18
Figure 5
Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
Single Family/Duplex Units
18 For both unit types, the strength of the relationship between square footage and employment is suggested by
the high R squared values (approximately 0.85 to 0.93 for each unit type, where 0 indicates no relationship and 1
indicates a perfect relationship). However, it should be cautioned that the R squared results are significantly
inflated using “grouped” data, because the significant variation that exists among individual homes within a given
size grouping is stripped out in the grouping process. As such, the R squared measures shown should not be
interpreted as representing the strength of the relationship between square footage and employment at the
individual unit level, but rather as a measure of the relationship at a grouped level.
y = 0.0262739146e0.0004908383x
R² = 0.8519679637
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Floor Area
Average sqft & employment for
homes in each sqft increment
Expon. (Average sqft &
employment for homes in each
sqft increment)
P29
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 22
Figure 6
Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
Condominium/Townhome Units
Based on the statistical analyses above, the relationship between floor area and operations and
maintenance employment for single family / duplex units and condominiums/townhomes respectively
are described by the equations shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
By Unit Type
Unit Type
Modeled Relationship between Floor Area and
Operations and Maintenance Employment
Floor Area Range
Modeled
Single family home/duplex y = 0.0262739146e0.0004908383x 0 – 6,999 sqft
Condominium/townhome y = 0.0000818430x + 0.0443701179 0 – 3,499 sqft
Note: x=floor area, y=employment.
Table 7 and Figure 7 to follow illustrate the modeled relationships between floor area and employment
across the size ranges evaluated.19
19 For single family/duplex homes in excess of 7,000 square feet, employment:square footage relationships might
be modeled on the basis of the linear slope between 5,000 and 7,000 square feet, i.e. an additional 0.1 28
employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 square feet (e.g. 0.944 employees at 7500 sqft, 1.072
employees at 8000 sqft, etc.). Alternatively, multi-community data might be considered as well, given larger
sample sizes for large units (discussed later in this chapter). For condominiums/townhomes in excess of 3,500
square feet, employment:square footage relationships might be assumed to be described by the same function as
below 3,500 square feet, i.e. an additional 0.041 employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500
square feet.
y = 0.0000818430x + 0.0443701179
R² = 0.9375733510
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Floor Area
Average sqft & employment for
homes in each sqft increment
Linear (Average sqft &
employment for homes in each
sqft increment)
P30
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 23
Table 7
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
By Unit Type
Figure 7
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
By Unit Type
Square footage Single family/duplex Condominium/townhome
500 0.034 0.085
1,000 0.043 0.126
1,500 0.055 0.167
2,000 0.070 0.208
2,500 0.090 0.249
3,000 0.115 0.290
3,500 0.146 0.331
4,000 0.187 n/a
4,500 0.239 n/a
5,000 0.306 n/a
5,500 0.391 n/a
6,000 0.499 n/a
6,500 0.638 n/a
7,000 0.816 n/a
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Floor Area
Condominium/townhome
Single family/duplex
P31
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 24
Relationship between Employment and Home Size: by Unit Type and
Occupancy
A similar statistical approach was used to model the relationship between employment and floor area,
for different occupancy types. Specifically, employment:floor area relationships were examined for
units which are owner-occupied at least 40 weeks per year, and units with all other occupancy patterns
(e.g. vacation home, short-term rental, long-term rental, etc.).
Table 8 below shows the statistical relationships between employment and floor area which were
derived for each unit type / occupancy combination. Figure 8 and Figure 9 to follow provide a graphical
illustration of these relationships for single-family/duplex units and condominiums/townhomes
respectively. For single family/duplex units, employment generation (on average) is modeled to be
highly similar for owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied units across the size ranges modeled. For
condominiums/townhomes, employment generation (on average) is modeled to be somewhat lower for
owner-occupied units than for other occupancies.
Table 8
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
By Unit Type and Occupancy
Unit type
Occupancy
Modeled relationship between floor
area and operations and
maintenance employment
Size range
modeled
Usable
survey cases
in size range
Single family home/duplex Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/yr
y=0.0175178311e0.0005898944x 0 – 5,499 sqft 128
Single family home/duplex Other
occupancies
y= 0.0256683785e0.0005052129x 0 – 6,999 sqft 129
Condominium/townhome Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/yr
y=0.0000874692x + 0.0004218381 0 – 2,499 sqft 76
Condominium/townhome Other
occupancies
y=0.0000764484x + 0.0594369631 0 – 3,499 sqft 304
Note: x= floor area (in square feet), y=employment.
P32
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 25
Figure 8
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
Single Family/Duplex Units, by Occupancy Type
Figure 9
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area:
Condominiums/Townhomes, by Occupancy Type
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Floor Area
Single family/duplex, owner-
occupied 40+ weeks/year
Single family/duplex, other
occupancies
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Square Footage
Condominium/townhome, other
occupancies
Condominium/townhome,
owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year
P33
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 26
Total Labor Associated with Home Operations/Upkeep (Including Owner Labor)
While the preceding analysis has focused on the relationship between paid employment and unit
size/type/occupancy characteristics, it is important to note that many homeowners spend a
considerable amount of their own time on home operations and maintenance tasks.
To evaluate this owner contribution, the Aspen homeowner survey asked respondents to estimate how
many hours per year they or other family members devote to home operations and upkeep. This hourly
figure was divided by 2000 to derive an annualized measure of “FTE labor” contributed by the owner.
This owner labor contribution was then added to the employee labor measure to provide an indicator of
total labor associated with home operations and upkeep, as well as the share of total labor contributed
by the owner’s household.
Summary statistics by unit type and occupancy are shown in Table 9 below. As might be expected,
owner-occupants tend to supply more labor for maintaining their home than non-owner-occupants. On
average, for single-family/duplex units, owner-occupants supply approximately 49 percent of the total
labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants supply approximately 11 percent of
the labor needed for their units. Similarly, for condominiums/townhomes, owner-occupants supply an
average of 35 percent of the total labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants
supply an average of 10 percent of the labor needed for their units.
Table 9
Average Total Labor Associated with Home Operations and Upkeep:
Paid Labor and “Owner FTE Labor” By Unit Type and Occupancy
Note: Owner FTE labor is calculated as total annual hours spent on home operations/upkeep by the owner’s
household, divided by 2,000 hours.
Note: Sample size is slightly larger by unit type alone, then by occupancy type within unit type, as reflected above.
Taking the analysis a step further, using the same statistical approach as previously, total labor:floor
area relationships were modeled by unit type and occupancy. As shown in Figure 10 to follow, for single
family/duplex units, the total labor outlay associated with home maintenance and operations was found
Unit Type Occupancy
Paid
Employees:
FTE
Owner
labor:
FTE
Total FTE
(paid &
owner)
Owner FTE
as a share of
Total FTE
Survey
cases
Single family/duplex Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year 0.135 0.127 0.262 49%106
Single family/duplex Other occupancies 0.292 0.035 0.327 11%124
Single family/duplex Total 0.221 0.077 0.298 26%233
Condo/townhome Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year 0.106 0.056 0.162 35%61
Condo/townhome Other occupancies 0.170 0.018 0.188 10%259
Condo/townhome Total 0.157 0.026 0.182 14%324
Total Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year 0.124 0.101 0.226 45%167
Total Other occupancies 0.209 0.024 0.233 10%383
Total Total 0.184 0.047 0.231 20%557
P34
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 27
to be higher for owner-occupied homes than other occupancies, after including the owner labor
contribution. For condominiums/townhomes (Figure 11), owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied
units were found to incur similar labor outlays.20
This analysis helps to shed light on the impact of owner contribution to home operations and upkeep.
To the extent owners (and especially owner-occupants) contribute to home operations and upkeep –
and house themselves – they avert some of the employment and workforce housing demand that might
otherwise stem from maintaining and operating the home.
Figure 10
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment plus “Owner FTE Labor”
vs. Floor Area: Single Family/Duplex Units, by Occupancy Type
20 It should be noted that the employment:sqft relationships derived from this analysis are based on a smaller
number of usable survey responses (n=550) than the previous analysis of employment by unit type by occupancy
type (n=637). As such, the curves from these sets of analysis cannot be directly c ompared.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
p
l
u
s
"
O
w
n
e
r
F
T
E
L
a
b
o
r
"
Floor Area
Single family/duplex, other
occupancies
Single family/duplex, owner-
occupied 40+ weeks/year
P35
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 28
Figure 11
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment plus “Owner FTE Labor”
vs. Floor Area: Condominiums/Townhomes, by Occupancy Type
Aspen Property Management Company Survey
With outreach assistance from the Aspen Community Development Department, RRC conducted a
survey of Aspen property management companies. The primary purpose of the survey was to gather
information about the employment requirements associated with delivering property management
services to homes in Aspen. A total of 13 Aspen property management companies were contacted and
five provided data about their operations via surveys or interviews. The results provide an additional
point of reference for understanding Aspen’s residential employment picture, particularly employment
associated with property management services.
Selected notable findings from the research are summarized below.
Each of the responding property management firms provides both services related to property
upkeep (the physical asset) as well as concierge/personal services to the owner/occupants.
Some of the responding firms also provide short-term rental management services, HOA
management services, and/or commercial property management services.
Firms specializing in property management services to individual residential owners only (not
HOAs or commercial property) utilize an average of approximately 0.5 FTE in labor per
residential unit served.
For every in-house FTE, responding firms subcontract for an average of approximately 0.1 FTE in
additional labor.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
p
l
u
s
"
O
w
n
e
r
F
T
E
L
a
b
o
r
"
Floor Area
Condominium/townhome, other
occupancies
Condominium/townhome,
owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year
P36
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 29
Each firm was asked to quantify the labor needs associated with a randomly selected unit in
each of three categories of their inventory: one unit with “high” employment/service needs, one
unit with “average” needs, and one unit with “low” needs.
o In the “high employment needs” category, respondents each selected single
family/duplex units, with a median of 8,000 square feet of living area. A median of
1,300 hours (0.65 FTE) of in-house and subcontracted labor was used to service the
units annually, with a range of 700 to 2500 hours per unit.
o In the “average employment needs” category, respondents selected a mix of single
family/duplex and condominium/townhome units, with a median of 5,500 square feet
of living area. A median of 490 labor hours (0.245 FTE) were spent servicing these units
annually.
o In the “low employment needs” category, respondents selected a mix of single
family/duplex and condominium/townhome units, with a median of 3,200 square feet
of living area. A median of 175 labor hours (0.0875 FTE) were spent servicing these
units annually.
o It should be noted that the labor needs above only reflect labor provided by the
property management firms or their subcontractors. To the extent that owners may
have used additional service providers (e.g. HOAs, contractors, caretakers, etc.), those
employment demands are excluded.
o Firms were also asked to comment on factors that caused the respective units to have
either “high” or “low” service needs. The following factors were mentioned:
Size. Generally, the larger the size of the unit and property, the greater the
service needs; this is consistent with the square footage differences of the units
selected in each needs category as summarized above.
Amenities.
Degree to which the owner is in town; greater time in Aspen often equates to
higher service needs. Relatedly, firms tend to be busier at the times of year
when owners are in town.
Number of persons in owner travel party, including children and guests (higher
needs with more people).
Desire of the owner to do things themselves vs. have services provided.
Employment Relationships Based on Multi-Community Data (Heated Square
Feet)
RRC has conducted similar homeowner employment generation surveys in a variety of mountain resort
communities over the past 15 years. The data has been aggregated into a single database to permit
analyses based on a larger sample of units, which is particularly useful for understanding employment
patterns for especially large homes (for which data tends to be limited at the individual community
level). Some communities have chosen to base affordable housing mitigation requirements on multi-
community patterns rather than data for their community alone.
P37
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 30
Specifically, the merged database is based on homeowner surveys conducted in the following areas:
Aspen (2004, 2008, 2014)
Blaine County, ID (2002)
Breckenridge/Upper Blue River Valley, CO (2000/01)
Eagle County, CO (2001)
Gunnison County, CO (1999/00)
San Miguel County, CO (1999/00)
Snowmass Village, CO (2008)
Teton County, WY (1999/00, 2012)
It should be noted that this database is benchmarked to “heated square feet” (excluding heated
garages), rather than floor area as defined by the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Aspen’s data has been
incorporated into the merged database on a heated square footage basis. Comparisons between Aspen
and multi-community data is also made on a heated square footage basis in this section, rather than a
floor area basis.
A total of 4,531 usable survey cases with heated square footage, employment, and unit type are
available from the database. Similar statistical techniques to those employed above were used to derive
employment:heated square footage relationships for different unit types and occupancies.
In the multi-community database, an exponential relationship again appears to exist between
employment and square footage for single family/duplex units, similar to Aspen’s results, as illustrated
in Figure 12 to follow. Also of note, when fitted across the 0 – 6,999 sqft range only, Aspen’s modeled
results and the multi-community modeled results are highly similar across most of the size spectrum
(except units larger than approximately 6,000 sqft, where Aspen’s employment generation becomes
slightly higher), as shown in Figure 13.21 The rough similarity of results provides a “reasonableness
check” on the Aspen results, and it could also potentially be grounds for considering using the multi-
community average data for policy purposes (e.g. for very large units), although a conversion from
heated square feet to floor area would be needed before doing so.
21 Note that square footage:employment models vary depending on the range of home sizes included in the
modeling process, insofar as the models are designed to produce a single equation which best fits all of the
available datapoints. As such, models for a given community/area are likely to differ to the extent they are derived
from differing home size ranges.
P38
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 31
Figure 12
Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage:
Single Family/Duplex Units (Multi-Community Database)
Figure 13
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage,
Single Family/Duplex Units: Aspen vs. Multi-Community Database
(Models derived from homes up to 6,999 sqft only)
For condominiums/townhomes, a linear relationship appears to exist between employment and heated
square footage in the multi-community database (Figure 14), again similar to Aspen’s pattern. However,
Aspen’s modeled employment generation is generally somewhat higher than the multi-community
y = 0.0435038234e0.0003251223x
R² = 0.9152239732
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Heated Square Footage
Average sqft & employment for SF/duplex homes in each sqft increment
Average sqft & employment for
SF/duplex homes in each sqft
increment
Expon. (Average sqft &
employment for SF/duplex
homes in each sqft increment)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Heated Square Footage
Chart Title
Multi-community database:
modeled based on homes thru
6999 sqft
Aspen: modeled based on homes
thru 6999 sqft
P39
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 32
average, particularly as square footage increases, as shown in Figure 15 (data fitted across the 0 – 3,499
sqft range only in both areas for this comparison).22
Figure 14
Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage:
Condominium/Townhome Units (Multi-Community Database)
22 Note that heated square footage:employment models vary depending on the range of home sizes included in
the modeling process, insofar as the models are designed to produce a single equation which best fits all of the
available datapoints. As such, models for a given community/area are likely to differ if derived from differing
home size ranges.
y = 0.0000421201x + 0.0724057998
R² = 0.7319430357
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Heated Square Footage
Average sqft & employment for units in each sqft increment
Average sqft & employment for
units in each sqft increment
Linear (Average sqft &
employment for units in each
sqft increment)
P40
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 33
Figure 15
Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage,
Condominium/Townhome Units: Aspen vs. Multi-Community Database
(Models derived from homes up to 3,499 sqft only)
Total Residential Employment Generation
Total residential employment generation has been calculated from the sum of construction
employment (new floor area only) and operations and maintenance employment. The results
using factors specific to Aspen (instead of multi-community averages) are summarized in Table
10 to follow, for 500 square foot increments of floor area. As shown, average total employment
generation for a single family/duplex unit with 3,000 square feet of floor area is estimated to be
0.445 workers.
Looking at the two categories of employment more specifically:
Construction employment per square foot is projected to increase at a linear rate for
both unit types, with an approximately 13 percent higher employment generation ra te
for single family/duplex units than for condominium/townhome units.
Operations and maintenance employment is estimated to grow at an exponential rate
for single family/duplex units, and at a linear rate for condominium/townhome units.
As the sum of construction and operations/maintenance employment, total employment is
estimated to grow quasi-exponentially for single family/duplex units, and linearly for
condominium/townhome units.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Heated Square Footage
Chart Title
Multi-community database:
modeled based on units thru 3499
sqft
Aspen: modeled based on units
thru 3499 sqft
P41
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 34
Table 10
Estimated Total Employment by Unit Type and Floor Area
Notes:
Operations and maintenance employment excludes “owner FTE labor,” i.e. labor contributed by the owner
and household members to unit upkeep.
Results exclude employment associated with personal service employees who travel with the household. The
results do not deduct for other types of employees (such as caretakers) who may be housed by the owner.
Operations and maintenance employment for single family/duplex units larger than 7,000 sqft may be
assumed to grow by 0.128 employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 sqft. Operations and
maintenance employment for condominium/townhome units larger than 3,500 sqft may be assumed to grow
additional 0.041 employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 sqft. Construction
employment is assumed to grow linearly beyond 7,000 sqft, at 0.110 employees per 1,000 sqft for single
family/duplex units and 0.096 employees per 1,000 sqft for condominiums/townhomes.
Floor Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/Single family/Condominium/
area duplex townhome duplex townhome duplex townhome
500 0.055 0.048 0.034 0.085 0.089 0.133
1,000 0.110 0.096 0.043 0.126 0.153 0.222
1,500 0.165 0.144 0.055 0.167 0.220 0.311
2,000 0.220 0.192 0.070 0.208 0.291 0.400
2,500 0.276 0.239 0.090 0.249 0.365 0.488
3,000 0.331 0.287 0.115 0.290 0.445 0.577
3,500 0.386 0.335 0.146 0.331 0.532 0.666
4,000 0.441 0.383 0.187 n/a 0.628 n/a
4,500 0.496 0.431 0.239 n/a 0.735 n/a
5,000 0.551 0.479 0.306 n/a 0.857 n/a
5,500 0.606 0.527 0.391 n/a 0.997 n/a
6,000 0.661 0.575 0.499 n/a 1.161 n/a
6,500 0.716 0.623 0.638 n/a 1.355 n/a
7,000 0.772 0.671 0.816 n/a 1.588 n/a
OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE
EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT
INITIAL CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYMENT
P42
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 35
Appendix A: Homeowner Survey Results – by Unit Type
Results of the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey are summarized in this section of the report, as
segmented by unit type (single family/duplex vs. condominium/townhome). Results are limited to free-
market units only.
Respondent Housing Characteristics
Following is a summary of key characteristics of Aspen housing units owned by respondents, particularly
physical characteristics of the units. Results are also illustrated in Figure 16 to Figure 25 to follow.
Unit type: A little over half of units represented in the survey response were condominiums/
townhomes (53 percent), followed by single-family houses (33 percent), duplexes (11 percent),
and mobile/modular homes (2 percent). For purposes of the remainder of the analysis, results
for single family and duplex units have been combined, and mobile/modular units have been
excluded.
Restricted vs. free-market housing: Fully 98 percent of respondents overall said their unit was
unrestricted free-market housing, while 2 percent said their unit was restricted housing. In the
remainder of this section, only free-market units are included in the analysis.
Property location: The most common locations for single-family/duplex residences were the
West End (29 percent), Cemetery Lane (24 percent), and East of Aspen (22 percent). The top
location for respondents in condominiums/townhomes was downtown (53 percent), followed
distantly by the West End (14 percent) and East of Aspen (11 percent).
Number of bedrooms: Single family or duplex homes had an average of 3.3 bedrooms. Most
homes had three bedrooms (28 percent), four bedrooms (34 percent), or five bedrooms (21
percent). More modest shares of units had 0 – 2 bedrooms (9 percent) or six or more bedrooms
(9 percent). Respondents in condominiums/townhomes on average had 2.1 bedrooms. A
majority of these respondents reported having one bedroom (21 percent), two bedrooms (38
percent), or three bedrooms (29 percent), while smaller shares had no bedrooms (5 percent) or
four or more bedrooms (7 percent).
Presence and use of accessory units/homes located on property: Fifteen percent of single
family/duplex homeowners and 2 percent of condominium/townhome owners said that there
was one or more separate, accessory units located on their property.
Among respondents reporting the presence of accessory units, most single family/duplex
homeowners reported that there was one (73 percent) or two (24 percent) accessory units, with
an average of 1.4 units. Fifty percent of condominium/townhome owners with accessory units
reported the presence of one, 17 percent reported two, and 33 percent reported 3 or more,
with a 2.2 unit average (results for condominiums/townhomes should be interpreted with
caution due to a modest response size).
P43
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 36
Among single-family/duplex owners reporting the presence of accessory units, the largest share
reported that the units were rented long-term to local residents (39 percent). Smaller shares
used the units for visiting guests of the owner/household (27 percent) or for household/family
member use (24 percent). Condominium/townhome respondents with accessory units
indicated the greatest use as a caretaker residence (56 percent), followed by renting long-term
to local residents (33 percent) and use by visiting guests of owner/household (33 percent). A
modest 4 percent of single-family/duplex homeowners and 0 percent of
condominium/townhome visitors indicated that their accessory units are left vacant/not used.
Finished, unfinished, and total living space (including accessory residences, if applicable): Single-
family house and duplex homeowners reported that their unit had an average of 3,631 square
feet of finished space and a median of 3,300 square feet, as well as an average of 68 unfinished
square feet. Condominium/duplex owners reported an average of 1,269 finished square feet
(median 1,027 square feet) and an average of 5 unfinished square feet. These figures include
space in the primary residence plus any accessory residences on the property, if applicable. As
would likely be expected, single family homes/duplexes were significantly larger in total space
(average 3,676 square feet, median 3,300 square feet) than condominiums/townhomes
(average 1,280 square feet, median 1,045 square feet).
Garage space: Seventy-seven percent of single family/duplex homes and 24 percent of
condominiums/townhomes have a garage or access to a common garage. Among single
family/duplex homeowners with garages, respondents most frequently reported having one (23
percent) or two (69 percent) parking stalls (average 1.8 stalls). Condominium/townhome
owners generally had slightly less garage space, with 55 percent indicating they had one stall
and 40 percent indicating there had two (average 1.6 stalls).
Basement space: Basements were less common than garages—32 percent of single family
house/duplex homeowners indicated that they have a basement, either finished or unfinished,
and 8 percent of condominium/townhome owners did as well. Among single family/duplex
homes with a basement, the average basement size was 1,063 square feet with a median of
1,000 square feet. Condominium/townhome owners with a basement reported an average
basement size of 556 square feet (median 500 square feet).
Lot size (single family/duplex units): Among single family house/duplex owners, 43 percent
reported that their property was a small residential lot (up to 6,000 square feet); 35 percent had
a medium residential lot (6,000 – 15,000 square feet); and 18 percent had a large lot (more than
15,000 square feet).
Year residence was built: Single family home and duplex owners reported a broad range of
dates that their home was built, ranging from before 1900 up through the present with the
largest share of respondents indicating that the unit was built between 2000 and 2009 (21
percent). The average year that single family homes/duplexes were built was 1973 (median
1979). Condominium and townhome owners were most likely to report that their home was
built during the 1960s (31 percent) or 1970s (46 percent). Similar to single family homes, the
average year of building for condominiums/ townhomes was 1973 (albeit with an earlier median
of 1970).
P44
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 37
Year residence was purchased: The distribution of purchase dates is similar between single
family/duplex respondents and condominium/townhome respondents, with 93 percent and 96
percent respectively purchasing their house between 1970 and today. The largest shares of
owners for both unit types bought their residences in the decade of 2000-2009 (33 percent of
single family/duplex respondents, 32 percent of condominium/townhome). The average year of
purchase by single family house/duplex homeowners was 1998 (median 2000), and the average
year of purchase by condominium/ townhome owners was 1996 (median 1999).
Value of residence: Single family home and duplex homeowners reported a wide range of value
levels for their homes, with an average value of $4,385,077 and a median of $3,700,000. As
would be expected, condominium and townhome owners reported lesser home values, with
average value of $1,409,699, with a median of $1,100,000. Most condominium/townhome
owners (70 percent) valued their home at between $500,000 and $2,000,000.
Recent remodels/renovations: Twenty-six percent of single family/duplex respondents and
forty-one percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that they have remodeled
recently. Of single family house and duplex owners who have recently renovated, 54 percent
reported having renovated between 2010 and 2014. The average remodel cost of single family
homes and duplexes was reported to be $588,629, with a median of $300,000. Among
condominium and townhome owners who have recently renovated, 57 percent indicated that
their remodels occurred between 2010 and 2014, with an average remodel cost of $163,634 and
a median of $100,000.
Planned future remodels/renovations: Eight percent of single family home/duplex owners and
10 percent of condominium/townhome owners expressed an intent to remodel soon.
Approximately 78 percent of single family home and duplex owners with plans to renovate
intended to do so in 2014 or 2015, while 22 percent expected their plans to be completed in
2016 or later. Single family and duplex homeowners expected to spend an average of $487,632
on their remodel (median $200,000). Most condominium and townhome owners also expected
to remodel in 2014 or 2015 (76 percent), while the other 24 percent plan to complete
renovations later. The planned cost of remodeling for condominiums and townhomes on
average was $112,105 (median $45,000).
P45
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 38
Figure 16
Residence Location
Figure 17
Number of Bedrooms
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P46
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 39
Figure 18
Accessory Units
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P47
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 40
Figure 19
Finished and Unfinished Heated Space (in square feet)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
0%
2%
6%
7%
23%
27%
15%
21%
91%
4%
6%
7%
37%
31%
10%
11%
2%
2%
1%
98%
2%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
1 - 499 sqft
500 - 999 sqft
1000 - 1499 sqft
1500 - 1999 sqft
2000 - 2999 sqft
3000 - 3999 sqft
4000 - 4999 sqft
5000+ sqft
0 sqft
Under 499 sqft
500+ sqft
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
HEATED, FINISHED
SQUARE FEET
HEATED, UNFINISHED
SQUARE FEET
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 3631 sqft; Median: 3300 sqft
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 1269 sqft; Median: 1026.5 sqft
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 68 sqft; Median: 0 sqft
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 5 sqft; Median: 0 sqft
P48
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 41
Figure 20
Total Heated Space (in square feet)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
0%
2%
5%
7%
23%
27%
15%
22%
7%
36%
32%
10%
11%
2%
2%
1%
0%10%20%30%40%
1 - 499 sqft
500 - 999 sqft
1000 - 1499 sqft
1500 - 1999 sqft
2000 - 2999 sqft
3000 - 3999 sqft
4000 - 4999 sqft
5000+ sqft
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 3676 sqft; Median: 3300 sqft
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 1280 sqft; Median: 1045 sqft
P49
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 42
Figure 21
Garage/Basement Size
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
77%
32%
16%
23%
69%
6%
1%
6%
12%
20%
8%
26%
15%
13%
24%
8%
70%
55%
40%
3%
3%
22%
22%
41%
0%
7%
4%
4%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
A garage
A finished or unfinished
basement
None of the above
1
2
3
4 or more
1 - 249 sqft
250 - 499 sqft
500 - 749 sqft
750 - 999 sqft
1000 - 1499 sqft
1500 - 1999 sqft
2000+ sqft
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 1063 sqft; Median: 1000 sqft
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 556 sqft; Median: 500 sqft
DOES YOUR RESIDENCE
HAVE:
(If have garage) NUMBER OF
PARKING STALLS
(If have basement) BASEMENT
SQUARE FOOTAGE
P50
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 43
Figure 22
Lot Size and Year Built/Purchased
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P51
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 44
Figure 23
Value of Residence
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P52
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 45
Figure 24
Remodeling Plans, and Details of Recent Past Remodel
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P53
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 46
Figure 25
Future Remodeling Plans
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
Unit Usage Characteristics
Table 11 to follow illustrates the average number of weeks homes are used for a variety of purposes
across a 52-week year, both overall and segmented by unit type. It should be understood that the data
on “average weeks of use” reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single use
type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of
P54
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 47
occupancy across all respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all.
With this understanding in mind, key findings include the following:
Overall - all respondents: Across the entire set of responses, the leading use of homes is as a
primary residence for the owner (average 20.0 weeks, or 39 percent of time available for
occupancy in a year). To a lesser extent, homes are used as a vacation rental (14 percent,
including time occupied and unoccupied), as a vacation home occupied by the owner or guests
of owner (10 percent), and rented long-term to local residents (8 percent of available time).
Additionally, units are vacant (and not available for vacation rental) an aggregate of 29 percent
of the time.
Single family/duplex residences: Among respondents owning a single family house or a duplex,
homes are occupied as the primary residence of the owner an average of 54 percent of the year
(28.1 weeks) and are vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 28 percent of the time (14.6
weeks). Other uses include as a vacation home for the owner/guests (9 percent), a vacation
rental (4 percent, including time vacant but available for rent), or a long-term rental to a local
resident (4 percent).
Condominium/townhome residences: Among respondents owning a condominium or a
townhome, on average the residence is occupied as the primary residence of the owner 24
percent of the time (12.2 weeks) and is vacant 31 percent of the year (16.2 weeks).
Respondents reported that their condo/townhome is also commonly used (or available for use)
as a vacation rental (23 percent of the year), rented long-term to a local resident (11 percent),
or used as a vacation home for themselves or for their guests (10 percent).
Table 11
Average Annual Weeks of Use of Home23
UNIT TYPE
OVERALL - ALL
RESPONDENTS
Single family /
duplex
Condominium /
townhome
Type of Use # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks
Primary residence for owner 20.0 39% 28.1 54% 12.2 24%
Vacation home for owner or guests of owner 5.1 10% 4.9 9% 5.4 10%
Vacation rental - weeks actually occupied by visitors 3.9 7% 1.0 2% 6.5 13%
Vacation rental - weeks avail. for rent, but not occupied 3.4 7% 1.1 2% 5.3 10%
Rented long term to local resident 4.1 8% 2.0 4% 6.0 11%
Business/corporate function 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Other use 0.3 1% 0.3 1% 0.3 1%
Vacant - not occupied (and not avail. for vacation rental) 15.2 29% 14.6 28% 16.2 31%
TOTAL WEEKS 52.0 100% 52.0 100% 52.0 100%
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
23 To clarify, the data on “average weeks of use” reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single use
type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of occupancy across all
respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all.
P55
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 48
Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics
Following is a summary of selected demographic characteristics of the households of respondents to the
survey.
Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence? Most respondents said
they themselves (95 percent of single family/duplex respondents, 89 percent of condominium/
townhome respondents) and/or their spouse/partner (77 percent single family/duplex, 62
percent condominium/townhome) occupy their unit while they are in residence. Smaller shares
of single family home/duplex owners and condominium/townhome owners said their unit is
typically occupied by children (56 percent and 42 percent), friends (34 percent and 33 percent),
or relatives/other family members (32 percent and 26 percent). Very small proportions share
their unit with business associates (4 percent each) or rent a room to housemate(s) (2 percent
and 1 percent). Nine percent of condominium/townhome respondents and 1 percent of single
family/duplex respondents said they don’t use their home for personal use.
Total persons who live/stay in your home while you are in residence: Respondents said an
average of 3.4 persons (including themselves) stay in their single family home/duplex while they
are in residence and an average of 3.0 persons stay in their condominium/townhome while they
are in residence.
Total persons under age 18 in the home: Forty-four percent of single family/duplex owners and
37 percent of condominium/townhome owners indicated that children under age 18 typically
live or stay in their home. On average, owners of both unit types have 1.0 children under 18 in
their homes.
Total persons who are retired: Half of single family/duplex respondents (50 percent) and 45
percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that one or more retirees reside in
their household. Single family house/duplex owners reported an average of 0.8 retirees, while
condominium/townhome owners reported an average of 1.0 retirees.
Total persons who work in Aspen: Thirty-one percent of single family/duplex owners indicated
that one or more Aspen workers reside in their household (average 0.5 persons).
Condominium/townhome owners were less likely to report the presence of residents employed
in Aspen, with an 18 percent incidence and an average of 0.2 persons.
Total persons who work in the Roaring Fork Valley: Thirty-nine percent of single family/duplex
respondents and 22 percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that one or
more residents of their household work within the Roaring Fork Valley (average 0.7 persons in
single family homes/duplexes and 0.3 persons in condominiums/townhomes).
Total persons who work outside the Roaring Fork Valley: Twenty-five percent of single family
house/duplex owners and 32 percent of condominium/townhome owners reported the
presence of one or more persons who are employed outside the Roaring Fork Valley living in
their household, with an average of 0.8 persons per household for each unit type.
P56
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 49
Number of hours worked by residents employed in Roaring Fork Valley: Respondents who own
single family homes/duplexes reported an average of 1,171 hours worked per year by members
of their household in the Roaring Fork Valley (data includes households with no one employed in
the valley). Condominium/townhome owners reported an average of 658 hours worked per
year by members of their household in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Among households with at least one Roaring Fork Valley worker, the average aggregate number
of hours worked in the Roaring Fork Valley per year was similar among single family/duplex
households (average 2,842 hours) and condominium/townhome households (average 2,727
hours).
Figure 26
Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence?
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P57
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 50
Figure 27
Number of Persons in Household – Total and by Age
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P58
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 51
Figure 28
Number of Persons in Household – by Employment Characteristics
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
69%
13%
15%
2%
61%
18%
19%
3%
75%
9%
6%
1%
2%
7%
82%
13%
5%
0%
78%
15%
7%
1%
68%
9%
11%
1%
6%
3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
0
1
2
3 or more
0
1
2
3 or more
0
1
2
3
4
5 or more
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
TOTAL PERSONS WHO
WORK FOR AN
EMPLOYER OR OWN A
BUSINESS LOCATED IN
CITY OF ASPEN
TOTAL PERSONS
EMPLOYED IN ROARING
FORK VALLEY
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 0.8 person; Median: 0 persons
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 0.8 person; Median: 0 persons
TOTAL PERSONS
EMPLOYED OUTSIDE
ROARING FORK
VALLEY
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 0.5 person; Median: 0 persons
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 0.2 person; Median: 0 persons
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 0.7 person; Median: 0 persons
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 0.3 person; Median: 0 persons
P59
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 52
Figure 29
Aggregate Number of Hours Worked by Household Members in Roaring Fork Valley
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
59%
9%
3%
6%
7%
10%
2%
4%
76%
7%
2%
4%
3%
5%
1%
2%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
0 hr
1 - 999 hours
1000 - 1999 hours
2000 - 2999 hours
3000 - 3999 hours
4000 - 4999 hours
5000 - 5999 hours
6000+ hours
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 1171 hours; Median: 0 hours
CONDO/TOWNHOME
Average: 658 hours; Median: 0 hours
P60
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 53
Intended Future Use of Unit
How do you expect to be using your Aspen home five years from now? Overall, most single
family house and duplex owners (55 percent) expect to use their unit as a primary residence in
five years’ time. Smaller shares expect to use their home as a vacation home for the
owner/guests (36 percent), to use the unit as a retirement residence (10 percent), to use the
unit as a vacation rental to visitors (8 percent), to sell it (6 percent), or to rent long-term to a
local resident (4 percent).
About half of condominium and townhome owners said that they planned to use their unit as a
vacation home for the owner/guests (53 percent). More modest shares plan to use the unit as
the primary residence for the owner (25 percent) or as a vacation rental to visitors (22 percent),
or plan to sell the unit (9 percent), retire in their Aspen residence (8 percent), or rent it out long-
term to a local resident (8 percent).
Changes in personal/friend/family use over the next five years: A majority of single family
home/duplex owners (61 percent) expected their use of the unit to stay the same over the next
five years. Respondents were more likely to indicate that their use of the unit would increase
(27 percent) than decrease (5 percent).
Somewhat similarly, about half of condominium/townhome owners (53 percent) anticipated
that their usage of the unit would stay the same over the next five years, while 31 percent felt it
would increase and 4 percent indicated that it would decrease.
P61
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 54
Figure 30
Intended Future Use of Unit
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P62
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 55
Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep
Following is a summary of data pertaining to selected aspects of home operations and upkeep, including
the types of service providers used by respondents and the services and homeowner expenditures
associated with each type of provider.
Providers used for home operations and upkeep: Most single family home or duplex owners
hire contractors/employees/specialty services (87 percent) or perform work themselves (78
percent). Roughly a quarter hire a property management company (27 percent) or belong to a
homeowners association (21 percent), while 8 percent hire an on-site caretaker. Condominium
and townhome owners primarily take care of home maintenance via a homeowners association
(98 percent), as well as doing the work themselves (64 percent). Progressively smaller shares
hire a property management company (57 percent), contractors/employees/specialty services
(55 percent), or an on-site caretaker (11 percent).
Figure 31
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P63
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 56
Services delivered by respective providers: Figure 32 and Figure 33 to follow illustrate the
services delivered by home service providers (in instances when the respondent uses the
provider), for single family homes/duplexes and condominiums/townhomes respectively.
Among single family house and duplex owners, contractors/employees/specialty services hired
by the household are identified as providing the most types of services (average 4.6 services
provided, among those using these services), followed by on-site caretakers (average 4.2
services), property management companies (average 4.1 services), and HOAs (2.3 services). As
illustrated, different types of service providers tend to deliver different mixes of services. For
example, HOAs are especially likely to provide single family home and duplex owners with
operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies are
comparatively likely to provide building maintenance and housekeeping/cleaning; and
contractors/employees are especially likely to be hired for trash removal, lawn/landscape
maintenance, systems/appliances repair, and security services.
Among condominium and townhome owners, HOAs are reported by respondents to provide the
most types of services (average 5.5 services provided, among those using HOAs), followed by
property management companies (average 4.9 services), on-site caretakers (average 2.9
services), and contractors/employees/specialty services (average 2.5 services). Similar to single
family homes, the services provided vary by provider type. HOAs are comparatively likely to
provide snow removal, trash removal, building maintenance, lawn/landscape maintenance, and
operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies are
comparatively likely to provide security service, rental management, and
housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees/specialty services are comparatively likely
to be hired for systems/appliances repair.
P64
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 57
Figure 32
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers – Single Family/Duplex
(Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P65
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 58
Figure 33
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers – Condominium/Townhome
(Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P66
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 59
Annual expenditures on home service providers: Respondents were asked to estimate how
much they spend annually on each of respective home service providers that they use. As
illustrated in Table 12 below, annual HOA costs are considerably higher for condominium/
townhome owners (average $9,545 / median $6,800) than single-family homeowners (average
$4,785 / median $2,100).
For single family house and duplex homeowners, among those using property management
companies, the average annual expenditure is $13,384 (median $10,000). The average annual
expenditure for on-site caretakers is $29,722 (median $7,500), and the average annual
expenditure for other contractors/employees is $11,994 (median $5,000).
For condominium and townhome owners, the average annual expenditure for property
management companies is $9,909 (median $5,250), the average annual expenditure for on-site
caretakers is $4,555 (median $1,500) and the average annual expenditure for other
contractors/employees is $3,173 (median $2,000).
On average, among those using the respective service providers, condominium/townhouse
owners spend more than single family/duplex owners on HOAs, while single family/duplex
owners have higher expenses for property management companies, caretakers, and other
contractors/employees.
Table 12
Annual Expenditures on Home Service Providers (If Use Provider)
Single family /
duplex
Condominium /
townhome
Annual Expenditures on Provider (If Use Provider) Mean Median Mean Median
Amount spent on HOA $4,785 $2,100 $9,545 $6,800
Amount spent on property management company $13,384 $10,000 $9,909 $5,250
Amount spent on on-site caretaker $29,722 $7,500 $4,555 $1,500
Amount spent on other contractors/employees $11,994 $5,000 $3,173 $2,000
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Caretaker housing: Among single family house and duplex owners with on-site caretakers, 33
percent provide free housing as part of their compensation, 42 percent offer discounted
housing, and 25 percent do not provide housing assistance as part of compensation. Among
condominium/townhouse owners, 27 percent provide free housing, 64 percent provide
discounted housing and 9 percent don’t provide housing assistance.
Home maintenance and upkeep services delivered by self/household members: Single family
house and duplex homeowners indicated that they provide their own service for an average of
3.7 services to their household. Condominium and townhome owners reported that they
typically provide their own service an average of 2.0 services. Top self-provided services for
single family houses/duplexes include building maintenance (64 percent), housekeeping/
cleaning (61 percent), lawn/landscape maintenance (57 percent), and snow removal (51
percent). Condominium/townhome owners reported as their top self-provided services
P67
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 60
housekeeping/cleaning (72 percent) and systems/appliances repair (45 percent). Single family
house and duplex owners estimated they spend an average of 221 hours a year on housework
(median 150 hours), while condominium and townhome owners reported an average of 100
hours (median 50 hours), each inclusive of households not providing any self-service.
Figure 34
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Self/Household Members
(Base: Respondents/Household Members Who Engage in Home Maintenance/Upkeep)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P68
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 61
Additional services obtained in your home: Respondents were asked to further identify any
other services they obtain in the home, and specify whether the associated service providers are
obtained locally or travel with their household.
Single family/duplex owners are much more likely to obtain such services locally (27 percent in
aggregate) than to have providers travel with their household (5 percent in aggregate). The
most prevalent type of locally obtained service is chef/kitchen help/catering (used by 18 percent
of respondents), followed by pet sitter (7 percent), child care provider/nanny (6 percent), and
personal trainer (6 percent). The most prevalent type of service delivered by persons traveling
with the household is childcare/nanny (3 percent), followed by chef (1 percent) and driver/pilot
(1 percent).
As shown in in Figure 36 on the following page, 15 percent of condominium/townhome owners
obtain personal services locally and 1 percent have providers who travel with their household.
The most common locally-obtained services are pet sitter (5 percent), child care provider/nanny
(4 percent), and chef/kitchen help/catering (4 percent).
Among those using the respective services, the annual amount spent on the respective services
is summarized in Table 13 to follow. Among those procuring the respective services, the highest
average amount spent is for drivers/pilots.
Figure 35
Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained – Single Family/Duplex
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
73%
18%
6%
7%
6%
2%
1%
1%
1%
95%
1%
3%
0%
1%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
None of these
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Child care provider/nanny
Pet sitter
Personal trainer
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Other
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Obtained locally
Travels with my household
P69
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 62
Figure 36
Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained – Condominium/Townhome
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Table 13
Annual Expenditures on Other Services Obtained in the Home (If Obtain Service)
Single family /
duplex
Condominium /
townhome
Annual Expenditures on Services (If Obtained) Mean Median Mean Median
Chef / kitchen help / catering $4,982 $2,000 $10,323 $2,000
Child care provider / nanny $9,772 $2,000 $5,238 $1,000
Concierge / butler $5,000 $5,000 $4,500 $4,500
Personal assistant $16,375 $7,700 $20,367 $1,000
Personal trainer $6,544 $5,000 $13,171 $3,000
Driver, pilot $49,100 $55,000 $41,733 $5,000
Pet sitter $1,695 $1,000 $869 $800
Other $3,708 $2,250 $6,600 $2,000
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Housing for employees: Six percent of single family house/duplex owners and 4 percent of
condominium/townhome owners indicated that they provide living quarters for locally hired
employees. Single family/duplex respondents provided housing for an average of 1.5 employees
(median 1.0 employee), while condominium/townhome respondents housed an average of 3.8
employees (median 2.0 employees).
85%
5%
4%
4%
3%
3%
1%
1%
1%
99%
1%
1%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
None of these
Pet sitter
Child care provider/nanny
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Other
Personal trainer
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Personal assistant
Percent of Respondents
Obtained locally
Travels with my household
P70
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 63
Housing for employees traveling with the household were slightly less prevalent at 4 percent of
single family/duplex respondents and 3 percent of condominium/townhome respondents. The
average number of employees housed was 1.1 employees for single family/duplex owners
(median 1.0) and 1.2 employees for condominium/townhome owners (median 1.0).
Figure 37
Housing Provided for Employees
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
6%
94%
63%
31%
6%
4%
96%
90%
10%
4%
96%
36%
27%
36%
3%
97%
80%
20%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Yes
No
1
2
3 or more
Yes
No
1
2
Percent of Respondents
Single family / duplex
Condominium or townhome
DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING
QUARTERS FOR
EMPLOYEES HIRED
LOCALLY?
(If provide housing) HOW
MANY DO YOU PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR?
DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING
QUARTERS FOR EMPLOYEES
BROUGHT WITH YOU?
(If provide housing) HOW
MANY DO YOU PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR?
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 1.5 employees
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOME
Average: 3.8 employees
SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX
Average: 1.1 employees
CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOME
Average: 1.2 employees
P71
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 64
Appendix B: Homeowner Survey Results – by Occupancy
This section of the report summarizes the results of the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey by occupancy
status, i.e. units occupied by the owner at least 40 weeks per year vs. all other occupancies (i.e. owner
occupancy less than 40 weeks per year, e.g. second homes, short- and long-term rentals, etc.). Results
are limited to free-market units only.
Respondent Housing Characteristics
Following is a summary of key characteristics of Aspen housing units owned by respondents, particularly
the physical characteristics of the units. Results are also illustrated in Figure 38 through Figure 48 to
follow.
Unit type: Most owner-occupant respondents live in single family/duplex units (66 percent),
with 31 percent living in condominiums/townhomes and 3 percent living in other unit types. By
contrast, other occupancy groups are less likely to own a single family/duplex unit (32 percent),
and more likely to own a condominium/townhouse unit (66 percent), with 2 percent owning
other unit types.
Property location: The top location for owner-occupied units was the West End (26 percent),
followed by East of Aspen (21 percent) and Cemetery Lane (21 percent). The leading location
for non-local respondents was downtown (43 percent), followed by the West End (18 percent)
and East of Aspen (14 percent).
Number of bedrooms: Owner-occupied residences had an average of 3.1 bedrooms. Most of
these respondents reported having three bedrooms (29 percent) or four bedrooms (25 percent),
while 15 percent have 0 – 1 bedrooms, 17 percent have two bedrooms, and 14 percent have
five or more bedrooms. Respondents reporting other occupancies had an average of 2.9
bedrooms. The largest share have two bedrooms (28 percent) or three bedrooms (29 percent).
Smaller shares reported having 0 – 1 bedrooms (15 percent), 4 bedrooms (15 percent), or five or
more bedrooms (14 percent).
Presence and use of accessory units/homes located on property: Twelve percent of owner-
occupants and 6 percent of other homeowners said that there was one or more separate,
accessory units located on their property.
Among owner-occupied units with accessory units, most reported the presence of one (73
percent) or two (23 percent) accessory units (average 1.4 units). Similarly, 65 percent of
respondents in other occupancy groups with accessory units reported having one accessory unit,
while 23 percent have two units and 12 percent have three or more, with an average of 1.7
accessory units.
The most common uses of accessory units for owner-occupied homes include renting long-term
to local residents (40 percent) and use by household/family members (30 percent). More
modest shares reported use by visiting guests of the owner/household (20 percent), caretaker
residence (7 percent), renting short-term to visitors (7 percent), and unit left vacant/unused (7
P72
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 65
percent). Among respondents reporting all other occupancies, the largest shares indicated that
the units were rented to long-term local residents (39 percent) or used by visiting guests of the
owner/household (35 percent). Less common uses include caretaker residence (26 percent),
household/family member use (19 percent), and short-term rentals to visitors (10 percent).
Finished, unfinished, and total living space (including accessory residences, if applicable):
Inhabitants of owner-occupied residences reported an average of 2,439 finished square feet in
their home (median 2,250 square feet) and an average of 27 unfinished square feet.
Respondents living in units with all other occupancy types reported an average of 2,222 finished
square feet (median 1,400 square feet) and an average of 36 unfinished square feet. These
figures include square footage in the primary residence plus any accessory residences on the
property, if applicable. In aggregate, owner-occupants tend to have more total space (average
2,468 square feet, median 2,200 square feet) than units with other occupancies (average 2,244
square feet, median 1,425 square feet). In particular, owner-occupants were more likely to have
residences of 2000-4999 sqft than other occupancy groups (51 percent vs. 29 percent).
Conversely, non-owner-occupants were more likely than owner occupants to have small units
under 1,500 sqft (51 percent vs. 34 percent, consistent with their greater ownership of
condominium/townhome units), as well as large units in excess of 5,000 sqft (11 percent vs. 6
percent).
Garage space: Fifty-two percent of owner-occupied units and 44 percent of units with other
occupancies have a garage or access to a common garage. Among owner-occupied units with
garages, units had on average 1.7 stalls, with a majority of respondents reporting the presence
of one (32 percent) or two (64 percent) parking stalls. Most units with other occupancies
similarly had one (31 percent) or two (61 percent) parking stalls, with an average of 1.8 stalls.
Basement space: Basements were less common than garages—25 percent of owner-occupied
units have a basement, either finished or unfinished, and 16 percent of other occupancy units
do as well. Owner-occupants with basements reported an average basement size of 820 square
feet with a median of 625 square feet. Among units with other types of occupancies, the
average basement size was 1,051 square feet (median 950 square feet).
Lot size: Among local owners, 35 percent identified their property as a small residential lot (up
to 6,000 square feet); 23 percent identified it as medium (6,000 – 15,000 square feet); and 11
percent identified it as large (more than 15,000 square feet), while 30 percent had a
condo/townhome (lot size not asked/often not applicable). Approximately 17 percent of
respondents in other occupancy households reported having a small lot, while 13 percent have a
medium lot and 6 percent have a large lot, and 64 percent own a condo/townhome.
Year residence was built: Respondents reported a wide range of years that their home was
built. The largest shares of respondents indicated that their residence was built during the
1960s (24 percent owner-occupied, 24 percent other occupancies) or 1970s (34 percent owner-
occupied, 31 percent other occupancies). Consistent with the high shares of respondents
reporting their house was built during these decades, the average year of building for owner-
occupied residences was 1968 and the average year for other occupancy residences was 1975.
P73
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 66
Year residence was purchased: Units with “other” occupancies were generally purchased
somewhat more recently than owner-occupied units, with 53 percent and 42 percent
respectively buying their residence between 2000 and today. Conversely, owner-occupants
were somewhat more likely to have bought their unit in the 1970s, 80s or 90s (54 percent vs. 42
percent of non-owner-occupants). The largest shares of owners for both occupancy types
bought their residence in the 2000 – 2009 decade (29 percent of owner-occupied units, 34
percent of other occupancy units). The average year of purchase for owner-occupied residences
was 1997 (median 1997) and the average year of purchase for residences with other occupancy
styles was 1996 (albeit a slightly more recent median of 2001).
Value of residence: Respondents who are owner-occupants reported an average residence
value of $2,682,432 and a median of $2,000,000, with more than half valuing their homes at
$2,000,000 or more (57 percent). Respondents who do not live in their homes full-time
reported a generally similar average value of $2,631,210 and a lower median of $1,505,000.
Among these respondents, 45 percent valued their home at $2,000,000 or more.
Recent remodels/renovations: Thirty percent of owner-occupied residences and 36 percent of
units with other occupancies have been remodeled recently. Among owner-occupants who
have renovated recently, about half (47 percent) renovated in 2010-14, and 50 percent
renovated in 2000-09. The average remodeling expenses for owner-occupied units was
$364,367, with a median of $100,000. Among owners of residences with other occupancies, 61
percent reported that their renovations occurred between 2010 and 2014, with an average cost
of $271,036 and a median of $125,000.
Planned future remodels/renovations: Eight percent of owner-occupants and 10 percent of
other owners expressed an intent to remodel soon. Among owner-occupants planning to
remodel, all anticipated doing so in 2014 – 2016, and the average anticipated cost was $207,222
(median $40,000). Among other occupancy groups, 96 percent intended to remodel in 2014-
2016, with an average anticipated cost of $251,154 (median $100,000).
P74
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 67
Figure 38
Unit Type
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Figure 39
Residence Location
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
51%
13%
18%
15%
2%
1%
0%
0%
24%
36%
30%
9%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
Single-family house
Condominium of townhome
(21 or more units in complex)
Condominium or townhome
(20 or fewer units in complex)
Duplex
Mobile/modular home
Other
Triplex
Timeshare/fractional unit
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year
All other occupancies
P75
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 68
Figure 40
Number of Bedrooms
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P76
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 69
Figure 41
Accessory Units
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P77
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 70
Figure 42
Finished and Unfinished Heated Space (in square feet)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
2%
16%
15%
9%
23%
19%
9%
6%
94%
3%
2%
4%
23%
23%
9%
13%
9%
6%
11%
94%
3%
3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
1 - 499 sqft
500 - 999 sqft
1000 - 1499 sqft
1500 - 1999 sqft
2000 - 2999 sqft
3000 - 3999 sqft
4000 - 4999 sqft
5000+ sqft
0 sqft
Under 500 sqft
500+ sqft
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year
All other occupancies
HEATED,FINISHED
SQUARE FEET
HEATED, UNFINISHED
SQUARE FEET
OWNER-OCCUPIED
Average: 2,439 sqft; Median: 2,250 sqft
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 2,222 sqft; Median: 1,400 sqft
OWNER-OCCUPIED
Average: 27 sqft; Median: 0 sqft
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 36 sqft; Median: 0 sqft
P78
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 71
Figure 43
Total Heated Space (in square feet)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P79
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 72
Figure 44
Garage/Basement Size
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P80
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 73
Figure 45
Lot Size and Year Built/Purchased
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P81
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 74
Figure 46
Value of Residence
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P82
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 75
Figure 47
Remodeling Plans, and Details of Recent Past Remodel
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
P83
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 76
Figure 48
Future Remodeling Plans
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates
Unit Usage Characteristics
Table 14 to follow illustrates the average number of weeks homes are used for a variety of purposes
across a 52-week year, both overall and segmented by occupancy type. It should be understood that
the data on “average weeks of use” reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a
single use type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of
4.1 weeks of occupancy across all respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term
rentals at all. With this understanding in mind, key findings by occupancy type include the following:
P84
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 77
Owner-occupied residences: Among respondents in owner-occupied residences, homes are
occupied as the primary residence of the owner an average of 98 percent of the year (51.0
weeks), and are vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 2 percent of the time (0.9 week),
with an additional average of 0.1 week of use as a vacation rental.
Other occupancies: Among respondents in residences with other occupancy types, on average
the residence is occupied as the primary residence of the owner 7 percent of the time (3.7
weeks) and is vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 44 percent of the year (22.7 weeks).
Respondents reported that their units are also commonly used (or available for use) as a
vacation rental (21 percent of the year), used as a vacation home for themselves or for their
guests (15 percent), or rented long-term to a local resident (12 percent).
Table 14
Average Annual Weeks of Use of Home24
OCCUPANCY TYPE
OVERALL - ALL
RESPONDENTS
Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/year Other occupancies
Type of Use # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks
Primary residence for owner 20.0 39% 51.0 98% 3.7 7%
Vacation home for owner or guests of owner 5.1 10% 0.0 0% 7.7 15%
Vacation rental - weeks actually occupied by visitors 3.9 7% 0.1 0% 5.9 11%
Vacation rental - weeks avail. for rent, but not occupied 3.4 7% 0.0 0% 5.2 10%
Rented long term to local resident 4.1 8% 0.0 0% 6.2 12%
Business/corporate function 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0%
Other use 0.3 1% 0.0 0% 0.5 1%
Vacant - not occupied (and not avail. for vacation rental) 15.2 29% 0.9 2% 22.7 44%
TOTAL WEEKS 52.0 100% 52.0 100% 52.0 100%
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
24 To clarify, the data on “average weeks of use” reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single u se
type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of occupancy across all
respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all.
P85
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 78
Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics
Following is a summary of selected demographic characteristics of the households of respondents to the
survey.
Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence? Almost all respondents in
owner-occupied households indicated that they themselves (99 percent) occupy their unit while
they are in residence, while 88 percent of respondents in other occupancy units reported this as
well. Other common occupants in owner-occupied units include a spouse/partner (60 percent)
and children (33 percent), followed by relatives/other family (11 percent), and friends (10
percent). Respondents in non-owner-occupied units also said their occupants frequently include
a spouse/partner (72 percent), as well as children (54 percent), friends (45 percent), and
relatives/other family (38 percent). Marginal shares of both occupancy types said they share
their unit with housemates who rent rooms (3 percent of respondents in owner-occupied units
and 1 percent of respondents in other occupancy units) or business associates (2 percent and 5
percent). Eight percent of other occupancy homes are not used for personal purposes.
Total persons who live/stay in your home while you are in residence: Owner-occupants said an
average of 2.3 persons (including themselves) typically stay in their home when they are there.
Other occupancy groups report a larger average of 3.8 persons in their unit while they are in
residence.
Total persons under age 18 in the home: Twenty-nine percent of respondents living in owner-
occupied units and 45 percent of respondents living in units with other occupancies indicated
that children under age 18 typically live/stay in their home. Respondents in owner-occupied
residences reported an average of 0.6 children under 18 in their homes, while respondents in
other units reported an average of 1.2 children.
Total persons who are retired: Forty-two percent of respondents in owner-occupied residences
and 58 percent of respondents in other occupancy residences reported that one or more
retirees reside in their home. An average of 0.6 retirees live in owner-occupied units and an
average of 1.1 retirees live in other units.
Total persons who work in Aspen: Over half (55 percent) of respondents in owner-occupied
residences indicated that one or more Aspen workers live in their household (average 0.9
persons). Only 7 percent of owners who do not primarily occupy their homes reported the
presence of Aspen employees in their unit (average 0.1 persons).
Total persons who work in the Roaring Fork Valley: Sixty-nine percent of owner-occupied units
and 9 percent of units with other occupancies house one or more residents who work within the
Roaring Fork Valley (average 1.1 persons in owner-occupied units and 0.1 persons in other
units).
Total persons who work outside the Roaring Fork Valley: Eleven percent of residents in owner-
occupied homes and 39 percent of residents in homes with other occupancy types indicated
P86
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 79
that one or more people in their household is employed outside the Roaring Fork Valley, with an
average of 0.2 persons in owner-occupied units and 1.2 persons in other units.
Number of hours worked by residents employed in Roaring Fork Valley: Owners who primarily
occupy their residence reported an average of 1,903 hours worked per year by members of their
household who are employed in the Roaring Fork Valley (data includes households with no one
employed in the valley). Owners who do not primarily occupy their residence reported an
average of 349 hours worked per year by household members employed in the Roaring Fork
Valley (including households with no employees in the valley).
Among households with at least one Roaring Fork Valley worker, the average aggregate number
of hours worked in the Roaring Fork Valley per year by household members was somewhat
higher among owner-occupied households (average 2,997 hours) than households with other
occupancies (average 2,282 hours).
Figure 49
Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence?
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P87
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 80
Figure 50
Number of Persons in Household – Total and by Age
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P88
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 81
Figure 51
Number of Persons in Household – by Employment Characteristics
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P89
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 82
Figure 52
Aggregate Number of Hours Worked by Household Members in Roaring Fork Valley
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P90
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 83
Intended Future Use of Unit
How do you expect to be using your Aspen home five years from now? A large majority of
owners who are the primary occupants of their units (85 percent) expect to continue to use
their unit as their primary residence in five years’ time. Significantly smaller shares expect to
use their home as a retirement residence (10 percent), sell it (8 percent), use it as a vacation
rental for visitors (4 percent), rent it long-term to a local resident (3 percent), or use it as a
vacation home for the owners/guests (2 percent).
Non-owner-occupants most commonly expressed plans to use the unit as a vacation home for
themselves/guests (67 percent). Other expected uses for the unit in five years’ time include
using it as a vacation rental to visitors (22 percent), using it as a primary residence for the owner
(16 percent), using it as a retirement residence (9 percent), selling it (8 percent), or renting it
long term to a local resident (7 percent).
Changes in personal/friend/family use over the next five years: A majority of respondents in
owner-occupied residences (79 percent) expected their use of the unit to stay the same over the
next five years. Six percent indicated that their use would increase, while 7 percent expect it to
decrease.
Respondents in units with other occupancies were considerably more likely to anticipate that
their usage of the home would increase (41 percent), while an additional 45 percent believed
their use would stay the same. Only 3 percent felt their use would decrease.
P91
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 84
Figure 53
Intended Future Use of Unit
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P92
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 85
Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep
Following is a summary of data pertaining to selected aspects of home operations and upkeep, including
the types of service providers used by respondents and the services and homeowner expenditures
associated with each type of provider.
Providers used for home operations and upkeep: Almost all respondents in owner-occupied
households report that housework is taken care of by themselves or by family members (90
percent). Additionally, roughly three-quarters hire contractors/employees/specialty services (74
percent), while 45 percent belong to a homeowners association, and small shares hire a
property management company (14 percent) or an on-site caretaker (4 percent). Owners in
units with other occupancy types mainly take care of work through homeowners associations
(73 percent), contractors/employees/specialty services (67 percent), doing it themselves (62
percent), or hiring a property management company (59 percent). An additional 13 percent
indicated that they hire an on-site caretaker.
Figure 54
Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P93
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 86
Services delivered by respective providers: Figure 55 and Figure 56 to follow illustrate the
services delivered by home service providers (in instances when the respondent uses the
provider), for owner-occupied and other occupancy residences respectively.
Among inhabitants of owner-occupied units, property management companies hired by the
household are identified as providing the most types of services (average 4.1 services, among
those using these companies), followed by contractors/employees/specialty services (average
4.0 services), HOAs (average 3.8 services), and on-site caretakers (average 3.8 services). As is
illustrated in the graph, different types of service providers tend to deliver different mixes of
services. For example, HOAs are particularly likely to provide owner-occupied unit owners with
trash removal; property management companies are comparatively likely to provide building
maintenance and private swimming pool/hot tub maintenance; on-site caretakers are
comparatively likely to provide snow removal, lawn/landscape maintenance, and
housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees are especially likely to be hired for
systems/appliance repair and security services.
Among owners with other residence occupancies, HOAs are reported to provide the most types
of services (average 5.5 services provided, among those using HOAs), followed by property
management companies (average 4.7 services), contractors/employees/specialty services
(average 3.7 services), and on-site caretakers (average 3.2 services). Similar to owner-occupied
homes, the services provided vary by provider type. HOAs are comparatively likely to provide
snow removal, trash removal, lawn/landscape maintenance, building maintenance, and
operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies most often
provide rental management and housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees/specialty
services are comparatively likely to be hired for systems/appliances repair.
P94
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 87
Figure 55
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers – Owner-Occupied
(Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P95
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 88
Figure 56
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers – Other Occupancies
(Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
P96
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 89
Annual expenditures on home service providers: Respondents were asked to estimate how
much they spend annually on each of respective home service providers that they use. As
illustrated in Table 15 below, average annual provider costs are higher for residences with non-
owner occupancies than those mainly occupied by owners.
For owner-occupied residences, among those using HOAs, the average annual expenditure is
$4,662 (median $4,000). The average annual expenditure for property management companies
is $4,702 (median $3,044), the average annual expenditure for on-site caretakers is $8,800
(median $2,000), and the average annual expenditure for other contractors/employees is
$7,941 (median $4,000).
For owners with other occupancy situations, the average annual expenditure for HOAs is
$10,191 (median $8,000), the average annual expenditure for property management companies
is $11,397 (median $6,350), the average annual expenditure for on-site caretakers is $22,464
(median $5,000), and the average annual expenditure for other contractors/employees is
$9,298 (median $3,000).
Table 15
Annual Expenditures on Home Service Providers (If Use Provider)
Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/year Other occupancies
Annual Expenditures on Provider (If Use Provider) Mean Median Mean Median
Amount spent on HOA $4,662 $4,000 $10,191 $8,000
Amount spent on property management company $4,702 $3,044 $11,397 $6,350
Amount spent on on-site caretaker $8,800 $2,000 $22,464 $5,000
Amount spent on other contractors/employees $7,941 $4,000 $9,298 $3,000
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Caretaker housing: Among owner-occupied residences with on-site caretakers, 33 percent
provide free housing as part of their compensation, 67 percent offer discounted housing, and 0
percent do not provide housing assistance as part of compensation. Among residences with
other occupancies, 30 percent provide free housing to on-site caretakers, 50 percent provide
discounted housing and 20 percent don’t provide housing assistance.
Home maintenance and upkeep services delivered by self/household members: Owners who
primarily occupy their residences indicated that they provide their own service for an average of
3.5 types of tasks. Owners who are not the primary occupants reported that they provide their
own service for an average of 2.4 tasks. Top self-provided services for owner-occupied units
include housekeeping/cleaning (72 percent), building maintenance (56 percent), lawn/landscape
maintenance (49 percent), and systems/appliance repair (45 percent). Respondents in units
with other occupancies identified housekeeping/cleaning (63 percent) as their top self-provided
service. Local owners estimated they spend an average of 230 hours on average per year on
home tasks (median 178 hours), while other owners reported an average of 47 hours (median
10 hours), each inclusive of owners not providing any self-service.
P97
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 90
Figure 57
Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Self/Household Members
(Base: Respondents/Household Members Who Engage in Home Maintenance/Upkeep)
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
72%
56%
49%
45%
38%
27%
24%
18%
9%
8%
3%
14%
9%
7%
21%
21%
7%
10%
11%
63%
29%
15%
35%
14%
29%
34%
13%
4%
1%
1%
47%
23%
9%
13%
5%
2%
1%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Housekeeping/cleaning
Building maintenance (interior and/or
exterior)
Lawn/landscape maintenance
Systems/appliances repair (e.g.,
heating, plumbing, appliances)
Snow removal
Security service
Rental management
Trash removal
Private swimming pool/Jacuzzi/hot tub
maintenance
Operation and maintenance of
community amenities
Other
0 hr
1 - 49 hr
50 - 99 hr
100 - 199 hr
200 - 299 hr
300 - 399 hr
400 - 499 hr
500+ hr
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year
All other occupancies
OWNER-OCCUPIED
Average: 230 hr;
Median: 178 hr
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 47 hr;
Median: 10 hr
SERVICES PROVIDED BY
SELF/HOUSEHOLD
MEMBERS (if provide at
least 1 service)
ANNUAL HOURS SPENT ON
HOME TASKS (all
respondents)
P98
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 91
Additional services obtained in your home: Respondents were asked to further identify any
other services they obtain in the home, and specify whether the associated service providers are
obtained locally or travel with their household. The most prevalent of these services used by
respondents in owner-occupied residences is a pet sitter (used by 10 percent of respondents),
followed by chef/kitchen help/catering (7 percent), personal trainer (5 percent), and child care
provider/nanny (5 percent). Respondents in owner-occupied households are significantly more
likely to obtain these services locally (20 percent in aggregate) than to have providers travel with
their household (0 percent in aggregate).
Depicted in Figure 59 to follow, respondents in units with other occupancy types most
frequently utilize a chef/kitchen help/catering (12 percent), child care provider/nanny (7
percent), pet sitter (4 percent), and personal trainer (4 percent). Like owner-occupants, other
owners are more likely to obtain services locally (20 percent in aggregate) than to have the
providers travel with their household (4 percent in aggregate).
Among those using the respective services, the annual amount spent on the respective services
is summarized in Table 16 to follow.
Figure 58
Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained – Owner-Occupied
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
80%
10%
7%
5%
5%
2%
1%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
None of these
Pet sitter
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Personal trainer
Child care provider/nanny
Other
Personal assistant
Driver, pilot
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Obtained locally
Travels with my household
P99
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 92
Figure 59
Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained – Other Occupancies
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Table 16
Annual Expenditures on Other Services Obtained in the Home (If Obtain Service)
Owner-occupied
40+ weeks/year Other occupancies
Annual Expenditures on Services (If Obtained) Mean Median Mean Median
Chef / kitchen help / catering $1,893 $2,000 $7,257 $3,000
Child care provider / nanny $9,208 $2,550 $6,237 $1,000
Concierge / butler n/a n/a $4,750 $4,750
Personal assistant $7,700 $7,700 $22,240 $1,000
Personal trainer $9,450 $8,000 $7,700 $2,500
Driver, pilot n/a n/a $46,338 $32,500
Pet sitter $1,387 $1,000 $1,209 $400
Other $11,860 $2,400 $3,097 $2,000
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
Housing for employees: Four percent of respondents in owner-occupied households and five
percent of respondents in households with other occupancies reported that they provide
housing for locally hired employees. Among those providing employee housing, owner-
occupied residences provided housing for an average of 1.6 employees, while other owners
housed an average of 2.6 employees.
80%
12%
5%
4%
4%
3%
2%
2%
1%
96%
1%
2%
1%
0%
0%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
None of these
Chef/kitchen help/catering
Child care provider/nanny
Pet sitter
Personal trainer
Other
Driver, pilot
Personal assistant
Concierge/butler
Percent of Respondents
Obtained locally
Travels with my household
P100
I.
Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015
RRC Associates 93
None of the owner-occupied households reported housing employees that travel with the
household. For respondents in residences with other occupancies, 5 percent provided housing
traveling employees, with an average of 1.1 employees housed.
Figure 60
Housing Provided for Employees
Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates.
4%
96%
75%
13%
13%
0%
100%
0%
0%
5%
95%
48%
33%
19%
5%
95%
88%
13%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Yes
No
1
2
3 or more
Yes
No
1
2
Percent of Respondents
Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year
All other occupancies
DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING
QUARTERS FOR
EMPLOYEES HIRED
LOCALLY?
(If provide housing) HOW
MANY DO YOU PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR?
DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING
QUARTERS FOR EMPLOYEES
BROUGHT WITH YOU?
(If provide housing) HOW
MANY DO YOU PROVIDE
HOUSING FOR?
OWNER-OCCUPIED
Average: 1.6 employees
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 2.6 employees
OTHER OCCUPANCIES
Average: 1.1 employees
P101
I.
City of Aspen Real Estate Transfer Tax Analysis
March 24, 2015
Andrew Ernemann, Broker Associate
ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL REALTY
415 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
970.379.8125
andrew@aspenupdate.com
www.AspenUpdate.com
Background Information
The purpose of this analysis is to explore what the average Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT)
contribution is to affordable housing mitigation over the lifespan of a house/condo/townhome (i.e.
homes) in the City of Aspen. Every time a property sells in the City limits a 1.0% transfer tax is
imposed on the sale and that transfer tax is allocated toward an affordable housing fund (note that
the first $100,000.00 of the sale price is excluded from the 1.0% transfer tax).
For the purposes of ascertaining an appropriate measurement of the RETT contribution over the
lifespan of a property it is assumed the average lifespan of all homes is 40 years. Although many
homes are constructed to last longer than 40 years the nature of the Aspen market often lends itself
to houses being demolished and replaced in shorter timeframes, the condo stock is more likely to
last longer due to the ownership structure of condo buildings.
The methodology used for the analysis was as follows:
1. Download the number of sales per year over the past nine years from the Aspen/Glenwood
Multiple Listing Service (AGSMLS) and segment the sales by property type. It should be
noted the field “Transfer Tax” was used to delineate sales within City of Aspen limits so
there is some possibility for data mis-entry when pulling information from the AGSMLS.
The data chart goes back to the year 2005 and it was clear there was incomplete data for that
year in the AGSMLS so 2006 data is the first year used for the purposes of this analysis.
2. The County Assessor provided information about the total housing inventory within the
City limits for each of the years analyzed. The number of sales for each property type in a
particular year was divided into the total housing inventory for each property that year and
the result was a snapshot of how long the average “hold period” was forecasted to be based
on each year’s information. The 2006 through 2014 study period represents a strong real
estate upcycle (2006-2008 – although the number of sales was declining during that time),
subsequent severe drop in sales activity (2009) and then a steady buildup (2009-2014).
3. The average hold period for single family and for condo/townhomes was then calculated
over the 2006-2014 timeframe. Interestingly the average hold time was approximately 28
years for both property types. While 28 years may seem to be longer than the timeframe one
might expect for the average hold time in Aspen it’s hard to know if perhaps the AGSMLS
data is incomplete or if the mix of properties held for 40-50+ years weighted the hold time
to a longer duration than one might expect.
4. The total sales dollar volume for each property type and year during the analysis timeframe
was then calculated from the AGSMLS. The total RETT was calculated based on the sales
dollar volume information and an average RETT per transaction was then established.
5. The total number of square feet for each property type in a given year to sell was also
downloaded from the AGSMLS, and the square feet figures were used to establish what the
Exhibit B
P102
I.
City of Aspen Real Estate Transfer Tax Analysis
March 24, 2015
Andrew Ernemann, Broker Associate
ASPEN SNOWMASS SOTHEBY’S INTERNATIONAL REALTY
415 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611
970.379.8125
andrew@aspenupdate.com
www.AspenUpdate.com
average RETT per square foot was for each property type. A blended average RETT of
$11.03 per square foot was calculated for the study period.
6. Next the lifespan RETT contribution per square foot was calculated by dividing the average
hold period of 28 years into the 40 year lifespan assumed for this study, and finally
multiplied by the $11.03 per square foot blended average.
7. An FAR adjustment factor of 60% was divided into the $15.76 average lifespan RETT per
square foot resulting in the final RETT per square foot number of $26.26 to be used final
RETT contribution purposes. Note that the FAR adjustment factor is based on a prior study
performed by RRC.
8. The typical structure size used in historic City studies has been 3,000 square feet. For
consistency this number was used to determine a total RETT contribution of $78,775 over
the 40 year life of a typical Aspen structure.
9. The number of employees mitigated during the typical lifespan of an Aspen home
was calculated to be 0.33 employees (based on the midpoint of the current Category 2
and 3 mitigation rates).
It should be noted that although it was necessary to make certain assumptions through the process, the final calculation
would change only modestly with adjustments to most of the assumptions.
P103
I.
Aspen MLS Data
Notes:Duplex is counted in Condo/Townhouse data (approx. 8-15 sales per year)
This data captures only MLS sales - I'm guessing there's an additional 3-5% that takes place outside the MLS
I used the field "transfer tax" in the MLS to segregate only City of Aspen sales (there are probably some sales left out and others added in by human error)
2005 seems to be very incomplete (it's probably that the transfer tax field wasn't implemented after 2005)
Number of Sales
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Average
Single Family 3 50 50 41 36 39 38 46 37 44 42
Condo/Townhouse 4 162 169 83 69 83 102 122 130 118 115
Grand Total 7 212 219 124 105 122 140 168 167 162 158
SFH Inventory 1136 1170 1173 1166 1171 1170 1177 1165 1182 1168
# yrs hold 22.7 23.4 28.6 32.4 30.0 30.8 25.6 31.5 26.9 28.0
Condo/Duplex Inventory 2747 2781 2824 2894 2910 3216 2936 2925 2927 2907
# yrs hold 17.0 16.5 34.0 41.9 35.1 31.5 24.1 22.5 24.8 27.5
Sales Dollar Volume
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single Family $7,100,000 $243,732,500 $300,857,000 $271,381,476 $204,267,711 $175,539,000 $230,849,500 $227,728,307 $166,849,300 $254,127,500
1.0% RETT $2,437,325 $3,008,570 $2,713,815 $2,042,677 $1,755,390 $2,308,495 $2,277,283 $1,668,493 $2,541,275
Adjust for $100K $2,387,325 $2,958,570 $2,672,815 $2,006,677 $1,716,390 $2,270,495 $2,231,283 $1,631,493 $2,497,275
Average RETT per Transaction $47,746.50 $59,171.40 $65,190.60 $55,741.03 $44,010.00 $59,749.87 $48,506.15 $44,094.41 $56,756.25 $53,441
Condo/Townhouse $3,521,000 $289,807,100 $315,535,825 $207,266,038 $142,547,126 $162,088,803 $207,254,537 $182,628,783 $228,501,563 $240,686,826
1.0% RETT $2,898,071 $3,155,358 $2,072,660 $1,425,471 $1,620,888 $2,072,545 $1,826,288 $2,285,016 $2,406,868
Adjust for $100K $2,736,071 $2,986,358 $1,989,660 $1,356,471 $1,537,888 $1,970,545 $1,704,288 $2,155,016 $2,288,868
Average RETT per Transaction $16,889.33 $17,670.76 $23,971.81 $19,659.00 $18,528.77 $19,319.07 $13,969.57 $16,577.04 $19,397.19 $18,443
Total Sq Ft
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Single Family 5,416 215,325 239,958 207,292 178,880 170,700 199,885 219,965 151,546 220,092
Condo/Townhouse 3,709 244,851 250,360 145,965 129,484 156,146 195,744 189,353 222,512 196,834
Grand Total 9,125 460,176 490,318 353,257 308,364 326,846 395,629 409,318 374,058 416,926
AVG SFH RETT $11.09 $12.33 $12.89 $11.22 $10.06 $11.36 $10.14 $10.77 $11.35 $11.24
AVG Condo RETT $11.17 $11.93 $13.63 $10.48 $9.85 $10.07 $9.00 $9.68 $11.63 $10.83
Blended AVG RETT $11.13 $12.12 $13.20 $10.91 $9.96 $10.72 $9.61 $10.12 $11.48 $11.03
Blended AVG RETT $11.03
Lifespan multiplier 1.43
Lifespan AVG RETT $15.76
FAR Adjustment (60%)$26.26
Typical structure size 3000
Total RETT contribution $78,775
Mid Cat 2/3 Mitig. Rate $239,914
# of Employees Mitig.0.33
P104
I.
Review of Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study Dated March 4, 2015 Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: APCHA Board of Directors
THRU: Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
Cindy Christensen, Operations Manager
DATE: March 27, 2015
RE: REVIEW OF ASPEN RESIDENTIAL EMPLOYMENT GENERATION STUDY
DATED MARCH 4, 2015
ISSUE: Mitigation fees are necessary to insure that all new employee generation development
contributes its fair share to the housing of local residents. This creates a reduction of commuter
traffic, creates a social investment within the community, and maintains vitality within our
community. The Employee Generation Study was requested to provide an accurate employee
housing impact fee that is necessary to satisfy the impacts of any type of residential development.
This request is to provide comments on the study relating to employee generation for the
development and redevelopment of single-family homes and duplexes.
BACKGROUND: The Community Development Department requested and received a study to
come up with a verifiable number to require employee housing mitigation for single-family homes
and duplexes. The bottom line of the report shows that for 3,000 square feet of floor area for
single-family/duplex homes, 0.445 FTE’s are created; for condominiums, 0.577 are created (page
34). The report also shows that the larger the home, the more employees are created.
Section 2.470.060 of the Land Use Code requires the provision of affordable housing development
of free-market single-family homes and duplex units. You will find attached to this memo Section
26.470.060 of the Aspen Land Use Code. The Aspen/Pitkin County Affordable Housing
Guidelines require the mitigation for this type of development in the form of a fee-in-lieu as
follows:
Payment-In-Lieu Fee: Category 1 $295,077
Category 2 $246,881
Category 3 $232,946
Category 4 $144,393
The fee required for the construction of an exempt single-family home or duplex unit
shall be calculated as follows:
P105
I.
Review of Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study Dated March 4, 2015 Page 2
Average of the Category 2 and Category 3 payment-in-lieu fees as specified above, divided by 3,000
square feet X the net increase in FAR of the new structure will equal the payment-in-lieu payment
for replacement structures. The formula assumes that for every 3,000 square feet of new single-
family or duplex floor area, the public will be required to provide housing for one moderate
income employee. Currently, that amount is $246,881 + $232,946 ÷÷ ÷÷ 2 = $239,914 ÷÷ ÷÷ 3,000 =
$79.97 per square foot of new structure.
When any other payment-in-lieu fee is required and the category is not specified, an
average of Category 2 and 3 will be used to calculate the amount owed.
After reviewing the study, the Community Development Department has asked the Board to weigh
in on the following issues:
1. Do you feel that the study sufficiently covers calculating how many employees are
created by residential development? Were the right parameters used? Is the study
lacking something that should have been taken into consideration?
2. Should there be some type of credit for the utilization of the Real Estate Transfer Tax
(RETT)?
3. Should fee-in-lieu be allowed for mitigation purposes?
4. Should the Code still allow the use of providing an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) for
mitigation purposes?
5. Should there be allowed exemptions and/or waivers for specific remodels/construction?
Should there be an exemption of, say, the first 3,000 feet of proposed development/
redevelopment? Currently, an owner has the right to have the employee housing fees
waived if providing proof to APCHA of working full-time in Pitkin County.
DISCUSSION: After review of the document, APCHA has the following questions and concerns:
1. The study survey had a strong response rate of 24.9%, but there was no mention of margin
of error. What is the study survey’s total margin of error? Also, what percent confidence
level do we have in the study survey’s results? APCHA was not involved in developing the
study survey and would like to better understand its methodology and the validity and
reliability of the study survey’s results.
2. The study incorporates data as far back as 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2007. Is the data relevant to
today’s market?
3. According to the study, the following employment types were excluded from consideration:
• Public safety (e.g. police & fire)
P106
I.
Review of Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study Dated March 4, 2015 Page 3
• Construction support services (e.g. architecture, engineering, & planning)
• Services related to purchasing and financing the home
• Employment stemming from occupant purchases of retail goods and services at
commercial establishments
• Construction employment associated with residential alterations and remodels
which don’t add floor area
• Personal service for employees who travel with the household
Should all or some of the employment types listed above have been included in the
calculation to some extent?
4. Only new floor area is being taken into account. Currently, if a new owner decides to
replace a 6,000 square foot home with another 6,000 square foot home, no mitigation is
required.
5. The use of FAR in calculating the mitigation fee excludes certain areas of a home. Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) is defined as “ the total floor area of all structures on a lot divided by the
lot area .” Some of the items not included in FAR, and stated in the Land Use Code, are as
follows:
• Attic space and crawl space 5 feet 6 inches or less in height;
• Decks, balconies, loggias, gazebos, trellis, exterior stairway, and non-street-facing
porches;
• Front porches on street-facing façade(s) of a structure developed within 30 inches of
the finished ground level;
• Patios developed at or within 6 inches of finished grade;
• Garages and carports for all multi-family and mixed use buildings containing
residential units, 250 square feet of the garage or carport shall be excluded;
• Garages in the R-15B zone district containing a single-family, two single-family
residences or duplex, an exemption of 500 square feet will be allowed;
• Other zone districts, 250 square feet of garage space will be exempt; 250 to 500
square feet, 50% will be exempt. Areas above 500 square feet, no area excluded.
• Certain portion of subgrade areas will not be counted.
• Sheds, storage areas and similar accessory structures (greenhouses, similar
uninhabitable accessory structures) not within a garage will be exempt from floor
area up to a maximum exemption of 32 square feet per residence.
• Wildlife-resistant trash and recycling enclosures are exempt.
For mitigation purposes, should any type of construction be excluded when determining the
FAR to establish the fee-in-lieu?
6. The utilization of information on condominiums is a concern. The specific fee-in-lieu in
question pertains to the employee generation rate for single-family homes and duplexes.
P107
I.
Review of Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study Dated March 4, 2015 Page 4
7. What is the rationale behind a construction employee career length of 40 years? Is this an
industry standard? Specifically, the study states that it takes an estimated 3.872 construction
employee years to construct 1,000 SF of single family/duplex unit floor area. Based on the
assumption of an average construction employee career length of 40-years, it takes 0.097
permanent construction employees per 1,000 SF built.
8. Why include average construction value per SF and home valuation? How is this relevant to
the employment generation discussion? Does the methodology require it? Is this for a
different discussion?
9. Is the methodology too complicated/confusing? Is it sound?
RECOMMENDATION: The APCHA Board recommends or would like further clarification on
the following:
• The study appears to underestimate the number of actual employees generated by residential
development. Are the results based on the study survey accurate, verifiable and reliable?
• Is tying FAR to employee mitigation appropriate?
• APCHA Board and staff strongly recommend against any type of credit relating to payment of the
Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT).
• The APCHA Board still feels that there is a need to allow for fee-in-lieu for mitigation purposes,
but only for mitigating fractional FTE’s. Fee-in-lieu should be available, but only as a last resort
and at a premium. This should only be allowed once the fee-in-lieu is finally re-evaluated and more
in line in matching what it takes to construct a unit.
• Allowing accessory dwelling units (ADUs) has not provided the necessary mitigation that was
originally intended when the Code was approved. APCHA highly recommends this form of
mitigation be taken off the table, and that the City should create a simplified buy-out program in
order to eliminate existing ADUs.
• Regarding allowing exemptions and/or waivers for specific remodels/construction, APCHA
believes that it is the responsibility of City Council to make that decision.
o Currently, the Guidelines allow an owner the right to have the employee housing fees
waived if documentation is provided to APCHA proving current employment in Pitkin
County and the owner is utilizing the home as the primary residence. A document is
recorded on the owner’s property that at such time the owner would sell to a non-working
employee, the fee is paid and the document is released.
• The entire section on condominiums should be removed from this study in terms of mitigation. No
one builds one condo unit, they are all PUD’s.
P108
I.
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
FROM Mike Kosdrosky, APCHA Executive Director
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
DATE: March 27, 2015
MEETING DATE: March 31, 2015
RE: Fee-In-Lieu Mitigation Methodology
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks Council direction regarding calculation of in-lieu fees
for housing mitigation.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At a work session with City Council on January 6, 2014,
City Council decided to table discussion of in-lieu fees for housing mitigation until a study could
be completed on employee generation of residential development.
BACKGROUND: APCHA was directed to recommend a methodology to calculate fee-in-lieu
(FIL) mitigation rates. A city fee-in-lieu mitigation option has long been in place as one of
several available to offset the employee housing impacts that result from development or re-
development of commercial and residential property. The current city FIL rate is thought to be so
unrealistically low that it is, for all but fractional mitigation obligations, not an option the city
customarily offers.
The impact mitigation methods currently used by the City and County are distinctly different.
The County doesn’t use a FIL method at all, but instead uses a development impact fee that it
finds defensible. Neither fee is thought to generate a realistic amount of revenue to help offset
the costs incurred to produce the additional employee housing needed as a result of the additional
employees that are generated by most development. The City and County desire to use one
method for both jurisdictions and directed staff to see if one method could satisfy their respective
needs.
In 2012, RRC Associates and Reese Consulting, Inc. proposed the market affordability gap
methodology for FIL. Their report states that this method is the most commonly used approach
for calculating FIL as a means for satisfying affordable housing mitigation requirements in
Rocky Mountain communities. This memo compares the market affordability gap method to
numerous additional methods.
DISCUSSION: The task assigned to staff was not to establish a specific fee but to recommend a
realistic, understandable, flexible, defensible, and easily updated method that could be used with
confidence. A method which presents a range of fees that are empirically rational and which
allows the elected officials of each jurisdiction to determine what development to apply the
methodology against and what percentage of mitigation should be required.
P109
II.
Page 2 of 4
Methodologies considered include the following:
1) The current methodology in the APCHA Guidelines:
Fee-in-Lieu was originally based on the subsidy it required to build an affordable housing unit
minus the sales price for categories 1-4. Over the years, this calculation has changed to reflect
the annual update based on 3% or CPI, whichever was less (not construction or land costs).
Pros: Simple calculation; easy to update each year
Cons: Yearly updates are not based on land/construction costs; people do not understand the
calculation; numbers appear to be too low
2) The market affordability gap method as proposed by RRC/Rees in 2012:
Fees are calculated based on the difference between the market price of housing and the price that is
affordable for households with incomes in the targeted categories. This Market Affordability Gap
method involves a step-by-step calculation utilizing County Assessor data (sales of condominiums
and other improved residential properties) and median income figures published by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Pros: Defensible; data available annually; accounts for cost-to-build versus cost-to-buy;
APCHA can produce the annual update; currently used by numerous Rocky Mountain
communities
Cons: Yearly updates require more data manipulation and analysis; data is not simple to work
with; numbers are very large and may be unpleasant to some
3) The market affordability gap method with staff-modified parameters:
This method is the same as the market affordability gap method as proposed by RRC/Rees in
2012, except it replaces two parameters which were used by RRC and Rees Consulting. First, it
assumes an average unit size of 850 SF per two employees rather than 900 SF which was used
by RRC/Rees in 2012. The use of 850 SF per two employees is based on the standardized unit
sizes which APCHA proposes to adopt. Second, it assumes 2.0 employees per unit rather than
1.6 employees per unit used by RRC/Rees in 2012. The use of 2.0 employees per unit is based
directly on the occupancy standards currently in the APCHA Guidelines.
Pros: Defensible; data available annually; accounts for cost-to-build versus cost-to-buy;
APCHA can produce the annual update; currently used by numerous Rocky Mountain
communities
Cons: Yearly updates require more data manipulation and analysis; data is not simple to work
with; numbers are very large and may be unpleasant to some
4) A new gap methodology which separates land cost from construction cost:
P110
II.
Page 3 of 4
This methodology would use assessor’s data for the purpose of establishing land cost and would
use prevailing construction rates for the purpose of establishing construction cost. This method
would have numerous components which would require updating each year, but could
potentially help relieve some confusion about the effects of land cost on the calculation of the
fee.
Pros: Addresses land cost using assessor data; defensible
Cons: Yearly updates require more data manipulation and analysis; data is not simple to work
with; numbers are very large and may be unpleasant to some
5. Historical actual cost to develop:
This method has proven to be difficult to update because data is not readily available each year,
and APCHA cannot produce the annual update on its own and would require outside help. Often,
there is confusion about what is included in the number versus what is not included in the
number when obtaining historical cost information. Also, establishing which project data is
directly applicable or not can be very challenging when there is limited data available.
Pros: Defensible if done correctly
Cons: Data not readily available each year; very difficult to update; may take weeks of work;
requires numerous judgment calls; numbers based on very specific (small sample size of)
projects; confusion about what's included in the number
6. Estimated future development cost:
This method would entail commissioning of estimates on an annual basis, or other frequency, for
some potential future affordable housing development(s). There would be costs associated with
generating the estimates each year, or other frequency.
Pros: Actually get a construction cost number
Cons: What shall estimates be based on? Method appears unreliable, expensive, and subjective;
could be subject to inaccuracies.
7. Remove cash in lieu as an option:
Impacts of removing cash in lieu as an option would need to be discussed.
Pros: Removes the burden of mitigation from the government
Cons: Fewer options for developers
P111
II.
Page 4 of 4
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the field of alternatives be narrowed to
no more than two options for further analysis, or choose the methodology for approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
ATTACHMENTS:
P112
II.
TIA Guidelines update, 3.31.2015
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Trish Aragon, PE, City Engineer
Lynn Rumbaugh, Transportation Manager
Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Program Coordinator
RE: Work Session: Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines
WORK SESSION DATE: March 31, 2015
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this work session is to provide an update of the
City’s year-old transportation mitigation system (called the Transportation Impact Analysis, or
TIA, Guidelines). Staff requests direction from Council on some proposed updates to the
system, as well as direction on linking off-street parking requirements to the Transportation
Impact Analysis Guidelines.
PROJECT BACKGROUND: City Council approved a new system to ensure development
mitigates its transportation impacts in April 2014. City Council was interested in ensuring
fairness and consistency in the development process, particularly as it relates to transportation
impacts. The old system was unpredictable because there were no clear guidelines. This
resulted in transportation impacts being determined on an ad hoc case-by-case basis, rather than
being based on adopted standards. The new TIA Guidelines created a clear and consistent
system based on Aspen-specific trip generation data and mitigation measures specifically
tailored to the Aspen area. The system requires actual physical or programmatic improvements
related to trip impacts through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) 1 and Multi-Modal
Level of Service (MMLOS) 2 improvements.
The system is based on a set of Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, and an interactive
excel-based tool that allows an applicant to plug their net increase in units and/or square footage
and then select appropriate TDM and MMLOS mitigation measures.
1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) refers to programs or services that maximize the use of alternative
transportation, including buses, carpools, biking, walking, and carshare modes. TDM techniques include programs
such as compressed workweeks, as well as outreach and education programs. Built alternatives such as Park and
Rides, bike lanes, and bike racks that encourage alternative modes of transportation are also an important element of
TDM programs. Finally, economic incentives and disincentives are part of the TDM tool-box, including things like
parking cash-out programs where an employee trades the right to free parking at their workplace for a cash payment
from the employer.
2 Level of Service (LOS) is a measurement that determines the effectiveness of transportation infrastructure. LOS A
would refer to an area that has free-flow of traffic with almost no traffic. LOS F would refer to an area where the
flow of traffic is backed up and frequent slowing occurs. Typical Level of Service figures only takes vehicle drivers
into account. In recent years, Level of Service has expanded to include multiple modes, called Multi-Modal Level
of Service (MMLOS). MMLOS takes all mode types – auto, bicycle, transit, walking - into account.
P113
III.
TIA Guidelines update, 3.31.2015
Page 2 of 4
Since its adoption, a number of land use projects have come through the system, including the
Molly Gibson Hotel, the Sky Hotel, and the Base 1 Lodge. These projects have shown that the
system is working to make the development review process more predictable for transportation
related issues. It’s also revealed areas where the approved system can benefit from changes.
PROPOSED TIA CHANGES: Based on feedback from planners, engineers, and others in the
development community, staff has made a number of minor edits to the interactive tool. No
action is required by City Council for these changes. In addition, staff wishes to make one
clarification to the Guidelines, which will require Council action.
One of the common comments from applicants using the tool was a request to more easily create
the required narrative and project summary. The tool has been updated to automatically generate
the required narrative. The applicant is required to provide detail on why particular mitigation
measures were selected, but no longer needs to create a separate document, as it’s all contained
within the tool.
A number of changes were made to the Multi-Modal Level of Service (MMLOS) portion of the
tool to clarify what is being requested and to remove options that were repetitive. This includes
the removal of a measure that asked “Do changes to pedestrian access points preserve or enhance
the pedestrian experience.” While this is an important metric, it was redundant with the measure
that asks “Does the project propose enhanced pedestrian access points.”
In addition, staff has added a section for “Additional Proposed Improvements” to enable project
to implement mitigation measures that might be unique to a site. A number of projects have
expressed interest in purchasing a We-Cycle station and providing a permanent location for it on
their site. The original tool did not include a provision for this, so this new section provides a
way for the site to receive points toward their mitigation requirements.
Within the TIA Guidelines, staff recommends adding clarification language for which projects
are exempt. The TIA requirements are based off of a net increase in commercial and essential
public facility square footage and residential and lodge units, so projects that maintain or reduce
the existing number of units and square footage do not generate new trips. This means they are
not required to provide mitigation. Staff would like to add language to the TIA Guidelines to
further clarify this requirement, as there has been some confusion from applicant as well as city
staff administering the Guidelines. If City Council supports this clarification, staff will
return during the April 13 th regular City Council meeting to implement it.
PROPOSED OFF-STREET PARKING CHANGES: The Aspen Area Community Plan
focuses on prioritizing alternative transportation modes over the automobile, stating that “our
commitment to alternative modes of transportation helps reduce traffic congestion, improves air
quality, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, promotes public health and reduces our dependence
on non-renewable resources.” (pg 32) Staff is interested in hearing Council feedback on
integrating the transportation mitigation requirements with the City’s parking standards. One of
the goals of the TIA Guidelines is to reduce the number of vehicles in and out of town by
providing improved pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities and programs on an individual site
P114
III.
TIA Guidelines update, 3.31.2015
Page 3 of 4
basis. With the TIA Guidelines in place, staff believes it is worth exploring commensurate
decreases in off-street parking requirements.
The City’s parking code requires a minimum number of parking spaces, meaning a new
development is required to provide a base number of parking, but can optionally provide as much
parking as they would like. Staff questions if unlimited parking associated with a development
helps promote Aspen’s goals of reducing traffic, congestion, greenhouse gases, and improving
air quality. In addition, the City’s minimum standards may be “over parking” some projects,
further reducing unneeded traffic.
Staff requests direction from City Council to explore changes to the City’s parking
requirements. This would include exploring the following policies for implementation in
Aspen:
• Tie parking requirements to a project’s TIA – Allow new or existing projects to
implement an “above and beyond TIA” in exchange for reducing the required number of
parking spaces.
• Lowering parking – Reduce the number of new parking spaces required of development
projects.
• Parking maximums - Placing a cap on the number of new parking spaces that can be
added in association with development projects.
• Transferable parking between sites - This is typically used in conjunction with Parking
Maximums to allow flexibility between development sites.
• Unbundling parking with approved land uses - Allow parking to be rented or sold
separately from residential and commercial units.
• Increase areas where cash-in-lieu for parking is allowed by right - Currently
commercial development in the area inside the rivers, aka the Infill Area, can make a
cash-in-lieu payment of $30,000 a space instead of having on-site parking spaces. This
money goes to the Transportation Department for transportation improvements.
• Allow shared parking - Allow sites to share parking facilities, thereby reducing the
overall number of new parking spaces.
Many of the policies listed above have been implemented in larger communities, including
Portland, OR, Arlington County, VA, Seattle, WA, and Boulder, CO, as well as on college
campuses such as UC-Berkeley. In keeping with its reputation for being on the cutting edge of
transportation, parking and land use trends, Aspen would be one of the first small towns in the
country to move toward better integrating improved bicycle, pedestrian, and transit facilities to
reduced parking requirements.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
Changes to parking requirements and a bolstering of TDM measures will have a significant long
term impact on Aspen’s environment. Aspen was once a non-attainment air quality area, but
after the implementation of paid parking and improvements to the transit system the City was
able to dramatically improve air quality and is no longer in non-attainment.
P115
III.
pollution, improving air quality, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
In addition, the proposed parking
Sustainability Dashboard Measures, including:
Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts, Ozone L
(Energy Measure); Macro invertebrate population in R
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Staff currently requests direction from Council to conduct additional research on updating the
city’s parking requirements using exist
funds. If staff conducts the work in house, it’s anticipated to take 12
require some budget monies to complete adequate public outreach
Council supports this direction, staff would return in the fall with a more detailed scope of work
and budget request.
TIA Guidelines update, 3.31.2015
While the City has made great strides, there is more
to do when it comes to cars and their impacts on the
community, and staff believes the proposed parking
changes are the requisite next ste
community’s environmental goals .
transportation sector represents Aspen’s largest and
most challenging sector of greenhouse gas emission
reductions (See 2011 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
chart). While existing strategies like tr
programs, bike lanes and paid parking have helped,
these strategies alone are no longer adequate if the
City wants to truly make strides in reducing
pollution, improving air quality, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
parking changes support a number of City Council's Environmental
Sustainability Dashboard Measures, including: Levels of small particulate matter (PM
traffic counts, Ozone L evels ( Air Quality Measures); Mass
Macro invertebrate population in R ivers and Streams (water measure).
Staff currently requests direction from Council to conduct additional research on updating the
city’s parking requirements using exist ing staff resources, which does not require additional
If staff conducts the work in house, it’s anticipated to take 12 – 18 months
to complete adequate public outreach , as well as data collection
Council supports this direction, staff would return in the fall with a more detailed scope of work
TIA Guidelines update, 3.31.2015
Page 4 of 4
While the City has made great strides, there is more
to do when it comes to cars and their impacts on the
community, and staff believes the proposed parking
are the requisite next ste p to realize the
. At 40%, the
transportation sector represents Aspen’s largest and
most challenging sector of greenhouse gas emission
reductions (See 2011 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
chart). While existing strategies like tr ansit, carpool
programs, bike lanes and paid parking have helped,
these strategies alone are no longer adequate if the
City wants to truly make strides in reducing
Council's Environmental
Levels of small particulate matter (PM 10 & PM 2.5 )
Air Quality Measures); Mass transit use
(water measure).
Staff currently requests direction from Council to conduct additional research on updating the
ing staff resources, which does not require additional
18 months , and would
, as well as data collection . If
Council supports this direction, staff would return in the fall with a more detailed scope of work
P116
III.