HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150929
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
September 29, 2015
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Next Generation Interviews
II. Next Generation Mentoring Program Proposal
III. Residential Design Standards
IV. HOA Capital Reserve Policy Update
P1
I.
P2
I.
P3
I.
P4
I.
Aspen Next Generation Advisory Commission
Annual Survey Report2014
P5
II.
P6
II.
Background & Methodology
Results
Table Of Contents
Executive Summary.................................................1
Who We Are: Why We Survey...................................3
Introduction...........................................................4
Methodology, an Overview.......................................5
Findings Overview...................................................7
Trends and Takeaways............................................8
Our Participants...................................................10
Difficulties to Living In Aspen................................13
Difficulties to Working in Aspen.............................19
Contact.........................................................23
P7
II.
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of the survey is to better understand the challenges perceived by those
in the 18-40 demographic that wish to live and/or work in the Aspen area (defined
by the borders of the Aspen School District; hereafter “in Aspen”). During its fall
work sessions, the Commission identified a list of factors it believes limit the younger
demographic’s ability to remain in Aspen long-term. The survey is a tool to “ground
truth” this list, identify gaps in the list, and prioritize factors based on their
importance to the 18-40 demographic.
Results
Respondent Characteristics
• Rooted in Aspen: More than 60% of respondents reside in Aspen; of these, 47%
have resided in Aspen for more than 5 years.
• Strong earners: Over 30% of respondents reported a household income of
greater than $100,000.
• Family focused: While nearly 80% of respondents do not currently have children,
65% of respondents indicated that they hope to have children in Aspen.
1
Methodology
To participate in the study, respondents had to meet 2 criteria: (1) be 18-40 years
of age, and (2) live and/or work in the Aspen area. The survey was 15 questions long,
available in English and Spanish languages, and in electronic (Survey Monkey) and hard
copy formats. The hard copy version of the survey is attached as Appendix A.
The survey was designed and analyzed in collaboration with a local statistician. Spe-
cific statistical methodology is discussed in the report. Of the 247 surveys submitted,
only 150 were fully complete. Only two Spanish surveys were submitted (both online),
but neither was fully complete. Multivariate statistics included complete surveys only.
P8
II.
Executive Summary
Analysis
• Residents and nonresidents agreed on the top 3 factors limiting their ability to
live in Aspen.
• Housing, Poor career/business opportunities, and low wages/benefits were se-
lected by the greatest % of respondents for both “living” and “working” questions.
• Notably, 18% of residents and 38% of nonresidents identified childcare in their
top 3.
• Given the opportunity 92% Aspen residents and 83% DV residents would like to
live here long-term. 69% of current residents would like to have children and raise a
family here. 64% of down valley residents who want to live in Aspen long term would
like to raise a family here as well.
Results
Factors
• Housing is the primary concern limiting ability to live in Aspen long-term.
• Wages/benefits, poor career/business opportunities, and childcare are also im-
portant limiting factors across individuals living and working in Aspen.
2
Final Observations
Survey results are limited by the small sample size and under-sampling of the Spanish-
speaking demographic and those working for seasonal and/or hospitality-based
employers. Despite these limitations, respondents’ answers provide a strong
indication that housing, economic sustainability, and childcare are among the top
factors limiting our demographic’s ability to remain in Aspen long-term.
P9
II.
Who We Are
Mission Statement
Why We Survey
To advance the policy interests of the 18-40 year old
demographic who live or work within the Aspen area.
A survey is one tool that can be used to effectively identify, understand,
and prioritize policy issues. The Commission plans to periodically issue
short, focused surveys to better understand the perspective of the 18-40
year old demographic on specific and topical policy issues.
3
Our Long-term Goal
The most fundamental hurdle to realizing action in our demographic is
apathy, the feeling that one’s voice has no impact and thus need not be
spoken. In allowing a public survey to be a primary driver of our annual
agenda, leading to tangible results, we hope to catalyze government
participation.
P10
II.
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of the survey was to understand the challenges perceived by those in the 18-
40 demographic who wish to live and/or work in the Aspen area (defined by the borders of
the Aspen School District; hereafter “in Aspen”). During its fall work sessions, the Com-
mission identified a list of policy issues it believed were important to its demographic. The
survey was a tool to verify this list and prioritize the issues identified as most important.
The survey focused on the following areas:
1. For those respondents living in Aspen: what factors limit their ability to live in the
Aspen area long term?
2. For those respondents not living in Aspen, but wanting to live in Aspen: what factors
limit their ability to reside in Aspen?
3. For those respondents working in Aspen: what factors limit their ability to work in As-
pen long term?
4. For those respondents not working in Aspen, but wanting to work in Aspen: what fac-
tors limit their ability to work in Aspen?
Additionally, demographic factors were collected for each respondent for comparison
against Census-based demographic data for weighting in the analysis, if necessary.
4
Scope/Qualifying Criteria
We identified 2 key criteria for participation in the study: age and a significant
connection to Aspen. To qualify, all participants were required to both:
1. Be between 18-40 years of age, and
2. Live and/or work in Aspen.
P11
II.
Methodology - Overview
Survey Structure and Questions
We developed the survey in collaboration with a local statistician experienced in
survey design. We also consulted with the City of Aspen and several local employers
during survey revisions.
The survey was 15 questions long, including qualifying criteria and demographic data.
It was available in two languages (English and Spanish) and in electronic (Survey
Monkey) and hard copy formats. The hard copy version of the survey is attached as
Appendix A.
Primary questions focused on identifying, prioritizing, and contextualizing major policy
issues affecting the 18-40 year old demographic’s ability to live and/or work in
Aspen. Other questions gathered information on relevant demographics (e.g., town of
residence, sex, income, children, years living in Aspen, years working in Aspen) and
aspirational (e.g., wanting to live/work in Aspen long term, wanting to have children
while living in Aspen) thought to have substantial impacts on responses.
Survey Distribution
In fall 2013, Commission members contacted representatives from large local
employment sectors including hospitality (hotels and restaurants), skiing,
education, and nonprofit. When permitted, we provided representatives with
survey details and links, which they were asked to distribute to their
employees.
The Commission also offered hard copy surveys to attendees of its January
14th Meet & Greet Mixer at Aspen Brewing Co. The survey was open for
approximately 2 months, starting on November 26, 2013 and ending in on
January 14, 2014. 5
P12
II.
Methodology - Overview
Analysis
To estimate the representativeness of the survey sample, data from the U.S.
Census Bureau’s 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) matching
demographic distributions assessed by the survey (i.e., sex, income, having
children, duration in Aspen) were obtained. These distributions were obtained
to allow for appropriate survey weights to be developed to account for a
non-representative sample.
Demographic data obtained from the survey sample and the ACS were
compared by calculating simple differences among proportions and comparing
against ACS survey error.
To identify demographic and aspirational factors important in characterizing
respondents’ identification of issues limiting their ability to work or live in
Aspen, multivariate statistical procedures (including Permutational Multivarate
Analysis of Variance (PERMANOVA) and Canonical Analysis of Principal Coordi-
nates (CAP) Analysis) were used. Further analyses of single issues were con-
ducted, including only those factors that played a role in response patterns.
Single-issue responses were assessed using t-tests or Analysis of Variance to
assess differences among factors identified by multivariate statistics. Where
no differences were identified, data were pooled, and issues ranked by relative
importance. Tukey’s range test was then applied on pooled data to identify
differences among issue ranks.
6
P13
II.
Findings Overwiew
7
P14
II.
Trends and Take Aways
Overall Conclusions
l 92%(current residents) & 83% down-valley respondents would
like to live in Aspen long-term
l 69% (residents) & 64% (down-valley residents wanting to be in
Aspen long-term) would like to raise a family here.
l Amongst all respondent groups, Housing was the number 1
hurdle to living or working in Aspen
l The vast majority of respondents would like to see more
opportunity for business ventures and upward career mobility
l There are a large cohort of down-valley residents who would
like to live and work in Aspen given better opportunities
l Emphasis on the importance of childcare increases greatly once
a person has children
8
Transportation
Other
Affordable Workspace
Education
Healthcare
Child Care
Low Wages & Benefits
Poor Career and/or
Business Opportunities
Housing
Top Factors Limiting Ability to Live in Aspen:
Residents & Non−Residents
Percent of Respondents
0 20 40 60 80 100
P15
II.
Trends and Take Aways
9
Transportation
Education
Child Care
Healthcare
Affordable Workspace
Low Wages & Benefits
Housing
Poor Career and/or
Business Opportunities
Top Factors Limiting Ability to Work in Aspen:
Residents
Percent of Respondents
0 20 40 60 80
Education
Healthcare
Transportation
Affordable Workspace
Child Care
Low Wages & Benefits
Poor Career and/or
Business Opportunities
Housing
Non−Residents
Percent of Respondents
0 20 40 60 80 100
P16
II.
Our Participants
Positive Realities
l Wide variety of demographics (e.g., sex, household in-
come, etc.) agree on major issues
l 247 respondents with 150+ complete surveys
l Captured many Aspen “lifers”
l With 47% of respondents have lived or worked in
Aspen over 5 years, our sample is familiar with the
challenges and working to overcome them
Limitations
l Small sample size due in part to incomplete surveys.
Other factors that may have affected sample size:
• Length and/or format of survey
• Incompatibility of Survey Monkey with certain
browsers, specifically version 11 of Internet Explorer
• Holiday season – resulting in possible limited
circulation across employers due to holiday season
and/or limited time for employees to complete surveys
l Sample was not representative of our demographic. The
sample is unlikely to represent residents working in
seasonal and/or tourism industries. Spanish-American
residents were also under-represented.
l Limited distribution of hard copy surveys.
Representatives from employment sectors overwhelmingly
preferred to distribute the survey electronically.
Therefore, individuals with limited or no access to
computers or smart phones were less likely to receive
and complete the survey. 10
P17
II.
Our Participants
11
Surveys Started Some Usable Data Complete
Count of Surveys Started and Complete
Su
r
v
e
y
C
o
u
n
t
0
50
10
0
15
0
20
0
25
0
Female Male
Sex
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
<$30,000
$30,000 − $44,999
$45,000 − $59,999
$60,000 − $79,999
$80,000 − $99,999
>$100,000
Salary
Percent of Survey Respondents
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Aspen
Basalt
Carbondale
El Jebel
Glenwood Springs
New Castle
Old Snowmass
Snowmass Village
Woody Creek
Location of Current Residence
Percent of Survey Respondents
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
No Yes
Currently Have Children
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
0
20
40
60
80
No Yes
Hope to Have Children in Aspen
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
S
u
r
v
e
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
t
s
0
20
40
60
80
Demographic Data
P18
II.
Our Participants
12
Years In Aspen by Percentage of Respondents
0.
0
0.
2
0.
4
0.
6
0.
8
1.
0
Years Living in Aspen
Years Living in Aspen
Fn
(
x
)
0.26
0.53
0.83
0.91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0.
0
0.
2
0.
4
0.
6
0.
8
1.
0
Years Working in Aspen
Years Working in Aspen
Fn
(
x
)
0.27
0.51
0.85
0.97
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
l Horizontal axis
represent years
lived / worked in
Aspen
l Vertical axis
represents the
precentage of
respondents
who have lived /
worked in Aspen
for so many years
l For exampe,
53% of
respondents have
Lived in Aspen
for 5 years or
less & 13% of
respondents have
worked in Aspen
for 15 years or
more
P19
II.
Living In Aspen
13
P20
II.
14
Amongt residents & non-residents
those with kids & withoutMen & Women
all agree that
HOUSING
is the
biggest hurdle to living in
Aspen
“there are very limited op-
tions between the $500K and
$1 million within the afford-
able housing program. This
price gap leads to inequitable
opportunities for this par-
ticular dual income/profes-
sional population in the com-
munity and may cause this
portion of the community to
relocate; thus decreasing the
potential quality of the year-
round professional workforce
and community. This gap is
inconsistent with the Aspen
Community Vision Plan”
“Affordable, quality housing
effects ones overall quality of
life.”
“affordable housing is a crap
shoot, if you want to have a
family you either get lucky in the
lottery or move DV”
“There are very limited options on afford-
able housing options for families able to
afford a home between $500k-$900k.”
Living In Aspen
Want to live in Aspen Long-TermResidents: 92%DV Residents: 83%
Want to raise a family in AspenResidents: 69%DV want to be in Aspen: 64%
P21
II.
Living In Aspen
15
l These respondents currently live in Aspen
l Each box explores individual impact of an issue on the ability to
live in Aspen.
for example:
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Career/Business
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Child Care*
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Education
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Health Care
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Housing
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Wages/Benefits
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Workspace*
No Yes
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Transportation
No Yes
Has Children Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Other*
No Yes
P22
II.
Living In Aspen
16
l This is a summary of the previous graphs
l These respondents currently live in Aspen
l The graph shows the average importance rank given to each
factor by respondents (where 1 = most imp & 12 = least imp).
l Factors group into four importance categories, the most highly
ranked of which was housing
Relative Rank
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
±
S
E
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Career/Business
Child Care
Education
Health Care
Housing
Other
Transportation
Wages/Benefits
Workspace
All Residents
With Children
No Children
P23
II.
Living In Aspen
17
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Career/Business
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Child Care
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Education
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Health Care
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Housing*
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Wages/Benefits
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Workspace
Female Male
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Transportation*
Female Male
Sex Sex
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Other*
Female Male
l These respondents currently DO NOT live in Aspen
l Each box explores individual impact of an issue on the ability to
live in Aspen.
for example:
P24
II.
Living In Aspen
18Relative Rank
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
±
S
E
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Career/Business
Child Care
Education
Health Care
Housing
Other
Transportation
Wages/Benefits
Workspace
All Residents
Female
Male
l This is a summary of the previous graphs
l These respondents currently do NOT live in Aspen
l The graph shows the average importance rank given to each
factor by respondents (where 1 = most imp & 12 = least imp).
l Factors group into three importance categories, the most
highly ranked of which was housing
l DV residents perceive housing to be the biggest factor
preventing them from living in Aspen
P25
II.
Working In Aspen
19
P26
II.
20
Lack of upward career
mobility & business creation
is a primary concern
for those
Wanting to
to make a
life inAspen
“I’m currently still working
for my company in Palo Alto
because even with part time
work, their wages are almost
double what I could make
here”
“The professional opportunities
are too limited to offer attractive
enough career growth for young
professionals, outside of entrepre-
neurial endeavors.”
“living paycheck to paycheck”
“i would like a more developed
career. I feel i have had to switch
my jobs a few times because
of the lack of opportunity or
growth”
“If I don’t have a job, I can’t stay here.”
“There are limited career
opportunities in the valley to
utilize my degree”
“very limited employment options other
than mindless, meaningless work”
“Perhaps if I made more
more I could afford
housing, but that seems
doubtful.”
“Haven’t gotten to
opening a store front
yet, but I’m familiar
with rent prices”
Working In Aspen
P27
II.
21
Working In Aspen
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Career/Business
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Child Care^
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Education
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Health Care
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Housing
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Wages/Benefits
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Workspace
Aspen:No Not Aspen:No Aspen:Yes Not Aspen:Yes
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Transportation
Aspen:No Not Aspen:No Aspen:Yes Not Aspen:Yes
City : Wants Children Has Children
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
Other
Aspen:No Not Aspen:No Aspen:Yes Not Aspen:Yes
l Each box explores individual impact of an issue on the ability to
work in Aspen.
for example:
P28
II.
22
Working In Aspen
Relative Rank
Fa
c
t
o
r
I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
±
S
E
NA
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Career/Business
Child Care
Education
Health Care
Housing
Other
Transportation
Wages/Benefits
Workspace
All Respondants
Want Children
Don't Want Children
l This is a summary of the previous graphs
l These respondents currently do NOT live in Aspen
l The graph shows the average importance rank given to each
factor by respondents (where 1 = most imp & 12 = least imp).
l There are 3 Primary tiers
l When career opportunities and low wages/benefits are
combined they are the largest issue ranked most important by
nonresidents
P29
II.
Skippy Leigh Upton Mesirow ChairSocial Entrepreneur, Aspen Institute employee, AVSC Coach& Co-Chair ADI
Christine BenedettiCo- ChairFreelance writer, Aspen Historical Society marketing director
Jennifer BurnettTreasurer Mom, Broker Associate, Environ-mental Enthusiast, Artist
Kimbo Brown-Schiracco Founding Member South Africa Native, works atObermeyer Asset Management,Former Springboard Chair
Jill Teehan Founding MemberAttorney at Law Praxidice PCFounder ADI, London Schoolof Economics Grad
Lindsey PalardyFounding MemberDevelopment Manager atAspen Youth Center, Law and Policy professional
Summer Woodson-Berg Founding MemberPersonal Practice Lawyer & Owner of Portfolio Aspen properties. Buddy Program.
Catherine LutzFounding MemberFreelance writer, editor, and photographer. Mother of two.
Our Team
23
P30
II.
AspenNextGen@gmail.com
Chair
Skippy Mesirow
skippy.mesirow@gmail.com
Co-Chair
Christine Benedetti
christinebenedetti9@gmail.com
Contact
24
P31
II.
Aspen Next Generation Advisory Commission
Annual Survey Report2014
P32
II.
Aspen NextGen
1 / 7
9 3.20 %96
6 .8 0%7
Q1 Do y ou think the m e ntorship program
de scribe d w ould be a be ne fit to the
Com m unity ?
Answ ered: 103 Sk ipped: 0
Total 103
YES
NO
0%10%20%30 %40%50%60 %70%80 %90%1 00 %
Answ er Choices Re sponses
YES
NO
P33
II.
Aspen NextGen
2 / 7
Q2 If y our answ e r to que stion num be r 1 is
NO, w hy is that and w hat w ould change
y our m ind?
Ans w ered: 6 Sk ippe d: 97
#Response s Da te
1 I don't bel i e ve a fee -b ased m e ntori ng progra m wi l l be of any ben efi t. T he kno wl e dg e i s here ; the re are other fa r l arger b arri e rs l i ke
c ost o f d oi ng busi n ess/l a c k of appropri ate workforc e that are the l i m i ti n g fac to rs.
8 /25/2014 9:31 AM
2 M y answer i s YES, I d o thi nk tha t thi s m e ntorsh i p prog ram wou l d be a ben efi t to the c om muni ty and I en thusi asti c al l y sup po rt Next
Ge n's vi si on and th i nk i t i s an exc i ti ng pro gram . Howe ver, a s desc ri be d i n the i ntro the p ro po sed stru c ture rai ses so m e c onc erns.
Why wou l d the m e ntor vol unte er and yet th e m entee p ay? How d o you ensure that the b usi n ess rem ai n up and runn i ng for seve ral
years to c om e p ost m entorshi p ? Is thi s prop ose d struc tu re a no np ro fi t or fo r p ro fi t ente rpri se? Woul d the m ente es fee s be payi ng
othe r c osts oth er th an the di rec to r's sal ary?
8 /22/2014 11:0 9 AM
3 Seem s too c om pl i c ated a nd wi th too m any stri ngs for m entee.8 /22/2014 10:4 2 AM
4 transi ent p op ul ati on a nd bui l du p i s di ffi c u l t he re - the exi sti n g ge ne ra ti o n i s not tol erabl e or wi l l i ng to m e ntor 8 /19/2014 4:37 PM
5 M en torshi p i s not real wi th an ec onom i c be ne fi t l i ke th at you're p ropo si ng 8 /18/2014 8:02 AM
6 I fee l l i ke the Roari ng Fork Busi ness Resouc e Center provi des th i s servi c e to the va l l ey, to som e de gree . It's no t c al l ed a
m en torshi p p rogram , but perhaps yo u shoul d work wi th the m . T here m i ght be so m e syn ergi es.
8 /15/2014 10:1 0 AM
P34
II.
Aspen NextGen
3 / 7
54 .00%54
46 .00%46
Q3 Would y ou conside r participating as a
Me ntor?
Answ ered: 100 Sk ipped: 3
Total Re spondents: 100
YES
NO
0%10%20%30 %40%50%60 %70%80 %90%1 00 %
Answ er Choices Res ponses
YES
NO
P35
II.
Aspen NextGen
4 / 7
6 0.82 %59
3 9.18 %38
Q4 Would y ou or any of y our e m ploy e e s
conside r apply ing for Me nte e consulting?
Ans w ered: 97 Skipped: 6
Total 97
YES
NO
0%10%20%30 %40%50%60 %70%80 %90%1 00 %
Answ er Choices Re sponses
YES
NO
P36
II.
Aspen NextGen
5 / 7
Q5 I think cre ating paralle l e conom ie s is
im portant for Aspe n’s v itality and future ?
*Paralle l e conom ie s, in this conte x t, m e ans
broade ning and div e rsify ing the e conom ic
base of Aspe n so that paralle l to the re sort
e conom y are busine sse s running
inde pe nde ntly but in conce rt w ith the
re sort e conom y , e .g. artists,
e ntre pre ne urs, cre ativ e com panie s,
te chnology com panie s, e tc. The se
busine sse s w ould add v itality , but NOT a
phy sical im pact.
Answ ered: 101 Sk ipped: 2
5 9.41 %
60
38.61%
39
0.99 %
1
0.99%
1
101
1.44
(no label)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Agree Dis agree Strongly Dis agree Total Av e rage Rating
(no l abel )
P37
II.
Aspen NextGen
6 / 7
Q6 Do y ou be lie v e this program w ill cre ate
a ladde r of opportunity for Aspe nite s to
cre ate sustainable and local care e rs?
Answ ered: 102 Sk ipped: 1
2 9.41 %
30
60.78%
62
6.86 %
7
2.94%
3
102
1.83
(no label)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Agree Dis agree Strongly Dis agree Total Av e rage Rating
(no l abel )
P38
II.
Aspen NextGen
7 / 7
80 .39%82
19 .61%20
Q7 Are y ou in uppe r m anage m e nt or se rv e
in a de cision m aking role for the busine ss?
Answ ered: 102 Sk ipped: 1
Total Re spondents: 102
YES
NO
0%10%20%30 %40%50%60 %70%80 %90%1 00 %
Answ er Choices Res ponses
YES
NO
P39
II.
Incubator Portal
Subscription
Schedule
P
4
0
I
I
.
Donor Agencies / Government
Consolidated impact & output monitoring, evaluation & reporting.
Collaborate with programme managers.
Programme Managers
Monitor Incubator progress & performance.
Review workplan implementation.
Incubators & Accelerators
Select applicants.
Monitor & evaluate client progress & performance.
Coordinate support services (training, mentoring).
investors (eg VC, Angel, Banks)
Access proles of top performing startups.
Fund next set of goals.
Ongoing performance monitoring
startups & small business
Validate Business Model.
Collaborate with Mentors & Accelerator sta.
Update progress against goals.
Manage Team, Customer, Product, Finances.
Mentors/business developers
Help startups achieve their goals.
Ongoing performance monitoring
THE INCUBATOR PORTAL IS A WEB-BASED
PLATFORM WHICH HELPS TO FOSTER AND
MANAGE ENTREPRENEURIAL AND
INNOVATION BASED ECOSYSTEMS
Custom toolkits for Startups, Mentors, Business Incubators / Accelerators, Investors and Programme Managers ensures
all stakeholders are able to interact with each
other in contextualised, mutually benecial ways
BENEFITS SUMMARY
P
4
1
I
I
.
www.theincubatorportal.com
E: info@incubatorportal.com
T: +27 11 759 4095
Tools for Incubators & Accelerators
PRICING GUIDE
The Incubator Portal provides over 40 tools to assist with managing business incubation /
enterprise development administration, monitoring and reporting requirements.
Online application forms
Applicant scoring and evaluation
Panel Selection interview organiser
Customisable workows and scoring rules
Applicant Report Studio and Dashboard
Applicant Management01.Client Management
Interactive Client Browser
Compliancy Monitor
Virtual Credits
Client Proles
03.
Business model with validation metrics
Business prole
Incubation Roadmap (goals and objectives)
Key Performance Indicators / Health Monitor
Progress Monitor
Team Member Proles
Funding and Investments
Training and Mentoring History
Support requests
Feedback Summary
OR $79
PER month
$59
per user/MONTH
billed annually
Mentoring & Business
Development
Interactive mentor network
Mentoring session organiser
Structured mentoring sessions
Online mentor reporting
Post Session Feedback
02.
FEATURES INCLUDE
P
4
2
I
I
.
www.theincubatorportal.com
E: info@incubatorportal.com
T: +27 11 759 4095
Investor network
Investment management (Incubator level)
Investment management (Client level)
Work plan / disbursement monitor
Funding and Investment Management07.
Community of Practise Groups
Ad-hoc Notications to Contact Groups
Pre-dened reminders
Contacts, Collaboration and Communication08.
Personalised website address
Online Application
Events Calendar
News and events
Client Spotlight / Marketplace
Resource Library
Public Website12.
Reporting and Business Intelligence
Applicant reports
Client reports
Mentoring reports
Operational Reports
KPI Reports
Investment and Funding reports
06.
It’s amazing how the Incubator Portal allows one to start visualising client businesses. We’re all excited;
the powerful and unique Incubator Portal software is a success.
Jean Claude Bidogeza, FARA / Danida project coordinator
Training and Events
Management
05.
Interactive Calendar
Tools to coordinate:
Waiting List management
Booking reminders
Advert Builder
Feedback forms
Open Day / Info Sessions
Demo Days, Networking Sessions, Guest Speakers
Training and Workshops
Progress review meetings
Applicant interviews
Shared Facilities
Oce Facilities
Facility Management11.
Interactive Graduate prole browser
Graduate progress monitor
Survey Builder
Graduate Management09.
Incubator & Client level documents
Document compliancy monitor
Document Management10.
P
4
3
I
I
.
www.theincubatorportal.com
E: info@incubatorportal.com
T: +27 11 759 4095
Tools for Mentors & Business Developers
PRICING GUIDE
The Mentor Portal provides mentors and business developers with all the tools they need
to monitor the health of the startups / small businesses in their portfolio, and provide
structured support and guidance to help them achieve their goals.
Client Portfolio Management
Goal Review
Client Progress and Performance Monitor
Training and Events History
My Notes
01.
Document Management
Collaboration tools
Activity Management
Report Studio
Other Features03.
Incubator level documents
Client level documents
Document compliancy monitor
Document Management04.
Shared Facilities
Oce Facilities
Facility Management05.
Interactive mentor network
Mentoring session organiser
Structured mentoring sessions
Online mentor reporting
Mentoring & Business Development06.
Mentoring Session Management
Agenda Organiser
Record meeting minutes (including activity assignment)
Print / email minutes
Post session performance and risk Review
Individual assessments
02.
OR $39
PER month
$29
per user/MONTH
billed annually
FEATURES INCLUDE
P
4
4
I
I
.
www.theincubatorportal.com
E: info@incubatorportal.com
T: +27 11 759 4095
Online Support Requests
Document Management
Activity Management
Messaging
Other Features08.
Expert Network
Resource Library
Questions and Answers
Community Platform09.
Financial Management
Budgeting and Cash Flow Management
Invoices and Quotations
07.
Tools for Startups & Small Business:
Premium Toolkit
PRICING GUIDE
The SME Portal Portal Premium edition provides Startups and Small Businesses with all the
tools they need to dene and validate their business model, collaborate with mentors and
manage their business operations.
Lean Startup/Business
Model Toolkit
Business Model Builder & Validator
Business Model Health Monitor
Customer Interview Management
Pivot and Iteration Organiser
01.
Prospect Organiser & Customer Organiser
CRM06.
My Mentors
My Mentoring Session Schedule
Mentoring Session minutes
Mentor Feedback
Mentoring 04.
Events calendar
(individual /team/all upcoming events)
Waiting list function
Specialised training requests
Post Training Feedback
Training and Events05.
Company Prole Builder
Our products and services
Business prole, vision, mission
Team Member proles
02.
Incubation Roadmap
Stage Goals and Objectives
Workplan (Activities)
03.
OR $39
PER month
$29
per user/MONTH
billed annually
The Incubator Portal provides each of our SME's with an easy-to-use platform from which they can update the progress they're
making against the tasks we've assigned them, generate quotations and generate invoices. They can also submit feedback after
attending a coaching session or training event, improving our quality assurance processes. If you’re looking for a system to assist
with client administration, monitoring, evaluation and reporting requirements then we can definitely recommend the Incubator Portal
Michael Reddy, CEO of Furntech and African Incubator Network
FEATURES INCLUDE
P
4
5
I
I
.
www.theincubatorportal.com
E: info@incubatorportal.com
T: +27 11 759 4095
Tools for Startups & Small Business:
Standard Toolkit
PRICING GUIDE
The SME Portal Standard Edition is perfect for non-founders / business owners who still
need access to key features contained in the SME Portal, but not the more specialised lean
startup and business operation management tools.
Our products and services
Business prole, vision, mission
Team Member proles
Company Prole Builder01.
Events calendar (individual / team / all upcoming events)
Waiting list function
Specialised training requests
Post Training Feedback
Training and Events04.
Online Support Requests
Document Management
Activity Management
Messaging
Report Studio
Other Features05.
Expert Network
Resource Library
Questions and Answers
Community Platform06.
Incubation Roadmap
Stage Goals and Objectives
Workplan (Activities)
02.
Mentoring
My Mentors
Mentor Network
My Mentoring Session Schedule
Mentoring Session minutes
Mentor Feedback
03.
OR $17
PER month
$9
per user/MONTH
billed annually
FEATURES INCLUDE
P
4
6
I
I
.
www.theincubatorportal.com
E: info@incubatorportal.com
T: +27 11 759 4095
Tools for Donor Agencies
& Programme Managers
PRICING GUIDE
The Programme Management Portal analyses and compares data from multiple business
incubation programmes and presents the data in a meaningful, interactive formats.
Link activities to outputs, with associated budgets
Assign activities to individuals with deadlines
Online status reports / after action reviews
Gantt Charts and automated progress reporting
Workplan Implementation01.
Mentoring
Applications received
Interviews
Mentor Network
My Mentoring Session Schedule
Mentoring Session minutes
Mentor Feedback
Activity Narrative04.
Events calendar
(Individual / Incubator / Consolidated)
Training and Events05.
Online Support Requests
Document Management
Activity Management
Messaging
Report Studio
Other Features06.
Monitoring, Evaluation &
Reporting
Programme (Consolidated) level performance review
Site level performance review
Report Studio
02.
Client Proles
Stage Goals and Objectives
Workplan (Activities)
Client Proles
03.
OR $179
PER month
$119
per user/MONTH
billed annually
FEATURES INCLUDE
In a search for an effective and comprehensive incubator management system I compared the all the
systems available internationally and have concluded that the Incubator Portal is definitely the best
of breed. It offers an incredibly wide spectrum of functionality required by incubator managers and
programme managers which no other system can come close to matching.
Leon Lourens, CEO of Incubation Institute
P
4
7
I
I
.
www.theincubatorportal.com
E: info@incubatorportal.com
T: +27 11 759 4095
PRICING GUIDE
Data Migration 01.
If you have existing client data stored in Microsoft Excel or any 3rd Party
system we can assist with migrating the content into the Incubator Portal -
so you won’t need to recapture anything.
Report Customisations02.
Customise the look and feel of the reports generated by the Incubator
Portal so that they match your exact requirements, meaning you'll never
have to manually compile a report again.
Site branding and personalisation 03.
Ensure the Incubator Portal is branded to match your existing corporate
identity.
Integration with 3rd Party Systems
and Windows Active Directory
04.
We can integrate the Incubator Portal with your existing 3rd Party ERP/-
nancial systems and Windows Active Directory where necessary
Onsite Training05.
A range of instructor-led onsite training options are available, ranging in
duration from 2 to 5 days. All onsite training includes user-guides and
post-course assessments.
Online Training and Master Classes06.
We schedule regular 90-120 minute online training sessions focusing on
specic system modules, at both introductory and advanced / master-class
levels.
Train the Trainer / Avnon
Certied Consultant (ACC)
07.
The premier Incubator Portal certication, equipping you with all the skills
you need to support and congure the software and train end-users.
Training and
Support Services
P
4
8
I
I
.
Chris Field:
Hi Jill, Skippy and the rest of the Mentorship team,
I wanted to let you know that Curt Strand and I got together for lunch this
week. We had a great time getting to know each other on a personal level
as well as discussing both of our careers. Curt is already passing down
advice and wisdom from a very successful career with Hilton International.
I attached a photo of Curt and I at lunch. We will be getting together again
sometime soon.
Thanks again for putting this program together.
Regards,
Chris
Curt Strand - mentor
DEAR ORGANIZING TEAM:
My mentee is Chris Field.
We have held five sessions, always at lunch which provides a relaxing
environment. We talk about issues involving his business which involves
internet marketing and is conducted with a partner out of an office in
Aspen. The staff are independent contractors.
We discuss issues of individual effectiveness, possibilities of paid staff,
partnerships, discipline, plans, goals, a possible restructuring.
Chris has many questions relating to my experiences as a CEO of a hotel
company with about a hundred operations in sixty countries. What worked,
what did not.
We round out our meetings with some Music Fest and Aspen Institute
events, also his birthday party at his home Chris has sent you a photo after
our first meeting in May. I enjoy our relationship and feel it is mutual, but
he can speakfor himself.
Warm regards, CURT STRAND
Adam Nelson:
I wanted to let you know that Tony and I met for lunch yesterday at the
Cantina. I think the fit is very good in a number of ways, and I am looking
forward to meeting again. I think we have a lot in common, and Tony's
experiences are just what I was looking for in a mentor. For our first
meeting we got to know each other better, as well as discussed why both
P49
II.
of us were interested in the program, and what we would like to get out of
the program. We have not set another meeting, but I imagine we will meet
again sooner than the 2 month goal.
Thanks again for setting us up, and I look forward to continuing in the
program.
Regards,
Adam Nelson,
Vice President, RM
Dan Perl:
Hi there, I just wanted to give a quick check in about my mentor. I've met
with Diana twice since our initial lunch and I think we've got a good fit for
now. We both work in the same field, and actually have some
opportunities to potentially work together on a project, which has been
interesting to explore. We don't exactly have a typical mentor relationship,
we have more of a partnership at the moment. What I wanted out of a
mentor was to help me find more sustainable work with people with
disabilities, though, so this project definitely meets those goals. I'll update
you as we move forward, and if we find that this partnership doesn't pan
out, I'm sure I'll have more feedback on our relationship. Thanks, Dan
Kate Linehan
I just wanted to check in after my first meeting with Lady. I'm thrilled to
have met such a dynamic, focused, and succesful businesswoman willing
to mentor and offer me guidance! It really feels like a gift, so thanks to all
of you for organizing this program.Best, Kate
and a 2nd email!
The Aspen Mentorship Program has truly been a gift for me and my
business. I couldn't have imagined a better mentor for the current state of
my business and where I hope to take it. The encouragement, insight and
support I have received has been invaluable, as well as providing great
accountability for actualizing the steps to help my business succeed and
grow. Hopefully, one day, I too will be able to return the gift of such useful
mentorship! Thanks to all the organizers of The Aspen Mentorship
Program and to my mentor!! (not sure if I should mention her? Lady
Fuller!:-)
Thanks,Kate
P50
II.
Ashley Perl
Hi Jill,
Thanks for checking in. I am currently working with the City’s HR
department to create a better internal mentor program, so I am
tempted to see that through and give it a try. If that turns out to be
something different then I would definitely be interested in meeting
Tim. Dave is one of my supervisors, so it seems Adam or Tim would be
a better fit.
I think the mentorship lunch was a great idea and extremely valuable
to the community. I know my husband saw a lot of value in it and I’ve
heard the same from other local professionals. I think it might be
harder to match City and County employees with mentors because we
are probably looking for someone with knowledge of local
government, but not someone who we work with all the time. Keep
up the good work!
Ziska Childs
Sadly, no contact from MENTEE: RACHEL BURNMEISTER
P51
II.
P
5
2
I
I
.
The First Year
• Greatest Barriers
• Why? Because it’s integral to our
character and success as a community
P
5
3
I
I
.
How did we set priorities for
2014-15?
• Extensive community outreach and
stakeholder meetings
• Internal meetings, work sessions & summits
• We conducted a Survey of 247 18-40 y/o’s
• 47% have lived in Aspen 5+ years
• 92% (Aspen) & 83% (DV) want to live in Aspen
“long term”
• http://aspennextgen.com/#!/survey
P
5
4
I
I
.
• This brain-drain leads to a dissolving of
the social fabric that binds Aspen
together and has shaped our character
for so long. It is to the community’s
detriment.
Economic Sustainability?
P
5
5
I
I
.
What are we building and who for?
• Creative, tech, environmental, design, &
more
• Transition: from ski bum to a professional
• Add vitality to the valley & community
• Return of local businesses
• Support entrepreneurs
P
5
6
I
I
.
You already recognize the need
• Mr. Mayor, this is the same philosophical
underpinning of your ‘Uphill Aspen’ initiative
• Mr. Frisch, this too is very much in line with
your attempts to rezone the SCI zone
• Mr. Daily and Mrs. Mullins, this mirrors your
efforts to bring an incubator space to town
• Mr. Myrin, this is an opportunity to bring
local business back to Aspen
P
5
7
I
I
.
The Mentorship Program
• Goals:
– Aid in business & professional development
– Create an economic engine for the city
– Be a community asset
– Integrate existing community resources
– Fill professional gaps
– Achieve a revenue neutral balance sheet
– Insist on accountability and transparency
P
5
8
I
I
.
Where did we start?
• We researched success stories from
around the country and the world
• A model city in Brevard, NC
• Retiree Resource Network (eventually
rebranded as SCORE – Service Core of
Retired Executives)
P
5
9
I
I
.
What did we find?
• Leveraging the time and expertise of
older community members to mentor
younger Aspenites
• Aspen Professional Mentorship and
Community Networking Program:
– 1 year, 2 events, 130 attended, 60+ mentor /
mentee pairs.
P
6
0
I
I
.
“I wanted to check in after my first meeting with Lady. I'm
thrilled to have met such a dynamic, focused, and successful
businesswoman willing to mentor and offer me guidance! It
really feels like a gift, so thanks to all of you for organizing this
program.
The Aspen Mentorship Program has truly been a gift for me and
my business. I couldn't have imagined a better mentor for the
current state of my business and where I hope to take it. The
encouragement, insight and support I have received has been
invaluable, as well as providing great accountability for
actualizing the steps to help my business succeed and grow.
Hopefully, one day, I too will be able to return the gift of such
useful mentorship!”
- Kate Linehan (Menteee)
P
6
1
I
I
.
“Curt is already passing down advice and
wisdom from a very successful career with
Hilton International.”
- Chris Fields (Mentee)
“We discuss issues of individual effectiveness,
possibilities of paid staff, partnerships,
discipline, plans, goals, a possible restructuring.
Chris has many questions relating to my
experiences as a CEO of a hotel company with
about a hundred operations in sixty countries.
What worked, what did not. We round out our
meetings with some Music Fest and Aspen
Institute events… I enjoy our relationship and
feel it is mutual.”
- Curt Strand (Mentor)
P
6
2
I
I
.
We had some shortcomings
• Relationships were loosely defined
• No one to keep the program going
• Focus almost entirely on networking
– ACRA will take on basic mentoring function
• Not focused on professional development
– We need this to keep our young population
P
6
3
I
I
.
We demonstrated a need
• 130 attended, 60+ mentor mentee pairs.
• This need was confirmed by city staff and
local real-estate developers
• ACRA member and public survey confirms
the need
P
6
4
I
I
.
Time for Act 2
• Professionals, entrepreneurs and existing
business owners
1. Apply
2. Evaluate
3. Pair
4. Plan
5. Execute
6. Track
P
6
5
I
I
.
Who are the Mentors?
• Top talent
• Volunteers
• Older (may be retired)
• Invested in their community
• Looking to build legacy
• Wanting to shape their community
• Trained by director
• Empowered by tools
P
6
6
I
I
.
Who are the Mentees
• Locals! Businesses must conduct business
in Aspen
• Young or ‘young at heart’ professionals
• Serious and committed
• Desire to grow or move in their career
• The best interest of RFV & World
• Entrepreneurs, business owners,
creatives, artisans
P
6
7
I
I
.
Who Pays?
• Revenue Neutral
• $200 Application fee
• Paid back on a sliding scale
• 5 Year local commitment requirement – tax and job
generation
• Based on basic VC success rated; will be tracked and adjusted by Director
• Those with a advancement focus can “pay back” their hours with community service with dedicated partner organizations
P
6
8
I
I
.
10 consulting hours @ $200p/h = $2,000 Total Cost
* 1 hour community service owed per 4 hours mentorship received for basic career advancement
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$0-$10k $10K -
$20K
$20K -
$40 K
$40K + Leave
Aspen
Amount
Paid
Total
engagment
cost
$200 Initial Investment
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
P
6
9
I
I
.
What This Can Do
• Keep talent, idea and families in Aspen
• Bring the younger and older generations
together
• Fill the “missing middle”
• Strengthen our sense of community and
small town appeal.
P
7
0
I
I
.
Partnership Matters
• Eliminate redundancies
• Support each other
• Share best practices
• Work towards common goals
• Amplify our voices
• Serve the community
P
7
1
I
I
.
Our Partners
• Executive Service Corps (ret)
• Start-Up Weekend
• Business Resource Center (ret)
• The Aspen Institute
• Aspen Business Luncheon
• Roaring Fork Leadership
• The City of Carbondale
• Colorado Mountain College
• Office of Economic Development of Colorado.
• The Aspen Community Foundation
• Isaacson School of New Media
• Sponsoring Partner: Rotary Club of Aspen
• Supporting Sponsors: The Elks Club
• Supporting Sponsors: ACRA Aspen
• Hopeful Sponsor: The City of Aspen
P
7
2
I
I
.
P
7
3
I
I
.
Marketing
• Speak with one voice
• Drive anyone who wants to “create”
something to one central resource
• Tell a story, foster the idea
P
7
4
I
I
.
The Website
• www.CreateRFV.com
• Built on ACRA back-end using Incubator
Portal code – a $1,500 in-kind grant
• Secured funding from our partners for the
build
P
7
5
I
I
.
What do we need?
• 1.The Director
• 2. A guaranteed 1-year operating budget
– Program Director salary
– Office supplies
– Incubator portal software
– Web development & hosting (gifted by ACRA)
• We expect the program to fund itself, but
we need to ensure the funds are there.
This is a guarantee, not a check.
P
7
6
I
I
.
Director Role
• Pair Mentors and Mentees
• Set Goals
• Oversee Engagements
• Track Outcomes
• Adjust Programming
• Mentor Training
• City Reports
P
7
7
I
I
.
Incubator Portal
• Cloud Based
• 5 “Layers” of users providing appropriate access for
Director, Interns, Mentors and Mentees
• Manage Finance including e-commerce
• Contact, email, scheduling, targeting
• Oversight of relationship including milestone setting,
auto alert, online interactions and meeting, built in
feedback loop, and detailed tracking
• Automatic report generation
• Flexible pricing
• Great support
P
7
8
I
I
.
How Does it Run?
P
7
9
I
I
.
Interns
• 1-3 CMC Interns
• Credit program
• Offer support to Director
• Help with outreach
P
8
0
I
I
.
NextGen to Launch
– Set up an maintain website
– Lead marketing and PR push
– Take lead on press exposure
– Work with valley partners
– Train the director and applicants on
Incubator portal
P
8
1
I
I
.
Our Expectations
• Program will:
- Have 5 applicants per month
- Be revenue neutral
• Expected business outcomes:
- 1-2 home-run ideas per year
- 10 successful outcomes per year
- 50 failures per year
- 25+ community/professional growth applicants
- Benefit the community
P
8
2
I
I
.
In Summation
• Help us help the community
• Support Aspen’s vitality
• Re-invest in the Aspen Idea
• Give opportunity a chance
P
8
3
I
I
.
The Rotary Partnership
• $10,000 commitment
• Guaranteed Mentor Pool
• Support and guidance
• First right to acquire in 1 year
P
8
4
I
I
.
1 Year Pilot Program
• Re-Evaluate for merit in 1 year
• Rotary First right of acquisition
• No ongoing entitlement
• Demonstrable need
• Evidence for success
• The only way to fail, is to fail to try
P
8
5
I
I
.
The Budget
• Director Salary $35,000
• Office Supplies $3,600
• Web Development $3,000 (partner grant)
• Web Hosting $1,480 (ACRA In-Kind Donation)
• Incubator Portal $6,660 (@ 5 businesses & 12
active mentors)
• TOTAL BUDGET $49,140.00
• Rotary Commit $10,000.00
• ACRA Commit $1,500.00
• Elks Commitment $1,500.00
• Total City Ask $36,240.00
• Expected Application Fees $12,000.00
P
8
6
I
I
.
Thank you!
P
8
7
I
I
.
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Barker, Planner
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
MEETING DATE: September 29, 2015
RE: Residential Design Standards Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The purpose of this work session is to provide City Council with an update of the Residential
Design Standards (RDS) updates. Staff is also requesting feedback on the direction of the
proposed RDS updates.
BACKGROUND:
As part of the 2015 budget, City Council approved $25,000 for updates to the City’s RDS. The
purpose of the updates are to organize, streamline, and provide minor modifications to the
existing standards in order to better serve the community and provide attractive, compatible
development.
The City of Aspen Residential Design Standards were first adopted in 1995 as a way to maintain
design quality and compatibility with historic features of the community. Since then, minor
amendments have been processed to add additional standards and create a variance process.
Earlier this year, staff selected a consultant (Winter & Co.) through an RFP process to assist with
the updates. Under the approved scope and budget, this update provides a comprehensive clean-
up and clarification of the current standards with a focus on standards that are often confusing to
designers and property owners, but is not a complete re-write. During City Council’s review of
the RFP, City Council directed staff to pursue the updates with the proposed scope plus an
additional $5,000 to update the graphics.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed updates focus on improving the review process, better organization of the
standards, and general cleanup for loopholes and confusion for individual standards.
Staff and Winter & Co. have been working with an advisory committee comprised of six local
architects from various firms around town. The role of the committee is to represent the design
community by providing input on current issues, reviewing draft updates, and participating in
focused group discussions with staff and the consultant. The most common issues with the
current standards as identified by the committee were:
P88
III.
Page 2 of 3
• Lack of clarity in the administrative review process
• Lack of flexibility in the existing standards
These are discussed in more detail below.
Administrative Review:
The current administrative review process has proven to be challenging. A project is only
required to submit an application if a variation is required. This is typically determined by the
planner of the day or staff collectively. This process can often lead to a substantial amount of
time spent discussing a required variation, or some needed variations being missed because they
are not discussed. This often leads to projects that do not meet the RDS getting delayed in the
building permit review so they can submit an application for a variation. This can place a
building permit on hold for several months.
Under the proposed changes, all residential development would be required to submit an
application for either RDS exemption or “compliance review”. An application would receive in
exemption if no variations from the Residential Design Standards are required. In compliance
review, staff will review each project for any applicable standards and the project’s compliance
with the intent of those standards. If compliance is achieved, the applicant will be given an
approval to be submitted with the building permit application. If compliance is not achieved, the
applicant would have an opportunity to discuss with staff how the project does not comply and
make changes accordingly. If the applicant decided they do not want to make any changes, the
applicant would have the opportunity to have P&Z review the application. Any decision made
by P&Z is final unless appealed under the regular city appeal procedures.
No building permit would be accepted without either an exemption or compliance approval
(administrative or P&Z). This process would help reduce or eliminate the number of “missed”
variations required and provide applicants with a level of assurance when submitting a permit
that any RDS issues have been resolved.
Standard Flexibility:
Currently, a residential project must meet all of the standards as written (with some exceptions
depending on the location or specific site constraints). Staff recognizes that some standards are
not always of critical importance or are difficult to meet, even if they apply to a certain project.
For example, building orientation on a curvy street is difficult to achieve and is not as important
as building orientation on a traditional townsite block. Similarly, prohibiting a lightwell on the
front of a building is less important for a building that is 100 feet from the street than one that is
10 feet from the street. In response to this, staff has identified three design features that are the
most important and should be included in every residential project in town. These are:
1. A visible and accessible front entrance. This standard would require a front porch or
other entry feature, include a front door, and a pedestrian path leading to the feature.
2. Reducing the appearance of garages from the street. This standard would require
garages to be accessed off the alley where one exists. Where an alley does not exist,
garages would be required to be set back from the front façade of the building.
P89
III.
Page 3 of 3
3. Articulation of massing to reduce perceived scale. This standard would require a
secondary mass or other building articulation.
These are also the standards that staff least often grants administrative variations. Under the
proposed RDS update, all residential buildings would be required to meet these standards. If an
applicant requests a variation from these standards, a P&Z review will be automatically required.
In an effort to provide some flexibility, the remaining standards would be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis through the administrative compliance review. Projects would be required to meet
the letter of the standard, or provide “alternative compliance” meaning the project meets the
overall intent of the standard. This allows the architects more flexibility for varied design styles
and the ability to more directly work with staff to create an agreeable design without requiring
constant variation applications. For example, a design may include an entry door that is 11 feet
back from the front-most wall of the building, but is highly visible from the street and opens onto
a front porch that meets the standard. The door does not technically meet the standard (max. 10
feet from the front-most wall), but it meets the intent by providing street-facing architectural
details, enhancing the walking experience and reinforcing local building traditions. This design
feature would most likely be permitted under alternative compliance.
Other updates:
Staff has also been working with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee on other updates.
These include reorganization of the RDS chapter to make it easier to read and understand, adding
definitions for often used terms, and updating and improving graphics.
FEEDBACK:
The advisory committee has been involved in the process since the beginning and continues to
provide valuable feedback that has helped dictate the current proposed changes.
An open house will be held on September 29 from 2pm – 3pm in Sister Cities to obtain feedback
from the broader community of the proposed updates. Invitation to the open house was provided
through the Community Development newsletter, which reaches almost 600 professionals
including contractors, architects, attorneys, and planners. Staff will provide a summary of the
open house at the work session. Staff will also meet with P&Z to gain their input prior to the
adoption process. This is expected to occur in early-to-mid-November.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will continue to work with Winter & Co. and the advisory committee to finalize the
proposed updates over the next month. Staff anticipates the updates will be ready for City
Council review as a code amendment in late-November or early-December. Staff will be
requesting supplemental monies to enable the consultant to participate in the Policy Resolution
hearing.
Question for Council: Does Council support the direction of the proposed RDS updates?
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P90
III.
Page 1 of 12
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
Mike Kosdrosky, APCHA Executive Director
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
DATE: September 25, 2015
MEETING DATE: September 29, 2015
RE: Update on Capital Reserve Policy and Discussion
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Receive the update and determine if the conversation is on the right track in terms of working
towards a proposed policy solution.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council has for several years indicated a desire to formulate a policy that addresses the
understood shortfall in capital reserves across the deed-restricted HOA community. For a long
time, the policy discussion was deferred until a “solution” could be found to the issues that
confront the Centennial homeowners – with those solutions informing the development of a
policy for the entire community. Those communications, which were broken off by the
Centennial HOA for some period of time, have recently been restarted. Council now prefers that
a broad policy be developed and adopted, with Centennial being allowed to participate under
the terms of that policy.
BACKGROUND:
In the 2011-2012 Council Top Ten Goals was an effort to conduct a review of capital reserve
issues. That resulted in an effort partially funded through APCHA to allow HOAs in the deed
restricted community to conduct capital reserve studies and ascertain how they needed to
address this critical need. Provided in Attachment A is the excerpt from the 2012 Housing Summit
regarding capital reserves and the results of those studies.
P91
IV.
Page 2 of 12
State Reserve Fund Laws (September 2013)
Many states have enacted legislation dealing with community association reserve and operating
funds to protect owners from fiscal problems and financial hardship. More states may enact
similar legislation as community associations continue to gain popularity. Attachment A contains
a summary of each state reserve fund law.
Reserve Studies are required in the following states: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada,
Oregon, Utah and Virginia. Washington statutorily encourages associations to have a reserve
study performed every three years unless doing so would impose an unreasonable hardship.
COLORADO
The unit owners’ associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and
reserves and impose and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section
38-33.3-302.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to
fund reserves
DISCUSSION:
There are four areas we wish to cover today and two more we will list, but want to defer to a
more in-depth discussion:
1. What is the problem?
2. Why does the problem exist?
3. Why it is necessary to fix the problem?
4. Who pays?
And in brief – with detailed discussion for another worksession:
5. How do those stakeholders pay their share?
6. What are the pathways to implementation?
What is the Problem?
The issue – as illustrated above – is that HOA capital reserve accounts are underfunded. There
is a conversation to be had about how much these accounts should have in cash, how much
could be left for loans, and how much could be left for on-demand cash assessments – but for
now we are working on a principle that 70% of the capital reserve study amount should be held
in a reserve account. It is unlikely that all of the capital reserve study amount would be needed
at any one point in time, and even if it is, most HOAs would have some capacity to borrow from
a lending institution or make a cash call from their owners for the remainder.
As indicated in the 2012 Housing Summit Briefing Book excerpt, underfunding of HOA capital
reserve accounts is a universal phenomenon – it is not simply people acting in a hopeful manner.
P92
IV.
Page 3 of 12
Most people would prefer to defer accumulating reserves to take care of future needs that they
may not be party to or benefit from. They are betting that nothing catastrophic will happen while
they are owners and that they can defer the expense of repairs or accumulating reserves and
pass off those costs onto the next generation of owners – all without impacting the value of their
property or the re-sale price they might command in the marketplace. Usually this bet works –
but not always.
So for our system there is – by estimation – some $15 million or more of reserve shortfall. As we
have seen at Centennial, this is a problem for the housing system and for those how benefit from
the system. It is appropriate for the City Council, the BOCC and the APCHA Board to work
together to solve this problem and get our deed-restricted housing stock on firm footing so that
it works for today’s owners and for those who will follow them tomorrow. Both the community
and the workers who purchased these units have heavily invested in the system and need to
ensure it lasts into the future.
There is some urgency to this issue because units are changing hands on a weekly/monthly
basis where sellers are receiving full value and new owners are ending up owning the capital
deficit. The problem needs to be addressed to ensure the future viability of the system and
to ensure equity among the various stakeholders.
Why Does the Problem Exist?
The problem exists because people are rational economic actors. They want to avoid current
expenses if they can and prefer to defer those expenses to the next generation of buyers who
might benefit more from those investments. They do this in the deed-restricted marketplace
and the free marketplace. There is a difference however in in the two markets – at some point
in the free marketplace, decisions made about deferring maintenance or not investing in your
property sends an economic signal to prospective purchasers that reduces the price the
marketplace puts on your property. Let the property deteriorate too much and the sales price
reflects that. Invest in the property and the marketplace reflects that decision into a higher price
you could command for your property.
This is seldom the reaction in the deed-restricted marketplace. The “APCHA guaranteed
maximum price” is almost always the floor, not the ceiling on the sales price. It is almost
guaranteed that if there are two or more bidders on a property, the guaranteed maximum price
will be the sales price. Our deed-restricted marketplace does not reflect a lower price for the
unit if owners fail to invest or to accumulate capital reserves. So both buyers and sellers act
rationally in terms of their economic decision-making. Any solution to the problems that exist
within the system must address the economic signals sent and the incentives for both buyers
and sellers to “do the right thing” for the future of the system.
P93
IV.
Page 4 of 12
Why is it Necessary to Fix the Problem?
The long-term health of the workforce housing system that the community and owners have
invested in demands that capital reserves be accumulated and that proper investment in the
system be made. Too much public and private money has been invested to allow the
inappropriate price signals to continue to incentivize behavior that, while rational to those in the
system, puts in jeopardy some 1500 units and millions of investment. The future workforce and
future taxpayers demand that we not shirk our responsibilities.
State law continues to evolve around condominium ownership and the responsibilities of
common owners. It already exists that state law requires HOAs to formulate a policy regarding
capital reserves – however neither law nor policy requires an HOA to actually fund capital
reserves. Many think that will change over time.
The problems with deferred maintenance or repairs from inadequate design/construction are
highlighted at the Centennial ownership units. They require some $3.5 million to repair their
buildings. Similar problems cannot be allowed to come into existence at other complexes in the
system – the cost of major reconstruction/repair must be ameliorated by prudent consideration
of reserves and investment.
The nature of the problem and the need to fix it long-term suggest that all the stakeholders in
the system – the community, current owners and future owners – must collaborate to fix the
problem and solve it for the future community of taxpayers and owners alike.
Who Pays to Fix the Problem?
There are really only three groups of people who stand to benefit from fixing the problem and
who therefore have a stake in seeing the problem fixed. They should all contribute in some
fashion to finding a solution and contributing monetarily to fixing the problem.
The Community
Taxpayers and the community have long invested in creating affordable workforce housing –
either directly through taxes paid and the subsequent development of housing stock, or through
the requirements for mitigation placed on development that then develop that workforce
housing. Their investment needs to be conserved so that the benefit is preserved for future
generations. Therefore it is appropriate for the community to make an investment in existing
properties and to ensure that it doesn’t have to repeatedly continue to make that investment in
the future.
Current Owners
No one should seriously argue that current owners of property do not have a responsibility for
maintaining property they own and use. Current owners need to recognize that the cost of home
ownership includes more than mortgage, taxes and HOA dues to provide current services.
Maintaining an investment is a cost of home ownership that needs to be recognized and if
P94
IV.
Page 5 of 12
necessary required by the community who has created or caused to be created the housing
stock now in private hands.
Future Owners
In the free marketplace a future owner would pay a higher price for a well-maintained unit that
reflects a current owner’s continued investment in their property. They would pay a lesser price
for those units that do not reflect that investment. The market place would send a signal to both
buyer and seller regarding the condition of the unit – so in that sense the future buyer is
contributing to the ongoing capital investment in common areas and in the condominium
ownership areas. They often contribute a “transfer fee” of some kind at sale – a contribution
that either goes to the HOA’s capital reserve of reimburses the seller for a part of their
investment in the capital reserve account. There is no reason similar conditions cannot exist in
the deed-restricted marketplace.
We believe that any policy adopted should reflect a contribution from each of these stakeholder
groups and should reinforce the kind of marketplace dynamics that would exist outside of the
deed-restricted marketplace.
Council might want to defer the following areas of discussion for another time
and place – but I wanted to outline some of the issues associated with the policy
considerations you will have to decide.
How do Those Stakeholders Pay Their Share?
The Community
There is growing sense that a per unit contribution from the “community” is appropriate –
setting that dollar amount and determining what “strings” go with accepting taxpayer money
need to be determined. So the city council and the other partnering bodies will have to
determine what that amount is and how to raise that contribution.
What is meant by “community”?
There are really only a few choices about how the government would pay its share of
the funding solution:
The city could pay it all
The county could pay it all
The city and the county could each pay half of the required contribution
APCHA could pay it through the Administration Fund – which means the city and
the county would pay it on a 50%/50% basis, as the fund balance could not
absorb the money contemplated.
APCHA could pay it by using its statutory authority to ask the voters for a tax
increase. Under Colorado law, a housing authority may impose:
P95
IV.
Page 6 of 12
a) a sale/use tax at a rate not to exceed one percent, upon every
transaction or other incident with respect to which a sales or use tax
is levied by the state, excluding the sale or use of cigarettes; or
b) an ad valorem tax at a rate not to exceed five mills on each dollar of
valuation for assessment of the taxable property within such area.
In return for accepting that contribution, we believe that a system of “carrots and sticks” should
be adopted that address the inappropriate economic signals being sent under the current
system and prevent the problem from growing or reoccurring in the future.
The Current Owners
Current owners will have to realize that their cost of home ownership must include investment
in their property and the setting aside of funds for future capital investments. Establishing that
dollar amount and making sure current owners participate in funding repairs and capital
reserves would use some of the “carrots and sticks” approaches outlined above. Some of their
investment would be offset by a “return” of some sort for that investment from the next
generation of buyer for their property.
Future Owners
Using some of the approaches above, future owners would contribute to the capital
reserve/common investment dilemmas outlined. They might pay slightly higher prices and/or
be required to provide more funds at closing, but would be assured that they are buying a unit
that has experiences sufficient investment so that their future use is guaranteed and that they
would not inappropriately left “holding the bag” for a failure of past owners to adequately invest
in the property.
What Are the Pathways to Implementation?
These changes can be imposed on the system via changes to:
The Housing Guidelines
Deed Restrictions
Declarations and Covenants for each HOA
How long each of these pathways take, the legal footing the governments (city, county, APCHA)
might have to impose these changes, and the pushback from each approach is something that
will have to be considered before choosing a pathway to follow – or choosing a combination of
each.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council believes this approach is the one they want to pursue, we can continue to put more
and more details together, returning for more in-depth policy discussions. We have held focus
groups with some HOA Board Presidents, had conversations with the Housing Frontiers Group,
P96
IV.
Page 7 of 12
and discussed internally the various options for several years now. We have considered the
impact these policy options would have on the ability of the Centennial owners to make their
repairs and have had conversations with their representatives. The Housing Frontiers Group has
had hours and hours of conversations about the nature of the problem and the various pathways
to solutions. The APCHA Board has likewise considered the issues.
As council begins to provide a direction, we can return to these stakeholder groups and see what
their reaction is to staff ideas and council direction. At some point we will need to engage the
BOCC in this conversation if they are going to participate in both setting the policy and in funding
the solution.
Attachment A: Excerpt from 2012 Housing Summit Briefing Book on Capital Reserves
Attachment B: Summary of State Capital Reserve Laws (2013) from the Community
Associations Institute
P97
IV.
Page 8 of 12
Attachment A
Excerpt from Housing Summit Briefing Book
The purpose of a capital reserve fund for a condo or homeowners association is to fund and plan for
the inevitable repair and replacements costs in the common areas of a community. From roofs to
sidewalks, from shutters to gardens, repair and replacement is part of any property owner's task list.
When done properly, an audit or capital reserve study will collect information on property condition,
and project a useful life and repair and replacement costs. When projected out over a 15 or 30 year
period (allowing for inflation), a study can provide a board with a roadmap to follow for the funding,
replacement, and repair of the association's common areas.
According to the Community Associations Institute (CAI), at the end of 2009 the total amount of
money held in reserves (accumulated reserves) by all HOAs and condominiums in the U.S. is
approximately $35 billion dollars. When divided by the total number of homes within these HOAs
(24 million) we can see that the average accumulated reserves per household are a paltry $1,458!
Under a cost sharing agreement with APCHA, Capital Reserve studies for maintaining existing
housing stock are in various states of progress – some associations have rough estimates of need;
others are still compiling assessments of various capital items and continue to develop their financial
situation. However, from what data currently available, an underlying truth exists – that being there
is a shortfall in capital reserves for the affordable housing developments in Aspen and Pitkin County,
as there is for almost every HOA in the free market world.
The following table notes that of the associations already reviewed, aggregate funded status for capital
reserves stands at roughly 22%, or the equivalent shortfall of around $7.4 million. If the additional
associations and total of ~1500 units were extrapolated from those which were the subject of the
studies – and had a similar average shortfall per unit – the potential shortfall for the entire affordable
housing environment could be as large as roughly $14.2 million.
Table 9
# of
Units
Starting
Capital
Reserve
Targeted
Reserve
Funded
Percent
Shortfall
per Unit
Aggregate
Capital
Shortfall
Associations
Reviewed 778 $2,050,018 $9,428,246 21.7% ($9,484) ($7,378,228)
Minimum 91 $130,000 $82,481 158% $522 $47,519
Maximum 92 $500,455 $3,301,170 15% ($30,443) ($2,800,715)
Source: Aggregated data from Housing Frontier’s as of July 2012
P98
IV.
Page 9 of 12
Looking at the across the distribution of associations who have participated in the study effort, first
from the perspective of the total reserves needed and the gap between current reserve amounts and
the recommendations:
You can see that the vast majority of the gaps are less than $500,000 per association. When looking
at the gap on a per unit basis the majority is less than $10,000 per unit.
What is clear is that there are a few associations who have significant (> $1 million per association,
>$20,000 per unit) funding problems to address. Of course, the shortfall above assumes reaching
-$3,000,000
-$2,500,000
-$2,000,000
-$1,500,000
-$1,000,000
-$500,000
$0
$500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
-$35,000.00
-$30,000.00
-$25,000.00
-$20,000.00
-$15,000.00
-$10,000.00
-$5,000.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
P99
IV.
Page 10 of 12
full funding for replacement of all capital items – a benchmark not typically achieved by
homeowner associations whether deed restricted or free market, especially following recent
economic conditions. In fact, most homeowner associations never target a full funding scenario
but instead opt for other common threshold levels as described below:
Baseline funding: Simply maintaining a positive balance in the reserve account – any amount is
sufficient, so long as the balance does not fall below zero.
Threshold funding: Similar to Baseline funding, this method targets a specific dollar amount to
maintain in reserves (other than zero).
Statutory funding: Uniquely defined by individual localities through statute, if such law exists in
the location of your property, defining a minimum necessary reserve percent.
Note that while some states prescribe specific funding requirements for HOAs in rule or law,
Colorado is not one of these – Colorado’s only requirement is to have a replacement plan
established, funding is not mandated and the reserve study may even be performed internally and
not by an independent, third party.
With multiple perspectives held by vastly different individual governing groups and the unique
circumstances and regulations surrounding each development being managed, it is ineffective to
relate the status of capital reserve funding shortfalls for Pitkin County affordable housing
developments to other groupings. Rather, given the diversity that exists, instead of focusing on the
state of the universe for current reserves, it is better to look at the implications of low reserves and
how that affects the development. It is more beneficial to focus on individual unit sales and ability
to secure lending as the basis for determining appropriate reserve levels, and given today’s
economic environment, reserve levels in the 70%-80% range appear favorable when considering
lending options and real estate transactions.
While there is a sizable gap between the desired 70%-80% benchmark and the current 22% reserve
funding percentage in affordable housing units in the Valley with governing associations, given
the number of units involved and potential to spread the shortfall over multiple years, the problem
does appear to be more manageable.
Many experts have recommended a 5-10 year plan to bring reserve levels up to the study-
recommended amounts. Using the average shortfall per unit of $9484, and assuming a 70%
target and a ten-year amortization period for all 684 units, the average temporary monthly
increase would be less than $53/month per unit (assuming a 1% interest earned).
Our HOA communities – and especially their board members – have to recognize the need to be
responsible owners and create a plan to properly fund their reserve amounts at a higher level than
is the current norm. If we look at a hypothetical Category 3 buyer of a 2-bedroom unit in 2000
who paid around $130,000 for the unit, and who, under the guidelines, could sell that unit today
for $187,000, they would have $57,000 of appreciation. How much of an investment would be
appropriate to secure that gain? It appears to be a reasonable expectation to invest $10,000 (the
average capital reserve shortfall per unit) over those 10 years ($1000 per year) to realize their gain
P100
IV.
Page 11 of 12
of $57,000, certainly the counterpart in the free market would see that as a very reasonable cost of
home ownership.
When faced with the need to make a repair and actually spend money, the following are ways that
an HOA can budget those expenditures:
1. Reserves: If you’ve set aside reserves for the type of project you’re facing, dipping into the reserves
is an obvious option. “Unfortunately, associations aren’t reserving anywhere where they should
be,” says Lisa A. Magill, a shareholder and association attorney at Becker & Poliakoff PA in Fort
Lauderdale, Fla. “In Florida, owners can vote down the association’s funding of any reserves.
Continually, you’ll have owners who aren’t in a position to pay any assessments. So if an
association is collecting reserves, it’s usually only about 10 percent of what it should be collecting.
When projects come up, they’re either paid for by a special assessment or some other means,
usually a loan.”
2. A special assessment: A special assessment is a common fallback option for HOAs that need
money immediately and have no other or better way to raise it.
3. A loan: “An institutional loan usually entails pledging as collateral the HOA’s lien rights in terms
of collecting assessments,” says Andrew Lewis of Eisinger, Brown, Lewis, Frankel & Chaiet PA
in Hollywood, Fla., who specializes in representing community associations. “Lenders look at all
kinds of factors when considering HOA loans,” explains Magill. “Are you capitalized? Do you
have reserves? What’s your percentage of delinquencies? What other maintenance items have to
be performed? For example, with the loan, are you funding only one of 10 projects that need to be
done? They also look to make sure you have all the appropriate insurance, which associations
should have, anyway, but sometimes don’t. But really, the delinquency rate is the most important
thing. Some lenders won’t approve a loan if your HOA has 7 -8 percent delinquencies, but the
benchmark is 15 percent.” In our conversations with local lenders, they indicate they are making
these loans and are willing to make these loans to deed restricted HOAs.
Obviously, a combination of these three options is the most likely way that our deed restricted
communities will fund major maintenance/repair work, given the general condition of their capital
reserves.
P101
IV.
Page 12 of 12
Attachment B
P102
IV.
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
Summary of State Reserve Fund Laws
(September 2013)
Many states have enacted legislation dealing with community association reserve and operating funds to
protect owners from fiscal problems and financial hardship. More states may enact similar legislation as
community associations continue to gain popularity. The following is a summary of each state reserve
fund law.
Reserve Studies are required in the following states: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Utah
and Virginia. Washington statutorily encourages associations to have a reserve study performed every
three years unless doing so would impose an unreasonable hardship.
Please remember that community associations are governed by state law, which can vary widely from
state to state. This information is intended for general educational and informational purposes only; it
may not reflect the most recent developments, and it may contain errors or omissions. The publisher
does not warrant or guarantee that the information contained here complies with applicable law of any
given state. It is not intended to be a substitute for advice from a lawyer, community manager,
accountant, insurance agent, reserve professional, lender, or any other professional.
ALABAMA
The unit owners’ associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures and reserves
and impose and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 35-8A-302(2).
Sellers must present buyers with an offering statement of the amount, or a statement that there is no
amount, included in the budget as a reserve for repairs and replacement, and a statement of any other
reserves. Section 35-8A-403(5).
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
ALASKA
The unit owners’ associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves
and impose and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 34.08.320(2). A
public offering statement must include assumptions concerning the calculation of the amount of reserves
certified by a certified architect or engineer; the amount included in the budget as a reserve for repairs
and replacement including the estimated cost of repair or replacement cost and the estimated useful life
of the asset to be repaired or replaced; and a statement of any other reserves. Section
34.08.530(5).
P103
IV.
2
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
ARIZONA
For condominiums, unit owners’ associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues,
expenditures, and reserves and impose and collect assessments for common expenses from unit
owners. Section 33-1242(2). The resale disclosure statement must include the total amount of money
held by the association as reserves. The purchaser must also receive a copy of the most recent reserve
study of the association, if any. Section 33-1260.
For planned communities, resale disclosure statement must include the total amount of money held by
the association as reserves. The purchaser must also receive a copy of the most recent reserve study of
the community, if any. Section 33-1806.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
Section 10-3830 requires directors of nonprofit corporations to discharged duties in good faith, with the
care an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would exercise under similar circumstances, and in a
manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation.
ARKANSAS
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
CALIFORNIA
On a quarterly basis common interest development boards of directors must review reserve accounts
and compare reserves to the previous year. At least once every three years, boards must conduct a
competent and diligent visual inspection of the property that the association is obligated to repair,
replace restore or maintain as part of a study of the reserve account requirements. The board is to
annually review this study to consider and implement necessary adjustments to the board’s analysis of
the reserve account requirements. See more detailed information in California Civil Code Sections 1365
and 1365.5.
COLORADO
The unit owners’ associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves
and impose and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 38-33.3-302.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
P104
IV.
3
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
CONNECTICUT
Condominium associations shall provide in the proposed budget for the condominium adequate reserves
for capital expenditures. Section 47-88e. Common interest community executive boards, at least
annually, shall adopt a proposed budget for the common interest community for consideration by the
unit owners. Not later than thirty days after the adoption of a proposed budget, the executive board
shall provide to all unit owners a summary of the budget, including a statement of the amount of any
reserves, and a statement of the basis on which such reserves are calculated and funded. Section 47-
261e. Resale disclosure statement must include the total amount of money held by the association as
reserves. Section 47-264(5).
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
DELAWARE
Condominiums must contain within their declaration provisions that mandate that the association
create and maintain, in addition to any reserve for contingencies, a fully funded repair and replacement
reserve based upon a current reserve study. Section 81-205(14). Condominium disclosure statement
must include the current balance in reserves and the most recent reserve study. Section 84-409.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The unit owners’ associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves
and impose and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 42-1903.08.
Disclosure statement shall include the amount, or a statement that there is no amount, included in the
projected budget as a reserve for repairs and replacement. Section 42-1904.04.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
FLORIDA
Condominium financial reporting rules must include, but not be limited to, standards for presenting a
summary of association reserves, including a good faith estimate disclosing the annual amount of
reserve funds that would be necessary for the association to fully fund reserves for each reserve item
based on the straight-line accounting method. Section 718-111(13). Annual budgets shall include
reserve accounts for items such as, but not limited to, roof replacement, pavement, painting and other
items with a replacement cost exceeding $10,000. Funding for the accounts can be waived by a majority
vote at a duly called meeting. Section 718.112(f)(2).
Homeowner associations may adopt a budget that includes reserve accounts for capital expenditures
and deferred maintenance for which the association is responsible. If reserve accounts are not
established, funding of such reserves is limited to the extent that the governing documents limit
P105
IV.
4
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
increases in assessments, including reserves. Associations may waive reserves with proper notification in
their financial statement. Section 720.303(6).
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
GEORGIA
Condominium resale disclosure statement must include the estimated or actual operating budget for
the condominium for the current year’s reserves. Section 44-3-111.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
HAWAII
Condominium budgets shall include the amount of money in reserve, future reserve estimates based on
a reserve study performed by the association, an explanation of how reserves are computed and the
amount to be collected for reserves in the year ahead. The association shall compute the estimated
replacement reserves by a formula that is based on the estimated life and the estimated capital
expenditure or major maintenance required for each part of the property. The estimated replacement
reserves shall include: adjustments for revenues which will be received and expenditures which will be
made before the beginning of the fiscal year to which the budget relates; and separate, designated
reserves for each part of the property for which capital expenditures or major maintenance will exceed
$10,000. Parts of the property for which capital expenditures or major maintenance will not exceed
$10,000 may be aggregated in a single designated reserve. Section 514B-148.
IDAHO
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
ILLINOIS
The Common Interest Community Act requires the board to give each owner a copy of the proposed
annual budget which shall provide for reasonable reserves for capital expenditures and deferred
maintenance for repair or replacement of the common elements. 765 ILCS 160/1-45.
The Condominium Act requires the board of managers to adopt a budget that provides for reasonable
reserves for capital expenditures and differed maintenance for repair or replacement of the common
elements. To determine the amount of reserves appropriate, the board shall take into consideration the
any independent professional reserve study which the association may obtain. Any association without a
reserve requirement in its condominium instruments may elect to waive in whole or in part the reserve
requirements by a vote of 2/3 of the total votes of the association. 760 ILCS 605/9.
P106
IV.
5
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
Disclosure statement shall include a statement of the status and amount of any reserve or replacement
fund and any other fund specifically designated for association projects.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
INDIANA
All sums assessed by the association of co-owners shall be established by using generally accepted
accounting principles applied on a consistent basis and shall include the establishment and maintenance
of a replacement reserve fund. The replacement reserve fund may be used for capital expenditures and
replacement and repair of the common areas and facilities and may not be used for usual and ordinary
repair expenses of the common areas and facilities. Section 32-25-4-4.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
IOWA
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
KANSAS
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
KENTUCKY
The Horizontal Property Law requires all co-owners to contribute toward the expense of maintaining a
replacement reserve fund for repairs and maintenance of the general common elements. Section
381.870.
Condominium unit owners’ associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and
reserves and impose and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section
981.9167. The resale disclosure statement must include the total amount of any reserves for capital
expenditures, if any, and of any portions of those reserves designated by the association for any
specified projects. Section 381.9203.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
LOUISIANA
Associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and make and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 9:1123.102. Public offering
statements shall include an indication of the amount, or a statement that there is no amount, included
in the budget as a reserve for repairs and replacement. Section 9:1124.102.
P107
IV.
6
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
MAINE
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 1603-102. Public offering
statements must contain a statement of the amount, or a statement that there is no amount, included
in the budget as a reserve for repairs and replacement and a statement of the amount and purpose of
any other reserves. Section 1604-103.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
MARYLAND
Councils of unit owners have the power to adopt and amend budgets for revenue, expenditures, and
reserves and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 11-109. The level of
reserves is required to be included in the annual budget; however, there is not a required level of
reserve funding. Section 11-109.2. Resale certificate must contain the current operating budget of the
condominium including details concerning the reserve fund for repair and replacement and its intended
use, or a statement that there is no reserve fund. Section 11-1350
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
MASSACHUSETTS
All condominiums shall be required to maintain an adequate replacement reserve fund, collected as part
of the common expenses and deposited in an account or accounts separate and segregated from
operating funds. Section 183A-10(i). Managing agents shall be responsible for rendering, in no case less
frequently than quarterly, a written report to the trustees or the managing board of the organization of
unit owners detailing all receipts and expenditures on behalf of the organization, including beginning
and ending balances and copies of all relevant bank statements and reconciliations for the replacement
reserve fund, and maintain a separate and distinct account for the replacement reserve fund. Section
183A-10(f).
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
MICHIGAN
Condominiums must have a reserve fund for major repairs and replacement of common elements shall
be maintained by the associations of co-owners. The administrator may by rule establish minimum
standards for reserve funds. Section 559.205.
P108
IV.
7
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
The state administrative code requires the co-owners’ association to maintain a reserve fund which, at a
minimum, shall be equal to 10% of the association’s current annual budget on a noncumulative basis.
The funds shall only be used for major repairs and replacement of common elements. Additionally, the
following statement shall be contained in the bylaws: “The minimum standard required by this section
may prove to be inadequate for a particular project. The association of co-owners should carefully
analyze their condominium project to determine if a greater amount should be set aside, or if additional
reserve funds should be established for other purposes.” Rule 559.511.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
MINNESOTA
The common interest ownership act requires an association to include in its annual budgets
replacement reserves projected by the board to be adequate, together with past and future
contributions to replacement reserves, to fund the replacement of common elements. The act also
requires the association to reevaluate the adequacy of its budgeted replacement reserves at least every
third year after the recording of the declaration creating the common interest community. Section
515B.3-1441. Unit owners associations have the power to adopt and amend budgets for revenues,
expenditures and reserves and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section
515B.3-101. Communities must distribute an annual report with a statement of t he asso ciation's total
r eplacement rese rves , t he co m po nent s of t he commo n i nte re st comm unity f o r wh ich the
re se rv es are set aside, and th e amo unts o f th e reser ves , if a ny, that t he board ha s allocated for
t he replacem ent o f eac h o f t h ose c o m ponent s. Sec t io n 515 B.3 -1 06. D isclo sure statem e nt s m us t
include the amount i n t he budget as r e plac e ment re se rv es and a st atem ent o f a ny o th er
r es erve s.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a formal reserve study.
MISSISSIPPI
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
MISSOURI
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 448.3-102.1. Resale certificates
must provide the amount of any reserves for capital expenditures and of any portions of those reserves
designated by the association for any specified projects. Section 448.4 -109.1.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
P109
IV.
8
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
MONTANA
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
NEBRASKA
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 76-860.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
NEVADA
The common interest ownership act requires an association to establish adequate reserves, funded on a
reasonable basis, for the repair, replacement and restoration of the major components of the common
elements. Section 116.3115. Additionally, the executive board of an association is required to conduct a
study of reserves at least every five years, review the study to determine if reserves are sufficient, and
adjust reserves, if necessary. The statute specifies how the study is to be conducted. Section 116.31152.
A public offering statement must include a budget which has a statement of the amount included in the
budget as reserves. Section 116.4103.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Public offering statement must include the status and amount of any reserve for the major maintenance
or replacement fund and any portion of such fund earmarked for any specified project by the board of
directors. Section 356-B:58.
NEW JERSEY
The association may levy and collect assessments duly made by the association for a share of common
expenses or otherwise, including any other moneys duly owed the association, upon proper notice to
the appropriate unit owner, together with interest thereon, late fees and reasonable attorneys' fees, if
authorized by the master deed or bylaws. All funds collected by an association shall be maintained
separately in the association's name. For investment purposes only, reserve funds may be commingled
with operating funds of the association. Commingled operating and reserve funds shall be accounted for
separately, and a commingled account shall not, at any time, be less than the amount identified as
reserve funds. Section 46:8B-15.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
P110
IV.
9
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
NEW MEXICO
Unit owners of a condominium association may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures,
and reserves and collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 47-7C-2.
Disclosure statements must make a statement of the amount or a statement that there is no amount
included in the budget as a reserve for repairs and replacement and a statement of any other reserves.
Section 47-7D-3 and 47-7E.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
NEW YORK
Condominium bylaws may contain provisions governing the payment, collection and disbursement of
funds, including reserves, to provide for major and minor maintenance, repairs, additions,
improvements, replacements, working capital, bad debts and unpaid common expenses, depreciation,
obsolescence and similar purposes. RRP Section 339-V. Co-operative corporation directors must
periodically set aside reasonable sums for reserves. CCO Section 72.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
NORTH CAROLINA
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 47C-3-102 and 47F-3-102. Public
offering statements must include the amount, or a statement that there is no amount, included in the
budget as a reserve for repairs and replacement and a statement of any other reserves. Section 47C-4-
103.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
NORTH DAKOTA
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
OHIO
Unless otherwise provided in the declaration or bylaws, the condominium unit owners association,
through the board of directors, shall adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves
in an amount adequate to repair and replace major capital items in the normal course of operations
without the necessity of special assessments, provided that the amount set aside annually for reserves
shall not be less than 10% of the budget for that year unless the reserve requirement is waived annually
by the unit owners exercising not less than a majority of the voting power of the unit owners
P111
IV.
10
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
association. Section 5311.081.
P112
IV.
11
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
Planned community owners associations, unless otherwise provided in the declaration or bylaws,
through its board of directors, shall annually adopt and amend an estimated budget for revenues and
expenditures. Any budget shall include reserves in an amount adequate to repair and replace major
capital items in the normal course of operations without the necessity of special assessments, unless the
owners, exercising not less than a majority of the voting power of the owners association, waive the
reserve requirement annually. Section 5312.06.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
OKLAHOMA
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
OREGON
The declarant, on behalf of a homeowners association, shall conduct an initial reserve study, prepare an
initial maintenance plan and establish a reserve account. A reserve account shall be established to fund
major maintenance, repair or replacement of all items of common property which will normally require
major maintenance, repair or replacement, in whole or in part, in more than one and less than 30 years.
The board of directors of the association annually shall conduct a reserve study or review and update an
existing study to determine the reserve account requirements. After review of the reserve study or
reserve study update, the board of directors may, without any action by owners adjust the amount of
payments as indicated by the study or update and provide for other reserve items that the board of
directors, in its discretion, may deem appropriate. Section 94.595 and 100.175. Following a turnover of
power from the declarant to the association, the board of directors at least annually shall adopt a
budget for the planned community and include moneys to be allocated to the reserve account. Section
94.645 and 100.412. However, the board of directors, with the approval of all owners, may elect not to
fund the reserve account for the following year. Section 94.595 and 100.175.
PENNSYLVANIA
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 3302 and 5302. Disclosure
statements must statement of the amount or a statement that there is no amount included in the
budget as a reserve for repairs and replacement and a statement of any other reserves. Section 3402
and 5402.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
P113
IV.
12
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
RHODE ISLAND
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section34-36.1-3.02. Public offering
statements for condominiums must disclose a budget detailing the amount of reserves sufficient for
painting exterior surfaces, replacing roofing, resurfacing roadways or other items subject to declaration.
Must also disclose itemized life spans for common elements and expected impact on assessments.
Section 34-36.1-4.03.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study.
SOUTH CAROLINA
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
SOUTH DAKOTA
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
TENNESSEE
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 66-27-402. Disclosure statements
must include the amount, or a statement that there is no amount, included in the budget as a reserve
for repairs and replacements, and whether or not any study has been done to determine their
adequacy, if a study has been done, where the study will be made available for review and inspection,
and a statement of any other reserves. Section 66-27-503.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
TEXAS
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 82.102. Resale statements must
include the amount of reserves, if any, for capital expenditures and of portions of those reserves
designated by the association for a specified project. Section 82.157.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
P114
IV.
13
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
UTAH
Condominium management committees must cause a reserve analysis to be conducted no less
frequently than every six years and review and, if necessary, update a previously conducted reserve
analysis no less frequently than every three years. The management committee may conduct a reserve
analysis itself or may engage a reliable person or organization, as determined by the management
committee, to conduct the reserve analysis. An association of unit owners shall annually present the
reserve study and provide an opportunity for unit owners to discuss reserves and to vote on whether to
fund a reserve fund and, if so, how to fund it and in what amount. Section 57-8-7.5 and 57-8a-211.
There is no statutory requirement to fund reserves.
VERMONT
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 27A-3-102. Public offering
statement must include the amount, or a statement that there is no amount, included in the budget as a
reserve for repairs and replacement and statement of any other reserves. Section 27A-4-103.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
VIRGINIA
Associations must conduct a reserve study at least once every five years to determine the necessity and
amount of reserves required to repair, replace and restore the common elements or capital
components. The board of directors must review the study at least annually and make adjustments as
the board determines to keep the funding of reserves sufficient. The statutory provisions on reserves
also include requirements for the contents of the association budget if reserves are determined to be a
necessity. Section 55-79.83.1 and 55-514.1. Resale certificates must include the current reserve study
report or a summary thereof, a statement of the status and amount of any reserve or replacement fund
and any portion of the fund designated for any specified project by the association. Section 55-79.97.
WASHINGTON
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners, and establish and administer a reserve
account and prepare a reserve study. Section 64.34.304 and 64.38.020. The decisions relating to the
preparation and updating of a reserve study must be made by the board of directors of the association in
the exercise of the reasonable discretion of the board. Such decisions must include whether a reserve
study will be prepared or updated, and whether the assistance of a reserve study professional will be
utilized. Section 64.34.388. Associations are encouraged to establish a reserve account to fund major
maintenance, repair, and replacement of common elements, including limited common elements that
will require major maintenance, repair, or replacement within 30 years. Unless doing so would impose
P115
IV.
14
Community Associations Institute (CAI) | 6402 Arlington Blvd., Ste 500, Falls Church, VA 22042 | www.caionline.org | (888) 224-4321
an unreasonable hardship, an association with significant assets shall prepare and update a reserve
study. The initial reserve study must be based upon a visual site inspection conducted by a reserve study
professional. Unless doing so would impose an unreasonable hardship, the association shall update the
reserve study annually. At least every three years, an updated reserve study must be prepared and
based upon a visual site inspection conducted by a reserve study professional. Section 64.34.380 and
64.38.065. The public offering statement shall include copies of the association's current reserve study,
if any. If the association does not have a reserve study, the public offering statement shall contain the
following disclosure: “This association does not have a current reserve study. The lack of a current
reserve study poses certain risks to you, the purchaser. Insufficient reserves may, under some
circumstances, require you to pay on demand as a special assessment your share of common expenses
for the cost of major maintenance, repair, or replacement of a common element.” Section 64.34.410.
WEST VIRGINIA
Unit owners associations may adopt and amend budgets for revenues, expenditures, and reserves and
collect assessments for common expenses from unit owners. Section 36B-3-102. Public offering
statement must include the amount, or a statement that there is no amount, included in the budget as a
reserve for repairs and replacement and statement of any other reserves. Section 36B-4-103.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
WISCONSIN
An association may, with the written consent of a majority of the unit votes, create or terminate a
statutory reserve account. Section 703.163.
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
WYOMING
There is no statutory requirement to conduct a reserve study and no statutory requirement to fund
reserves.
P116
IV.