HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Only 091223AGENDA
INFORMATION UPDATE
September 12, 2023
5:00 PM,
I.Information Update
I.A 2023 Electric and Water Rate Study and Financial Plan
I.B Rubey Park Overhead Electric Charger
I.C Galena Cooper Living Lab
I.D ACRA Destination Marketing Report
Follow-Up Council Memo - 2023 Electric and Water Rate Study and Financial
Plan_Final.docx
Exhibit A - City of Aspen Water & Electric Billing Service Territories.pdf
Exhibit B - Comparison of City of Aspen Utilities with other Colorado Utilities from
Fiscal Year 2023 Work Session from Oct 2022.pdf
Exhibit C - City of Aspen electric large residential service information.pdf
Rubey Park OHC Memo.docx
2023.09.06 Revision_2022.11.01 GCLL Work Session Summary Memo_v3.pdf
Aug2023_DMReport.pdf
AugBOD_2023.pdf
1
1
WORK SESSION SUMMARY MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Cole Langford, Utilities Business Manager
Justin Forman, Utilities Director
THROUGH:Tyler Christoff, Deputy Public Works Director
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEETING DATE:August 07, 2023
RE:2023 Electric and Water Rate Study and Financial Plan
_____
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: Utilities staff with the assistance of Raftelis Financial
Consultants, Inc., presented the results of the Rate Study and Financial Plan for Water
and Electric Utilities for the proposed year 2024. The previous comprehensive financial
study for the Water and Electric Utilities was performed in 2018. To ensure a continued
stable, equitable, and defensible rate structure, Utilities must reexamine their financial
model on a periodic basis. Periodic rate studies are an industry standard and benefit rate
payers by allowing our Utility to implement rate adjustments incrementally, maintain
financial viability, uphold a high level of reliable service, and be proactive in responding
to industry trends and customer needs.
The 2024 proposed recommendation was for an overall revenue adjustment of 8.00% for
the Water Utility and 8.25% for the Electric Utility. Staff reviewed the common service
sizes within the Water and Electric Utilities. Theoretical average monthly customer bills
were compared under 2023 rates and proposed 2024 rates. Rates for the Electric
Community Investment Fee and Water Utility Investment Charge (Tap Fees) were
discussed. A new all-electric residential rate was presented to Council as beneficial
electrification continues to be adopted within the community.
COUNCIL DIRECTION:
1. Council asked staff to investigate the potential to incentivize ‘electrification’
through rebates in the Electric Community Investment Fees.
2. Council requested more information on electric large residential services such as
average bills and usage.
3. Council requested how City Utilities compare with other utilities throughout the
state of Colorado.
4. Council requested to see the geographical coverage of Aspen’s specific water
billing areas.
2
2
NEXT STEPS:
1. Staff will re-present this financial model with additional information requested in
the utilities department Fiscal Year 2024 Compass & Budget Report work session
on October 16, 2023.
2. Staff has provided Exhibit A, attached to this memo to illustrate Aspen’s electric
service territory and water billing areas.
3. Staff has provided Exhibit B, attached to this memo to provide a comparison of
City electric and water rates to other utilities throughout the state. This information
was originally presented in 2022 to provide context for the Water and Electric
utilities 2023 financial model. Staff will also provide an updated utility rate
comparison during the October budget work session.
4. Staff has provided in Exhibit C more information on the City’s electric large
residential services such as average bills and usage.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: City of Aspen Water & Electric Billing Service Territories
Exhibit B: Comparison of Aspen Utilities with Other Colorado Utilities from Fiscal Year
2023 Budget Work Session Presentation from October 2022
Exhibit C: City of Aspen electric large residential service information
3
4
Electric KWH Prices by State
1
Colorado State Average
Aspen Customer Average
Aspen First Tier
5
Colorado Electric Survey – Residential $50.48$71.98$74.72$79.04$81.08$85.62$86.70$87.74$88.64$91.13$95.25$95.91$102.25$103.11$103.87$105.82$106.48$109.41$110.31$110.40$111.00$111.70$112.55$113.22$113.92$114.65$115.70$59.05$88.26$92.65$96.15$99.04$99.60$100.13$100.90$101.97$102.03$103.88$105.42$106.15$109.27$110.30$112.76$114.61$115.31$118.42$119.43$120.10$122.45$125.85$135.44$138.44$89.24$130.97$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
$140
$160
CAMU Residential Survey
January 2022 - Cost of 700 kWh
Municipality CO-OP Investor
6
Colorado Electric Survey – Small Commercial $125.75$195.40$213.40$214.19$221.80$224.20$225.10$226.35$238.40$238.70$240.50$253.20$254.69$258.50$258.83$265.55$270.40$275.50$281.50$286.90$296.50$299.80$300.60$309.05$309.40$312.50$316.80$144.05$162.26$213.02$216.70$218.55$223.14$226.59$231.10$235.74$236.35$236.53$238.74$241.20$252.00$252.94$257.32$258.87$271.10$272.50$290.00$292.30$314.43$317.00$356.45$365.65$215.87$319.77$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
FORT MORGANLONGMONTGUNNISONFORT COLLINSHAXTUNGLENWOOD SPRINGSDELTAFOUNTAINWRAYLOVELANDJULESBURGOAK CREEKASPEN 2022HOLYOKECOLORADO SPRINGSASPEN 2023LYONSGRANADAESTES PARKTRINIDADHOLLYSPRINGFIELDLAMARLA JUNTABURLINGTONRATONLAS ANIMASCENTERFLEMINGYUMAMOON LAKESAN MIGUEL PAPOUDRE VALLEY REAK C ELECTRIC ASSNYAMPA VALLEY EAHIGHLINE EAHOLY CROSS EAMORGAN COUNTY…GRAND VALLEYHIGH WEST ENERGYWHEATLANDCORE ElectricUNITED POWERDELTA-MONTROSE…Y-W ELECTRIC ASSNWHITE RIVER EAEMPIRE EAMOUNTAIN VIEW EAGUNNISON…LA PLATASAN LUIS VALLEY REASANGRE DE CRISTOSAN ISABELTRI-COUNTYSE COLORADO PAMOUNTAIN PARKS EIXCEL ENERGYBLACK HILLS ENERGYCAMU Small Commercial Survey
January 2022 - Cost of 2,000 kWh + 10 kW
Municipality CO-OP Investor
7
Colorado Electric Survey – Large Commercial
$3,654$3,826$4,210$4,234$4,331$4,442$4,454$4,514$4,662$4,808$5,311$5,369$5,421$5,455$5,697$5,735$5,900$5,969$6,077$6,300$6,305$6,731$7,171$7,258$3,239$3,392$4,146$4,337$4,481$4,497$4,612$4,637$4,658$4,677$4,736$4,740$4,795$4,817$4,830$4,843$4,861$4,864$4,887$5,058$5,172$5,633$6,141$6,184$7,759$4,401$6,228$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
FORT MORGANHAXTUNGUNNISONLONGMONTLOVELANDOAK CREEKFOUNTAINFORT COLLINSDELTAGLENWOOD…HOLLYCOLORADO…BURLINGTONESTES PARKLYONSHOLYOKEASPEN 2022RATONASPEN 2023LA JUNTASPRINGFIELDLAS ANIMASLAMARTRINIDADCENTERFLEMINGGRANADAJULESBURGWRAYYUMASAN MIGUEL PAMOON LAKEK C ELECTRIC ASSNYAMPA VALLEY EAHIGHLINE EAHOLY CROSS EACORE ElectricDELTA-…GRAND VALLEYMOUNTAIN VIEW…EMPIRE EAGUNNISON…UNITED POWERMORGAN COUNTY…WHITE RIVER EAY-W ELECTRIC ASSNLA PLATAWHEATLANDSAN LUIS VALLEY…HIGH WEST ENERGYPOUDRE VALLEY…SE COLORADO PASAN ISABELTRI-COUNTYSANGRE DE CRISTOMOUNTAIN…XCEL ENERGYBLACK HILLS…CAMU Large Commercial Survey
January 2022 - Cost of 45,000 kWh + 130 kW
Municipality CO-OP Investor
8
Colorado Water Rate Survey
491
512
551
570
579
598
613
673
673
697
698
705
727
729
732
764
770
775
812
824
835
838
843
968
1,014
1,025
1,080
$0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400
New Castle
Broomfield
Louisville
Fort Collins
Arvada
Denver Water
Carbondale
S. Adams County
Basalt
Boulder
Brighton
Highlands Ranch
Glenwood Springs
Aspen 2022
Silt
Thornton
Aspen 2023
Northglenn
Parker
Westminster
Aurora
Greeley
Golden
Erie
Rifle
Snowmass
CO Springs
Colorado Water Rate Survey
115,000 Gallons per Year
9
State Average Residential
(700 kWh per month)
Aspen Utilities customers consuming
700 kWh on a 200 Amp service would
pay $68.98
Total Residential Customers: 2,006
Residential 100 Amp Customers: 287
Residential 200 Amp Customers: 1,542
Residential 300 Amp Customers: 12
Residential 400 Amp Customers: 125
Residential 600 Amp Customers: 27
Residential 800 Amp Customers: 11
Aspen Average Residential
(100 Amp to 400 Amp)
These electric customers consume
1,500 kWh, on average, per month
due to our high elevation and
alpine climate
91.2% of our customer base utilize
a 100 Amp or 200 Amp electric
breaker and service
Aspen Utilities customers
consuming 1,500 kWh on a 200
Amp service would pay $183.72
Aspen Large Residential
(600 Amp and up)
These electric customers consume
4,420 kWh, on average, per month
Aspen Large Residential make up
1.9% of our residential customer base
Aspen Utilities customers using 4,420
kWh on a 600 Amp service would pay
$456.62
10
MEMORANDUM
TO:City Council
FROM:Kyla Smits, E.I.T., Project Manager
Lynn Rumbaugh, Mobility Division Manager
Pete Rice, P.E., Director of Transportation & Parking
THROUGH:Sara Ott, City Manager
Scott Miller, Director of Public Works
Tyler Christoff, P.E. Assistant Director of Public Works
RE:Information Only: Rubey Park Transit Center Overhead Electric
Charger
SUMMARY:
The purpose of this memo is to provide background on the Rubey Park Transit Center
Overhead Electric Chargers and to address concerns brought up by the Public.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
In 2018, Council approved a financial partnership with RFTA for the purchase of
eight electric buses.
In 2021, Council adopted Science Based Targets that direct Aspen to reduce
emissions by 63% by 2030 and to reach net zero by 2050.
In 2022, Council approved a City contribution of $350,000.00 for the purchase
and installation of an OEC at the Rubey Park Transit Center.
In February of 2023, the City of Aspen and RFTA entered into an
Intergovernmental Agreement wherein the City will manage the construction
related to install of an Overhead Electric Charger at the Rubey Park Transit
Center. This agreement can be reviewed here.
BACKGROUND:
In support of Aspen’s climate and transportation goals, Aspen City Council has
championed the transition to battery electric transit technology. In recent years, the City
has tested and ultimately partnered to purchase eight battery electric buses now in
service on Aspen and upper valley routes.
11
These buses currently charge at the Aspen Maintenance Facility on Service Center
Road via a slow depot charger. The slow depot charger can take anywhere from 1 to 8
hours to fully charge a bus depending on conditions and starting charge level.
The electric buses cannot hold a charge for an entire service day without needing to
return to the Aspen Maintenance Facility for charging. This causes buses to be pulled
off routes and the full capability of the current fleet is underutilized. RFTA’s initiative,
“Destination 2040”, included a plan to install fast chargers at Rubey Park to allow for on-
route charging. This will result in electric buses being utilized efficiently on-route to
better serve the community. By including the on-route charger at Rubey Park to the
existing depot charger, expansion of the future fleet is anticipated. The fast charger is
estimated to be able to charge a bus in 3-20 minutes depending on conditions and the
starting charge level.
DISCUSSION:
The location of the Rubey Park Overhead Chargers was picked to balance the needs
and codes of all applicable City Departments and RFTA’s ability to use the charger with
the current bus flow. ADA compliance and pedestrian volume were the primary reasons
a location at the central transit station was not chosen. Pathways would have been
narrowed and it would have added pedestrian congestion issues at the main transit hub
and secondly, modifications to the building structure would be required including the
green roof. Due to the limited area along the building, screening of the utility cabinets at
this location would not be possible. Wagner Park locations were not chosen due to bus
staging and bus pass through issues. This would have affected the parking that is
currently located along Wagner Park as well as the mature trees located along the east
edge of Wagner Park. The potential to impede on the Wagner Park Mountain View
Plane was also a potential issue. Furthermore, the overall use and visual condition of
Wagner Park is not suitable for commercial and industrial development.
12
The approved location of the chargers along the alley allowed for the chargers to be out
of the heavy use pedestrian areas, is already a location utilized by RFTA for layover,
provides the easiest connection to the existing electric utility network, and has the room
to provide screening. The proposed bay (2nd when counting from Wagner towards the
east) is the first construction bay because the downhill portions of the stormwater
system and the electrical circuit must come first when constructing a directional system.
If another bay were to be utilized for the charging stations, the entirety of the rain
garden stormwater system would have to be demolished and rebuilt. This would extend
both the cost and construction timeline well over what is currently planned.
Engineering staff has worked closely with consultants to develop a plan that every City
Department agreed on. Multiple city departments have been involved in the planning
process to ensure compliance with City Land Use Code. This level of development was
required to go before the Historic Preservation Commission in a public meeting. This
project triggered Minor Amendment to a Planned Development Detailed Review
Approval, Commercial Design Review, and Minor Historic Preservation Development
Review. This project was presented at a properly noticed HPC hearing on July 12,
2023. A building permit was applied for upon receiving unanimous approval at HPC.
The project was eligible for call-up of the Commercial Design Review portion of the
approval. City Council, on August 22, 2023, upheld HPC’s decision that the project met
Commercial Design Guidelines.
The project is slated for construction in Fall of 2023. Landscaping of the rain garden will
occur in Spring 2024 to ensure successful planting and growth of the proposed
vegetation.
PUBLIC CONCERNS:
Residents near the Rubey Park Transit Center have raised concerns regarding these
fast chargers. These concerns can be broken down into the following: Fire Risk, Health
Risk, Noise Levels, and Visual Impact.
13
Fire Risk
Fire Risk of any structure or system needs to be taken into consideration when building,
especially in a commercial area. The biggest concern that has been raised is the risk of
lithium-ion battery fire or fire caused by the charging mechanism. New Flyer is the brand
of buses RFTA owns. One bus from this brand that was part of a fleet in Connecticut
caught fire in 2021. After an investigation, it was determined that this was due to a
manufacturer defect. The buses in this manufacturing run were pulled from active
service and fixed. Other manufacturing runs were checked for this default and RFTA
has verified that none of the current bus fleet was part of this defective run of buses.
Additionally, EV Fire Safe has compiled all the international data available and has
confirmed only 18 electric bus fires have occurred globally since 2010. The average
amount of all electric vehicle (cars, busses, etc.) fires per 100,000 vehicles sold is 25.1.
The average amount of all gasoline vehicle fires per 100,000 vehicles sold is 1,529.9.
No fatalities have been documented in relation to EV bus fires. There have not been
any confirmed EV bus fire cases where the charging mechanism was determined to be
the root cause of the fire.
Furthermore, RFTA has made an effort to provide education and guidance to all local
fire districts on how to combat electric battery fires. RFTA has trained the electric
vehicle mechanics on signs to watch out for to help prevent any possible electric battery
fires.
Health Risk
The health risk of any structure or system is of grave importance when building in an
area that transports millions of riders a year. The primary health concern that has been
identified by members of the public is the relationship between people and the
electromagnetic fields produced by these buses and the chargers.
All equipment like this is tested and is shown to be below the accepted international
standards. The electromagnetic fields put off by the chargers and buses is not any more
14
hazardous than the existing fields put off by cellphones, Wi-Fi Routers, or the existing
electric grid. A study published in 2022 shows that fast chargers measured a lower
electromagnetic field than standard chargers.
Extremely low-frequency (ELF), high-frequency, and radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields (RF EMF - think cellphones) are all classified as possible carcinogens to humans
(Group 2B classification). This 2B classification for ELF EMFs was the outcome of
scientists observing populations affected by chronic exposure to high-voltage power
lines. Included in the 2B classification are also pickled vegetables (traditional Asian,
1993), gasoline (1989), Carpentry and joinery (1987), and many more substances that
have “limited evidence that is far from being conclusive” on whether they cause cancer.
Consuming red meat is classified in Group 2A which is probably carcinogenic to
humans. This means that there is more compelling evidence to suggest eating red meat
is more likely to be carcinogenic than electromagnetic fields.
Noise Levels
Excessive noise levels in crowded, commercial areas are important to consider when
installing a new system. The manufacturer of the overhead chargers, ABB, has stated
that the highest volume produced by the system is when the system is actively charging
a bus. This volume measures at 62 dBA from 1 meter away. This equates to the volume
of background music. From 5 meters away, the volume produced measures at 55 dBA.
This equates to the average perceived volume of a normal room. It is highly likely that
the noise produced will not be noticeable over the general city noises already present in
the area.
Additionally, it should be noted that the buses will only utilize the charging mechanism
when on route. Buses will not be staged overnight in the charging bays for charging. All
overnight or long-term charging will still occur at the service center.
Visual Impact
15
The visual impact of any new construction should be taken into consideration. The use
of a particular parcel is also a large factor in this decision. Rubey Park Transit Center is
already a commercial transit hub. Keeping the charging station on this property instead
is in keeping with the existing use. RFTA also found no other bus station in town
suitable to fit the charging station that also met the other requirements necessary to
provide power and layover capability.
Multiple factors were taken into account when looking at the visual impact of the
charging stations at Rubey Park. Locating the arms on the alley instead of along
Wagner Park was one of these considerations. Preserving the park without more
infrastructure or impeding on the Mountain View Plane was a priority. Reduced visual
impact from the pedestrian mall pathways was also a key component.
The charging boom arm measures 3’6” wide and is 17’7” tall. The height limit in the
zone district is 28’ and this charging station is well below this limit. The residential decks
located along the alley sit at approximately 13’8”. Your average height person will be
able to clearly look over the boom arm.
The City of Aspen Parks department was consulted to pick the most ideal plantings that
maintained safety clearances around the utility cabinets while providing varied plantings
within the bioretention stormwater planters. Trees and tall plants are going to be planted
to camouflage the cabinets. The trees, when fully mature, will be taller than the boom
arm. This will provide a similar, if not enhanced, green space on the north side of the
property along the alley.
16
1
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEETING DATE: November 1, 2022
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE: November 11, 2022 (Revised September 6,
2023)
AGENDA TOPIC: Galena Cooper Living Lab (GCLL)
PRESENTED BY: PJ Murray, EIT – Project Manager, Engineering
Department
Trish Aragon, PE – City Engineer, Engineering
Department
Kathleen Wanatowicz – PR Studios, LLC
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Torre
Council Member Ward Hauenstein
Council Member Rachael Richards
Council Member John Doyle
Council Member Skippy Mesirow
_______________________________________________________________________
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Staff presented the field data, a summary of
the outreach and engagement report and lessons learned related to the Galena Cooper
Living Lab. Key take aways from the Galena Cooper Living Lab (GCLL):
The living lab physical configuration decreased negative interactions between users.
There are conflicting definitions and understanding of “safe” infrastructure and
“safety” measures in the community. Further education of safety is needed in the
community.
The data and perception of the living lab did not align (data showed the corridor was
safer, community felt the layout was unsafe) however, there is alignment between
the data and the community around increased pedestrian space and intersection
improvements.
Cyclists comply with “rules of the road” more frequently when dedicated infrastructure
is provided for them (bike lanes, stop signs).
Counterflow bike lane was not intuitive or favored by the community.
Lack of convenient parking options in the core; concerns that accessibility to
businesses was difficult for disabled users of the core.
Better views of the mountain; Galena looked less chaotic.
Dialogue around parking, safety and mobility was robust, there is a desire for the
core to be more pedestrian friendly.
17
2
Business community prefers frequent one-on-one communication from the City.
Below are the topics staff received Council direction on.
1. Topic: Explore permanent pedestrian enhancements in the Galena Cooper Living
Lab corridor.
Council directed staff to explore and design permanent pedestrian
enhancements along the GCLL corridor such as wider sidewalks. The plan
shall be holistic and consider centralized bike parking, motorcycle/scooter
parking and potential WE-Cycle station locations,
2. Topic: Explore permanent intersection improvements in the Galena Cooper Living
Lab corridor.
Council directed staff to explore and design permanent intersection
improvements that facilitate safe, easy and intuitive interactions between
users such as curb extensions, raised crosswalks, colored concrete to
delineate pedestrian area, etc.
3. Topic: Galena and Hyman intersection turning motions.
Council requested the turning motions at the Galena/Hyman intersection be
considered in the holistic pedestrian improvements designed in Topic 1 and
2 above, i.e. if pedestrian improvements can be made to this intersection that
would safely allow Hyman Ave to return to two-way traffic, Council may
prefer that option.
At timestamp 1:45:40 of the November 1, 2022 Council Work Session, Public
Works Director Scott Miller asked a clarifying question regarding the traffic flow
pattern of the 500 block of E Hyman Ave. Mayor Torre indicated that there was
insufficient support to revert Hyman Ave to a two-way street. Among the Council
members, one supported a two-way configuration, another supported maintaining
it as a one-way street and three members requested a comprehensive plan that
prioritizes pedestrian safety for this area before considering returning to two-way
traffic.
In response to this request, Engineering will explore design alternatives that
holistically address both safe two-way and one-way travel as well as the tradeoffs
associated with the two travel patterns.
NEXT STEPS: Below are the next steps for staff regarding the GCLL based on direction
received from Council during the November 1, 2022 work session.
1. Survey the GCLL Lab corridor to create preliminary design alternatives that
incorporate increased pedestrian space and intersection improvements.
Spring/Summer 2023
18
3
2. Conduct outreach to the community on preferred design alternatives for the GCLL
corridor. Summer/Fall 2023
3. Present design recommendations for the GCLL corridor to Council. Fall/Winter
2023
CITY MANAGER NOTES: __________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
19
August 2023 Destination Marketing Report for Council
Destination Marketing Staff Report Excerpt from ACRA’s Board of Directors Packet:
Destination Marketing was pleased to release The Aspen season of the Travel Beyond Podcast produced by Destination
Think on 8/8, dropping new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday for 3 weeks. Click here: For more information and to
listen. We hosted representatives from Niseko, Japan and answered questions they had regarding housing,
development, transportation, tourism & events. We are exploring the possibility of a similar learning exchange with
Queenstown, NZ. Following two waves of engagement, the resident sentiment summary is now posted to the website,
this will be presented by Destination Analysts (New name Future Partners) in November at the Tourism Outlook. As part
of a grant cycle, we participated in with The Colorado Tourism Office, and the creation of the Roaring Fork Valley
Destination Alliance, click here to view the Economic Impact Report for the Roaring Fork Valley in 2022. Destination
Marketing will participate in the City of Aspen’s Public Art engagement process as well as the Roaring Fork Outdoor
coalition, both of which kick off this month. This month ACRA also supported the Raizado Community Day in Rio Grande
Park. We are hiring for a full-time event position to support Julie Hardman in a year-round capacity.
This month’s wedding eNews had a 75.5% open rate. The sales team hosted our wedding planner fam. We introduced
destination wedding planners to our local event vendors, hotels, and venue partners. We are already seeing coverage
from hosting the international group media FAMs in July.
Please note that Destination Marketing was the BOD Presenter this month & the presentation deck is also included for
Council’s review.
Occupancy Reports:
July Occupancy was 72.6%, down 3.2% YOY, while average daily rate for July was up 1.1% YOY. Summer season (May-
October) is pacing -6.6% YOY, where ADR for the season is up 1.5%. Looking ahead for winter we note that shorter
booking window trends continue and expect January to be soft between New Years and MLK travel times due to a
softening of in-bound International visitation for that time period.
Sales Tax Reports:
As of the June Consumption Tax Report, released in August of 2023, the Tourism Promotion Fund is pacing 11.4% above
year-to-date budgeted revenues and is up 2.7% above last year’s actual year-to-date revenues. Against June of 2022, the
2023 revenues were down 14.6% (adjusted for rate increase).
Recent Press Coverage
Website Stats
Please see aspenchamber.org web statistics on the following page.
20
ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION MONTHLY REPORT
July 2023
July 2023
171,887
Sessions
94.36%
Engagement Rate
56.74
Average Engagement Time
Per Session (In Seconds)3.31
Pages Per Session
Page Path Pageviews Engagement Rate
/blog/how-make-most-72-hours-aspen
/blog/everything-you-need-know-about-independence-pass
/blog/hiking-around-maroon-bells
/blog/5-reasons-visit-aspen-summer
/blog/week-aspen 93.05%
88.30%
91.00%
95.96%
94.89%
3,199
4,906
8,179
9,995
11,052
Top Performing Blogs
Occupancy Data
July 2022 July 2023
75.5%72.6%
Paid Occupancy YoY
July 2022 July 2023
$761 $781
Average Daily Rate YoY
21
Summer 2023 Highlights
ACRA Board of Directors
22
Resident Sentiment Study
•Adults age 18+
•Live, work, and/or own a second home in the Aspen,
CO, area
•Responses were collected through resident email lists,
social media posts, and owned audiences.
•2,020 completed surveys were collected between
November 28 – December 16, 2022
•730 completed surveys were collected between May 30
– June 20, 2023,
•Grand total of 2,750 completed surveys.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Roaring Fork Valley Destination
Alliance
37
Aspen Learning Lab
38
39
Trip Planning –Customized to you!
40
41
42
43
Global Sustainable Tourism Certificate
44
Wedding FAM –TESTIMONIALS!
45
THANK YOU
46