HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170717
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
July 17, 2017
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Budget Overview & Financial Forecast
II. Sustainability Report
P1
City of Aspen
2018 Proposed Budget Assumptions
July 17, 2017
P2I.
City Sales Tax
•Recipients of Collections (Total Tax = 2.4%)
–Parks & Open Space (1.50%)
–Transportation (0.15%)
–Kids First/Housing Development (0.45%)
–School District (0.30%)
•Sunset provisions exist for:
–Parks & Open Space 0.5% Tax (12/2025)
–Public Education 0.3% Sales Tax (12/2021)
2
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$11,000,000
$12,000,000
$13,000,000
$14,000,000
$15,000,000
$16,000,000
$17,000,000
Retail Sales Tax Collections
2005 -2018 Projected
City Collections Inflation Adjusted
P3I.
City Sales Tax
3
2016
Taxable Sales
% Chg from
2015 2017 Budget 2017 Forecast
% Chg from
2016 2018 Projection
% Chg from
2017
Accommodations 209,018,464 9%207,800,000 219,469,000 5%227,140,000 3%
Restaurants 125,429,173 5%127,700,000 127,938,000 2%132,410,000 3%
Sporting Goods 49,058,737 3%49,710,000 50,285,000 3%51,800,000 3%
Clothing 57,547,148 -1%58,940,000 56,396,000 -2%58,100,000 3%
Food & Drug 55,412,866 5%56,890,000 57,075,000 3%58,230,000 2%
Liquor & Marijuana 20,298,287 10%21,660,000 20,907,000 3%21,540,000 3%
General & Misc.50,369,631 14%51,600,000 45,922,000 -9%47,090,000 3%
Luxury Goods*26,545,423 -13%26,480,000 28,404,000 7%29,260,000 3%
Utilities 43,231,219 1%44,732,000 41,934,000 -3%43,193,000 3%
Construction 55,829,137 13%56,707,000 55,271,000 -1%56,929,000 3%
Automobile 21,645,903 -2%21,490,000 18,399,000 -15%18,930,000 3%
Total Taxable Sales 714,385,989 6%723,709,000 722,000,000 1%744,622,000 3%
Net Revenues 14,983,426 7%15,032,300 15,162,000 1%15,637,100 3%
•2016 tax collections increased 7% over 2015
•Through May 2017, sales are up 3% over 2016
•Projecting 1% growth by end of 2017 –Glenwood Springs Bridge Being Considered
•Forecasting 3% increase for 2018
P4I.
City Lodging Tax
•Recipients Of Lodging Tax: (2.0% Total)
–ACRA (1.5%)
–Transportation (0.5%)
•Through May 2017, up 8% to 2016
–Occupancy nearly flat
–ADR up 5.5%
–REVPAR up 7.5%
•2017 forecast 5%
–Glenwood Springs Bridge
–Closures/Construction
•2018 Projection 3.5%
4
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
Lodging Tax Collections (Transportation Only)
2005 -2018 Projected
Lodging Tax Transportation Inflation Adjusted
P5I.
Property Taxes
•First glimpse of 2017 estimate in August (from County)
•2017 is a reassessment year
•Maximum annual increase to revenue under TABOR
o Inflation + New Construction Growth
•Allocation of Revenues:
o 2017: General Fund (25%), Asset Management (75%)
o 2018: TBD
•The City does not apply the full mill levy: 2016 credit was 0.809 mills
5 P6I.
Real Estate Transfer Tax (1.0% Housing)
•2016 collections dropped significantly from recent 2015 high point
•2017 through June up 80%; forecast up 35% from 2016
•2018 projection lower
6
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
2017
Budget
2017
Forecast
2018
Projection
Jan-Jun $2,900,680 $2,440,206 $3,001,060 $2,461,700 $2,060,642 $4,031,574 $4,722,263 2,417,544 $2,417,000 $4,414,266 $3,023,000
Jul-Dec $2,980,698 $3,930,105 $2,232,269 $4,131,214 $3,610,955 $4,356,399 $5,298,262 $3,875,530 $3,130,000 $3,640,000 $3,420,000
Annual $5,881,378 $6,370,311 $5,233,329 $6,592,914 $5,671,597 $8,387,972 $10,020,525 $6,293,074 $5,547,000 $8,054,266 $6,443,000
P7I.
Budget Assumptions
•Base Budget vs. Supplementals
–What defines a supplemental request?
•Operating Expenses
–2017: no increase
–2018: 2% increase worked in for materials, goods, and services
•Personnel Expenses
–Up to 4% merit increases (based on performance review); no change from prior yr.
–Up to 4% increase to health insurance premiums for employer (and employee)
–Increase cafeteria benefit to $800 ($100 increase)
–Continue current goals and outcomes awards benefit maximum of $1,650
–Adjusted pay ranges by an average of 2.2% to reflect market conditions
7 P8I.
City of Aspen - 2017 Budget
001 General Fund Total
Forecast Audited Original Ord No. 14 Forecast
2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Beginning Balance $16,787,636 $16,787,636 $11,583,796 $14,322,556 $16,177,453 $13,567,735 $14,817,465 $15,143,765 $15,370,095
Unassigned Collections $15,449,700 $15,525,256 $17,598,500 $17,598,500 $17,690,500 $18,181,100 $18,859,900 $19,545,100 $20,253,300
CLERKS $68,420 $74,919 $68,100 $68,100 $68,100 $69,500 $70,800 $72,100 $73,500
MANAGER $174,410 $175,521 $20,000 $104,870 $104,870 $20,400 $20,800 $21,200 $21,600
FINANCE $106,000 $129,018 $109,000 $109,000 $109,000 $111,200 $113,400 $115,600 $117,800
ASSET MANAGEMENT $96,330 $104,154 $68,300 $68,300 $68,300 $69,700 $71,100 $72,500 $73,900
PLANNING $970,000 $1,163,045 $905,500 $905,500 $905,500 $756,000 $689,000 $702,800 $716,900
BUILDING $6,139,000 $6,580,426 $5,850,000 $5,850,000 $5,850,000 $4,888,400 $4,451,800 $4,540,800 $4,631,600
ENGINEERING $1,541,450 $1,371,264 $1,148,900 $1,148,900 $1,148,900 $965,000 $882,800 $900,400 $918,400
POLICE $212,550 $255,784 $186,700 $186,700 $186,700 $190,500 $194,300 $198,200 $202,100
STREETS $421,250 $434,705 $421,000 $431,590 $431,590 $429,400 $437,900 $446,600 $455,400
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH $115,150 $116,788 $104,550 $114,062 $114,062 $106,600 $108,600 $110,600 $112,700
EVENTS $61,450 $42,255 $61,450 $61,450 $61,450 $62,700 $63,900 $65,100 $66,400
ASPEN RECREATION CENTER $1,331,150 $1,475,482 $1,368,700 $1,368,700 $1,368,700 $1,396,000 $1,423,900 $1,452,400 $1,481,400
RED BRICK CENTER $543,440 $550,832 $547,000 $547,000 $547,000 $558,100 $569,300 $580,600 $592,400
ASPEN ICE GARDEN $447,250 $460,226 $440,000 $440,000 $440,000 $448,700 $457,500 $466,600 $475,800
Department Collections $12,227,850 $12,934,418 $11,299,200 $11,404,172 $11,404,172 $10,072,200 $9,555,100 $9,745,500 $9,939,900
Transfers In $1,131,800 $1,131,800 $1,190,000 $1,190,000 $1,190,000 $1,377,000 $1,414,000 $1,400,000 $1,380,000
Total Income $28,809,350 $29,591,474 $30,087,700 $30,192,672 $30,284,672 $29,630,300 $29,829,000 $30,690,600 $31,573,200
COUNCIL $1,691,490 $1,646,114 $1,767,440 $1,768,900 $1,768,900 $1,727,920 $1,764,800 $1,802,540 $1,841,140
CLERK $634,490 $624,633 $701,730 $774,680 $774,680 $662,820 $747,720 $708,770 $798,210
MANAGER $1,132,510 $1,204,066 $1,292,650 $1,850,960 $1,850,960 #$1,222,010 $1,261,690 $1,302,910 $1,345,770
HUMAN RESOURCES $691,660 $679,056 $685,750 $798,920 $798,920 #$722,300 $746,220 $771,160 $797,130
ATTORNEY $526,800 $488,405 $537,730 $620,970 $620,970 #$555,140 $573,570 $592,720 $612,620
FINANCE $1,897,630 $1,885,337 $1,921,600 $2,181,510 $2,181,510 #$1,982,950 $2,047,900 $2,115,610 $2,186,120
ASSET MANAGEMENT $847,690 $955,372 $1,063,570 $1,074,690 $1,074,690 #$1,095,970 $1,130,090 $1,165,570 $1,202,510
PLANNING $1,746,440 $1,898,102 $1,579,750 $1,856,620 $1,856,620 #$1,603,960 $1,659,100 $1,716,610 $1,594,220
BUILDING $1,787,950 $1,550,853 $1,906,840 $2,120,640 $2,120,640 #$2,144,640 $2,217,390 $2,293,510 $2,373,180
ENGINEERING $1,596,480 $1,752,399 $1,817,470 $1,872,360 $1,872,360 #$1,769,710 $1,826,150 $1,884,870 $1,945,910
POLICE $5,037,290 $4,919,966 $5,094,300 $5,462,390 $5,462,390 #$5,201,310 $5,376,600 $5,559,280 $5,749,740
STREETS $2,009,510 $1,777,246 $2,017,070 $2,488,160 $2,488,160 #$2,072,360 $2,137,410 $2,205,050 $2,275,410
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH $622,920 $594,604 $646,870 $764,500 $764,500 #$657,910 $680,870 $704,880 $729,940
EVENTS $1,196,790 $690,351 $846,490 $968,520 $968,520 #$837,550 $861,740 $886,850 $912,930
ASPEN RECREATION CENTER $2,530,530 $2,554,233 $2,535,740 $2,796,280 $2,796,280 #$2,599,280 $2,678,050 $2,759,900 $2,844,900
RED BRICK CENTER $1,188,140 $1,206,274 $1,199,960 $1,224,350 $1,224,350 $1,236,800 $1,275,840 $1,316,420 $1,358,590
ASPEN ICE GARDEN $704,090 $659,789 $793,500 $806,050 $806,050 $813,720 $840,420 $868,240 $897,270
PARKS & OPEN SPACE $0 $0 $150,490 $150,490 $150,490 $147,020 $153,040 $159,380 $166,040
Base Operating $25,842,410 $25,086,801 $26,558,950 $29,580,990 $29,580,990 $27,053,370 $27,978,600 $28,814,270 $29,631,630
Supplementals $3,801,880 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfers Out $4,368,900 $5,114,856 $3,313,400 $3,313,400 $3,313,400 $1,327,200 $1,524,100 $1,650,000 $1,574,100
Total Uses $34,013,190 $30,201,657 $29,872,350 $32,894,390 $32,894,390 $28,380,570 $29,502,700 $30,464,270 $31,205,730
Inc. / (Dec.) to Fund Balance ($5,203,840)($610,183)$215,350 ($2,701,718)($2,609,718)$1,249,730 $326,300 $226,330 $367,470
GAAP / PPA Adjustments $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Ending Fund Balance $11,583,796 $16,177,453 $11,799,146 $11,620,838 $13,567,735 $14,817,465 $15,143,765 $15,370,095 $15,737,565
Percent of Fund Balance 136%214%158%141%165%209%205%202%202%
Reserve (25% of Uses)$8,503,298 $7,550,414 $7,468,088 $8,223,598 $8,223,598 $7,095,143 $7,375,675 $7,616,068 $7,801,433
Over/(Short) of Target $3,080,499 $8,627,038 $4,331,059 $3,397,241 $5,344,137 $7,722,322 $7,768,090 $7,754,027 $7,936,132
Increase to 2017 Ending Balance:$1,768,589 Stable outlook under current assumptions
P9
I.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Linda Giudice, Management Analyst
THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
Karen Harrington, Director of Quality
CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager
DATE OF MEMO: July 11, 2017
MEETING DATE: July 17, 2017
RE: 2017 Sustainability Report
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff will be presenting the 2017 Sustainability Report. Staff requests Council consideration of
the findings of the report in its upcoming Board Retreat on July 27 and 28. In particular, staff
requests that four initial recommendations be included for consideration at the Board Retreat.
Staff further requests 1) feedback on the key recommendations, 2) confirmation of whether to
develop targets for certain measures, 3) confirmation of current plans to produce the report on a
biennial basis, and 4) continued conversation regarding application of the social sustainability
work in social services grant recipient selection.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council previously called for development of environmental, economic, and social sustainability
dashboards. Staff developed sustainability outcomes and key performance measures with input
from subject matter experts and stakeholders. Subsequently, Council reviewed and approved the
community-based outcome statements and measures. Staff previously presented the
Environmental Sustainability Dashboard measures to City Council on December 3, 2013; the
Economic Sustainability Dashboard measures to City Council on November 2, 2015; and the
Social Sustainability Dashboard measures to City Council on March 20, 2017.
BACKGROUND:
The intention of crafting sustainability dashboards was to provide City Council and others in the
community with a way to more clearly define sustainability, and then assess progress toward that
end. After securing Council approval of proposed sustainability outcome statements and measures,
staff began collecting the data and information needed to develop these measures and to start
building a picture of the state of sustainability in Aspen.
P10
II.
2
Today, staff are presenting a brief overview of the 2017 Sustainability Report, its Summary of
Findings, and key recommendations. A primary goal is to provide Council with information useful
in formulating its Top 10 Board Goals at the upcoming Council retreat. Further, the Social
Sustainability Dashboard is intended to provide information useful in making future decisions on
City grants for social services. Beyond these uses, staff will also illustrate how the report can be
used to assist in other decision-making processes. The following attachments are provided for the
Council’s convenience:
• Attachment A: Introduction/Summary of Findings/At a Glance Dashboards
• Attachment B: Complete 2017 Sustainability Report
This second iteration of the report includes current and proposed (currently planned) actions, as
well as recommendations for new actions. A summary of the outcome statements, dashboard
measures and key findings are provided below.
DISCUSSION
Sustainability as a general concept includes the notion of using resources in a way that does not
compromise future needs. For this to have meaning for Aspen, it is important to define the term
more precisely. The Sustainability Report offers that definition by highlighting the sustainability
outcomes key stakeholders have identified, providing a detailed exploration of key performance
measures associated with the outcomes, and summarizing the findings from the data.
Sustainability Outcome Statements
The abridged outcome statements below describe what we will see in Aspen if we are sustainable:
environmentally, economically, and socially. These statements are based on input from experts
and interested parties. They are not action statements; rather they describe the end results we want.
Complete versions of the outcome statements are included in Appendix B, the full report.
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES
AIR The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air. Residents and visitors alike expect and value
clear skies and unpolluted indoor and outdoor air.
ENERGY The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing adverse
environmental impacts.
PARKS, TRAILS, & OPEN SPACE Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-
ranging habitats, recreation opportunities and connected, accessible places.
WASTE The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the environment.
Wastes are minimized through diversion and reuse whenever possible.
WATER The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a full range
of municipal and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and rivers.
P11
II.
3
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES
APPEAL OF THE ASPEN BRAND Aspen is the destination of choice. Visitors and residents
expect and receive the very best of recreational, educational, cultural, and business amenities.
TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, AND MOBILITY Visitors to Aspen can readily access the
resort via air or ground transport. They have access to modern, safe, and comfortable facilities
and amenities.
BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY Aspen has a business environment that leads
to strong year-round economic health and that caters to a variety of visitors and residents.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND MATCH Aspen has a sufficient supply of well-qualified
workers. Wages are competitive. Excellent transportation options are available to support
mobility.
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OUTCOMES
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING – The Aspen community has excellent educational
opportunities. Students of all ages succeed academically. They develop the social and life assets
needed for success and happiness. Continued professional development opportunities are
available.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY – Individuals and families can thrive in Aspen.
Workers can find housing options; jobs are available with sufficient wages; and assistance is
available and accessible.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING – The balance of mind, body, and spirit is exemplified in Aspen.
Aspen residents have healthy life habits and have access to reasonably priced medical and health
services.
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS – Crime rates are low. Public spaces do not present
major safety hazards, and are accessible to people of all ages and abilities. Effective precautions
and planning are in place to deal with emergencies.
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS - Residents have a variety of opportunities for nurturing
relationships and spirituality. Choices of community engagement are plentiful and participation
rates are high. People take pride in their community.
For each outcome, analysis of key performance measures (typically five or six metrics per
outcome) provides data based evidence of how we are performing with respect to the outcome.
Due to challenges with data availability or quality, some of these measures have been modified
from those initially agreed upon.
P12
II.
4
Report Summary of Findings
Please refer to Attachment A for a Summary of Findings, as well as the At a Glance Dashboard
view of the key performance measures. Those preferring a more in-depth look at the discussion
and measures can find more detail in Appendix B, the full report.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff would like to provide the following initial recommendations to the Council, for consideration
during the Board Retreat later this month. They are drawn from the information and findings in
the report. In addition to these four high level recommendations, items that do not rise to the level
of Top 10 Board goal recommendations are embedded within the report.
Environmental Sustainability Recommendations
Create and implement a strategy to decarbonize Aspen’s energy supply, including the
pursuit of 100% renewable electricity for the entire Aspen community.
Implement at least one recommendation from the Roaring Fork Valley Waste Diversion Plan
to increase the construction and demolition waste being diverted from the landfill.
Economic Sustainability Recommendation
Consider acquiring or developing a customized regional economic model that would capture
the impact of economic activity in Aspen.
Social Sustainability Recommendation
Promote workforce housing market efficiency, transparency, accountability, and
effectiveness through investments in modernization, including process improvement,
information management (database), and supportive policy changes.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Development of this report has been a collaborative effort
between the Environmental Health and Sustainability Department and the Quality Office, using
both permanent and temporary staff. This existing level of staff support for production is
anticipated to continue if/as future editions of the report are crafted.
Should the Council determine to adopt, through its annual retreat, any of the suggested
recommendations, staff will determine more specifically the approach to use for the projects and
will provide Council with cost estimates at that time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This report was prepared to provide information to Council,
staff and community members regarding the status of progress toward sustainability. It is intended
to be a resource for stakeholders to use, and thereby to support their efforts to reduce key
environmental impacts. The report will also be primarily published, accessible, and distributed in
electronic form.
City staff members are encouraged to reference sustainability measures (environmental, economic,
and social) in memos to City Council, as a way of showing the benefits and tradeoffs of projects.
P13
II.
5
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests Council consideration of the findings of the report
in its upcoming Board Retreat on July 27 and 28. In particular, staff requests that four initial
recommendations be included for consideration at the Board Retreat. Staff further request 1)
feedback on the key recommendations, 2) confirmation of whether to develop targets for certain
measures, 3) confirmation of current plans to produce the report on a biennial basis, and 4)
continued conversation regarding application of the social sustainability work in social services
grant recipient selection.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to forego consideration of the report findings and
recommendations at the retreat. Council might also determine to forego future production of the
report, and/or to request changes in the report (for instance, a less in-depth or more in-depth report).
PROPOSED MOTION: No motion is proposed; this is an informational presentation.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
________________________
________________________
P14
II.
1
ATTACHMENT A: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
2017 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT
P15
II.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY DASHBOARD: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In Aspen, a sustainable environment is one in which natural resource use is managed with consideration for the future
and in concert with human needs. Aspen’s natural surroundings are integral to its character and are among the
community’s greatest assets.
Figure 1. Castle Creek.1
This report tracks the environmental sustainability of the Aspen community and measures progress in maintaining a
healthy and vibrant way of life for people and wildlife. The report is organized into five different categories: Air;
Energy; Parks, Trails, and Open Space; Waste; and Water. Each of these categories contains 3-4 key performance
measures in which specific data is assessed over time to gauge the City’s progress toward greater environmental
sustainability.
The table on the next page serves as a brief executive summary of the current state of each category. A concise
description of the status of each individual performance measure can be viewed in this Summary of Findings and ‘At-
a-Glance’ Dashboard section of the report.
AIR 2
Aspen’s outdoor air quality is generally healthy to moderate. But, when negatively
impacted by local and regional events, levels have approached those deemed as
unhealthy by the EPA.
• Between 1993 and 2016, levels of PM 10 (coarse particulates) fell within
“good” to “moderate” levels per the EPA. PM 2.5 levels (fine particulates)
were more consistently “moderate” and occasionally approaching “unhealthy”
for sensitive populations.
• In 2016, average annual daily trips across Castle Creek Bridge were fewer than
2015, but still at 94% of 1993 levels. Monthly trips in 2015 showed traffic
counts close to 1993 levels with exceedances in April, November, and
December.
• Though there is limited data on radon across Aspen, state and regional data
suggest that Colorado and the Aspen region have high radon risk.
• Between 2010 and 2016, ozone levels were below, but closely approaching
EPA designated action levels.
1 Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
2 Ibid.
P16
II.
3
Seen together, these measures speak to the complex work of striving toward greater environmental sustainability
in Aspen. While many important steps have already been taken in this effort, the community must continue to
make strides in every sector to achieve desired outcomes.
3Photo: Menges, Chris.
4 Aspen's EIB has been used since 2004 under the rationale that this geographic area represents Aspen’s core functionality. The EIB is nearly
identical to the City of Aspen’s Urban Growth Boundary, but also includes several nearby areas. It is further described in the Energy section of
the report. Menges, Chris. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Rep. Aspen: City of Aspen Canary Initiative, 2014.
5Photo: Williamson. City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space Department.
6Photo: Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
7 Ibid.
ENERGY 3
Though Aspen has taken strides to enhance sustainability energy use and sourcing in some
areas, significant work remains to reach the City’s climate action goals.
• In 2015, net electricity consumption in the Aspen Emission Inventory Boundary 4 was
powered by 49% fossil resources and 51% renewable resources. Aspen Electric was
100% renewable and Holy Cross Energy was at 30.3%.
• Between 2004 and 2014, Aspen reduced its GHG emissions by 7.4%. The community
aims to decrease emissions a further 22.6% by 2020.
• In 2014, energy use from the built environment comprised 70.1% of total energy use.
Since, there was a 1.8% reduction in energy use from the buildings.
• In 2016, ridership on City of Aspen buses increased significantly to 1,400,181.
PARKS, TRAILS, AND
OPEN SPACE5
There is a wealth of parks, trails, and open space available for residents and visitors.
• The City owns and maintains 25.9 miles of trails, 204 acres of parks, and 327 acres of
open space in the urban growth boundary. Aspen partners with neighboring
jurisdictions to own and jointly maintain 566 additional acres.
• Aspen’s urban tree canopy covers 31% of the city.
• The ACES Forest Health Index indicates that the forests of the Roaring Fork Valley are
healthy and in the range of natural variability, though with some specific indicators
exhibiting negative trends.
WASTE 6
Aspen has great opportunity to expand the sustainability of its waste practices.
• The Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC) is in compliance with pollution
measures, with one air permit pending.
• Aspen’s 2016 municipal solid waste diversion rate was estimated at 15%, which is
significantly lower than the state average of 21.4%, the national average of 34.6%, and
Aspen’s goal of 50%.
• As of 2016, the PCSWC has an estimated lifespan of 10-11 years.
WATER 7
The sustainability of Aspen’s water production and consumption is largely pending further
data collection. River and stream health varies on a case-by-case basis.
• In every year between 2006 and 2016, the Roaring Fork failed to meet the instream
flow during its annual 7-day low. Between 2013 and 2015, Castle Creek remained
above the dedicated instream flow rate.
• 2015 sampling of macroinvertebrate populations, an indicator of stream health, in the
Roaring Fork River indicates relatively healthy levels, though continued sampling is
needed to confirm this finding.
P17
II.
4
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AT A GLANCE DASHBOARD
TARGET STATUS KEY > > > > >
Meeting/ Exceeding
Not Meeting; Within Range
Not Meeting
No Target
Performance Measure Target / Status
AIR
Levels of particulate matter
Castle Creek bridge traffic counts
Radon levels and mitigation
Ozone levels
ENERGY
Percentage of electrical energy from renewable sources
Community-wide greenhouse gas emissions
Energy use from the built environment
Mass transit use
PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
Acres of parks, trails, and open space
Community forest coverage
Forest Health Index (ACES)
WASTE
Levels of water and air pollution at the landfill
Municipal solid waste diversion
Amount of landfill space available
Number of Weekly Miles Waste Travels for Processing
WATER
Flow rates in rivers and streams - Roaring Fork River
- Castle Creek
Macroinvertebrate populations in rivers and streams
Recommendations
The two principle recommendations of the Environmental Sustainability section of
this report are as follows:
Create and implement a strategy to decarbonize Aspen’s energy supply,
including the pursuit of 100% renewable electricity for the entire Aspen
community.
Implement at least one recommendation from the Roaring Fork Valley Waste
Diversion Plan to increase the construction and demolition waste being
diverted from the landfill.
P18
II.
5
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY DASHBOARD: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Economic sustainability in Aspen means having the goods, services, and assets to support a robust tourist-based and
residential economy year-round. This means that the economy has an optimal level of productive capacity and that
economic activities are in balance with the natural and social environment. Where possible, measures are
compared to industry or other benchmarks. The available data sourced to date provides insight about the
respective outcome areas as presented in this Summary of Findings.
APPEAL OF ASPEN
BRAND
To understand the appeal of the ‘Aspen Brand’ it is important to have a sense of who
the visitors/residents are and what attracts them to visit or stay.
• Demographics present insights on how to attract and engage visitors of all ages. Per
Aspen Skiing Company survey results (2016/2017), the average age of guests is
between 41-44 years of age. The largest age group is 55-64 at 24%. Based on ACRA
summer survey (2016), the median age of summer visitors is approximately 49 years
of age. The 25-34 and 35-44 age groups are the largest at 20% each. The 18-24 age
group is the smallest group at 6%.
• Within the 2016 ACRA summer survey, visitors express high satisfaction with their
Aspen Experience with a consistent average rating at 9.1 (out of 10).
• In 2016, the Colorado Tourism Office commissioned a report entitled Colorado
Travel Impacts 1996 – 2015p. 8 Overall, the data shows a current positive trend for
Pitkin County visitor spending, industry earnings, as well as, employment and tax
generation. Visitor spending in Pitkin County increased steadily from $586.6M in
2010 to $714M in 2015p.
Visitor economic impact data for the Pitkin County region, gives insight into the
magnitude and performance of the visitor based economy. A detailed analysis of this
data and methodology for collection is considered prudent. The visitor age groups are
an indication of who (age wise) comes to Aspen. This lends itself to a better
understanding of what their interests and contributions to the economy might be. And
what the constraints and opportunities are.
TOURISM, LODGING, &
MOBILITY
The portfolio of Tourism, Lodging, & Mobility measures also gives an idea of the
capacity of Aspen’s tourist-based and local economy. Airport/airline capacity and
lodging occupancy indicate part of the visitor demand for a place, especially at peak and
off-peak times.
• The number of commercial airlines serving Aspen has remained steady at 3
providers and capacity is high with approximately 750 flights per month.
• In 2015, the total lodging capacity (pillow count) was 9,193 (Destimetrics). The total
pillow count decreased by 2% from 2009 to 2015. Per the data, there appears to be
a shift in the mix in favor of the moderate category. Demand for lodging during
peak seasons remains solid with occupancy rates averaging around 73%.
• Qualitative ratings of walkability, bike-ability and transit suggests
relatively good performance with opportunities for continued
improvement.
The performance indicators appear to be relatively stable based on the historical trend.
Inevitably, there are further opportunities to optimize infrastructure, operating
efficiencies, and quality attributes especially when considering competition for visitors.
8 Colorado Travel Impacts 1996-2015p, Dean Runyan Associates (Commissioned by Colorado Tourism Office)
<http://www.colorado.com/sites/default/master/files/Runyan_TravelImpacts_2014.pdf> Retrieved March 2017.
P19
II.
6
BUSINESS DIVERSITY &
SUSTAINABILITY
The business community of Aspen is diverse and relatively steady. Economic activity
appears to be trending in a positive direction with moderate growth in taxable sales
and quantity of business licenses.
• Since 2004, economic activity in Aspen (reported as total taxable retail sales) has
steadily increased (2.2%) year-on-year. As expected, Aspen businesses’ sales differ
considerably between on and off seasons. May and December are the lowest and
highest average sales months.
• Over the past six years (2010-2015), the top business types in Aspen have
remained relatively consistent. The categories of businesses remain diverse and
reasonably well suited.
Generally, business diversity and sustainability is subject to market forces (supply and
demand). Further work can be done to understand the capacity for businesses that
are operating in the on and off-season and whether this suits community and visitor
needs.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY &
MATCH
The size and composition of the valley workforce appears to be relatively stable and
consistent with a seasonal, tourist based economy.
• While the size of the valley workforce contracted from 35,208 (2008) to 31,976
(2016), the composition of occupations remained relatively stable. Arts,
Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food are consistently at the top
of the occupational list.
• From 2009-2015, the Aspen unemployment rate averaged at 5.1% per year. The
Pitkin County unemployment rate averaged 5.6% for the same period. The most
significant unemployment age ranges in Aspen are those in the 25-44 and 65+.
Due to the economic downturn, some in other age ranges (45-54; 55-64) may
have stopped looking for work. Hence a possible lower unemployment rate for
these age groups.
• In 2015, Pitkin County (Aspen/Snowmass) had the highest annual wages
(compared to peer counties) reported at $59,488. Pitkin County annual average
wage increased by approximately 29% from 2011 to 2015 which is likely due to a
rebound in hiring and wages post economic downturn.
• While workforce housing supply does not completely meet demand, 90%
(owners) and 70% (renters) of APCHA employed households are considered not
cost burdened.
• Per 2015 data, the average workforce member (travelling from mid valley)
spends approximately $2,100 or (3.5%) of annual wages commuting by bus. The
annual round trip cost of commuting by bus is calculated at approximately one
fifth (20%) of what it costs for drive alone commute for the same distance
(Aspen/Carbondale). This cost data has not been updated as the methodology
for doing so is under consideration and development.
• In 2015 Subsidized / free bus passes totaling 1,185 (627 - winter and 558 –
summer) are purchase for the benefit of employees. Aspen businesses purchased
82 passes in 2012 and 51 in 2016.
• Workforce development as a contributor to the economy presents both
challenges and opportunities. This includes attracting, retaining, rewarding, and
developing workforce members. Affordable housing, childcare, transportation
remain key issues for the workforce especially given the relative cost of living.
Collectively, these key performance measures demonstrate robust tourist access and residential demand for a
place. The economic sustainability dashboard provides an ‘At a Glance ‘view of how the community is doing on
each measure. And what this means for future consideration and opportunities for continuous improvement.
Photos (in order above): Babbie, S.; Kolacek, Z; Holder. M; Kolacek, Z.; Aspen Times
P20
II.
7
Recommendations
The principle recommendation of the Economic Sustainability section of this report is
as follows:
Consider acquiring or developing a customized regional economic model that
would capture the impact of economic activity in Aspen.
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AT GLANCE DASHBOARD
TARGET STATUS KEY > > > > >
Meeting/ Exceeding
Not Meeting; Within Range
Not Meeting
No Target
Performance Measure Target Set/Status
APPEAL OF ASPEN BRAND
Economic impact of visitors to Pitkin County
Median age of visitors by age group (summer/winter)
Satisfaction level of key visitor groups (summer)
% of visitors who are repeat visitors (summer)
TOURISM, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Total number of short-term beds (pillow count) available, by type
Occupancy rate (by month)
Value for price for lodging (summer)
# of non-stop airline routes/trips to Aspen (monthly)
# of airlines serving Aspen during different seasons (monthly)
Qualitative ratings of walkability, bike-ability, and transit
BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY
Aspen economic activity level
Total number of business licenses
Seasonal business sales activity
Mix of top business types
Commercial vacancy rates
Commercial rental rates
WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
Size of valley workforce / top occupations
Unemployment rate by age
Annual employee wages compared with other Colorado (peer) resort counties
% of households who are housing cost burdened
Median commuting costs by bus (as a % of annual wage per person)
Participation rate of employers in subsidized/free bus pass programs
P21
II.
8
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY DASHBOARD: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Social sustainability in Aspen spans a range of factors associated with the quality of daily life that affect residents
and visitors alike. This includes access and availability of housing, transportation, childcare, and education. It also
means public safety and preparedness. Lastly, it offers diverse recreational, wellness, cultural, and engagement
opportunities. Where possible, measures are compared to industry or other benchmarks. The available data
sourced to date provides insight about the respective outcome areas as presented in this Summary of Findings.
EDUCATION & LIFELONG
LEARNING
• In 2016, 98% of enrolled kindergartners attended some form of
preschool.
• From 2010 to 2015, children under 5 years old in Pitkin County averaged at 748,
while area capacity is averaged at 343 spots (from 2010-2016). This fulfills nearly
half of the potential need for childcare in the county annually. Of the 2016 Kids
First Survey respondents, 65% prefer childcare in licensed centers compared to the
48% currently served.
• From 2013-2016, 76% of third graders in the Aspen School District were reading at
grade level on average.
• From 2011-2016, the percentage of Aspen School District students with IEPs has
shown relative consistency around the average of 11%.
• From 2010 to 2016, Pitkin County graduation rates are 95.1% and completion rates
are 96.6% on average. Aspen School District ACT composite scores are 4.22 points
or 12% higher than the state composite average. The Aspen High School exit self-
assessment survey gives insight into seniors’ feelings of preparedness for their next
step in life. When prompted “I feel Aspen High School has prepared me well for my
next phase in life (work and/or college),” 83.9% agreed or strongly agreed, 11.4%
were neutral, and 4.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL
SECURITY
Performance measures around household financial security are centered around
Aspen’s 3,750 permanent households. The average household size is approximately
2.03 persons. There are many factors that contribute to household financial security
including employment, wages, housing, and economic assistance programs such as
childcare and Medicaid/Medicare.
• In 2015, the self-sufficiency wage for a family of four was $79,894 and for a single
adult was $28,051. This represents a 30% and 20% increase respectively from
2004. These are the respective amounts needed to adequately meet basic needs
without assistance of any kind.
• As of 2017 the total APCHA ownership housing units is 1,631. The total APCHA
rental housing units is 1,325. The number of bids for each category on average
was 20 and 94. This shows that there continues to be a high level of bids vs
available housing inventory for ownership and rental units respectively.
• Using APCHA-managed inventory as a proxy, there are 29 and 21 transfers within
in the housing system. This indicates a relative constraint within the housing
system to meet potential needs as family or personal circumstances change
and/or grow.
• The largest form of economic assistance is through the affordable
workforce housing program. In Aspen, it represents about 66% of the
assistance. As for childcare assistance, it represents about 2%.
Medicare assistance for Pitkin County has remained relatively stable
from 2013 to 2015.
P22
II.
9
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
• Within the Valley Health Alliance network, insurance premiums constitute 1.7-
3.6% of average wage per employee in Pitkin County. Averaged amongst the five
employers, cost burden of health insurance premiums is 2.9%. On average, VHA
employers pay $564.71 and employees pay $119.93 of health insurance costs per
member per month (PMPM).
• There is a variety of provider availability within range of the City of Aspen.
Oncologists are the top used physician within the City of Aspen network. Of major
healthcare centers, six oncologists are located within 20 and 45-miles of Aspen.
Family practitioners, anesthesiologists, and orthopedic surgeons are more
prevalent within distance of Aspen with more than double the number of
providers in the larger distance range. There are significantly lower number of
providers who accept any form of public insurance.
• From 2013-2015, the leading cause of injury hospitalizations per 100,000 people
was falls at 187 (Pitkin County) and 54 (Colorado). Over the same period, the
leading causes of mortality in Pitkin County include malignant neoplasms (72),
heart disease (49), and unintentional injuries (32). These top three causes
correlate with the top three for the State of Colorado with 138, 126, and 47
respectively. Suicide is the fourth leading cause in Pitkin County at 25, while it
ranks at number 7 on the state list (20).
• Valley Health Alliance data of the five largest employers in Aspen shows that the
most prevalent risk factors in the area are high cholesterol, arthritis, and broken
bones.
PUBLIC SAFETY &
PREPAREDNESS
Aspen is a relatively safe place to live and visit. That is not to say that it is immune to
crime and/or natural hazards such as wildfire or man-made ones such as failures of the
built environment.
• Overall, crime rates both those against persons and property have declined in
recent years. Crimes against persons averaged 248 the period from 2010 -2016.
The highest level of incidence is in the harassment category. Crimes against
property averaged 606 in the same period. The highest level of incidence is the
theft category.
• On average from 2011 to 2016 there were 139 reported child abuse cases for
Pitkin County. The adult abuse rate has increased in the same period from 25 to
79. This increase may be related to a more dedicated practice of tracking the
cases. From 2011 to 2016, Aspen domestic violence cases have declined overall by
38%. Pitkin County domestic violence cases have remained relatively stable for the
same period.
• The number of recorded mental illness cases increased from 25 (2014) to 44
(2016) which represents a 76% increase. The increase is partially related to a more
dedicated practice in recording cases. In terms of crime related substance abuse
there were 180 recorded cases in 2014 and 211 in 2016. Pitkin County Sheriff calls
involving Mental Health/Welfare Checks has remained relatively stable from 2014-
2016 with an average of 199 incidences. Sheriff Substance Abuse calls has seen an
increase from 99 in 2014 to 129 in 2016 representing a 30% increase.
• The homeless data represents the proximate homelessness for the Aspen area. A
point in time count of homelessness for the Roaring Fork Valley was taken in
January 2017. The total count at that time was 129 persons (singles). In terms of
Aspen Homeless shelter usage (day center, meals, overnight stays) there was a
total of 8,345 uses in 2015 and a total of 9,248 uses in 2016. In 2016 there were
126,140 staff hours devoted serving the homeless at the shelter. Noting the
relative transient nature of homelessness, this gives a relative “snap shot” of the
homeless population in the Aspen area and level of support.
P23
II.
10
• Roughly half of the total Aspen NoHARM wildfire acreage is considered “High” or
“Very High” wildfire risk. Most of this is within the Wildland component of 4,336
acres or 35%. The Intermix “High” and Interface “High” represent approximately
14% of the total NoHARM acreage which is most proximate to the city center. In
2015, the Hunter Creek prescribed burn treated 902 acres within the NoHARM
area both reducing fuel density and supporting ecosystem health.
• A qualitative assessment model of preparedness has been devised for the
purposes of gauging performance on emergency preparedness. FEMA’s National
Preparedness System (NPS) outlines an organized process for communities. The
six parts (elements) found within the NPS feature in local emergency
preparedness planning and operational documentation/structure.
COMMUNITY
CONNECTIONS
• From 2005-2015, Aspen’s number of votes cast average around 2,252 while runoff
election votes average at 1,716. From 2008-2016, the average Pitkin County voter
participation is 7,221.
• Approximately 30% of Aspen’s workforce are residents of Aspen and 70% of the
workforce commutes from outside Aspen. On average, Aspen residents
commuting to Aspen jobs experience a 5 mile, 14-minute commute. Non-residents
commuting to Aspen jobs experience a 20 mile, 33-minute commute.
• The number of housing units (housing stock), households (permanent residences),
and ratio of households to total housing units has remained relatively constant
from 2011 to 2015. Over the period, 53% of the total residences are permanent
residences and 47% are temporary housing and/or not primary homes on average.
• In 2015, Aspen’s most predominant ethnicities were White and Hispanic at 5,727
people (85%) and 522 people (8%), respectively. From 2009-2015, the percentage
of the population where English is not the primary language spoken at home
increased from 10% to 17%. A variety of languages other than English are spoken
at home in Aspen (2015). In 2015, Spanish represented the highest percentage at
33% or 379 homes.
• The Aspen area offers multiple and varied opportunities for social and communal
engagement. There are an estimated 300 non-profits representing a range of
interests around environmental, social, and economic sustainability outcomes.
Collectively, these key performance measures offer relatively good insight on the social sustainability of the Aspen
both for the residential and visitor population. The social sustainability dashboard provides an ‘At a Glance’ of how
the community is doing on each measure. And what this means for future consideration and opportunities for
continuous improvement.
Photos (in order above): Babbie, S.; Kolacek, Z; Holder. M; Kolacek, Z.; Aspen Times
P24
II.
11
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AT A GLANCE DASHBOARD
TARGET STATUS KEY > > > > >
Meeting/Exceeding
Not Meeting; Within Range
Not Meeting
No Target
Performance Measure Target / Status
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
# of kindergarteners who had participated in some form of preschool
Licensed childcare capacity for children under 5
% of third graders reading at grade level
Number of students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs)
Metric of high school student life readiness
% of adults who indicate they have sufficient access to opportunities to learn
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY
Self-sufficiency wage
Household Capability Index
Number of bids per APCHA ownership unit by category
Number of bids per APCHA rental unit by category
Match within the housing system
% of households in Aspen receiving economic assistance by type
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Relative household health care cost burden
Availability of providers within 20 and 45 miles of Aspen
• By specialty/discipline
• By willingness to accept public insurance programs (Medicare/Medicaid)
Leading health indicators
Prevalence and risk of health conditions
% indicating household is able to provide for its health care needs
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
Crime rates by type
Abuse and neglect rates by type
% of police cases that involve mental illness and substance abuse
Incidence of homelessness
% of acres in the Wildland Urban Interface deemed to be high/extreme wildfire risk
Qualitative assessment of comprehensive emergency preparedness
Public Space Accessibility
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
Voter participation levels, by age
Neighborhood Connection Index
% of Aspen workers who commute more than 10 miles
Ratio of permanent residents to total housing units
% of households where English is not spoken at home
Access to engagement opportunities, by type
Recommendations
The principle recommendations of the Social Sustainability section of this report is as follows:
Promote workforce housing market efficiency, transparency, accountability, and
effectiveness through investments in modernization, including process improvement,
information management (database), and supportive policy changes.
P25
II.
ATTACHMENT B: FULL REPORT
2017 SUSTAINABILITY REPORT
P26
II.
1
P27
II.
----------------------------------------------------
The City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611
(970) 920-5000 • www.cityofaspen.com
---------------------------------------------------------
P28
II.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover photo: Laura Armstrong (2017).
Acknowledgements ii
Introduction 1
Summary of Findings 10
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
23
ECONOMIC
SUSTAINABILITY
74
SOCIAL
SUSTAINABILITY
121
Air
26
Appeal of the
Aspen Brand
77
Education & Lifelong
Learning
125
Energy 35 Tourism Access,
Lodging, & Mobility
86 Household Financial
Security
137
Parks, Trails, & Open
Space
47
Business Diversity &
Sustainability
99
Health & Well-Being 150
Waste 58 Workforce Supply &
Match
108
Public Safety &
Preparedness
158
Water 68 Community
Connections
176
Appendices
219
P29
II.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The project team would like to express genuine appreciation to all who contributed to this report. First,
much gratitude is extended to city staff, our primary Internal Resource Team Members:
Trish Aragon, Sheila Babbie, Charlie Bailey, Heather Becker, Ben Carlsen, Liz Chapman, Cindy Christensen, Tyler
Christoff, Linda Consuegra, Courtney DeVito, Alissa Farrell, Ryland French, Jessica Garrow, Manny Hernandez, Michelle
Holman, David Hornbacher, Bridgette Kelly, Cindy Klob, Mike Kosdrosky[*], John Krueger, Matt Kuhn, Anthony Lewin,
Bill Linn, Lee Ledesma, April Long, Linda Manning, Margaret Medellin, Chris Menges, Denis Murray, Phil Overeynder,
Richard Pryor [*], Shirley Ritter [*], Mitzi Rapkin, Lynn Rumbaugh, Pete Strecker, Cathleen Treacy, Austin Weiss, and
Jannette Whitcomb.
Furthermore, we would like to acknowledge the crucial role of the external organizations and subject
matter experts listed below. Individually and collectively, they produced or directed us to valuable data
and insights on the measures and content:
Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies, Adam McCurdy
Colorado Department of Labor, Dave
Johnson
Pitkin County Solid Waste Center,
Cathy Hall
Aspen Chamber Resort Association
(ACRA)
Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment
Pitkin County Sherriff’s Office, Charlie
Matthews
Aspen School District, Tom Heald [*],
Brian Childress
Colorado Office of Tourism Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA),
David Johnson, Michael Yang, Jason
White
Aspen Fire Protection District, Parker
Lathrop, Ken Josselyn
Denver Homeless Initiative, Rebecca
Rippy
Stay Aspen Snowmass, Bill Tomcich
Aspen Homeless Shelter, Vince Savage Pitkin County Assessor’s Office, Debby
Payne
US Forest Service, Jim Genung
Aspen/Pitkin County Airport, Sandra
Story
Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder/Office, Janice K. Vos Caudill,
Hannah Shaw
Valley Health Alliance
Aspen Pitkin County Housing
Authority (APCHA)
Pitkin County Emergency
Preparedness/Services; Valerie
MacDonald
Coalition of Families, Tom Power
Aspen Skiing Company, Jeff Hanle,
Jessica Jacobi
Pitkin County Health & Human
Services, Nan Sundeen [*], Mitzi
Ledingham [*], Jordana Sabella,
Karen Koenemann [*] Kim Dubois,
Matt McGaugh
Project Team Members:
Laura Armstrong, Environmental Health and Sustainability
Cameron Doelling, Quality Office
Linda Giudice, Quality Office, Project Manager
Michelle Holder, Quality Office
Project Steering Committee Members:
Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager [*]
Karen Harrington, Director of Quality [*]
CJ Oliver, Director of Environmental Health and Sustainability
Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager [*]
[*] Social Dashboard Steering Committee Members
Finally, we appreciate the support, guidance, and direction given by department heads, city leadership,
and Council.
P30
II.
1
Welcome to Aspen’s 2017 Sustainability Report
Last year, the City of Aspen published its first sustainability report. This established the community’s
environmental and economic sustainability dashboards. The social sustainability dashboard is new to the
report this year.
For Aspen to thrive, it must foster mutual reinforcement between all dimensions of sustainability. This
yields a harmony that is even greater than the sum of its parts. The quality of life in this mountain town is
dependent upon the long-term health of its natural, built, and social environments.
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the
web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together. All things connect.” – Chief Seattle, 1854
Sustainability is by its nature complex. Its challenges and opportunities cannot be addressed in isolation.
Rather, they need an integrated and collaborative approach. Accordingly, the main purpose of this
report is threefold:
➢ To engage stakeholders in Aspen’s sustainability
story and what this means for the community.
➢ To share with the community and decision-makers
Aspen’s sustainability performance.
➢ To provide a data based tool for decision-makers
to inform decisions, policy, and action.
We encourage stakeholders to use this report as means to engage discussion and plan actions on
sustainability issues. Too, the report’s structure and content is evolving. Feedback is important to improve
and enhance this document and how we use it as a community.
P31
II.
2
What are the three spheres of sustainability? What does it mean on a community level?
Sustainability has a range of definitions and is most often context dependent. The concept is about
balancing needs and resources today with due consideration for those of future generations. 1
Sustainability consists of the constant interaction between environmental, economic, and social systems.
KEY DEFINITIONS
Environmental Sustainability is the ability to
avoid depletion and degradation of natural
resources while allowing for long term
environmental quality.
Economic Sustainability is the ability of an
economy to support a defined and appropriate
level of economic capacity and activity to serve
societal needs.
Social Sustainability is the capacity to create
healthy, livable places. Socially sustainable
communities offer a good quality of life; they are
accessible and connected.
Figure 1. Venn Diagram - Integrated Spheres of Sustainability
To achieve true sustainability these systems should balance as if they were an integrated whole.
Sustainability at its best is at the nexus of these three spheres.
Viewing Aspen through a sustainability lens
Aspen has a strong tradition of sustainability. This means environmental protections and conservation. It
means a deliberate and community-minded approach to development. It means a resort based economy
that accommodates visitors and residents. It also means a range social programs such as housing, childcare,
and transportation to support the needs of community members and the workforce.
The concept of sustainability is not new to Aspen. Dating back to the city’s origins, Aspen has always had a
unique ‘capacity to endure'; the essential definition of sustainability. Then, as now, this capacity does not
only refer to the environment. But it points to all the systems that make up a successful and long lasting
society. As a distinctive mountain resort town, Aspen’s sustainability is multi-faceted and complex. It
involves a delicate balance of environmental stewardship, economic prosperity, and social responsibility.
One of the primary tasks of developing this report and dashboard was envisioning what a sustainable
community would look like. And then developing metrics to measure performance and success in achieving
that vision. Accordingly, we believe that the most robust definition of sustainability in Aspen lies in the
collection of environmental, economic, and social outcome statements and measures viewed together.
1 Our Common Future, World Commission on Environment & Development (Brundtland Commission). United Nations. 1987. < http://www.un-
documents.net/our-common-future.pdf> Retrieved July 2016.
Environmental
EconomicSocial
P32
II.
3
Figure 2. Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Colorado (Then 2 & Now3)
Sustainability is already featured in many of the community’s initiatives. Evidence of this can be found in
the suite of cornerstone documents that precede and in part inform this report.
This broad and significant portfolio of work shows where community goals and
sustainability actions are inter-related and mutually reinforcing.
2 Photo: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/images/City/Wheeler/historic_millstreet_dept.jpg
3 Photo: Babbie, Sheila.
Aspen Area Community Plan Lodging Sector Study
Historic Preservation Design
Guidelines
Aspen Community-Wide
Greenhouse Gas Inventories
RFTA –Draft Integrated
Transportation System Plan (Phase
I & II)
APCHA Housing Study
Resiliency Plan: Climate Change &
Aspen
Pitkin County Public Health
Improvement Plan
P33
II.
4
Flagship Initiatives & Highlights
As a resort economy, Aspen is a significant generator of business and jobs. With economic activity comes
the pressures of development and growth. This in turn places demands on the natural and human
resources. This includes housing, transit, childcare, and medical care. Policies and initiatives that balance
these needs is the vital responsibility of today's decision makers and community members. The
opportunities related to Aspen’s sustainability performance are many. Flagship programs and initiatives that
reflect Aspen's sustainability values are as follows:
Emissions
By 2020, Aspen aims to reduce its GHG emissions 30% below 2004 levels. By 2050, it
strives to be 80% below those levels. Aspen’s community-wide emissions inventories are
updated every three years. The 2014 inventory shows that Aspen's emissions have gone
down 7.4% since 2004. These targets further motivate policies and programs.4
Renewables Since 2015, Aspen’s municipal electric utility has succeeded in purchasing 100% of its
electricity from renewable sources. The City of Aspen electric utility uses 46%
hydroelectric, 53% wind power, 1% landfill gas. This generates environmental benefits
by reducing GHG emissions. Added to this are the socio-economic benefits of a cleaner,
more diversified energy supply.5
Transport
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) buses offer affordable service along the
valley corridor. Buses between Aspen, Snowmass and the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport
are free. There are currently nine free shuttle bus routes. There are also vehicle/bike
share programs such as CAR TO GO and WE-cycle. The Downtowner is a free mobility
service serving the city core.6
Housing
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) provides affordable workforce
ownership or rental options in the community. There are approximately 2,956 units.
This breaks down to approximately 1,631 ownership-type units and 1,325 as rental-
type units. APCHA continues to look at ways to enhance the existing program.7
Childcare
Kids First is an early childhood resource center that serves families and childcare
programs in the broader Aspen community. Kids First helps families find, choose, and
pay for childcare. The department further serves childcare programs through funding,
training and development, and other support.8
4 City of Aspen website. Canary Initiative. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Living-in-the-Valley/Green-Initiatives/Canary-Initiative/Climate-Action-
Progress/Retrieved 03.20.16>. Retrieved March 2016.
5 City of Aspen website. Canary Initiative. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Living-in-the-Valley/Green-Initiatives/Renewable-Energy/>. Retrieved
March 2016.
6 City of Aspen website. Transportation. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Transportation/>. Retrieved March 2016.
7 City of Aspen website. Housing. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Housing-for-Workforce/>. Retrieved March 2016.
8 City of Aspen website. Housing. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Housing-for-Workforce/>. Retrieved March 2016.
P34
II.
5
Education
Aspen School District is the top ranked in the state of Colorado. And is among the top
25 on the “2016 best school districts in America” ranking”9. The high school graduation
rates are consistently high at around 95%. The school system prides itself on a wide
range of innovative offerings such as the outdoor/experiential education program.
One way for Aspen to show a commitment to a sustainable future is to report on the performance and
progress of existing programs as well as implementing new ones when necessary. This can be executed
by Aspen identifying its key sustainability issues and impacts; establishing and tracking performance
measures; and developing a plan of action to continually strive toward long-term sustainability.
By taking a holistic approach to sustainability, the community can better balance the needs of all
stakeholders. This report is testament to the community’s effort to make Aspen a sustainable and
attractive place to live, work, and visit. In doing so, Aspen can play a lead role as a community
exemplifying sustainability principles.
About this Report
The Aspen Sustainability Report is a community-based report. It envisions sustainability outcomes and
key performance measures that support progress toward goals and objectives.
Stakeholder Input Process
In January 2013, City staff began the process of framing a shared vision for what sustainability means for
Aspen. Over the last several years, environmental, economic, and social outcome statements and
measures were developed and identified in collaboration with respective community stakeholders.
Various stakeholders’ subject matter expertise and experience helped ensure that the key themes and
measures are relevant to the Aspen community. This stakeholder engagement process is summarized in
Figure 3 below.
Figure 3. Stakeholder Engagement Process for Developing Sustainability Key Performance Measures
Because of this input, this report includes a total of 14 thematic outcomes and 63 specific key
performance measures of progress toward those outcomes. [4] measures are under development as do
not have sufficient data (Appendix 1).
9 Robbie, E. Aspen Times. <http://www.aspentimes.com/news/ranking-puts-aspen-school-district-on-top-in-colorado-24th-in-the-nation/>
STAKEHOLDER
FOCUS GROUPS
OUTCOMES
FORMULATION
MEASURES
IDENTIFICATION
MEASURES
DEVELOPMENT
DRAFT
REPORT &
PUBLICATION
P35
II.
6
Sustainability Outcome Measures
For each sphere of sustainability, there are categoric topics, which the stakeholders identified as
essential components for the achievement of sustainability. Condensed outcome statements are listed
below. The full versions can be found in the respective sections of the report.
ENVIRONMENTAL
ECONOMIC
SOCIAL
• AIR - The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air. Residents and visitors alike expect and value
clear skies and unpolluted indoor and outdoor air.
• ENERGY - The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing adverse
environmental impacts.
• PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE - Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-
ranging habitats, recreation opportunities and connected, accessible places.
• WASTE - The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the
environment. Wastes are minimized through diversion and reuse whenever possible.
• WATER - The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a full range
of municipal and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and rivers.
• APPEAL OF THE ASPEN BRAND - Aspen is the destination of choice. Visitors and residents expect
and receive the very best of recreational, educational, cultural, and business amenities.
• TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, & MOBILITY - Visitors to Aspen can readily access the resort via air
or ground transport. They have access to modern, safe, and comfortable facilities and amenities.
• BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY - Aspen has a business environment that leads to strong
year-round economic health and that caters to a variety of visitors and residents.
• WORKFORCE SUPPLY AND MATCH - Aspen has a sufficient supply of well-qualified workers.
Wages are competitive. Excellent transportation options are available to support mobility.
• EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING – The Aspen community has access to excellent (pre)schools.
Students (of all ages) succeed academically. They develop the social and life assets needed for
success and happiness. Continued professional development opportunities are available.
• HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY – Individuals and families can thrive in Aspen. Workers can
find housing options; jobs are available with sufficient wages; and social assistance is available
and accessible.
P36
II.
7
Stakeholder feedback is welcome on how to continuously improve and/or expand upon the
sustainability outcomes and key performance measures.
Sustainability Dashboards
This year’s sustainability dashboards display environmental, economic, and social key performance
measures developed to date. The key performance measures are formulated in ‘At a Glance’ dashboards
that explain what the measure is, why it is important, and what the data and trend show. Associated
benchmarks and targets are included where possible.
The report further highlights selected actions that the city and other key stakeholders are currently
taking to achieve a more sustainable community in the three spheres highlighted. These include
programs, initiatives, and plans that are designed for continuous improvement.
Baselines, Data Sourcing, & Considerations
The measures show the current state of sustainability in the community. They also serve as a tangible
means to track future progress and success. Having considered a broad vision for sustainability, the first
step is to establish a baseline for the community. In summary, the key performance measures are
designed to:
• Report the current position of the Aspen community regarding its sustainability outcomes
• Benchmark against performance targets where established/confirmed
• Communicate performance to policy/decision makers/citizens
The development of these outcomes and associated measures enable data driven performance,
planning, and action. The environmental, economic, and social measures presented in this report bring
together data from a host of local, state, and national sources. To the extent possible primary sources
are used and validated. Due to data availability and/or quality, not all measures are fully established. In
future years, there is an expectation the City will build on these initial measures and dashboards.
The data displayed on respective dashboards show some level of variability over time. In some cases, the
variability is minor while in other cases it is obvious. Such variability is often inherent and normal, but can
present decision-makers with a dilemma: When does the variability require attention and intervention?
To help understand the variability in the data, and therefore to help assess whether some addressable
factor requires attention, several steps have been taken as follows:
• HEALTH & WELL-BEING – The balance of mind, body, and spirit is exemplified in Aspen. Aspen
residents have healthy life habits and have access to affordable medical and health services.
• PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS – Crime rates are low and public spaces do not present major
safety hazards. They are also accessible to people of all ages and abilities. Effective planning is in
place to prepare for emergencies.
• COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS - Residents have a variety of opportunities for nurturing
relationships and spirituality. Choices of community engagement are plentiful and participation
rates are high. People take pride in their community.
P37
II.
8
1. Where historical data is available, it has been included, so that the most recent year of
information be part of a broader pattern, rather than in isolation and without context.
2. Where feasible, benchmarks or target values are provided. This helps illustrate whether the data
is within the range desired.
3. In some cases, (given at least 20 historical data values), control limits are added. Such are tools to
help illustrate the expected boundaries of variability. Control limits can help identify: 1) whether
current values are expected or of concern, regardless of whether they are higher or lower than a
prior year, and 2) whether forces outside of random factors appear to be at play. If the latter
occurs, it is possible to see those data values that are not normally (randomly) distributed over
time as misleading. Data may appear as significant trends and shifts in the data, an unexpected
number of outliers, or unexpected repeating patterns.
4. In cases where there is a seasonal pattern to the data, average highs and lows have been added
to the graphs. These averages help contextualize whether the expected seasonal peaks and
valleys are trending over time. Additionally, this approach was sometimes used when the
minimum data requirements to set up control limits could not be met. An example is provided in
Figure 5 below.
Figure 5. Sample Data Set Showing Data Variability (Average Maximums and Minimums)
The project team aimed to ensure that the information presented in this report is accurate and
complete. Yet, there is no representation of guarantee expressed or implied on accuracy or
completeness. Given the dynamic nature of the data included in the report, readers are encouraged to
seek additional sources to further verify content before referencing and/or using it.
Publishing
Consistent with the sustainability principles behind this report, it will be primarily published online. This
allows the use of hyperlinks to key documents and resources. Online access also increases the audience
for the report. Readers are encouraged to view the report online and to limit printing.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Occupancy RateYear
Figure 5. Aspen Lodging Monthly Occupancy Rate (2007-2015)
Monthly Occupancy Rate Average Maximum Average Minimum Average
P38
II.
9
MAP OF ASPEN ADMINISTRATIVE AREA/URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY (UGB)10
10 Map of Aspen Urban Growth Boundary. < http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/joint/GIS/UGB11x17.pdf.>Retrieved July 2016.
11 Aspen Geographic Profile. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen.> Retrieved July 2016.
12 Roaring Fork Valley Profile. < https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Fork_Valley> 2016; 2017
The below profile gives an overview of the geography and demographics of the Aspen Administrative
Area. When the City of Aspen, Urban Growth Boundary, Pitkin County, and/or the Roaring Fork Valley
or “Valley” is referenced in the report, the below serve as the definitions unless specified otherwise.
ASPEN GEOGRAPHIC PROFILE11
Location
The city sits along the southeast (upper) end of the Roaring Fork Valley, along the
Roaring Fork River, a tributary of the Colorado River about 40 miles (64 km) south of
Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
Geography
It is surrounded by mountain and wilderness areas on three sides: Red Mountain to
the north, Smuggler Mountain to the east, and Aspen Mountain to the south.
Land Area
Per the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 3.5 square miles
(9.1 km2), all land.
Elevation 8,000 feet
Population 6,658 at the (Census, 2010)
Roaring Fork Valley12
The Roaring Fork Valley is a geographical region in western Colorado in the United
States. The Valley is defined by the valley of the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries,
including the Crystal and Frying Pan River. It includes the communities of Aspen,
Snowmass Village, Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood Springs.
Pitkin County13
Pitkin County is one of the 64 counties in the U.S. state of Colorado. As of the 2010
census, the population was 17,148. The county seat is Aspen. Pitkin County is included
in the Glenwood Springs, CO Micropolitan Statistical Area.
Urban Growth Boundary
The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners in 2000 and is periodically updated. It was previously called the”
Metro Area boundary” or “AACP Metro boundary”. The UGB plays a role in growth
management, the transfer of development rights (TDR) program, and the Aspen Area
Community Plan (AACP). 14
P39
II.
10
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY DASHBOARD: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In Aspen, a sustainable environment is one in which natural resource use is managed with consideration for
the future and in concert with human needs. Aspen’s natural surroundings are integral to its character and
are among the community’s greatest assets.
Figure 1. Castle Creek.15
This report tracks the environmental sustainability of the Aspen community and measures progress in
maintaining a healthy and vibrant way of life for people and wildlife. The report is organized into five
different categories: Air; Energy; Parks, Trails, and Open Space; Waste; and Water. Each of these categories
contains 3-4 key performance measures in which specific data is assessed over time to gauge the City’s
progress toward greater environmental sustainability.
The table on the next page serves as a brief executive summary of the current state of each category. A
concise description of the status of each individual performance measure can be viewed in this Summary of
Findings and ‘At-a-Glance’ Dashboard section of the report.
AIR16
Aspen’s outdoor air quality is generally healthy to moderate. But, when
negatively impacted by local and regional events, levels have approached those
deemed as unhealthy by the EPA.
• Between 1993 and 2016, levels of PM 10 (coarse particulates) fell
within “good” to “moderate” levels per the EPA. PM 2.5 levels (fine
particulates) were more consistently “moderate” and occasionally
approaching “unhealthy” for sensitive populations.
• In 2016, average annual daily trips across Castle Creek Bridge were
fewer than 2015, but still at 94% of 1993 levels. Monthly trips in 2015
showed traffic counts close to 1993 levels with exceedances in April,
November, and December.
• Though there is limited data on radon across Aspen, state and regional
data suggest that Colorado and the Aspen region have high radon risk.
• Between 2010 and 2016, ozone levels were below, but closely
approaching EPA designated action levels.
13 Pitkin County Profile. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitkin_County,_Colorado> Retrieved July 2016.
14 Aspen Area Community Plan (2012), p 8. < http://www.aspencommunityvision.com/media/uploads/FINAL_AACP_2272012_reduced.pdf.>
Retrieved July 2016.
15 Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
16 Ibid.
P40
II.
11
Seen together, these measures speak to the complex work of striving toward greater environmental
sustainability in Aspen. While many important steps have already been taken in this effort, the
community must continue to make strides in every sector to achieve desired outcomes.
17Photo: Menges, Chris.
18 Aspen's EIB has been used since 2004 under the rationale that this geographic area represents Aspen’s core functionality. The EIB is nearly
identical to the City of Aspen’s Urban Growth Boundary, but also includes several nearby areas. It is further described in the Energy section of
the report. Menges, Chris. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Rep. Aspen: City of Aspen Canary Initiative, 2014.
19Photo: Williamson. City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space Department.
20Photo: Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
21 Ibid.
ENERGY17
Though Aspen has taken strides to enhance sustainability energy use and sourcing
in some areas, significant work remains to reach the City’s climate action goals.
• In 2015, net electricity consumption in the Aspen Emission Inventory
Boundary18 was powered by 49% fossil resources and 51% renewable resources.
Aspen Electric was 100% renewable and Holy Cross Energy was at 30.3%.
• Between 2004 and 2014, Aspen reduced its GHG emissions by 7.4%. The
community aims to decrease emissions a further 22.6% by 2020.
• In 2014, energy use from the built environment comprised 70.1% of total
energy use. Since, there was a 1.8% reduction in energy use from the buildings.
• In 2016, ridership on City of Aspen buses increased significantly to 1,400,181.
PARKS, TRAILS, AND
OPEN SPACE19
There is a wealth of parks, trails, and open space available for residents and visitors.
• The City owns and maintains 25.9 miles of trails, 204 acres of parks, and 327
acres of open space in the urban growth boundary. Aspen partners with
neighboring jurisdictions to own and jointly maintain 566 additional acres.
• Aspen’s urban tree canopy covers 31% of the city.
• The ACES Forest Health Index indicates that the forests of the Roaring Fork
Valley are healthy and in the range of natural variability, though with some
specific indicators exhibiting negative trends.
WASTE20
Aspen has great opportunity to expand the sustainability of its waste practices.
• The Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC) is in compliance with pollution
measures, with one air permit pending.
• Aspen’s 2016 municipal solid waste diversion rate was estimated at 15%, which
is significantly lower than the state average of 21.4%, the national average of
34.6%, and Aspen’s goal of 50%.
• As of 2016, the PCSWC has an estimated lifespan of 10-11 years.
WATER21
The sustainability of Aspen’s water production and consumption is largely pending
further data collection. River and stream health varies on a case-by-case basis.
• In every year between 2006 and 2016, the Roaring Fork failed to meet the
instream flow during its annual 7-day low. Between 2013 and 2015, Castle
Creek remained above the dedicated instream flow rate.
• 2015 sampling of macroinvertebrate populations, an indicator of stream health, in
the Roaring Fork River indicates relatively healthy levels, though continued
sampling is needed to confirm this finding.
P41
II.
12
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AT A GLANCE DASHBOARD
TARGET STATUS KEY > > > > >
Meeting/ Exceeding
Not Meeting; Within Range
Not Meeting
No Target
Performance Measure Target / Status
AIR
Levels of particulate matter
Castle Creek bridge traffic counts
Radon levels and mitigation
Ozone levels
ENERGY
Percentage of electrical energy from renewable sources
Community-wide greenhouse gas emissions
Energy use from the built environment
Mass transit use
PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
Acres of parks, trails, and open space
Community forest coverage
Forest Health Index (ACES)
WASTE
Levels of water and air pollution at the landfill
Municipal solid waste diversion
Amount of landfill space available
Number of Weekly Miles Waste Travels for Processing
WATER
Flow rates in rivers and streams - Roaring Fork River
- Castle Creek
Macroinvertebrate populations in rivers and streams
Recommendations
The two principle recommendations of the Environmental Sustainability section
of this report are as follows:
➢ Create and implement a strategy to decarbonize Aspen’s energy supply,
including the pursuit of 100% renewable electricity for the entire Aspen
community.
➢ Implement at least one recommendation from the Roaring Fork Valley
Waste Diversion Plan to increase the construction and demolition waste
being diverted from the landfill.
P42
II.
13
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY DASHBOARD: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Economic sustainability in Aspen means having the goods, services, and assets to support a robust
tourist-based and residential economy year-round. This means that the economy has an optimal level of
productive capacity and that economic activities are in balance with the natural and social environment.
Where possible, measures are compared to industry or other benchmarks. The available data sourced to
date provides insight about the respective outcome areas as presented in this Summary of Findings.
APPEAL OF ASPEN
BRAND
To understand the appeal of the ‘Aspen Brand’ it is important to have a sense of
who the visitors/residents are and what attracts them to visit or stay.
• Demographics present insights on how to attract and engage visitors of all
ages. Per Aspen Skiing Company survey results (2016/2017), the average age
of guests is between 41-44 years of age. The largest age group is 55-64 at
24%. Based on ACRA summer survey (2016), the median age of summer
visitors is approximately 49 years of age. The 25-34 and 35-44 age groups are
the largest at 20% each. The 18-24 age group is the smallest group at 6%.
• Within the 2016 ACRA summer survey, visitors express high satisfaction with
their Aspen Experience with a consistent average rating at 9.1 (out of 10).
• In 2016, the Colorado Tourism Office commissioned a report entitled
Colorado Travel Impacts 1996 – 2015p.22 Overall, the data shows a current
positive trend for Pitkin County visitor spending, industry earnings, as well as,
employment and tax generation. Visitor spending in Pitkin County increased
steadily from $586.6M in 2010 to $714M in 2015p.
Visitor economic impact data for the Pitkin County region, gives insight into the
magnitude and performance of the visitor based economy. A detailed analysis
of this data and methodology for collection is considered prudent. The visitor
age groups are an indication of who (age wise) comes to Aspen. This lends itself
to a better understanding of what their interests and contributions to the
economy might be. And what the constraints and opportunities are.
TOURISM, LODGING, &
MOBILITY
The portfolio of Tourism, Lodging, & Mobility measures also gives an idea of the
capacity of Aspen’s tourist-based and local economy. Airport/airline capacity
and lodging occupancy indicate part of the visitor demand for a place, especially
at peak and off-peak times.
• The number of commercial airlines serving Aspen has remained steady at 3
providers and capacity is high with approximately 750 flights per month.
• In 2015, the total lodging capacity (pillow count) was 9,193 (Destimetrics).
The total pillow count decreased by 2% from 2009 to 2015. Per the data,
there appears to be a shift in the mix in favor of the moderate category.
Demand for lodging during peak seasons remains solid with occupancy rates
averaging around 73%.
• Qualitative ratings of walkability, bike-ability and transit suggests
relatively good performance with opportunities for continued
improvement.
22 Colorado Travel Impacts 1996-2015p, Dean Runyan Associates (Commissioned by Colorado Tourism Office)
<http://www.colorado.com/sites/default/master/files/Runyan_TravelImpacts_2014.pdf>. Retrieved March 2017.
P43
II.
14
The performance indicators appear to be relatively stable based on the
historical trend. Inevitably, there are further opportunities to optimize
infrastructure, operating efficiencies, and quality attributes especially when
considering competition for visitors.
BUSINESS DIVERSITY &
SUSTAINABILITY
The business community of Aspen is diverse and relatively steady. Economic
activity appears to be trending in a positive direction with moderate growth in
taxable sales and quantity of business licenses.
• Since 2004, economic activity in Aspen (reported as total taxable retail
sales) has steadily increased (2.2%) year-on-year. As expected, Aspen
businesses’ sales differ considerably between on and off seasons. May and
December are the lowest and highest average sales months.
• Over the past six years (2010-2015), the top business types in Aspen have
remained relatively consistent. The categories of businesses remain diverse
and reasonably well suited.
Generally, business diversity and sustainability is subject to market forces
(supply and demand). Further work can be done to understand the capacity
for businesses that are operating in the on and off-season and whether this
suits community and visitor needs.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY
& MATCH
The size and composition of the valley workforce appears to be relatively
stable and consistent with a seasonal, tourist based economy.
• While the size of the valley workforce contracted from 35,208 (2008) to
31,976 (2016), the composition of occupations remained relatively stable.
Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and Food are
consistently at the top of the occupational list.
• From 2009-2015, the Aspen unemployment rate averaged at 5.1% per
year. The Pitkin County unemployment rate averaged 5.6% for the same
period. The most significant unemployment age ranges in Aspen are
those in the 25-44 and 65+. Due to the economic downturn, some in
other age ranges (45-54; 55-64) may have stopped looking for work.
Hence a possible lower unemployment rate for these age groups.
• In 2015, Pitkin County (Aspen/Snowmass) had the highest annual wages
(compared to peer counties) reported at $59,488. Pitkin County annual
average wage increased by approximately 29% from 2011 to 2015 which
is likely due to a rebound in hiring and wages post economic downturn.
• While workforce housing supply does not completely meet demand, 90%
(owners) and 70% (renters) of APCHA employed households are
considered not cost burdened.
• Per 2015 data, the average workforce member (travelling from mid valley)
spends approximately $2,100 or (3.5%) of annual wages commuting by
bus. The annual round trip cost of commuting by bus is calculated at
approximately one fifth (20%) of what it costs for drive alone commute
for the same distance (Aspen/Carbondale). This cost data has not been
P44
II.
15
updated as the methodology for doing so is under consideration and
development.
• In 2015 Subsidized / free bus passes totaling 1,185 (627 - winter and 558 –
summer) are purchase for the benefit of employees. Aspen businesses
purchased 82 passes in 2012 and 51 in 2016.
Workforce development as a contributor to the economy presents both
challenges and opportunities. This includes attracting, retaining, rewarding,
and developing workforce members. Affordable housing, childcare,
transportation remain key issues for the workforce especially given the relative
cost of living.
Collectively, these key performance measures demonstrate robust tourist access and residential
demand for a place. The economic sustainability dashboard provides an ‘At a Glance ‘view of how the
community is doing on each measure. And what this means for future consideration and opportunities
for continuous improvement.
Photos (in order above): Babbie, S.; Kolacek, Z; Holder. M; Kolacek, Z.; Aspen Times
P45
II.
16
Recommendations
The principle recommendation of the Economic Sustainability section of this
report is as follows:
➢ Consider acquiring or developing a customized regional economic model
that would capture the impact of economic activity in Aspen.
ECONOMIC SUSTAINABILITY AT GLANCE DASHBOARD
TARGET STATUS KEY > > > > >
Meeting/ Exceeding
Not Meeting; Within Range
Not Meeting
No Target
Performance Measure Target Set/Status
APPEAL OF ASPEN BRAND
Economic impact of visitors to Pitkin County
Median age of visitors by age group (summer/winter)
Satisfaction level of key visitor groups (summer)
% of visitors who are repeat visitors (summer)
TOURISM, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Total number of short-term beds (pillow count) available, by type
Occupancy rate (by month)
Value for price for lodging (summer)
# of non-stop airline routes/trips to Aspen (monthly)
# of airlines serving Aspen during different seasons (monthly)
Qualitative ratings of walkability, bike-ability, and transit
BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY
Aspen economic activity level
Total number of business licenses
Seasonal business sales activity
Mix of top business types
Commercial vacancy rates
Commercial rental rates
WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
Size of valley workforce / top occupations
Unemployment rate by age
Annual employee wages compared with other Colorado (peer) resort counties
% of households who are housing cost burdened
Median commuting costs by bus (as a % of annual wage per person)
Participation rate of employers in subsidized/free bus pass programs
P46
II.
17
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY DASHBOARD: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Social sustainability in Aspen spans a range of factors associated with the quality of daily life that affect
residents and visitors alike. This includes access and availability of housing, transportation, childcare, and
education. It also means public safety and preparedness. Lastly, it offers diverse recreational, wellness,
cultural, and engagement opportunities. Where possible, measures are compared to industry or other
benchmarks. The available data sourced to date provides insight about the respective outcome areas as
presented in this Summary of Findings.
EDUCATION &
LIFELONG LEARNING
• In 2016, 98% of enrolled kindergartners attended some form of
preschool.
• From 2010 to 2015, children under 5 years old in Pitkin County averaged at
748, while area capacity is averaged at 343 spots (from 2010-2016). This
fulfills nearly half of the potential need for childcare in the county annually.
Of the 2016 Kids First Survey respondents, 65% prefer childcare in licensed
centers compared to the 48% currently served.
• From 2013-2016, 76% of third graders in the Aspen School District were
reading at grade level on average.
• From 2011-2016, the percentage of Aspen School District students with IEPs
has shown relative consistency around the average of 11%.
• From 2010 to 2016, Pitkin County graduation rates are 95.1% and
completion rates are 96.6% on average. Aspen School District ACT
composite scores are 4.22 points or 12% higher than the state composite
average. The Aspen High School exit self-assessment survey gives insight
into seniors’ feelings of preparedness for their next step in life. When
prompted “I feel Aspen High School has prepared me well for my next
phase in life (work and/or college),” 83.9% agreed or strongly agreed,
11.4% were neutral, and 4.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the
statement.
HOUSEHOLD
FINANCIAL SECURITY
Performance measures around household financial security are centered
around Aspen’s 3,750 permanent households. The average household size is
approximately 2.03 persons. There are many factors that contribute to
household financial security including employment, wages, housing, and
economic assistance programs such as childcare and Medicaid/Medicare.
• In 2015, the self-sufficiency wage for a family of four was $79,894 and for
a single adult was $28,051. This represents a 30% and 20% increase
respectively from 2004. These are the respective amounts needed to
adequately meet basic needs without assistance of any kind.
• As of 2017 the total APCHA ownership housing units is 1,631. The total
APCHA rental housing units is 1,325. The number of bids for each category
on average was 20 and 94. This shows that there continues to be a high
level of bids vs available housing inventory for ownership and rental units
respectively.
• Using APCHA-managed inventory as a proxy, there are 29 and 21
transfers within in the housing system. This indicates a relative constraint
within the housing system to meet potential needs as family or personal
circumstances change and/or grow.
P47
II.
18
• The largest form of economic assistance is through the affordable
workforce housing program. In Aspen, it represents about 66% of
the assistance. As for childcare assistance, it represents about 2%.
Medicare assistance for Pitkin County has remained relatively
stable from 2013 to 2015.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
• Within the Valley Health Alliance network, insurance premiums constitute
1.7-3.6% of average wage per employee in Pitkin County. Averaged
amongst the five employers, cost burden of health insurance premiums is
2.9%. On average, VHA employers pay $564.71 and employees pay
$119.93 of health insurance costs per member per month (PMPM).
• There is a variety of provider availability within range of the City of Aspen.
Oncologists are the top used physician within the City of Aspen network.
Of major healthcare centers, six oncologists are located within 20 and 45-
miles of Aspen. Family practitioners, anesthesiologists, and orthopedic
surgeons are more prevalent within distance of Aspen with more than
double the number of providers in the larger distance range. There are
significantly lower number of providers who accept any form of public
insurance.
• From 2013-2015, the leading cause of injury hospitalizations per 100,000
people was falls at 187 (Pitkin County) and 54 (Colorado). Over the same
period, the leading causes of mortality in Pitkin County include malignant
neoplasms (72), heart disease (49), and unintentional injuries (32). These
top three causes correlate with the top three for the State of Colorado
with 138, 126, and 47 respectively. Suicide is the fourth leading cause in
Pitkin County at 25, while it ranks at number 7 on the state list (20).
• Valley Health Alliance data of the five largest employers in Aspen shows
that the most prevalent risk factors in the area are high cholesterol,
arthritis, and broken bones.
PUBLIC SAFETY &
PREPAREDNESS
Aspen is a relatively safe place to live and visit. That is not to say that it is
immune to crime and/or natural hazards such as wildfire or man-made ones
such as failures of the built environment.
• Overall, crime rates both those against persons and property have
declined in recent years. Crimes against persons averaged 248 the period
from 2010 -2016. The highest level of incidence is in the harassment
category. Crimes against property averaged 606 in the same period. The
highest level of incidence is the theft category.
• On average from 2011 to 2016 there were 139 reported child abuse cases
for Pitkin County. The adult abuse rate has increased in the same period
from 25 to 79. This increase may be related to a more dedicated practice of
tracking the cases. From 2011 to 2016, Aspen domestic violence cases
have declined overall by 38%. Pitkin County domestic violence cases have
remained relatively stable for the same period.
• The number of recorded mental illness cases increased from 25 (2014) to
44 (2016) which represents a 76% increase. The increase is partially related
to a more dedicated practice in recording cases. In terms of crime related
substance abuse there were 180 recorded cases in 2014 and 211 in 2016.
P48
II.
19
Pitkin County Sheriff calls involving Mental Health/Welfare Checks has
remained relatively stable from 2014-2016 with an average of 199
incidences. Sheriff Substance Abuse calls has seen an increase from 99 in
2014 to 129 in 2016 representing a 30% increase.
• The homeless data represents the proximate homelessness for the Aspen
area. A point in time count of homelessness for the Roaring Fork Valley was
taken in January 2017. The total count at that time was 129 persons
(singles). In terms of Aspen Homeless shelter usage (day center, meals,
overnight stays) there was a total of 8,345 uses in 2015 and a total of 9,248
uses in 2016. In 2016 there were 126,140 staff hours devoted serving the
homeless at the shelter. Noting the relative transient nature of
homelessness, this gives a relative “snap shot” of the homeless population
in the Aspen area and level of support.
• Roughly half of the total Aspen NoHARM wildfire acreage is considered
“High” or “Very High” wildfire risk. Most of this is within the Wildland
component of 4,336 acres or 35%. The Intermix “High” and Interface
“High” represent approximately 14% of the total NoHARM acreage which is
most proximate to the city center. In 2015, the Hunter Creek prescribed
burn treated 902 acres within the NoHARM area both reducing fuel density
and supporting ecosystem health.
• A qualitative assessment model of preparedness has been devised for the
purposes of gauging performance on emergency preparedness. FEMA’s
National Preparedness System (NPS) outlines an organized process for
communities. The six parts (elements) found within the NPS feature in
local emergency preparedness planning and operational
documentation/structure.
COMMUNITY
CONNECTIONS
• From 2005-2015, Aspen’s number of votes cast average around 2,252
while runoff election votes average at 1,716. From 2008-2016, the average
Pitkin County voter participation is 7,221.
• Approximately 30% of Aspen’s workforce are residents of Aspen and 70%
of the workforce commutes from outside Aspen. On average, Aspen
residents commuting to Aspen jobs experience a 5 mile, 14-minute
commute. Non-residents commuting to Aspen jobs experience a 20 mile,
33-minute commute.
• The number of housing units (housing stock), households (permanent
residences), and ratio of households to total housing units has remained
relatively constant from 2011 to 2015. Over the period, 53% of the total
residences are permanent residences and 47% are temporary housing
and/or not primary homes on average.
• In 2015, Aspen’s most predominant ethnicities were White and Hispanic at
5,727 people (85%) and 522 people (8%), respectively. From 2009-2015,
the percentage of the population where English is not the primary
language spoken at home increased from 10% to 17%. A variety of
languages other than English are spoken at home in Aspen (2015). In 2015,
Spanish represented the highest percentage at 33% or 379 homes.
• The Aspen area offers multiple and varied opportunities for social and
communal engagement. There are an estimated 300 non-profits
P49
II.
20
representing a range of interests around environmental, social, and
economic sustainability outcomes.
Collectively, these key performance measures offer relatively good insight on the social sustainability of
the Aspen both for the residential and visitor population. The social sustainability dashboard provides an
‘At a Glance’ of how the community is doing on each measure. And what this means for future
consideration and opportunities for continuous improvement.
Photos (in order above): Babbie, S.; Kolacek, Z; Holder. M; Kolacek, Z.; Aspen Times
P50
II.
21
SOCIAL SUSTAINABILITY AT A GLANCE DASHBOARD
TARGET STATUS KEY > > > > >
Meeting/Exceeding
Not Meeting; Within Range
Not Meeting
No Target
Performance Measure Target / Status
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
# of kindergarteners who had participated in some form of preschool
Licensed childcare capacity for children under 5
% of third graders reading at grade level
Number of students with Individual Education Plans (IEPs)
Metric of high school student life readiness
% of adults who indicate they have sufficient access to opportunities to learn
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY
Self-sufficiency wage
Household Capability Index
Number of bids per APCHA ownership unit by category
Number of bids per APCHA rental unit by category
Match within the housing system
% of households in Aspen receiving economic assistance by type
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Relative household health care cost burden
Availability of providers within 20 and 45 miles of Aspen
• By specialty/discipline
• By willingness to accept public insurance programs (Medicare/Medicaid)
Leading health indicators
Prevalence and risk of health conditions
% indicating household is able to provide for its health care needs
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
Crime rates by type
Abuse and neglect rates by type
% of police cases that involve mental illness and substance abuse
Incidence of homelessness
% of acres in the Wildland Urban Interface deemed to be high/extreme wildfire risk
Qualitative assessment of comprehensive emergency preparedness
Public Space Accessibility
% who agree that public spaces in Aspen are accessible to those with mobility impairments; %
of who agree that public spaces in Aspen do not have major safety hazards
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
Voter participation levels, by age
Neighborhood Connection Index
% of Aspen workers who commute more than 10 miles
Ratio of permanent residents to total housing units
% of households where English is not spoken at home
Access to engagement opportunities, by type
Recommendations
The principle recommendations of the Social Sustainability section of this report
is as follows:
P51
II.
22
➢ Promote workforce housing market efficiency, transparency,
accountability, and effectiveness through investments in modernization,
including process improvement, information management (database),
and supportive policy changes.
P52
II.
23
Environmental Sustainability
Aspen’s natural environment has long shaped the City’s spirit,
history, economy, and lifestyle. The Aspen community relies on
the health of its wild and urban ecosystems to support its
tourism-based economy and to provide the quality of life that
draws people to make Aspen their home.
Environmental sustainability is the balance between ecosystem
health and human needs. It should encourage responsible use
and prevent the degradation of natural resources, as well as
support long-term vitality of natural and human communities.
Accordingly, a sustainable environment is one in which natural
resources (for example, forests, wildlife, rivers, air, energy, and
land) are managed with care and planning for the future. Population levels and health are within ranges
of natural variability. Residents and visitors are empowered to act as stewards of the land, air, and water
around them, to be more conscientious consumers, and to leave lighter footprints. Recognizing the real
economic and social value that comes from a thriving natural environment is crucial for the long-term
resiliency of the Aspen community.
Figure 1. Aspen leaves near the Maroon Bells.1
When reviewed collectively, the key indicators in the environmental sustainability section of this report
describe what environmental sustainability means for Aspen. No one metric can stand alone as a
comprehensive indicator of sustainability. However, in concert, many measures speak to the robust,
nuanced, and multi-faced nature of the environment.
In creating this report, City of Aspen staff delineated five key areas to focus the report on: Air; Energy;
Parks, Trails, and Open Space; Waste; and Water (Figure 2).
1Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
Environmental
EconomicSocial
P53
II.
24
Figure 2. Environmental Outcome Themes
Key stakeholder groups then crafted outcome statements for each category that portray what true
environmental sustainability would look like for Aspen (see text box on following page). These
statements describe a future in which human quality of life is supported by the natural environment,
without undue harm to current and future ecological health. To measure Aspen’s success toward
achieving these desired outcomes, stakeholders identified three to four key performance measures
within each category of environmental sustainability for which there is substantial local data that can be
tracked over time. Each of these individual measures is featured in a one-page dashboard. The
outcomes and key performance measures in this report are designed to educate decision makers, staff,
and the public to take informed action toward enhancing Aspen’s environmental sustainability.
Figure 3. The Maroon Bells.2
2Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
ASPEN
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
Air
Energy
Parks, Trails, and
Open Space
Waste
Water
P54
II.
25
ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
OUTCOMES
• AIR
The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air. Aspen’s air quality is one of the
factors that distinguish it from other places. Residents and visitors alike expect and
value clear skies and unpolluted indoor and outdoor air. Because Aspen has clean
healthy air, residents can fully enjoy indoor and outdoor activities with reduced
concern for their respiratory health, including reduced incidence of respiratory
illness and irritation.
• ENERGY
The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing
adverse environmental impacts. Energy generation and consumption, while
integral to a prosperous economy, can result in the emission of greenhouse gases
and pollutants that contaminate land, air and water. By replacing fossil fuel-based
energy with renewable resources – and maximizing energy efficiency across all
sectors – Aspen meets its energy demands in an efficient, clean and affordable
manner. In doing so, Aspen maintains a thriving economy while reducing the
adverse environmental impacts of its energy needs.
• PARKS, TRAILS, and OPEN SPACE
Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-ranging habitats,
recreation opportunities and connected, accessible places. A myriad of natural
resources contribute to Aspen’s singularity as a place. High levels of biodiversity,
native ecosystems, extensive fish and wildlife habitat, and a diverse urban forest
provide ecosystem functions that benefit the community (such as absorbing water
runoff and filtering water for quality, for example), and provide for extensive active
and passive recreational pursuits and personal renewal. Access to nearby parks
and open spaces via walkable connections is an integral part of the city’s appeal.
• WASTE
The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the
environment. The consumption of material resources and the waste generation
that accompanies it can result in contamination of our air, land and water. Wastes
are minimized through diversion and reuse whenever possible, which maximizes
the life of the current landfill while avoiding pollution. When waste must be
disposed, it is done so responsibly.
• WATER
The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a full
range of municipal and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and
rivers. Resources such as the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries are essential to
the vitality of the Aspen area, providing high-quality water for a variety of
purposes. Because of its heavy dependence on this limited resource, it is important
for the City to have minimal negative impacts on water quality and quantity. Only if
Aspen has a sufficient supply of clean water for drinking and recreation, will
residents and visitors be able to continue enjoying the life and natural amenities
for which the area is known. Aspen takes responsibility for and minimizes
pollutants entering waterways through storm water and waste water pollution
prevention.
P55
II.
26
Many visitors and residents think of clear mountain vistas as essential to the Aspen experience.
However, not long ago, it was common to see haze and smog hanging over downtown. Industry,
construction, traffic, natural geography, fireplaces, and restaurant grills all contribute to decreased air
quality, visibility, and amplified health concerns.
Due to poor air quality in the 1970s and 1980s, Aspen reached “non-attainment” status with the EPA for
coarse particulate (PM 10) pollution. This means that PM 10 levels exceeded those deemed acceptable
by the Clean Air Act. Aspen was then mandated to create an implementation plan to reach and maintain
appropriate levels. Consequently, Aspen established ordinances and programs to promote clean air.
Drawing on the collaboration of a wide swath of sectors, these efforts include:
• Sweeping streets regularly
• Conditioning icy roads (washed rock vs sand)
• Prohibiting wood burning fireplaces
• Promoting public transit and paid parking
• Limiting restaurant char grill emissions
• Regulating fugitive construction dust
Aspen's air quality is now greatly improved. In 2003, the community reestablished attainment status for
PM 10. Aspen’s response to PM 10 nonattainment is a great example of how the community can and
should act to combat air pollution. While important to celebrate these gains, continued focus on and
dedication to Aspen's clean air, both indoor and out, remains paramount to the community's health.
This is especially important given a growing population, burgeoning tourism industry, and petroleum-
based transportation system. Moving forward, this will mean a stronger focus on the issues of
particulate matter, ozone, and radon.
In creating this report, a group of local stakeholder and experts convened to determine which key
performance measures should be tracked to gauge the environmental sustainability of Aspen’s air. The
following four topics, introduced in greater detail on the following one-page dashboards, reflect their
advice.
Air
Desired Outcome: The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air. Aspen’s air quality is one of the
factors that distinguish it from other places. Residents and visitors alike expect and value clear skies
and unpolluted indoor and outdoor air. Because Aspen has clean healthy air, residents can fully enjoy
indoor and outdoor activities with reduced concern for their health, including reduced incidence of
respiratory and cardiovascular illness and irritation.
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪ Levels of Particulate Matter Pollution
▪ Castle Creek Bridge Traffic Counts
▪ Radon Levels and Mitigation
▪ Ozone Levels
▪ Levels of Particulate Matter Pollution
▪ Castle Creek Bridge Traffic Counts
▪ Radon Levels and Mitigation
▪ Ozone Levels
P56
II.
27
There are varying sizes of PM, which have different health
implications. Generally, the smaller the particle, the more
detrimental to human health. Accordingly, Aspen conducts PM
measurements in two size categories, “inhalable course particles”
(PM 10), and “fine particles” (PM 2.5). See the perspective box
below for more information.
A concise analysis of Aspen’s historical and present PM levels can
be seen in the following dashboard:
▪ Levels of Particulate Matter Pollution
In PM measurement, it is common to see hourly spikes in PM data,
which are often attributed to hyper-local air quality events, such as
an idling vehicle or the emissions of a fireplace. However, these
local events dissipate quickly and are not good indicators of the
community's air quality as a whole. For that reason, data is
reported as a daily, 24-hour averages, which are telling of the more
persistent presence of particulate matter in Aspen's air.
PERSPECTIVE
The EPA groups particle pollution
into two categories:
“‘Inhalable coarse particles,’ such
as those found near roadways and
dusty industries, are larger than
2.5 micrometers and smaller than
10 micrometers in diameter. ‘Fine
particles,’ such as those found in
smoke and haze, are 2.5
micrometers in diameter and
smaller. These particles can be
directly emitted from sources such
as forest fires, or they can form
when gases emitted from power
plants, industries and automobiles
react in the air.”
Castle Creek Bridge Traffic Counts
Vehicle traffic is a significant contributor to air pollution. As one of the principle entry points into Aspen,
the Castle Creek Bridge on Highway 82 proves a good site to track how the volume of vehicles has
changed over time. In turn, the counts inform the City of the impact that the transportation sector has
on air pollution. While this bridge is not the only entrance into town, and thereby cannot be used as a
measurement of total traffic, data from this site can be tracked on a regular basis, and used as a proxy to
gauge fluctuations in total vehicle trips.
3 City of Aspen Department of Environmental Health.
4 “Criteria Air Pollutants." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Web. 31 Mar. 2016. <https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants>.
Figure 1. Jannette Whitcomb, City of Aspen Air
Quality Specialist, and the GRIMM monitor.3
Levels of Particulate Matter Pollution
The Clean Air Act’s National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) identify particulate matter (PM) as a
criteria pollutant with public health and welfare impacts,
meaning that it is dangerous to sensitive populations
and can lead to decreased visibility and damage to
animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.4
The City of Aspen measures particulate matter pollution
using a GRIMM air quality monitor, located at the Yellow
Brick Building, at the intersection of Bleeker and
Garmisch Streets. This location is representative of the
general exposure to particulate matter pollution for the
Aspen community.
P57
II.
28
As the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers, high radon levels pose a severe risk to humans over
periods of long exposure (years not months). This accounts for approximately 21,000 deaths per year. 7
Accordingly, the EPA has set the national action level for radon at 4.0 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L),
meaning that above this level, buildings should be mitigated to decrease health risks.
There is no comprehensive radon database for all of Aspen’s buildings. In efforts to encourage radon
testing, and mitigation where needed, the City of Aspen and Pitkin County maintain a program that gives
away free radon test kits. Over half of these tests have returned radon results above the EPA’s action
level. The corresponding one-page dashboard provides a concise view of the City of Aspen radon
program and results:
▪ Radon Levels and Mitigation
If high levels are discovered, mitigation is relatively affordable and accessible for homeowners and
individuals to lower long-term health risks. The City of Aspen offers resources on how residents can seek
out professional, certified radon mitigation services in the Roaring Fork Valley.
5 Aspen Area Community Plan. 2012. City of Aspen and Pitkin County. Web. <http://www.apcha.org/FINAL_AACP_2272012_reduced.pdf>.
6 Whitcomb, Jannette. City of Aspen Department of Environmental Health. 2016.
7 "Health Risk of Radon." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Web. <https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon>.
Consistent annual traffic counting commenced in 1999, using
permanent counters located at the intersection of Cemetery Lane
and Highway 82. These calculations are used as key metric in the
Transportation Chapter of the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan,
which asserts as one of its Primary Transportation Policies to:
“continue to limit Average Annual Daily Trips (AADT) to 1993 levels
at the Castle Creek Bridge, and strive to reduce peak-hour vehicle-
trips to below 1993 levels.”5
The following dashboard provides a concise view of the historical
and current Castle Creek Bridge Traffic Counts in Aspen.
▪ Castle Creek Bridge Traffic Counts
Radon Levels and Mitigation
Just as outdoor indicators such as particulate matter, ozone, and
traffic levels are important elements of air health, radon levels are a
vital indicator of the indoor air quality. Radon is a naturally
occurring gas that escapes from the ground and, where not properly
mitigated, can be trapped inside the built environment. The
presence of radon in the soil or rock below a building and the way
individual buildings are constructed to disperse or trap gases are the
key factors contributing to indoor radon levels. The entire state of
Colorado is considered at high risk for radon.6
PERSPECTIVE
The Aspen community
adopted an Ecological Bill of
Rights in 1989. The first right
listed claims:
“The right to breathe clean
air and enjoy clear vistas.”
The Vision Statement of the
2012 Aspen Community
Plan’s Transportation
Chapter affirms,
“We are committed to
providing an efficient, multi-
modal and integrated
transportation system that
reduces congestion and air
pollution.
In 2003, the City of Aspen
reached the EPA’s
“attainment” status for PM
10. This resulted from 15
years of creative and
rigorous actions to improve
air quality.
P58
II.
29
Ozone Levels
Like particulate matter, ozone is classified by the EPA as one of the six principle pollutants categorized
by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). This means that at high levels, ozone is harmful
to public health and the environment.
Figure 2. Jannette Whitcomb conducts weekly checks on the Ozone Monitor located at the head of Cemetery
Lane.8
To address high ozone levels, it is important to know how ground ozone is made. Unlike many air
pollutants which result from direct emission and can then be targeted at the source (such as tailpipe
emissions), ground level ozone is created through a chemical reaction of nitrogen, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and light. The precursors to ground level ozone are naturally occurring and man-
made and originate from regional and local activities. The typical urban precursors to ground level
ozone, such as traffic, regional oil and gas activity, power plants, industrial boilers, wildfires, and
extreme winds, all impact Aspen.9 Weather patterns play an important role in producing ozone; wind
can transport precursor pollutants to Aspen from hundreds of miles where they originate. Interestingly,
one of Aspen’s largest source of VOCs is the result of the natural process of trees budding in springtime,
which releases high amounts of terpenes (a VOC) into the air.
Even harder to address than regional pollution, are ozone spikes caused by stratospheric intrusions.
Aspen sits at 8,000 feet in altitude, which predisposes the town to the possibility of ozone spikes caused
by stratospheric intrusions. A stratospheric intrusion is when ozone-heavy air from the upper
atmosphere temporary pushes down into the lower atmosphere, potentially touching the surface at
high elevations.10 For example, stratospheric intrusion caused dramatic ozone level increases in the
Western U.S. (include Aspen) in April, 2012.11
The corresponding dashboard provides a concise view of ground level ozone pollution in Aspen and the
community’s performance in improving it:
▪ Ozone Levels
8 Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
9 "Ozone Basics." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Web. 31 Mar. 2016. <https://www.epa.gov/ozone-pollution/ozone-basics>.
10 Hansen, Kathryn. "NASA Simulation Portrays Ozone Intrusions From Aloft." NASA. 10 Apr. 2014.
<https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-simulation-portrays-ozone-intrusions-from-aloft/>.
11 Ibid.
P59
II.
30
Below is a summary of current actions, proposed actions, and potential recommendations that benefit
these measures.
Current Actions:
• Current air quality conditions, including PM 2.5, PM 10, and ozone levels, can be found at
AspenAirQuality.com. This is a tool to help individuals plan activity and understand the current
health impacts of Aspen’s outdoor air.
• City of Aspen Environmental Health staff monitors PM and ozone for long-term trends and
current conditions.
• Frequent street sweeping in the winter and active construction dust suppression in the summer
are also vital in limiting day-to-day jumps in PM. Aspen also upholds ordinances regulating the
use of restaurant chargrills and wood-burning fire places.
• Traffic reduction measures include improvements in bike-ability and walkability, We-Cycle (the
Roaring Fork Valley’s bike share program), and the introduction of paid parking and dynamic
pricing during peak seasons. Parking fees are used to subsidize public transit. The City of Aspen,
in collaboration with the Roaring Fork Transit Authority, has widely expanded mass transit
options in Aspen and the surrounding communities to create the nation’s first rural bus rapid
transit system. Bus rides on City of Aspen routes are free.
• The City of Aspen offers free radon test kits to City residents and partners with Pitkin County
and the Community Office for Resource Efficiency to make these tests available regionally.
Proposed Actions
• Transportation planning efforts, such as Integrated Transportation System Plan, Upper Valley
Mobility Study, and Short Range Transit Plan aim to reduce traffic, which would benefit local air
quality.
Recommendation:
• Add radon resistant new construction (RRNC) to multi-family and commercial building codes.
This would be one of the most significant ways to reduce radon exposure risk in the Aspen
community.
P60
II.
AIR
Levels of Particulate Matter Pollution
Air quality in 1970s and 1980s
compared to cleaner present day.
What is it? Why is it important?
Airborne particulate matter (PM) pollution includes acids, organic chemicals, metals, and dust particles. PM is quantified as coarse particles (PM
10) and fine particles (PM 2.5). Both can reduce visibility and pose respiratory and cardiovascular health threats. Smaller particles cause greater
harm, as they more easily enter the nose, throat, and lungs. Cities receive non-attainment status if they exceed the EPA’s National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM more than once per year over 3 years.¹ Aspen was designated with non-attainment in 1988 for PM 10, and
through rigorous air quality improvement efforts regained attainment in 2003. The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a national tool developed by the
EPA to explain how current local air quality effects health.2 Aspen City officials use the AQI to act on acute incidents of elevated air pollution.
What does the data/trend say?
Between 2006 and 2016, none of Aspen’s 24-hr averages fell above the PM 10 NAAQS level of 150 µg/m³ and from 2015-2016, no PM 2.5 24-
hr averages surpassed the EPA’s NAAQS level of 35 µg/m³ (Fig. 1). The highest PM 2.5 levels seen in 2015 relate to wildfire activity originating
from other Western states (Fig. 1). The 24-hour average data in Figure 1 tells us that overall, Aspen’s air quality is good. However, micro -spikes
on a minute or hourly basis still occur in Aspen, and can affect those participating in outdoor activities or sensitive populations. Typically, these
increases are due to vehicles grinding rock particles on the road and wood smoke from residential wood burning or regional wildfires.
AspenAirQuality.com has information on real-time air quality and health impacts.
Figure 2. Air Quality Index for Particulate Matter
AQI Rating Actions to Protect Your Health Against PM
Good None
Moderate If unusually sensitive, consider reducing prolonged or
heavy exertion.
Unhealthy
for sensitive
groups
Sensitive groups* should reduce prolonged or heavy
outdoor exertion. Everyone else should limit prolonged or
heavy exertion.
Unhealthy Sensitive groups* should avoid all physical activity
outdoors. Everyone should avoid long or heavy exertion.
Very
unhealthy
Sensitive groups* should remain indoors with low activity.
Everyone should avoid physical activity outdoors.
* People with heart or lung disease, children, and older adults.
Visit: AspenAirQuality.com for current air quality!
Targets
Aspen’s Target is to not exceed the EPA’s NAAQS levels for PM 10 and PM 2.5. Aspen met
its target in 2016 with no 24-hr averages above 150 µg/m³ for PM 10, or above 35 µg/m³
for PM 2.5.
Data Sourcing and Considerations
In Figure 1, the PM 10 data jumps up noticeably in 2015. Though causation is uncertain,
this increase could be connected to the fact that the monitoring was upgraded in 2015 to
a GRIMM system, which has an increased level of quality assurance and control.
Sources: [1] EPA NAAQS Table: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. [2] AirNow. EPA. 2017. <https://airnow.gov/>. [Photos] City of Aspen Department of Environmental Health and Sustainability
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
165
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016PM 10 24-Hr Averages (µg/m³) Figure 1. Top 24-Hr Averages of PM 10 and PM 2.5
PM 10 PM 10 NAAQS- 150 PM 2.5
PM 2.5 NAAQS- 35 Avg PM 2.5 Linear (PM 10 )P61II.
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC# of TripsMonth
Figure 2. Montly Castle Creek Bridge Traffic Counts
1993 2014 2015 2016
AIR
Castle Creek Bridge Traffic Counts
What is it? Why is it important?
This metric is used to determine the success of traffic reduction measures, which can improve local air quality. In the nineties,
community concern over traffic and congestion prompted the City of Aspen to begin tracking vehicle counts on the Castle Creek
Bridge at the Northwest entrance of town. The City of Aspen is committed to not exceeding the 1993 baseline traffic levels.
Consistent traffic counts began in 1999 and continue to present day.¹
What does the data/trend say?
The 1993 baseline value for Annual Average Daily Trips (AADT) across Castle Creek Bridge is 23,675 trips, which has not been
exceeded since data collection began in 1999 (Fig. 1). The lowest AADT value is 21,351 trips in 2010, since which values have risen
annually to a total of 22,196 in 2016 (Fig. 1). Monthly comparisons show that in 2015, the number of daily trips in Apr., Nov., and
Dec. did exceed 1993 monthly levels, while all other months in 2014-2016 fell below 1993 levels (Fig. 2).² April and November are
low season months in Aspen, when traffic and resulting poor air quality are relatively low. Increased tra ffic in high-volume months,
such as December, is more concerning for air quality concerns.
Targets
Castle Creek Bridge Traffic counts will remain below the 1993 baseline levels. In AADT, Aspen
has met its target in every year since 1999. In 2016, the AADT was 1,479 trips lower than the
1993 baseline. Monthly average daily trips in 2015 exceeded 1993 counts in April, November,
and December.
Data Sources and Considerations
While this bridge is not the only entrance to town, and thereby c annot be used as a
measurement of total traffic, data from this location can be monitored on a regular
basis, and used as a proxy to gauge fluctuations in total vehicle trips.
Sources: [1] [2] City of Aspen Department of Transportation. [Photo] Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
98%97%
95%
98%96%
99%
99%93%
94%91%91%90%91%
93%
93%
94%98%94%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%199920002001200220032004200520062007200820092010201120122013201420152016% 1993 Target MaximumYear
Figure 1. Annual Average Daily Trips
as a Percent of Target Maximum
Percent of 1993 level 1993 Level
The target maximum, set in 1993, is 23,675 trips. Since
1999, actual trips have varied from a low of about 90%
of maximum in 2010 to nearly 98% in 2015.P62II.
AIR
Radon Levels and Mitigation
Home radon test kits are
distributed by the City of Aspen.
What is it? Why is it important?
Radon is a radioactive gas found in nature, which comes from the decay of uranium atoms, and has no color, odor, or taste. There is no safe level
of radon; however, the EPA has designated an action level of 4 picocuries per liter of air (pCi/L), above which buildings should be mitigated. A
building with high levels of radon poses a significant heath risk over a 10 to 20-year period exposure period. Radon is the second leading cause of
lung cancer and the number one cause among non-smokers. The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment rates all of Colorado’s
counties with high radon risk.1 Radon is one of the identified priorities of the Pitkin County Public He alth Improvement Plan. Environmental and
public health officials believe that approximately 50% of homes tested for radon from Aspen to Rifle have radon. To encourage residents to test
for and mitigate radon levels where needed, the City of Aspen began giving out grant -funded free radon test kits to residents in 2010.
What does the data/trend say?
Between 2010 and the spring of 2017, a total of 614 users have received radon test kits from the City of Aspen or CORE. In 2016, of the 40 new
users who tested, 70% received high results and 30% were low. Of those with high results, City of Aspen staff know that at le ast 61% have now
mitigated. Reliable data for the total number of testers who have successfully mitigated high radon levels since 2010 is not accessible, because
users typically do not inform the City after mitigation has occurred.
Targets
Due to the current lack of data availability, this measure contains no target.
Data Sourcing and Considerations
The City of Aspen radon database contains only results from radon test kits that the City of
Aspen has administered and or which have been voluntarily shared. However, buildings are
also tested in real estate transactions and by radon mitigators. Unfortunately, the City does not
have a mechanism to capture data outside of its own test kit program.
Sources: [1] "Colorado Radon Zones." Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 2017. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/colorado-radon-zones [Figures 1,2] City of Aspen Department of Environmental Health
[2] A Citizen’s Guide to Radon: The Guide to Protecting Your Family and Yourself from Radon. Rep.: Environmental Protection Agency, 2012. [Photo] Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
Figure 1. Methods by
which radon enters a
building.
Figure 2. Ways to Reduce Radon in the Your Community
Individuals and Businesses Can:
1. Pick up a radon test kit and do the test. For a free kit, visit the Department of Environmental Health.
2. Mitigate if radon levels are 4 pCi/L or higher.
3. Conduct follow up tests every 2 years.
Local Governments Can:
1. In addition to requiring radon resistant construction for single family homes, require this for all building
types, including commercial and multi-family.
2. Spread education and awareness of the risks of radon.
3. Offer radon mitigation rebates through Energy Smart (following Eagle County’s example).
4. Lead by example and test all government-owned buildings, installing radon mitigation in buildings with
radon levels of 4 pCi/L or higher. P63II.
AIR
Levels of Ozone
Visit
AspenAirQuality.com
for current air quality and
health ranking
Good
Moderate
Unhealthy for sensitive groups
Unhealthy
Very unhealthy
What is it? Why is it important?
Ground level ozone (O₃) reduces visibility and is a respiratory irritant and illness promoter. It forms in the air when Nitro gen Oxides (NOx) and
Volatile Organics (VOC) get “cooked” by sunlight or UV. O₃ levels are reported in a top 8-hour average per day and are measured in parts per
billion (ppb). The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established by the EPA and Clean Air Act state that a city’s annual fourth-
highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration of ozone, averaged over 3 years, should not exceed 70 ppb.1 The Air Quality Index (AQI) is an
EPA tool that communicates the health effects of air pollution levels. High O₃ levels are often caused by regional traffic, oil and gas
development, or natural weather and fire events. A large VOC source in Aspen is the terpenes released by trees budding in springtime.
Stratospheric intrusions can also increase ozone levels in Aspen. This is when naturally ozone-rich air from 10-30 miles above sea level dips
down to lower elevations, even reaching the ground level in high altitude regions such as Aspen.
What does the data/trend say?
No fourth-highest daily 8-hour concentrations of O₃ exceeded the NAAQS between 2010-2016, though several of the top 8-hr averages
exceeded that level (Fig. 1). The 75 ppb value in 2012 is believed to be due to a naturally-caused stratospheric intrusion.2 The highest O₃
levels in 2015 and 2016 were recorded between April and June (Fig. 2).² This means that during springtime in particular, residents and visitors
should use AspenAirQuality.com to know when levels are good, moderate, or unhealthy, adjusting behavior accordingly.
Targets
Aspen’s target is to meet the EPA’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone.
From 2010-2016, Aspen has met this target.
Data Sourcing and Considerations
Ozone data collection began in Aspen in 2010. Data is measured with a Teledyne 400
monitor.
Sources: [1] EPA NAAQS Table: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table [2] [Figures] Jannette Whitcomb, City of Aspen Senior Environmental Health Specialist; City of Aspen Department of Environmental Health
and Sustainability, 2017. [Photo] Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1-Jan 1-Feb 1-Mar 1-Apr 1-May 1-Jun 1-Jul 1-Aug 1-Sep 1-Oct 1-Nov 1-DecParts per billion of ozoneMonth
Figure 2. Seasonal Variation of Monthly Top 10
8-Hour Averages
2015 2016 NAAQS: 70 ppb
66 70
75
67 65 72
65
63 65 66 65 62 65 61
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 20168-Hour O₃Average (parts per billion)Year
Figure 1. 8-Hour Ozone Annual Trends
Max 8 hr avg 4th highest 8 hr avg NAAQS: 70 ppb
P64II.
35
The Aspen community consumes energy across a variety of sectors: to power homes and businesses, to
transport goods and people, and process waste. Every day, residents, visitors, and businesses depends
on the availability and reliability of electricity, natural gas, propane, and gasoline. Meanwhile, these
power sources and fuels incur environmental costs. The use of finite resources, the emission of
greenhouse gases, and air pollution are but a few of these costs. Improving efficiency through upgrades,
the adoption of new technologies, and the use of cleaner energy can significantly reduce the
environmental impacts of conventional energy sources.
Aspen has demonstrated leadership in moving away from fossil fuel energy sources through its multi-
decadal efforts to source 100% of the municipal utility’s electricity comes from renewable sources. A
significant goal realized in 2015.12
In 2012, a group of local experts and stakeholders convened to create a mutual understanding of what
energy-related environmental sustainability means in Aspen and how to track it. The following metrics
are the result of their deliberations:
▪ Percentage of Electrical Energy from Renewable Sources
▪ Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Energy Use from the Built Environment
▪ Mass Transit Use
Together, these measures address many facets of the energy landscape, encompassing both supply and
demand, as well as behavioral and infrastructural change. Each measure is specifically introduced in the
following pages and complemented by a corresponding 1-page dashboard.
12 “Renewable Energy.” City of Aspen, Colorado. Web. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/living-in-the-Valley/Green-Initiatives/renewable-Energy/>.
Energy
Desired Outcome: The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing
adverse environmental impacts. Energy generation and consumption, while integral to a prosperous
economy, can result in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants that contaminate land, air and
water. By replacing fossil fuel-based energy with renewable resources – and maximizing energy
efficiency across all sectors – Aspen meets its energy demands in an efficient, clean and affordable
manner. In doing so, Aspen maintains a thriving economy while reducing the adverse environmental
impacts of its energy needs.
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪ Percentage of Electrical Energy from Renewable Sources
▪ Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions
▪ Energy Use from the Built Environment
▪ Mass Transit Use
P65
II.
36
Percentage of Electrical Energy from Renewable Sources
The Aspen community has long recognized the significance of smart and environmentally sound energy
use. In 1989, the community adopted an Ecological Bill of Rights, which claims as one of its tenets: "the
right to the efficient and renewable use of energy."13
Renewable energy comes from sources that are not depleted or diminished by human use, such as solar,
wind, water, geothermal, or biogas. Also included in this category are resources that can be replenished
or regrown within a human lifespan, such as biomass. In contrast, fossil fuels are found on earth in
limited supply and contribute to the emissions of greenhouse gases and air pollution.14 Accordingly, the
environmental and economic benefits of renewable energy conversion include:
1. Minimal to no greenhouse gas emissions or air
pollution.
2. Diversified energy portfolio, increased energy
independence, decreased dependence on
fossil fuels and imported fuels.
3. Economic development.
Wind turbines15
Two electricity providers serve the City of Aspen: Aspen Electric (municipally owned) and Holy Cross
Energy (cooperatively owned). Aspen Electric (AE) has a service area of 4 square miles, which includes
approximately 2,900 residential, commercial, hotel, and condominium accounts, all inside Aspen City
13 Aspen Area Community Plan. 2012. City of Aspen and Pitkin County. Web. http://www.apcha.org/FINAL_AACP_2272012_reduced.pdf,
14 Depending on scope and method, some renewables also incur environmental harm. Hydroelectric projects can threaten river and riparian
health. Burning biomass can lead to air pollution and GHG emissions.
15 Photo: City of Aspen.
Figure 1. The service area for Aspen Electric. Service area also includes Aspen Recreation Center and
Burlingame Housing Complexes (not shown on map).
P66
II.
37
Limits.16 This includes much of the downtown core of Aspen, as well as the Aspen Recreation Center on
Maroon Creek Road and the Burlingame Housing Complex off Highway 82 (See Figure 1).17
All other areas in Aspen receive electricity from Holy Cross Energy (HCE), which serves over 55,000
consumers across Western Colorado.18
Both providers measure the percent of renewable energy in their portfolios. In 2015, Aspen Electric
reached its goal of sourcing 100% of its electricity from renewable sources (Fig. 2). The contractual
agreements to support the 100% renewable program have an initial 3-year lifespan. Maintaining the
100% renewable status over the long-term will require ongoing efforts and is critical for progress toward
Aspen’s GHG reduction goals (30% reduction by 2020, 80% reduction by 2050, based on 2004 levels).
Continued support from the community, as well as a decoupling of increased energy demand from
economic growth, will aid in this effort.
As of 2016, HCE sourced approximately 34% of its electricity portfolio from renewables, which put it on
track to exceed its internal targets of 20% renewable by 2015, 30% by 2020, and 35% by 2025. These
targets exceed the Colorado standard that 10% of electric sales from Co-ops must come from renewable
sources by 2020.19 Still, an increased commitment to sourcing from renewables can be sought.
Collaborative efforts to help HCE increase the percentage of renewables in its portfolio would be a
positive step forward in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions tied to Aspen’s overall energy use.
Further details of the electricity sources serving Aspen can be found in the following dashboard:
▪ Percentage of Electrical Energy from Renewable Sources
16 "Electric." City of Aspen, Colorado. Web. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Utilities/Electric/>.
17 Image: City of Aspen.
18 "About Us." Holy Cross Energy. Web. <https://www.holycross.com/about-us>.
19 "2016 CO2 Emissions Report." Holy Cross Energy. Web. <https://www.holycross.com/co2-emissions>.
Canary Climate Action Plan
and GHG Reduction Goals Set
100%
Renewable
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%Percent of Porftolio that is RenewableFigure 2. Aspen Electric: Percent Renewable
P67
II.
38
Figure 3. A solar
panel array at the
City of Aspen Water
Campus.20
Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse gases (GHG) absorb and maintain heat in the earth’s atmosphere. Common GHGs include
carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (NH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), and fluorinated gases. GHG are released into
the atmosphere in a variety of ways,
including the production and combustion of
petroleum products, coal, solid waste, and
in agricultural and industrial activities.21
Many factors influence global climate
change and tackling the rise of GHGs in the
earth’s atmosphere is one of many ways
that humanity can take action against it.
Aspen is already feeling the impacts of
climate change. For example, there in 2015,
Aspen witnessed 150 frost free days, which
is the highest number on record. Fewer frost
free days have real impacts on Aspen’s
economy, its ski and outdoor recreation
industries, and associated hospitality
businesses. Recognizing that Aspen is
influenced by changes such as this, the City
began tracking community-wide greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions in 2004. In that same
year, the community established goals to
reduce GHG emissions 30% by 2020, and
80% by 2050 (below 2004 levels). GHG
tracking and goals apply to Aspen's
Emissions Inventory Boundary (EIB)22, which
20 Menges, Chris.
21 "Overview of Greenhouse Gases." EPA. Web. <https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases.html>.
22Aspen's EIB is nearly identical to the City of Aspen’s Urban Growth Boundary, but also includes 1) the Starwood and the White Horse Springs
section of the McLain Flats residential areas; 2) the residential areas within and contiguous to the Aspen city limits such as Red Mountain,
Mountain Valley (on the southeastern edge of town), Highlands, Buttermilk West, the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, the Aspen Airport Business
Center, and North Forty; and 3) the electricity and natural gas used to run lifts and facilities on Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands, and
Buttermilk ski areas (because the base facilities and many lifts are within the EIB). The EIB has been used since 2004 under the rationale that this
Figure 4: Aspen’s Emissions Inventory Boundary.
P68
II.
39
is the geographic area that represents Aspen’s core functionality. Figure 4 is a map of the EIB. 23
The most recent Community-Wide GHG Emissions Report indicates that “in 2014, the Aspen community
generated 394,341 metric tons of CO₂e (carbon dioxide equivalent): about the same amount as the
energy used in 36,000 average American homes for one year or the emissions associated with driving an
average passenger vehicle 934 million miles.”24
Further discussion of this measure is found in the following one-page dashboard:
▪ Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Energy Use from the Built Environment
The energy use that residents, guests, and businesses generate through the built environment in Aspen
is significant. In total, commercial and residential buildings account for 70% of all the energy use in
Aspen’s EIB and are responsible for 56% of GHG emissions.25 In Aspen’s resort economy, indoor comfort
is requisite. This fact, coupled with the town’s cold winters, poses a challenge to reducing building
energy consumption. To tackle this key issue, a variety of community partners are collaborating to
increase energy efficiency and reduce unnecessary use and waste, while still supporting an exceptional
guest and resident experience.
The following one-page dashboard provides a concise summary of Aspen’s energy use in the built
environment:
▪ Energy Use from the Built Environment
Mass Transit Use
Transportation, congestion, and parking are critical issues that impact the health of Aspen’s
environment, economy and lifestyle. These topics are so important to the community that Aspen’s City
Council dedicated two of its top ten goals for 2015-2017 to transit-related initiatives. These two goals
are to: “Identify and determine the feasibility of viable alternatives to personal vehicles including ‘next
generation’ mobility technology in order to improve the downtown experience,” and “Develop and
implement a plan to reduce traffic within the next two years.”26
Achieving these goals and transforming Aspen’s transportation sector will require a diverse and multi-
faceted approach. Current contributions to this initiative include:
Paid Parking Encourages walking, biking, and using public transit. Discourages personal
vehicle use.
Special Parking Permits Encourage carpooling and low-emissions vehicles.
geographic area represents Aspen’s core functionality. Menges, Chris. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Rep. Aspen: City
of Aspen Canary Initiative, 2014.
23Image: City of Aspen.
24Menges, Chris. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Rep. Aspen: City of Aspen Canary Initiative, 2014.
25Ibid.
26 Aspen City Council. Top Ten Goals: August 2015-August 2017.
P69
II.
40
Rapid Bus Transit The Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) pioneered the first rural bus
rapid transit (BRT) service in the nation,27 which offers comparable if not
faster travel times for residents and visitors traveling up and down the
valley.
City of Aspen buses Free and frequent buses enable residents to reduce travel times and dis-
incentivizes the use of single occupancy vehicles with their associated gas,
maintenance, and parking costs.
Electric Vehicle
Charging Infrastructure
The City of Aspen maintains four public charging stations. Two are DC Fast
Chargers, which provide the fastest level of fueling.
We-Cycle Bike Share Convenient bike docks located throughout town provide alternative means
for navigating Aspen.
Downtowner Shuttle In 2016-2017, a free, electric, on-demand shuttle provides rides
throughout downtown.
Aspen’s efforts to decrease traffic and move away from the use of personal vehicles are significant. Truly
transforming the transportation sector will require further increased use of mass transit, along with
future mobility technologies.
Figure 4. Paid parking
and a free local bus
service are among
Aspen’s efforts to
reduce congestion and
promote alternative
methods of
transportation.
The subsequent one-page dashboard provides a specific examination of the current ridership on City of
Aspen bus routes:
▪ Mass Transit
Though these routes are only one piece of Aspen’s efforts to promote mass transit, they represent an
area of significant impact and insight into possible future expansion.
27 “VelociRFTA - BRT.” Roaring Fork Transportation Authority. Web. <http://www.rfta.com/routes/velocirfta-brt/>.
P70
II.
41
Below is a list of current actions and proposed community actions that impact these measures, as well
as recommendations for further impactful actions.
Current Actions:
• City staff have been convening stakeholders and regional experts in a Climate Action Planning
(CAP) process to create a roadmap for achieving Aspen’s community-wide GHG reduction goals.
Staff are also conducting surveys to determine which proposed actions residents, commuters,
and businesses are willing to support or take. The final CAP will represent a combination of the
most impactful ideas, paired with insights about associated co-benefits and community support.
• Energy Efficiency Incentive Programs are available through Holy Cross Energy, Black Hills
Energy, Aspen Electric, and Energy Smart Colorado at the Community Office for Resource
Efficiency (CORE). These programs include complementary energy coaching services, subsidized
energy assessments, and energy efficiency rebates and grants to residential and commercial
energy users.
• The Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP), established in 2000, requires homes and
businesses with outdoor pools, spas, snowmelt, or surplus square footage to offset their energy
use by installing renewables on site or paying a mitigation fee. Fees from REMP go back into the
community to fund energy efficiency grants and rebates.
• The High Five is a new program in 2017 that encourages Roaring Fork Valley residents to act on
the environment by saving energy. The High Five invites residents to take five actions at a time
to save energy, conserve water, reduce waste, and green your transportation. For more
information, visit: www.High5RFV.com.
• Small Lodges Energy Efficiency Program is a part of the Small Lodge Preservation Program,
established in 2015, which recognizes the cultural and economic value provided to Aspen by
small lodges, and incentivizes improvements that contribute to the longevity of those lodges.
Accordingly, the underlying Small Lodges Energy Efficiency Program (SLEEP) is a partnership
between the City of Aspen and CORE, providing energy coaching and grant funds to lodges for
energy efficiency assessment and improvements.
• The City of Aspen Transportation Department runs a variety of programs to encourage transit
other than single occupancy vehicles: free Aspen shuttles; collaboration with RFTA to provide
affordable bus routes from Aspen to Rifle; support for We-Cycle bike share; the Transportation
Options Program; carpooling incentives; CAR TO GO car share; and the Drive Less campaign. In
2016, the Downtowner all-electric, on-demand shuttle service was added in the downtown core.
• The Rubey Park Transit Center was remodeled and reopened in late 2015, improving facilities
and operations at this critical mobility hub.
Proposed Actions:
• The City of Aspen is writing a Regional Climate Action Toolkit in 2017, which provides
communities with a menu of options to reduce GHG emissions in each sector and identifies
areas where regional/multi-jurisdictional collaboration can amplify impact.
• Using the Toolkit as a foundation, the Aspen Community Climate Action Plan (to be completed
in 2017) will define an economy-wide strategy for moving toward Aspen’s 2020 and 2050 GHG
reduction goals. Key strategies include: maximizing energy efficiency throughout the building
stock, decarbonizing energy supply, and increasing low-emissions and congestion-reducing
mobility options.
• The Integrated Transportation System Plan for the entire Roaring Fork Valley will be complete
in 2018.
P71
II.
42
• The Upper Valley Mobility Study will be complete in 2017-2018.
• Short Range Transit Plan for Aspen will be complete in 2017-2018.
• Electric bus examination and trial with RFTA to be conducted in 2017.
Recommendations:
• Create and implement a strategy to decarbonize Aspen’s energy supply, including
the pursuit of 100% renewable electricity for the entire Aspen community.
• Dramatically reduce energy consumption in Aspen’s built environment, including
commercial buildings, multi-family, and single-family homes.
P72
II.
ENERGY
Percentage of Electrical Energy from Renewable Sources
The Ruedi Reservoir: a source of
hydroelectricity
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure describes how much of the electricity used in Aspen’s Emissions Inventory Boundary (EIB)1 is purchased from renewable sources. Two
electric utilities serve this area, with roughly 70% of electricity provided by the Holy Cross Energy Co-op (HCE) and the remaining 30% by the Aspen
Electric municipal utility (AE).2 In 2004, the City of Aspen began climate action planning initiatives, which included a 100% renewable goal for Aspen
Electric. Holy Cross Energy has set its own targets of 20% by 2015, 30% by 2020, and 35% renewable by 2025. This represents significant exceedance
above the 10% that is mandated for cooperative utilities in the State of Colorado. By committing to and maintaining renewable energy production,
Aspen can limit the use of finite resources and reduce the pollution and greenhouse gas generation associated with traditiona l energy production.
What does the data/trend say?
In 2015, AE reached the goal of procuring 100% of its electricity from renewable sources by procuring a wind -powered contract (Fig. 1). As of 2015,
HCE purchased 30% of its portfolio from renewable sources (Fig. 1).3 Of all the electricity serving the Aspen community (in the EIB), 51% is purchased
from renewable sources and 49% from fossil fuel-based sources.
Target
The Aspen community4 will purchase 100% of its electrical energy from renewable sources [by a date TBD]. While Aspen Electric is 100% renewable, net electricity consumption in the
Aspen EIB is powered by 49% fossil resources and 51% renewable resources. Therefore, the Aspen community does not meet this target.
Sources: [1][4] For this measure, as with all GHG accounting as well, this is defined as Aspen’s Emissions Inventory Boundary, which is described in footnote 22. [2][Figure data] Menges, Chris. City of Aspen Canary Initiative. 2017.
[3]"2015 CO2 Emissions Report." Holy Cross Energy. <https://www.holycross.com/co2-emissions>. [Photo] City of Aspen Utilities Department. P73II.
ENERGY
Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions
What is it? Why is it important?
Aspen has a vested interest in reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the harmful impacts that they create locally and worldwide. In 2004, the
City of Aspen established goals for reducing GHG emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 (all below 2004 levels). Since then, regular community-
wide GHG emissions inventories have measure the total metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emitted in the City of Aspen Emissions
Inventory Boundary (EIB). CO₂e represents the net climate i mpact of carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) emissions.¹
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows community-wide GHG emissions since 2004 and projected future emissions in a business as usual scenario, compared with reduction
goals. A 7.4% reduction in GHG emissions was achieved between 2004 and 2014, which represents modest progress toward Aspen’s goals. This said, it
is important to consider that in the same time that these reductions were realized, Aspen’s inflation-adjusted taxable sales grew by 22% and
population growth grew by 5.5% in City Limits.² Still, significant action is needed to reach a further 22.6% by 2020. Sector specific strategies that
target specific reduction areas and efficiency opportunities are critical to future GHG reductions. Aspen’s building stock is accountable for the
majority of GHG emissions (Fig. 2), followed by vehicles.
Targets
Aspen will reduce its GHG emissions from commercial and residential
buildings in its EIB below 2004 baseline levels by 30% by the year 2020
and 80% by the year 2050. To meet the 2020 goal, Aspen will need to
further reduce its emissions by 22.6%. Aspen has an ambitious amount
of reduction to complete to meet these goals.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Shifts in GHG emissions are best measured over a multi-year timespan. Thus, Aspen’s Community-Wide
Inventory is performed approximately every 3 years. Visit this report for more information about its methods
and a sector-specific analysis of findings: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Living-in-the-Valley/Green-
Initiatives/Canary-Initiative/Climate-Action-Progress/. In Figure 2, the Wastewater sector was not included
due to its very limited emissions.
Sources: [1][2][Figures] Menges, Chris. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Rep. Aspen: City of Aspen Canary Initiative, 2014.
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
Residential
Energy
Commercial
Energy
Vehicles Airport LandfillTotal CO₂e (MT)Sector
Figure 2. Community-Wide GHG Emissions by Sector
2004
2007
2011
2014
P74II.
ENERGY
Total Energy Consumption from the Built Environment
Energy meters display real-time use.
What is it? Why is it important?
In 2014, energy use from the built environment within Aspen’s Emissions Inventory Boundary (EIB) comprised 70.1% of total energy use and
56% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the EIB.¹ Measuring and understanding building energy use is an essential step in promoting energy
efficiency and energy use reductions. Natural gas is measured in therms, electricity is in kWh, and propane in gallons. To co mpare energy
uses, all are converted into a common unit, millions of British Thermal Units (MMBTUs).
What does the data/trend say?
As seen in Figure 1, 2,554,583 MMBTU were consumed in Aspen’s built environment in 2014, which constitutes a 1.8% reduction from 2004
levels. It is important to contextualize this reduction in the context of Aspen’s concurrent economic growth (22% since 2004) and populati on
growth (5.5% in City Limits).² Natural gas is by far the largest energy source used, followed by electricity. In total, residential building used 2%
more energy than commercial buildings in 2014. Figure 2 displays commercial and residential energy use, broken out by source type.
Commercial natural gas use has decreased since 2004. Meanwhile, residential natural gas use peaked in 2007, since which it has decreased
marginally, though not below 2004 levels. According to Aspen’s Climate Action Plan, the most impactful energy reduction strategies for
residential buildings are the reduction are energy efficiency improvements for existing buildings and replacing natural gas appliances with
electric. Impactful commercial building reductions include increasing natural gas boiler efficiency and bringing all buildings up to codes.3
Target
Pending future data availability, energy use will decrease by at least 30% by 2020 (below
2004 levels). Aspen is not on track to meet this target.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Data collection follows ICLEI's US Community Protocol for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and is highly reliable. Utility providers use distinct methods for categorizing commercial
and residential buildings. Accordingly, there may be discrepancies in how different
providers classify the same buildings.
Sources: [1][2][Figure data] Menges, Chris. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Rep. Aspen: City of Aspen Canary Initiative, 2014. [3][Photo] Menges, Chris.
697,885 764,949 709,425 759,307
1,868,230 1,884,140 1,783,370 1,760,169
45,606 34,143 37,754 35,107
0
500,000
1,000,000
1,500,000
2,000,000
2,500,000
3,000,000
2004 2007 2011 2014MMBTUYear
Figure 1. Total Energy Consumption in the Built Environment
Electricity Natural Gas Propane
0
250,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
1,250,000
2004 2007 2011 2014MMBTUYear
Figure 2. Residential and Commercial Energy
Consumption Residential Natural Gas Commercial Natural Gas
Residential Electricity Commercial Electricity
Residential Propane Commercial Propane
P75II.
ENERGY
Mass Transit Use
What is it? Why is it important?
In 2014, vehicles were responsible for 29% of energy and 19% of community-wide greenhouse gas emissions in Aspen’s Emissions
Inventory Boundary.¹ By using mass transportation, visitors and residents can reduce the number of vehicles on Aspen’s roads, their
environmental effects, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy use.
What does the data/trend say?
The City of Aspen provides eight free shuttle routes (Figure 1). Total annual ridership these routes has remained above 1 million since
2006 (Figure 2). In 2016, that number reached 1,400,181, an increase that is partially attributable to the addition of a new, 30-minute
service on the Burlingame/Hwy 82 route, increased ridership on the Castle Maroon route, and an upgraded automated passenger
counting process. In addition to local routes, a variety of other transportation options are available in Aspen, including WE-Cycle bike
share, CAR TO GO car share, and the Downtowner on-demand electric shuttle service. The City also offers a carpool matching and free
parking program, as well as various incentive programs for commuters and local businesses. The City of Aspen partners with the
Roaring Fork Transportation Authority to support a robust public transit system throughout the entire valley.
Targets
Aspen’s target is to maintain at least 1 million rides per year on the City of Aspen
Routes. In 2016, Aspen met this target. Infrastructure and route expansions could
lead to increasing this target in the future.
Data Sourcing and Considerations
While data for this measure only applies to internal City of Aspen bus routes,
supporting a diverse array of options is critical to the success of alternative transit. In
future years, this dashboard may also compare mass transit use with daily population
in town, density of population areas served, or vehicle miles traveled.
Sources: [1] Menges, Chris. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Rep. Aspen: City of Aspen Canary Initiative, 2014. Print, p. 32 [Photos and Figure data] City of Aspen Transportation Department
Figure 1. City of Aspen
Bus Routes
1,035,307
939,998
1,066,524
1,153,733
1,257,245
1,150,843
1,066,181
1,104,133
1,064,505
1,089,856
1,110,338
1,078,865
1,400,181
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1,400,000
1,600,000
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of RidesYear
Figure 2. Total Annual City Ridership
P76II.
47
The identity, well-being, and economy of Aspen are inextricably linked to the land and ecosystems that
hold it. Development arrived in the Roaring Fork Valley during the mining age, and has ebbed and
flowed ever since with tourism, residential, and commercial expansion. Consistently, Aspen’s economy
has relied on its natural surroundings and simultaneously posed a threat to that same lifeblood.
Today, Aspen is surrounded by the White River National Forest, the Maroon Bells-Snowmass
Wilderness, Hunter-Frying Pan Wilderness, Collegiate Peaks Wilderness, and numerous networks of
public lands and trails. Visitors and locals alike benefit from the many years of insight and hard work that
led to the protection of these unique natural spaces. Undeveloped land in the Aspen area is both
essential to the human experience, as well as to the vital ecosystems and ecosystem linkages for wildlife
and vegetation.
Figure 1. The Marolt Open Space (left). 28 Trees lining Galena St in downtown Aspen (right).29
28Williamson, City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space Department.
29Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
Parks, Trails,
and
Open Space
Desired Outcome: Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-ranging habitats,
recreation opportunities and connected, accessible places. A myriad of natural resources contribute
to Aspen’s singularity as a place. High levels of biodiversity, native ecosystems, extensive fish and
wildlife habitat, and a diverse urban forest provide ecosystem functions that benefit the community
(such as absorbing water runoff and filtering water for quality, for example), and provide for
extensive active and passive recreational pursuits and personal renewal. Access to nearby parks and
open spaces via walkable connections is an integral part of the City’s appeal.
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪ Acres of Parks, Trails, and Open Space
▪ Community Forest Coverage
▪ Forest Health Index
P77
II.
48
In addition to the preservation of wilderness and forest in the areas surrounding Aspen, careful
attention is dedicated to open spaces, parks, and trails in and around the town. This elevates the health
of the urban environment, its scenic character, and livability. These urban spaces also provide a level of
accessibility and ease of access that is challenging to achieve in the wilderness areas and public lands
that are further afield. The 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) underscores that the natural
environment is an essential component of the quality of life enjoyed in this mountain town.30 The plan
further asserts that: “scenic views of the natural environment, easy access to public lands and a range of
recreational opportunities are among our greatest assets and the reasons many people choose to visit
or make the Aspen Area their home.”31
To understand Aspen’s progress in striving toward greater sustainability, local experts and stakeholders
convened and chose the three following metrics to represent the Sustainability Report’s Parks, Trails,
and Open Space section:
▪ Acres of Parks, Trails, and Open Space
▪ Community Forest Coverage
▪ Forest Health Index
Each of these individual key performance measures is introduced in further detail on the succeeding
pages.
Acres of Parks, Trails, and Open Space
The community greatly benefits from parks, trails, and open
space for their preservation of natural habitat and as areas
for outdoor recreation. These spaces contribute to the quality
of life offered to the visitors and residents of Aspen, ensuring
accessibility to green space and trails both in the heart of the
downtown and further afield. Concentrating recreation near
population centers benefits wilderness and wildlife to the
extent that habitat fragmentation is prevented.
There are 30 parks in Aspen. These parks contain playing
fields and skate parks, water features and storm water
filtration, picnic tables and restroom facilities, and natural
settings to host events. A wide network of trails, both paved
and unpaved, weave in and around town. Some of these trails
are also maintained for cross country skiing in the winter. The
City of Aspen owns a variety of open space parcels in and
outside of City Limits and collaborates with Pitkin County in
co-ownership and maintenance of other open spaces in the
Figure 2. Play structures in an Aspen
park.32
30Aspen Area Community Plan. City of Aspen and Pitkin County, 2012, p. 21.
31Ibid., p. 44.
32Williamson. City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space Department.
P78
II.
49
Upper Roaring Fork Valley. These jurisdictions work together to manage these spaces with conservation,
wildlife, and human well-being in mind. For example, seasonal closures protect migration corridors and
elk calving habitat.33
The City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space Department works hard to maintain existing holdings
and carefully evaluates prospective parcels on a case-by-case basis. The 2012 AACP offers guidance on
how these new parcels should be evaluated:
▪ Future acquisition... should focus on the intrinsic value of open space, wildlife habitat,
protection of scenic resources, recreational uses, trail connectivity and accessibility.
▪ Future trail expansion should connect existing trails to improve and maintain easy
access to public lands and provide opportunities for the use of trails by commuters in
both summer and winter.36
The corresponding one-page dashboard describes the City of Aspen’s current ownership of these spaces:
▪ Acres of Parks, Trails, and Open Space
Figure 4. Sky Mountain Park, a 2,500-acre multi-jurisdictional open space acquired by Pitkin County and the City of
Aspen.37
33 Ibid. For a list of the many other projects and accomplishments and initiatives that have come to fruition in regards to parks, recreation, open
space, and trails since 2000, please visit p. 45 of the 2012 AACP.
34 Ibid., p. 45. For a list of the many other projects and accomplishments and initiatives that have come to fruition in regards to parks, recreation,
open space, and trails since 2000, please visit p. 45 of the 2012 AACP.
35Kuhn, Matt. City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space Department.
36 Aspen Area Community Plan. City of Aspen and Pitkin County, 2012, p. 44.
37Kuhn, Matt. City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space Department.
Since 2000, the City of Aspen has entered into
multi-jurisdictional partnerships with Pitkin
County to acquire a 250-acre parcel on Smuggler
Mountain, and the 845 acre Droste Property at
Brush Creek, which combines with Cozy Point
Ranch and Aspen Mass open spaces to form a
monumental 2,500-acre Sky Mountain Park.34
Figure 3. Mountain biking in Sky Mountain Park.35
P79
II.
50
Community Forest Coverage
Aspen has been named as a “Tree City USA” and is also accredited by the Society of Municipal Arborists, a
peer-reviewed program that demonstrates excellence in urban and community forest management.38
Yet, this was not the case for Aspen in the relatively recent past. Historic photos reveal an Aspen with
streets bare of cover or greenery.
Figure 5. Comparison panoramic views of Red and Smuggler Mountains.39
Now, the community canopy is an essential part of the resident and visitor experience in Aspen, and is
also recognized for its healthy environmental impacts. Urban forests absorb water runoff and help filter
water and air pollution. They provide shelter from elements, offer relief from heat, and stabilize soil
erosion. Altogether, they enhance aesthetic value and support well-being.
As is the nature with a living forest, this task requires careful study, attention, and action. Within the
implementation steps outlined in the Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Section of the AACP is the objective
to: "promote the diversity and vitality of the ‘urban forest’ that exists both within the City of Aspen and
in the Wildland Urban Interface.”40
In 2015, the City of Aspen commissioned an Urban Tree Canopy (UTC) Study, which documented the
density of canopy coverage within Aspen's City Limits. This study used aerial photography as well as
Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) technology to render precise imagery and information about the
City’s community forest, on a parcel-specific level.41 Results of this study, as well as the important
benefits of urban forest, are highlighted in the following one-page dashboard:
▪ Community Forest Coverage
38 Natural Resources and Forestry. City of Aspen Parks, Trails, Open Space, Web. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Parks-Trails-Open-
Space/Natural-Resources-Forestry/>.
39 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management Plan. May, 2010. p. 5.
40 Aspen Area Community Plan. 2012. City of Aspen and Pitkin County. Web. Appendix, p. 33.
41 Aspen, Colorado Tree Canopy Facts. Rep. Arvada, CO: Plan-IT GEO LLC, 2015.
P80
II.
51
The two previously discussed measures – Acres of Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Community Forest
Coverage – relate to populated areas in or near Aspen. The subsequent measure speaks to the
environmental sustainability of the larger ecological communities that surround the urban spaces of the
Roaring Fork Valley.
Forest Health Index
Aspen is a community surrounded by forests and wilderness. These areas are vibrant ecological
communities, important natural buffers, and cherished for recreation and conservation benefits alike.
Since 2013, the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES)42 has generated an annual Forest Health
Index (FHI). This web-based index assembles a variety of factors that influence the health and resiliency
of Roaring Fork Valley forests. The index seeks to:
1. Provide clear communication about conditions of local forest ecosystems undergoing visible
states of change.
2. Facilitate discussion and planning about forest management, restoration, and conservation at a
landscape scale.
3. Fill gaps in baseline data and methodology for tracking change in forest conditions at ecosystem
scales over time.
4. Present a model for other management communities to adopt as an additional resource and for
comparative evaluation.43
The FHI’s notion of forest health is based on the premise that a healthy forest is one that is resilient to
change and able to provide for local ecology as well as human goals.
Figure 6. Forest Health Index scores and score explanations.44
The FHI total score, as well as scores for the individual measures of
which it is comprised, indicate how well aligned each item is to its
own range of natural variability.45 Scores are calculated by
comparing the current state of each indicator to a historic, average,
or target state. In this sense, the FHI measures forest change, and
many indicators are closely tied to climate change.
42 ACES partners with Aspen Global Change Institute on data analysis and to ensure the scientific accuracy of the database.
43 Arnott, James C., Elise C. Osenga, Jamie L. Cundiff, and John W. Katzenberger. "Engaging Stakeholders on Forest Health: A Model for
Integrating Climatic, Ecological, and Societal Indicators at the Watershed Scale." Journal of Forestry 113.5 (2015): 447-53.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
P81
II.
52
Aspen’s Sustainability Report sets a target that the overall FHI score will remain in the range of natural
variability, between 81-100 points (see figure 6). In addition to highlighting the Index’s total score, the
accompanying dashboard tracks the progress of four specific measures: Frost Free Days, Insect &
Disease Infestation, Elk Population Health, and Colorado River Climate District Precipitation. These
indicators were chosen as examples for Aspen’s Sustainability Report because they speak to the dynamic
range of matters that impact forest health and can also experience significant short-term and long-term
changes, thereby exerting strong influence on the overall index score. Some of the indicators are drivers
of forest health, such as precipitation levels and frost free days. Others are highly dependent upon
forest health, but do not have large effect over that health, such as elk population health. Finally, insect
and disease infestation is both an influencer of and influenced by the condition of local forests.
Local communities can influence some of these markers of forest health. Regardless of their influence,
all stakeholders should understand the impacts of a changing forest in order to plan for a resilient
future.
Below is a list of current actions and proposed actions that positively impact these measures and the
sustainability of the Aspen’s community’s parks, trails, and open space. Subsequently, a
recommendation is also put forth for further action.
Current Actions
• The Smuggler Mountain Open Space 10-Year Management Plan outlines steps to restore tree
age class diversity by mimicking natural disturbance events. This will concurrently improve
wildlife habitat, reduce fire risk, and conserve the unique natural features of Smuggler
Mountain. In 2017, this will focus on oak and mountain shrub habitat improvement and fuels
reduction.
• Forest health is promoted through the collaboration with local, state, and national jurisdictions
to manage local and regional forests in a way that promotes species and age class diversity and
promotes healthy fire rotation. The Hunter Creek prescribed burn in May of 2016 is a good
example of such partnerships.
Proposed Actions
• A formal Tree Risk Management Plan and Policy will be created in 2017.
• In 2017, a complete GIS inventory of Aspen’s community forest is being finalized. Gaining this
data is a tremendous asset for management and analysis.
• The City of Aspen Forest Management Plan will be updated in 2018 using results of the 2017
GIS inventory.
Recommendation
• Create policies and codes that promote a network of high quality habitat supportive of
ecological processes in the urban environment (Green Infrastructure Planning). Examples
include: considering how to link greenspaces for the benefit of the community; considering
how to preserve and link natural areas to benefit biodiversity and counter habitat
fragmentation; incentivizing landscaping with local and diverse plant species.
P82
II.
PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
Acres of Parks, Trails, and Open Space
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure indicates the total acres of parks, trails, and open space acquired, developed and maintained by the City of Asp en to date.
There are over 30 parks available for recreation within the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen is also involved in ownership and stewardship of a
wide variety of open space parcels, both in and outside of the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Those outside the UGB include, bu t are not
limited to, the Cozy Point and Mills Properties. Finally, the City maintains a wide variety of trails, both paved and dirt, some of which fall
outside of the UGB. Parks, trails, and open space enable the public to access and enjoy time spent in Aspen’s inspiring natu ral environment.
This complex contributes to the Aspen Idea of well-being in mind, body, and spirit.
What does the data/trend say?
As is seen in Figure 1, in 2017, the City owns 204 acres of parks, all of which fall within the UGB. The City of Aspen owns 327 acres of open
space in the UGB and partners with neighboring jurisdictions to own and jointly maintain 566 acres of open space in the great er area
surrounding Aspen. In addition to open space and parks, the City of Aspen maintains over 25.9 miles of trails. Figure 2 (following page) shows
a map of the parks, trails, and open space surrounding Aspen. The quantity of parks, trails, and open space that Aspen reside nts and visitors
enjoy is extensive and diverse in nature. Future expansion will be considered on a parcel -specific basis, based on community benefit,
maintenance capacity, cost, and habitat conservation.
Targets
The City of Aspen is meeting its target to preserve the baseline acreage and linear distance
of parks, open space, and trails in Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary, established in 2015.
Instead of setting blanket goals for overall increase or decrease of parcels, the City of Aspen
strategically considers each parcel that it might acquire or sell on an individual basis.
Data Sourcing & Complications
In Figure 1, the 327 acres of open space inside the UGB are all owned by the City of
Aspen. The 566 acres outside of the UGB are either owned by the City of Aspen or co-
owned with other jurisdictions (namely, Pitkin County).
Sources: [1][Figures] Kuhn, Matt. Trails Manager, City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space Department [Photos] Across the Pond Park, by Williamson, City of Aspen Parks, Trails, & Open Space Department.
204
327
566
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Parks Open SpaceAcres
Parcel Type
Figure 1. Parks and Open Space Owned or Jointly
Managed by the City of Aspen
Inside UGB Outside of UGB
Total: 667.7
P83II.
Figure 2. Parks, Trails, and Open Space in Aspen.
Visit http://www.pitkinoutside.org/map.html for more details.
Figure 2. Parks, Trails, and Open Space in Aspen.
Visit http://www.pitkinoutside.org/map.html for more details. P84II.
PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
Community Forest Coverage
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure expresses the amount of forest coverage within Aspen’s city limits. In 2015, the City of Aspen commissioned an U rban Tree
Canopy (UTC) study, which used fly-over aerial imagery and LiDAR to analyze existing tree canopy and plantable spaces both on a citywide
scale and down to the individual parcel.² Plantable spaces are identified as areas with the potential to grow trees or vegetation, though in
some cases, planting in these spaces is not desirable. For example, Wagner Park and the Marolt Open Space could potentially be planted with
trees, but this would conflict with keeping those spaces open for recreation. There are many benefits to maintaining canopy cover in cities,
such as: reducing urban heat island effect; filtering air pollution; cleansing stormwater runoff; and wildlife habitat and shelter. In addition to
environmental importance, tree cover offers aesthetic benefit s, increased property values, economic prosperity in the downtown core, and
augmented social and educational opportunities.¹
What does the data/trend say?
In 2015, Aspen’s tree canopy covered an impressive 31% of the city. As seen in figure 1, of total c anopy cover, 39% was found in residential
areas, 36% in open space, and the remainder was located on rights of way (9%), multi -family residential (7%), commercial (5%), and
lodging/recreation (4%). Of the plantable space identified, the bulk was found in open space (54%) and residential (24%) areas.³ This data
enables the City staff to evaluate projects on a parcel-specific basis, to more strategically plan new plantings, and to understand the impact
of development and land conversion on Aspen’s canopy cover as a whole.
Targets
The City of Aspen aims to maintain the UTC 2015 baseline of 31% for the next 5 years.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
2015 is the first year in which Urban Tree Canopy data was collected in Aspen. Studies will be
performed on a 5-year basis to monitor gains or losses in canopy.
Sources: [1] Ben Carlsen, City Forester, City of Aspen Parks, Trails, and Open Space, [2] "Urban Tree Canopy Assessment Projects." Plan-It Geo, Web. 14 Apr. 2016. <http://www.planitgeo.com/#!urban-forest-and-tree-canopy-
projects/c2fr>. [3][4][5]Aspen, Colorado Tree Canopy Facts. Rep. Arvada, CO: Plan-IT GEO LLC, 2015. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila.
14
20
26
32
147
133
17
23
32
28
105
237
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Lodging/Recreation
Commercial
Multi-Family Residential
Right of Way
Residential
Open Space
AcresParcel TypeFigure 1. Acres Canopy Coverage and Plantable Space
(Total acres canopy = 372, Total acres plantable space= 442)
Canopy Plantable Space
Current Urban Tree
Canopy in Aspen is 31%
P85II.
PARKS, TRAILS, AND OPEN SPACE
Forest Health Index
Year Score
2013 78
2014 84
2015 86
2016 84
What is it? Why is it important?
ACES Forest Health Index (FHI) is an online tool to help the Roaring Fork Valley community make sense of the wide range of interlinking
environmental conditions that affect the health of our local forest. This forest is vital to Aspen’s identity, economy, ecolo gy, and quality of
life. The Index provides discussion and data on over 20 unique cli matic, ecological, and socioeconomic indicators, offering a glimpse into both
the potential drivers of change and the effects of change in our local forest environment.
What does the data/trend say?
Scores for the FHI are on a 1-100 scale and are calculated by comparing the current state of each indicator to a historic, average, or target
state. A score from 81-100 falls within the range of natural variability, indicating normal levels of forest composition, structure, and
function. From 2014-2016, the FHI score has been in the range of natural variability, between 84-86. The sections below show the trends for
four individual measures that bear significant influence on the overall FHI score, both as causes and effects of forest healt h.
Frost Free Days: Since 1977 the average temperature in Colorado has
risen 2°F. One of the ways the FHI measures changes in temperature is
through frost free days (FFDs). In the past 60 years, Aspen experienced a
dramatic increase in the number of FFDs. This equates to longer summers
and a longer growing season, which tends to favor nonnative invasive
species. For many plants and animals, the period of frost free days serves
as an indicator to change behaviors (leaf out, change fur, migrate, etc.).
Figure 1 shows the number of FFDs in Aspen between 1940 and 2014.
Between 1990 and 2015 the number of FFDs in Aspen has been increasing
at a rate of 1.3 days per year. In 2015 we saw 150 FFDs, the highest in our
record which goes back to 1940.
Insects and Disease: Insects and disease play an important role in forest
succession. While some outbreaks are normal, they can also be a symptom
of additional forest stressors such as changes in temperature,
precipitation, or fire regime. Figure 2 displays the number of acres
impacted by insects and disease in the Roaring Fork Watershed annually.
The Roaring Fork Valley experienced a spike in acres affected by insects
and disease in 2008, primarily from subalpine fir decline, but the area of
impacted acres has steadily decreased since then. To date there have
been no successful efforts to control insect outbreaks at large scales.
Mitigation efforts should focus on the causes of the outbreaks namely
climate change and forest management rather than their symptoms.
P86II.
Targets
Aspen’s FHI score will remain at or above 81, the range of
natural variability for forest health. Since 2014, this target has
been met.
Data Sourcing & Issues
ACES determines scores and calculations for Individual indicators either by comparison to historical data or, where
historical data is unavailable or unreliable, through consultation with an expert in the field to establish baseline
numbers. Figures 1, 3, and 4 display time series data represented by points, a local polynomial smooth represented
by the blue line with the 95% confidence interval represented by the shaded gray area.
Sources: [1] [Figures] All data thanks to Adam McCurdy, Forest Programs Director, Aspen Center for Environmental Studies. The FHI is available on the web at: <http://foresthealthindex.org/>.
More detailed descriptions of the FHI methodology and individual measures is available at www.foresthealthindex.org
Elk Population Health: Elk health serves as a bellwether of broader
ecological integrity in the forest ecosystem and is negatively impacted by
increased recreational activity, habitat fragmentation, and climate
change. Figure 3 shows the average annual calf-to-cow ratio (number of
calves per 100 cows) for the Roaring Fork Watershed. Since about 2000,
a significant decline in the calf-to-cow ratio has been observed, which
may indicate larger scale degradation of forest habitat. In conjunction
with dropping calf-to-cow ratios we’ve seen the elk population in the
watershed drop from a high of 20,892 to 10,680 in 2015.
Colorado River Climate Division Precipitation: Annual precipitation has
important implications for ecosystem and societal health. Reductions in
precipitation can increase drought stress on plants and animals. The City
of Aspen draw’s most of its municipal water from rain and snowmelt in
the form of surface runoff. Figure 4 shows average precipitation for the
Colorado River watershed in Colorado. We chose this dataset as it has
been controlled for instrument changes. This dataset has no discernable
trend. Climate models do not predict a clear and significant change to
total annual precipitation in Colorado as a consequence of climate
change. Regardless of annual precipitation, higher temperatures
increase evaporation and decrease water availability. P87II.
58
With a tourism-based economy, Aspen generates a significant amount of waste. It serves visitors who
come from communities with different reuse, trash disposal, and recycling practices. Mitigating the
environmental impacts of Aspen’s waste will take an approach that reduces consumption and waste
creation, while employing responsible diversion and disposal methods. Ample opportunities and
challenges are evolving for how waste is reused, diverted from landfills, or disposed of in the Roaring
Fork Valley. For instance, Aspen has enormous potential to increase composting rates of commercial
food and lawn waste. On the other hand, the City contends with a real estate and development market
that, while integral to its economy, generates significant annual construction and demolition debris.
Abbreviations
CDPHE: Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment
GHG: Greenhouse gas
MSW: Municipal solid waste
PCSWC: Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (used
interchangeably with Pitkin County Landfill)
VOC: Volatile Organic Compound
Photo: City of Aspen waste containers.46
The environmental and economic costs of waste transportation are also changing. Today, there are few
nearby facilities that process and sort recycling. As a result, all of the recycling that is not admitted at
the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC, a term used interchangeably in this report with “Pitkin
County Landfill” or “the landfill”) is hauled out of the valley to Denver for processing.47 What is more,
the PCSWC, which is the current destination of Aspen’s municipal solid waste, estimates that it has 10-
11 remaining years before it will fill and be closed.48 When the landfill does close, Aspen’s waste will
then have to be long distances for burial and processing, quite possibly out of the valley.
46 Photo: Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
47 Liz Chapman, City of Aspen Senior Environmental Health Specialist. 2017.
48Hall, Cathy. Director of the Pitkin County Landfill. 27 Apr. 2017. E-mail.
Waste
Desired Outcome: The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the
environment. The consumption of material resources and the waste generation that accompanies it
can result in contamination of our air, land and water. Wastes are minimized through diversion and
reuse whenever possible, which maximizes the life of the current landfill while avoiding pollution.
When waste must be disposed, it is done so responsibly.
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪ Levels of Water and Air Pollution at the Landfill
▪ Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Rate
▪ Amount of Landfill Space Available
▪ Miles Waste Travels for Processing
P88
II.
59
Already, the City of Aspen has taken a variety of actions to reduce waste and increase recycling and
composting (see Actions on page 66). The Roaring Fork Valley Waste Diversion Plan will provide a
tremendous opportunity to improve the environmental sustainability of Aspen’s waste system.
In developing this report, a group of waste stakeholders and experts convened to deliberate on which
measures would best track Aspen’s sustainability in this topic area. This group included representation
from Pitkin County, the Community of Resource Efficiency, a local waste hauler, and representatives
from the City of Aspen. They elected the following four criteria as key performance measures:
▪ Levels of water and air pollution at the landfill
▪ Municipal solid waste diversion rate
▪ Amount of landfill space available
▪ Miles waste travels for processing
Each of these four topics are introduced on the following pages. Following these narratives are four
corresponding one-page dashboards, which provide an at-a-glance update on each metric.
Levels of Water and Air Pollution at the Landfill
Waste disposal can contaminate the natural environment in a variety of ways. With responsible disposal
and remediation, harmful effects on air, land, and water can be prevented and reduced. The importance
of such work is underscored by Aspen’s Ecological Bill of Rights, which asserts that Aspen’s residents and
visitors have: "the right to the absolute minimum involuntary exposure to toxic chemicals, radioactive
substances and energy forms that are hazardous to health."49
Aspen sends the majority of its municipal solid waste (MSW), the garbage discarded by the public and
made up of everyday items, to the PCSWC. The PCSWC was built in 196450 and is an unlined landfill,
meaning that any toxins or pollutants present in buried trash, or which results from chemical reactions
that occur in the landfill, can leach into groundwater. Accordingly, seven groundwater monitoring wells
are maintained on-site and checked regularly for compliance with Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE) regulations. 51 Air quality, visibility, odor, and presence of Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) are also monitored on-site. VOCs are compounds made of carbon, which partake in
harmful reactions with light. One of the ways that fugitive VOCs are prevented from escaping the landfill
is by covering the working surface of the landfill each day when it is not in active use.
The Aspen community can positively impact this measure by limiting use of unhealthy or reactive
chemicals or the purchase of items that contain them. It is also critical to separate hazardous chemicals
(or products that contain them) and electronic waste from normal household trash. Aspen holds two
annual e-waste collection events and the PCSWC accepts and properly disposes of household hazardous
waste.
The corresponding one-page dashboard portrays the most recent available pollution monitoring data for
the PCSWC:
49Aspen Area Community Plan. 2012. City of Aspen and Pitkin County. Web. p. 50.
502014 Annual Groundwater Report: Pitkin County Solid Waste Center, Pitkin County, Colorado. Rep. Lakewood, CO: Golder Associates, 2015.
Print.
512014 Annual Groundwater Report: Pitkin County Solid Waste Center, Pitkin County, Colorado. Rep. Lakewood, CO: Golder Associates, 2015.
Print, p. 43.
P89
II.
60
▪ Levels of Water and Air Pollution at the Landfill
Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Rate
Diversion is the process of reducing generated waste or preventing waste from being buried in a landfill
through the processes of reuse, recycling, repurposing, or composting. Increased waste diversion is a
pressing issue for the Aspen community, as the current destination for the majority of Aspen’s municipal
solid waste has an estimated 10-11 years of life remaining in 2017.52
Figure 2. SCRAPS program composting instructions and dumpster. Composting diverts food waste, paper, and
plants form the landfill.53
The importance of diversion is stressed in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan, which puts forth the
following Community Goals:
"Increase the practice of deconstruction and increase the amount of materials that are diverted from
the landfill, reused or recycled…Maximize recycling, implement waste reduction and environmentally
responsible purchasing programs, and encourage behavior that moves the Aspen Area toward being a
zero waste community and extends the life of the landfill."54
While recycling efforts and the joint Pitkin County/City of Aspen SCRAPS composting program have
increased diversion, recent trash audit results indicate that the Aspen community has significant room
for improvement. In 2015, the results of two trash audits conducted by an outside consultant for the
City of Aspen revealed that roughly 13,000 tons/year, over one half of the total MSW landfilled in 2015,
could have been diverted through compost or recycling.55
Current and past diversion rates for the City of Aspen are displayed and discussed in the subsequent
dashboard:
▪ Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Rate
52Hall, Cathy. Director of the Pitkin County Landfill. 27 Apr. 2017. E-mail.
53 Photos: Armstrong, Laura. 2016.
54 Aspen Area Community Plan. 2012. City of Aspen and Pitkin County. Web.
55 Roaring Fork Valley Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan: Phase 1. Rep.: Weaver Consultant Group and LBA Associates, 2016, p. 16.
P90
II.
61
Figure 3. Newspapers, plastic bags, and cardboard.56
Amount of Landfill Space Available
Aspen’s municipal solid waste (MSW) is sent to the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC) to be
deposited into the landfill and makes up the approximately 78% of the waste buried there each year. 57
Aspen has a vested interest in keeping the landfill open as long as possible. When the landfill eventually
closes, all trash will be hauled out of the valley, resulting in a sharp spike in the energy use and
associated GHG emissions of transporting trash, as well as the cost that residents and businesses pay for
trash services.
In 2017, the PCSWC estimates that given current space availability, trash volume, and compaction rates,
the landfill has 10-11 years of life remaining.58 If any of these elements change, or new factors such as
new waste diversion programs or increased waste production are introduced, the available space will be
impacted either positively or negatively, and the remaining lifespan estimate will vary. This lifespan
could also change if the allowed landfill space expands. The PCSWC has proposed an expansion of the
landfill, which they estimate would add another 6-7 years. This proposal is pending approval.
Further details and figures can be accessed in the following one-page dashboard:
▪ Amount of Landfill Space Available
Miles Waste Travels for Processing
Managing Aspen’s waste comes with a variety of environmental costs. Many of these costs are
associated with the transportation of waste, including fuel consumption, road traffic, and air pollution.
By measuring the transportation miles associated with its waste, Aspen can better manage waste to
reduce the environmental impacts and consequences.
Trash hauling is a privatized sector in Aspen, and for a small city, there are a wide variety of offerings,
which vary in the services that they provide to residents and commercial businesses. One of these
haulers, Evergreen Events, exclusively picks up compost. A total of 168 businesses haul construction and
demolition debris in Aspen. All other waste haulers offer trash and recycling services, as is required by
Aspen’s recycling ordinance.
56 Photos: City of Aspen.
57 Menges, Chris. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Rep. Aspen: City of Aspen Canary Initiative, 2014. Print, p. 41.
58 “ Hall, Cathy. Director of the Pitkin County Landfill. 27 Apr. 2017. E-mail.
P91
II.
62
Figure 4.
Recycling (left) 59
and a waste
hauler in Aspen
(right).60
Below is a list of the current actions and proposed actions that positively impact these waste measures
and the sustainability of Aspen’s waste systems in general. In addition, two recommendations are
offered that would significantly improve waste sustainability.
Current Actions
• Per Aspen’s Recycling Ordinance, recycling is included in trash hauling fees so that residents and
businesses so the costs for these services are bundled. Grass and leaves, which are
compostable, as well as electronics, which are hazardous, are forbidden in the conventional
trash stream.
• In 2012, the City enacted a Plastic Bag Ban and Paper Bag Fee for Aspen supermarkets. “Bag
Banks” make free reusable bags available across town.
• Special events on City property are required to follow the ZGreen program and use
environmentally friendly practices.
• The SCRAPS Composting Program facilitates commercial and residential composting throughout
Aspen and Pitkin County.
• Through the “Pay as You Throw Program,” residents pay a variable trash service rate, depending
on the amount of trash generated. Customers who use smaller trash bins pay less than those
who need a larger bin, further incentivizing residents to recycle and create less trash.
• The Rio Grande Recycling Facility is a free, public facility with unrestricted hours, which allows
people to recycle single-stream, textiles, household batteries, and seasonal yard waste. Public
single stream recycling receptacles are available at the Aspen Recreation Centers and in the
downtown core.
• E-Waste Recycling Events are held regularly for residents and businesses. Electronic waste can
always be recycled (for a fee) at the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center.
Proposed Actions:
• Roaring Fork Valley Waste Diversion Plan is underway in 2017 and due for completion in
2018/2019. Pitkin County and the City of Aspen are partnering on a plan to maximize the
diversion of municipal solid waste and construction and demolition waste.
59City of Aspen Department of Environmental Health.
60Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
P92
II.
63
• A proposed lateral expansion of the Pitkin County Landfill would increase the life of the landfill
by approximately 6-7 years.
• The Pitkin County Solid Waste Center improvements include added cover to a portion of the
landfill to slow and stop stormwater infiltration and a water treatment system for leachate,
which will be expanded once the lateral expansion in built. A covered and staffed facility for the
reuse of building materials will be built at the PCSWC in the summer of 2017.
• Bag Bank Program expansion aims to increase the number of businesses providing reusable
bags to residents and visitors.
Recommendations:
• Implement at least one recommendation from the Roaring Fork Valley Waste Diversion Plan to
increase the construction and demolition waste being diverted from the landfill.
• Implement at least one recommendation from the Roaring Fork Valley Waste Diversion Plan to
increase the food and other organic materials being diverted from the landfill.
P93
II.
WASTE
Levels of Water and Air Pollution at the Landfill
Household hazardous waste collection
at the Pitkin County Waste Center.
What is it? Why is it important?
Processing Aspen’s waste has potential negative effects on the surrounding environment. The PCSWC opened in 1964¹ and is unlined,
meaning that has the potential to leach pollutants into groundwater as well as into the air. By measuring the levels of air and water
pollution at the PCSWC, Aspen can better manage waste to reduce those impacts on the environment. The City of Aspen manages its
hazardous materials to prevent harmful substances from being added to the landfill. Supporting chemical management practices is
vital to not add harmful substances to the waste stream. Unfortunately, pollution can occur as a result of waste that was buried
decades ago. For example, if a violation were to occur today, it might be because of waste deposited in the 1970s.
What does the data/trend say?
The PCSWC is responsible for reporting environmental impacts to the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE).
Air pollution accounts for visible emissions, odor, and disposal of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Seven different groundwater
monitoring wells exist on-site at the PCSWC and are regularly monitored for levels of organic and inorganic compounds. Instances of
air and groundwater pollution are cited below. The facility does have known impacts to groundwater quality on-site and has worked
under a corrective measures plan since 2000. This is not groundwater remediation but rather a plan to use best management practices
to minimize on-going and future impacts. There are no known impacts to groundwater quality above the groundwater standard at or
beyond the property boundary.
Figure 1. Pitkin County Solid Waste Center:
Compliance or Violation with CDPHE and EPA
Pollution Regulations
Type of Pollution Compliant?
Air2 No- lack of permit*
Surface Water3 Yes
Groundwater4 Yes
*Permit has since been submitted and is pending approval.
Targets
The target is that groundwater pollutants and greenhouse gases will remain below
the CDPHE limits for remediation. Important to note is that the site is in compliance
with all corrective measures stipulated by the CDPHE, which are resulting in positive
remediation.
Data Sourcing and Considerations
Data was sourced from the Director of the Pitkin County Solid Waste Center and from
Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment.
Sources: [1]2014 Annual Groundwater Report: Pitkin County Solid Waste Center, Pitkin County, Colorado. Rep. Lakewood, CO: Golder Associates, 2015. Print. [2] [Photo] Johnson, Jack.
Figure 2. Strategies to Limit the Pollution Created by Aspen’s Waste
• Further encourage and/or require proper disposal of electronic waste.
• Further encourage and/or require composting.
• Limit hazardous waste by incentivizing landscapers, property managers, and residents to use
nonharmful treatments and properly dispose of containers.
Household Hazardous Waste is not Trash!
HHW includes: Cleaners and Solvents, Motor Oils and Fuels, Paints and Stains, Fertilizers, Pesticides,
and Insecticides, Devices that contain Mercury (Thermostats, CFLs), Batteries.
Learn how to properly dispose of HHW near Aspen: https://goo.gl/dBpNme P94II.
WASTE
Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Rate
A waste hauler depositing a compost load
at the Pitkin County Landfill.
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure describes the amount of municipal solid waste (MSW), or the everyday waste generated by homes and businesses, is recycled
or composted and therefore prevented from entering the landfill. Burying the minimum possible amount of waste in the landfill is an
essential part of waste management. Recycling, composting and reuse rates show Aspen’s progress towards achieving minimal bur ial of
municipal solid waste (waste that would go in a trash can, which does not include construction debris).
What does the data/trend say?
In 2016, the Aspen community diverted 16% of its municipal solid waste (MSW) through recycling and composting (Figure 1). This is below
the statewide 2015 diversion MSW diversion rate of 21.4 percent,¹ but lower than the 2016 national average of 34.6 percent.² Figure 1
diversion rate increases in 2011 and 2012 may be attributable to a decrease in visitor activity in Aspen. Figure 2 shows the results of a trash
audit, conducted at the PCSWC in 2015. It indicates that 85% of MSW stream is organics, paper, plastics, metals, and glass, most of which
could be diverted through composting and recycling (though once soiled, some items cannot be recycled). Aspen has ample opportunity to
expand what it diverts to decrease the volume that has to be landfilled. Pitkin County and Aspen are in the midst of developi ng a Roaring
Fork Valley Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan.³ This report proposes projects that will dram atically increase diversion of both municipal
solid waste and debris from construction and demolition.
Targets
By 2035, diversion rates in Aspen will be at least 50%. As
Aspen’s diversion rate in 2016 is estimated at 15%, it is not on
track to meet this target. Note that this target may be
reevaluated after the Waste Study is presented to City Council
and further direction is given on how to proceed.
Data Sourcing and Considerations
Diversion rates cannot take into account the substances that residents choose to reuse instead of recycle or
compost. Figure 1 data is compiled from annual hauler reports, which are self -reported and not verified by an
outside source. Haulers base the recycling quantities that they report on number of customers and the volume of
their bins. These are the only available source of diversion data and are unfortunately not corroborated for
consistency or accuracy.
Sources: [1][Figure 2 data] Colorado Department of Health & Environment. Colorado Solid Waste and Materials Management Program: 2016 Annual Report to the Colorado General Assembly. 2017. https://www.colorado.gov/
pacific/sites/default/files/HM_SW_RPTS_2016-Annual-Solid-Waste-Prgrm-Rprt.pdf >. [2]"Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures." EPA. https://www.epa.gov/smm/advancing-sustainable-materials-
management-facts-and-figures Environmental Protection Agency. [Photo] Menges, Chris. 2015.
Hazardous/Special
6%
Residue
9%
Glass
6%Metals
4%
Plastics
19%
Paper
20%
Organics
36%
Figure 2. 2015 Municipal Solid Waste Composition
(by weight)
10.5%12.2%13.3%11.4%14.3%
25.1%29.2%
19.3%20.8%16.0%15.0%
0.4%
1.2%
0.9%0.7%
1.5%1.0%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 1. Waste Diversion Rate
% Recycling % Compost
*
* 2015 and 2016 include some data estimations where hauler data was not available.
* P95II.
WASTE
Amount of Landfill Space Available
The working surface of the Pitkin
County Landfill.²
What is it? Why is it important?
Built in 1964, the Pitkin County Landfill is a finite space that is approaching its capacity. When the space is full, Aspen w ill be forced to
transport trash to other landfills, the closest of which are in Rifle, Eagle, Delta, and the Front Range. By measuring the years of life remaining
on the landfill lifespan, Aspen can gauge the success of diversion efforts and plan for the future.
What does the data/trend say?
As of spring 2017, the Pitkin County Landfill estimates that it has 10-11 years of operation left, a decrease from the 2016 estimate of 15
years.1 This determined by the factors displayed in Figure 1. As these factors change, estimated landfill life will fluctuate. For example, in
2016, PCSWC had an average compaction rate of 1700 tons/cubic yards, a rate that can fluctuate based on the budget allocated for the
equipment utilized.2 The Landfill has also developed a proposal, pending approval, to add an expansion (Figure 2) to the landfill to extend its
life for approximately 6-7 more years.3
Targets
By 2020, the landfill will have at least 15 years of lifespan remaining. This target is not being
met. Increasing diversion of commercial food waste, yard waste, and construction and
demolition debris is essential to helping Aspen reach this target. Polici es that limit the
addition of material into the landfill, reward reuse, and encourage purchasing with recycled
materials are also vital.
Data Sourcing and Considerations
Estimated Landfill Lifespan was generated by the Pitkin County Landfill, through data
they hold in regards to space available, incoming trash, and compaction rate. This is the
only available data of its kind, and has not be evaluated for accuracy by a third party.
Sources: [1][2][3] Hall, Cathy. Director of the Pitkin County Landfill. 27 Apr. 2017. E-mail. [Figure 1 data] Chapman, Liz. 2015. [Figure 2] Courtesy of Pitkin County Solid Waste Center. Hall, Cathy. [Photo] Menges, Chris. 2015.
Figure 1. Factors Influencing Landfill Lifespan
Add to Lifespan
• Reduction in trash volume
• Increased diversion of
reusable, recyclable, and
compostable products
• Increased trash compaction
• Low-volume Spray-on daily
cover*
Reduce Lifespan
• Increase in trash volume
• Increase in construction and
demolition debris
• Reduced trash compaction
• High volume daily cover*
*For health and safety purposes, the working surface of the landfill is covered each
night. The volume of this cover impacts remaining space available.
Proposed Expansion Area
Future compost processing
Current compost processing
Figure 2. Pitkin County Landfill
and Proposed Expansion Area P96II.
WASTE
Miles Waste Travels for Processing
The public Rio Grande
Recycling Center
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure compares the distances that Aspen’s various waste types travel in one direction, as well as the number of haulers per
waste type. Managing Aspen’s waste has associated environmental costs, many of which are tied to the transportation of waste,
including fuel consumption, road traffic, and air pollution. These factors take an economic and social toll as well.
What does the data/trend say?
As seen in Figure 1, Aspen’s municipal trash, which represents ~20% of the waste stream, and travels either 8 miles to the Pitkin
County Solid Waste Center (PCSWC) or 40 miles to the South Canyon landfill location. Diverted organics for compost (~2 % of
waste stream) and some of Aspen’s construction and demolition (C&D) (~80% of the waste stream) also go to the PCSWC. When
the landfill at the PCSWC eventually fills, the transportation costs of trash and C&D (which combined are most Aspen’s waste)
will increase considerably. Figure 2 describes strategies for extending the life of the landfill. Diverted recycling, which measures
~20% of the waste stream, and electronic waste (State regulations prohibit from landfills) travels 210 miles to Denver to be
processed. Due to the global economics of the recycling industry, Aspen has little control over where its recyclables travel after
sorting. What the community can influence is where recycling is initially hauled. Supporting local recycling transfer stations, as well as
encouraging reuse within the valley will reduce the environmental footprint of Aspen’s recycling.
Figure 1. Aspen’s Waste Transportation Statistics
Waste type Processing
Destination
Distance from
Aspen # of haulers
Trash PCSWC 8 miles 6
South Canyon 40 miles ~ 2
Recycling PCSWC 8 miles 4
Denver ~200 miles 2
Compost PCSWC 8 miles 1 residential
2 commercial
C&D2
PCSWC 8 miles 168 commercial
(divided among
destinations)
South Canyon 40 miles
Grand Junction 130 miles
Denver ~200 miles
E-Waste Denver ~200 miles 1 (twice a year)
Figure 2. Strategies to Reduce the Distance that Waste Travels, and
Associated Transportation Emissions
• Conserve the life of the Pitkin County Landfill.
• Reuse construction and demolition debris.
• Divert and process organics into compost.
• Regulate the number of trucks hauling waste in Aspen.
• Encourage local processing and use of materials, such as asphalt, glass,
metal, and wood.
Targets
No target.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Due to data availability, this report only measures miles traveled within the state of
Colorado, which reduces the values of recycling travel. Once sold to brokers, recycling will
continue to travel to different locations to be used and processed elsewhere, except for e-
waste, which is processed in Colorado.
Sources [1] Liz Chapman, City of Aspen Senior Environmental Health Specialist. [2] Hilary Burgess, Pitkin County. [Photo] O’Connell, Liz. [Figures 1,2 data] City of Aspen Department of Environmental Health. P97II.
68
Water is a vital resource for all of those who live, work, and play in the Roaring Fork Valley. Responsible
water consumption, as well as river and stream health and quality, is paramount to the current and
future sustainability of Aspen’s community. In the midst of the arid West, Aspen is a headwater
community and bares significant accountability not only to its residents and visitors, but to all of those
downstream of Aspen as well.
In addition to the mountain landscape that surrounds it, the Roaring Fork River is one of the defining
elements of Aspen. It carves through the center of town and eventually makes its way to the confluence
with the Colorado River in Glenwood Springs. Hunter, Castle, and Maroon are all significant creeks that
join into the Roaring Fork River near town. Castle and Maroon Creeks are the source of most of Aspen’s
drinking water. These rivers and creeks, in addition to a variety of smaller waterways, ponds, and lakes
provide vibrant ecosystems for wildlife habitat, ecological buffers and filters for pollution, and ample
recreation opportunities.
The measures which represent and track the environmental sustainability of water-related issues in
Aspen’s Sustainability Report were carefully chosen by a collection of local stakeholders. This focus
group decided upon the four following topics, which are introduced in the subsequent pages. In 2017,
two of these measures were reserved due to data challenges:
▪ Flow Rates in Rivers and Streams
▪ Macroinvertebrate Populations in Rivers and Streams
▪ Water Availability (reserved in 2017)
▪ Acre Feet of Treated Water Produced (reserved in 2017)
Water
Desired Outcome: The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a
full range of municipal and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and rivers.
Resources such as the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries are essential to the vitality of the Aspen
area, providing high-quality water for a variety of purposes. Because of its heavy dependence on this
limited resource, it is important for the City to have minimal negative impacts on water quality and
quantity. Only if Aspen has a sufficient supply of clean water for drinking and recreation, will
residents and visitors be able to continue enjoying the life and natural amenities for which the area is
known. Aspen takes responsibility for and minimizes pollutants entering waterways through storm
water and waste water pollution prevention.
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪ Flow Rates in Rivers and Streams
▪ Macroinvertebrate Populations in Rivers and Streams
▪ Water Availability (reserved in 2017)
▪ Acre Feet of Treated Water Produced (reserved in 2017)
P98
II.
69
Flow Rates in Rivers and Streams
In the 1970s, diversions to urban areas caused many of
Colorado’s rivers and streams to run at low and unhealthy
levels, negatively impacting the vitality of river ecosystems and
surrounding communities. In 1973, Colorado passed legislation
to protect and maintain a designated level of instream flow
(INF) throughout the entire length of rivers and streams.61 An
INF is the agreed upon level which water should never drop
below to ensure healthy ecosystems. Stream flow is measured
by the rate of cubic feet/second (cfs).
The INF for the rivers and creeks near Aspen are as follows:
Figure 2. City of Aspen Water Treatment
Facilities.62
61"Instream Flow Program." Colorado Water Conservation Board. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Web.
62 Armstrong, Laura.
63"CWCB Stream Cases." Colorado Water Conservation Board. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Web. <http://cwcb.state.co.us/
technical-resources/instream-flow-water-rights-database/Pages/main.aspx>.
64City of Aspen Water Supply and Availability Study: 2016 Update. Rep.: Wilson Water Group, 2016.
65Ibid.
66"Water-Year Summary for Site 09073400." National Water Information System. USGS. Web. <http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/wys_rpt/?
site_no=09073400>.
67Ibid.
Roaring Fork River 32 cfs
Castle Creek
12 cfs: CWCB*
13.3 cfs:
Aspen
Maroon Creek 14 cfs
Hunter Creek 15 cfs
*The Colorado Water Conservation Board established a 12 cfs INF for Castle Creek.63 However, the City of Aspen
observes an INF of 13.3 cfs, which is much healthier for stream ecology.64
Precipitation, weather patterns, and water use all contribute to whether these INF are satisfied. All of
the waterways listed above are diverted for human consumption purposes. Aspen’s treated water
supply is chiefly sourced from senior water rights on both Castle Creek and Maroon Creeks,65 though
other water users claim rights on those creeks as well. The Roaring Fork River is principally diverted at
the Twin Lakes Tunnel, 14 miles upstream of Aspen, and sent to the Arkansas River Basin.66 Hunter
Creek feeds a trans-mountain diversion through the Charles H. Boustead Tunnel.67 All of these creeks
and rivers are also used in local irrigation systems and ditches.
P99
II.
70
Just as measuring low flows in streams and rivers is important, so too is understanding the importance
of peak flows, which flush out waterways and riparian areas, dispersing pollutants and promoting future
growth. The corresponding one-page dashboard presents data on annual 7-day minimum and maximum
flows on the Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek:
▪ Flow Rates in Rivers and Streams
Hunter
Creek
Near
Aspen.68
PERSPECTIVE
Historical water
conservation in Aspen
“The City of Aspen’s conservation program
dates back to the early 1970s when water
service
began to be based on metered usage and
the City completed an inventory of ECUs
connected
to the system. Aspen’s water efficiency
program has evolved over time, including
the initiation of the water audit and leak
detection programs in 1995 and the
implementation of a tiered
water rate structure in 2006.” 69
Macroinvertebrate Populations in Rivers and Streams
One of the widely accepted standards for assessing river health is analyzing the macroinvertebrate
(small insects and larvae) life that inhabits the waterway. The collection of species found, their diversity,
and sensitivity to pollution, is analyzed as a proxy for overall stream condition.70
The federal Clean Water Act mandates that all states monitor and report on river and stream health,
specifically listing all segments that are “too polluted or degraded to meet water quality standards”71 on
a state-wide 303d list. Aquatic life, measured by macroinvertebrate population sampling, is one of the
categories by which river and stream segments are tracked. Under the Clean Water Act, the Roaring
Fork River was designated as impaired in 2011, due to its unhealthy aquatic life.
For cases of pollution found in rivers, the EPA has a standard remediation process by which the pollutant
source is identified and an analysis is conducted to determine needed reductions to bring the river back
to healthy levels.72 However, as of 2017, the EPA has not identified a specific procedure for remediation
68 Photo: Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
69 ELEMENT Water Consulting & WaterDM. Municipal Water Efficiency Plan. Rep.: City of Aspen, 2015, p. 28-29.
70 "Indicators: Benthic Macroinvertebrates." EPA. Web. <https://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/indicators-benthic-
macroinvertebrates>.
71 2015 Annual Report. Rep. Basalt, CO: Roaring Fork Conservancy, 2015.
72 "Overview of the Impaired Waters and TMDL Program." EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, Web. <http://www.epa.gov/tmdl/overview-
impaired-waters-and-tmdl-program>.
P100
II.
71
of aquatic life and it is unclear which pollutants and sources should be targeted to reduce degradation
on the Roaring Fork. Continued study, as well as more comprehensive river stewardship, are important
steps forward in understanding and improving the health of the Roaring Fork River.
This measure can be referenced in further detail on the following 1-page dashboard:
• Macroinvertebrate Populations in Rivers and Streams
Below are current and proposed actions being taken by the City of Aspen to advance these water
measures and the general sustainability of water-related issues in the Aspen community.
Current Actions:
• Water conservation within Aspen’s Municipal System:
• Aspen’s Landscaping Ordinance (2017) incentivizes arid landscaping and efficient irrigation
practices.
• Tiered Water Rates or “inverted rate blocks” incentivize less water use. Water users in
lowest use bracket pay significantly less than 2nd and 3rd tiers.
• Home and Commercial Water Audits identify indoor and outdoor water savings
opportunities and install quick fixes. This program is free and has been offered since 2014.
• Community outreach engaging water users in water efficiency and conservation programs
and education; for example, installing high efficiency fixtures at local restaurants.
• Living Wise: hands-on water conservation curriculum taught to Aspen 5th grade.
• The Stormwater Program and Clean River Initiative has worked to decrease urban impacts on
the Roaring Fork since 2008. This includes:
• Large regional capital projects (such as the John Denver Sanctuary) at outfalls remove
urban pollutants through filtration, infiltration, settling, and plant uptake. Smaller projects
throughout town disconnect the City’s impervious area and remove pollutants.
• Regulation of construction and development to decrease the presence of pollutants and
prevent or significantly reduce the discharge of pollutants from the site.
• Inspection and enforcement against illicit discharges in the City’s stormwater system.
• Public education regarding the sources of pollution, connectivity of urban run-off to local
waterways, and best management practices to reduce the introduction of pollutants.
• Land development restrictions that encourage restoration of the river’s riparian areas.
Proposed Actions:
• In 2017, the City of Aspen is working to continue development and implementation of the City’s
integrated water supply system, which includes:
• Water conservation measures
• Water reuse
• The study of alternatives underground storage resources
• The refinement of future water supply and demand scenarios.
P101
II.
WATER
Flow Rates in Rivers and Streams
The Roaring Fork River
What is it? Why is it important?
Aspen’s waterways are healthiest when flow rates are above minimum tolerable levels, experience peak run off, fluctuate with the seasons.¹ To
protect water ways from reaching dangerously low levels, Colorado has designated instream flows (INF) which no part of the river should fall. INF
levels should be considered a bare minimum at which a river can maintain health for a short period. The INF for the Roaring Fork River (RF) is 32
cubic feet/second (cfs) and 13.3 cfs for Castle Creek (CC).²
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 compares the annual 7-day minimum stream flows of the RF and CC with their respective INF. In the 2013-2016 water years (Oct-Sep), CC
flow rates did not drop below the INF. The closest minimum flow was 18 cfs in 2013, still 4.7 cfs above the INF. CC water is diverted for use by the
City of Aspen and other local water users. In contrast, the RF INF was violated every year from 2006-2015, varying from 9 cfs below (2006-2009) to
16.7 cfs below in 2014.³ The majority of diversion from the RF goes through the Twin Lakes Tunnel to the Arkansas River Basin.⁴ The City of Aspen
also uses water from the RF, but curtails use when INF is not satisfied. The City is also currently drafting a River Management Plan for the RF. Figure
2 shows the annual 7-day maximum flows of the RF and CC. Dramatic variation in RF data corresponds to yearly precipitation, both in the Roaring
Fork Valley and elsewhere in Colorado. When water supplies are abundant on the Front Range, trans -mountain diversions can be shut down, as
was the case in 2015. In contrast, 2012 was an extreme drought year in Colorado.
Targets
Aspen’s target is that minimum flows will not fall below instream flow
commitments. Between 2013 and 2016, Castle Creek met this target. In
every year between 2006 and 2016, the Roaring Fork has failed to
meet the instream flow during its annual 7-day low.
Data Sourcing and Considerations
Year-round USGS stream flow data on Castle Creek began in spring, 2012. Accordingly, maximum flow data is
available (run-off is in late spring), but minimum flow (occurs in winter) was first available in 2013.
Sources: [1] "Instream Flow Program.” Colorado Water Conservation Board. Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Web. <http://cwcb.state.co.us/environment/instream-flow-program/Pages/main.aspx>. [2] City of Aspen
Water Department [3][4][Figure data] “USGS Water Data for Colorado.” National Water Information System. Web. <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/co/nwis/>. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
23 23 23 23 22 21 19
16 15.3
19.3 20.1
18 18.3
23.4 24.6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016cubic feet/ secondYear
Figure 1. Minimum Annual Stream Flows and Committed
Instream Flows: Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek
RF Min RF ISF= 32 cfs CC Min CC ISF= 13.3 cfs
387 326
715
539
893
535
93
376
720
1141
941
167
354 398 428 429
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016cubic feet/secondYear
Figure 2. Maximum Annual Stream Flows:
Roaring Fork River and Castle Creek
RF Max CC Max
P102II.
WATER
Macroinvertebrate Populations in Rivers and Streams
John Denver Park, a stormwater filtration system.
What is it? Why is it important?
Aquatic life in Aspen’s rivers is an indicator of overall ecosystem health and pollution levels. Macroinvertebrate (insects living on river
bottoms) populations are used to assess water quality due to their diversity, sensitivity, and response to stressors such as metals,
nutrients and sediments. The Roaring Fork River between Difficult and Brush Creek s is on the State of Colorado’s 303d list for
impaired waters (part of the Clean Water Act) because it does not meet aquatic life standards. Suspected stressors include:
stormwater run-off, altered or degraded riparian habitat, and non-natural or decreased flows due to trans-mountain and other
diversions. The City of Aspen has completed water quality improvement projects at three of the City’s majo r outfalls, including the
Jennie Adair wetlands, Rio Grande Park and John Denver Sanctuary, and Prockter Open Space. These projects remove pollutants f rom
stormwater runoff from more than one third of the City’s impervious areas.
What does the data/trend say?
In Figure 1, 2012 data shows that the location of low and impaired sites correlates strongly with increasing watershed urbanization in
and around the City of Aspen.2 Interestingly, 2015 MMI scores were significantly higher, with no impairment scores, except for at
Difficult Creek. This is likely because of a 2015 the Grizzly Reservoir release that is suspected to have flushed metal-enriched
sediments into the river. The increased 2015 MMI scores near town may be due to improved stream health and could also be
influenced by sampling method and time of year.3 Both 2012 and 2015 samples were taken in the fall, using similar methods.
Targets
Aspen’s target is to achieve healthy levels of aquatic life, such that the Roaring Fork River at
Aspen is removed from Colorado’s 303d list for impaired waters. 2015 MMI indicate that
Aspen is meeting its target, though future and continued evaluation is needed to establish
whether these scores will persist as a trend.
Data Sourcing and Issues
One challenge with using macroinvertebrates as an indicator is that if a stream is highly
polluted and then cleaned up, the extent and speed at which these populations will
recover is not clearly established. For a more robust assessment, this report could
consider including data related to pollution loads, riparian areas, and flow targets.
Sources: [1] Long, April. City of Aspen Stormwater Manager [2] S.K. Mason Environmental, LLC, and Timberline Aquatics, Inc. 2012 Upper Roaring Fork River Aquatic Life Use Assessment. [3] Timberline Aquatics, Inc. Results from
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Study. 2015. [Photos] April Long.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Difficult
Creek 1
Difficult
Creek 2
Wildwood
School
James H
Smith
South
Gate
Stillwater
Gate
Aspen
Club
Neale St Mill St
Bridge 1
Mill St
Bridge 2
Music
Tent
Cemetery
Lane
Jaffee
ParkMMI ScoreSite
Figure 1. MMI Scores on the Upper Roaring Fork River
2012 2015
Attainment Impairment
DownstreamUpstream P103II.
74
Economic Sustainability
One of the goals of community sustainability is to establish
local economies that are viable, environmentally sound,
and socially responsible. Achieving this goal requires
participation from all sectors of the community, both to
determine needs and to identify and implement
appropriate and innovative strategies.
A sustainable economy strives to leverage available
resources in a way that is effective, responsible, and likely
to provide long-term benefits. It requires a sufficient tax
base, revenue, and jobs to support in the provision of
infrastructure, services, and a suitable business climate.
Within the Aspen community, economic sustainability is dependent upon the assets in place to support
a robust tourist-based economy and distinguished mountain community. This includes revenue
generating enterprises such as businesses, lodging, real estate, transport, recreational activities, shops,
and restaurants. On the other side of the ledger, it means expenditures in providing public goods and
services such as transport systems, roads, sidewalks, bridges, water and electricity, parks, childcare, and
police protection among others.
True sustainability encourages the responsible development and use of goods, services, and assets. This
involves not only making sure that the economy has an optimal level of productive capacity, but that
economic activities are in balance with the natural environment and local community. From this
perspective, economic sustainability can be viewed as an optimization strategy that helps assure the
economy endures over the long run while contributing to the financial welfare of the community and
the people that depend on it.
Figure 1. Ski season in Aspen1
1Photo: Courtesy Kolacek, Zbynek.
Environmental
EconomicSocial
P104
II.
75
Several indicators determine the economic health of a place. No single indictor should be used by itself.
Rather, a range of indictors should be analyzed together to get a comprehensive view of the economy.
To focus on performance areas that most reflect Aspen’s tourist based economy and community, an
economic sustainability dashboard has been created with a set of key performance measures in a
variety of outcome areas.
Key stakeholder groups first helped identify outcome themes and outcome statement for sustainable
economic activity. These represent statements of what we will see if Aspen is economically sustainable.
(Figure 2).
Figure 2. Economic Outcome Themes
The specific outcome statements for each theme are detailed on the following page. To help gauge
whether the outcomes have been achieved, stakeholders identified potential measures of progress. The
final list of measures included in this report reflects those for which information is available and of a
sufficient quality to use.
For each outcome and each of its associated measures, respective dashboards are included in the
following sections of this report.
ASPEN
ECONOMIC
SUSTAINABILITY
Appeal of the
Aspen Brand
Tourism Access,
Lodging, & Mobility
Business Diversity &
Sustainability
Workforce Supply &
Match
P105
II.
76
•APPEAL OF THE ASPEN BRAND
Aspen is the destination of choice for an international blend of businesses,
home and condo owners, and short-term visitors. It is an economic engine
with global reach. Visitors and residents expect and receive the very best
of recreational, educational, cultural and business amenities. The resort is
rated highly in comparison with its competitors due to a unique blend of
offerings that anticipates and meets evolving customer expectations.
•TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Visitors to Aspen can readily access the resort via air or ground transport,
with a minimum of delays and at a competitive price. Once here, visitors
find modern, safe and comfortable facilities and amenities that cater to
those with moderate to luxury tastes in lodging. A mix of rentals, fractional
ownership offerings, and short-term lodge beds result in a diverse array of
lodging options. Well-developed transportation alternatives assure easy
access to amenities and recreational opportunities.
•BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY
While providing a positive business environment during its traditional
winter-season, Aspen also is able to sustain events and businesses that
lead to strong year-round economic health. Commercial/retail spaces at a
variety of price points exist, providing space for start-ups, businesses that
cater to basic living needs, and businesses that cater to a variety of visitors.
Businesses focused on recreation find the city an attractive center for
product design, development and testing. Partnerships with other
jurisdictions in the valley lead to a stronger ability to attract and retain key
businesses and events. Because it has a diverse economic base, Aspen, as
well as the Roaring Fork Valley, is capable of withstanding changes in the
popularity of visitor activities, economic downturns and other challenges
such as climate change.
•WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
A sufficient supply of well-qualified workers is available to Aspen
businesses. Local schools and colleges, locally-held training programs, and
other professional development venues compliment Aspen’s resort
economy and provide the opportunities needed for potential, existing, and
returning employees to hone their skills and knowledge. Employer support
of training opportunities is strong, and wages are competitive with other
resorts on a total-cost-of-living basis, leading to high retention rates in key
job classes. Workers who must live down-valley have the ability to
commute to Aspen jobs via excellent transportation options and
reasonable commute costs and times.
ECONOMIC
SUSTAINABILITY
OUTCOMES
P106
II.
77
The importance of tourism as a sector in the economy is well established. It provides an essential
contribution to economic prosperity and by extension to the host community.2 But to attract and
sustain tourist visits to a place there must be a certain appeal.
The Aspen Brand promises a distinctive mountain town with global appeal. This brand combination
developed over time is perhaps best understood from the historical perspective. Aspen has its
settlement roots in the silver mining boom days of the late 1870s. While the mining industry ultimately
languished, the town persevered. In the 1940s, Aspen reemerged as a ski town and cultural center.3
Chicago industrialists, Walter and Elizabeth Paepcke introduced their “Aspen Idea.” Their conception
envisioned that a community should seek to nourish the Mind, Body, and Spirit of its citizens. 4 This has
remained a core value and unique brand image of the Aspen community ever since. Even then, there
was something unique about this place that made people come, prevail, and thrive. It is this ‘capacity to
endure’ that forms the basis of Aspen’s sustainability today.
Over the years, Aspen continued to beckon visitors to experience the Aspen Idea through the unique
qualities that the community and surrounding area had to offer such as:
❖ Place identity & character
❖ Scenic landscapes & wildlife
❖ Outdoor recreation
❖ Wellness philosophy
❖ Culture, history, art
❖ Festivals: music, food, ideas
❖ Restaurants & lodging
❖ Businesses & shops
Figure 1. Maroon Bells5
Figure 2. Downtown Aspen6
2 Travel and Tourism Economic Impact World Report 2016. <http://www.wttc.org/research/economicresearch/economic-impact-analysis/>.
Retrieved April 2016.
3 City of Aspen website/Exploring the Valley/History. <http://aspenpitkin.com/Exploring-the-Valley/History/>. Retrieved April 2016.
4 Ibid.
5 Giudice, Linda. 2012.
6 Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
Appeal of the
Aspen Brand
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪Economic Impact of Visitors
▪Visitor Median Age
▪Satisfaction Level of Visitors
▪Visitor Retention Rate
Desired Outcome: Aspen is the destination of choice for an international blend of businesses, home
and condo owners, and short-term visitors. It is an economic engine with global reach. Visitors and
residents expect and receive the very best of recreational, educational, cultural and business
amenities. The resort is rated highly in comparison with its competitors due to a unique blend of
offerings that anticipates and meets evolving customer expectations.
P107
II.
78
As an internationally renowned resort destination, Aspen strives to continuously deliver on its brand
promise. It not only aims to attract an optimal number of visitors for year-round activities and events,
but to also satisfy their expectations through unique, high quality offerings. To support visitors from
other places, an infrastructure of services must be in place to support their needs including different
modes of transportation, accommodation, restaurants, recreation, entertainment, as well as, other
services. In short, the right measure of tourism (supply) is linked to the right level of visitor consumption
of goods and services (demand).
From an economic prosperity point of view, the sustainability of a visitor-based economy is not just
important for visitors but also for the community as it generates many benefits. First, an optimal
number of visitors contributes directly to local enterprises through spending. Second, much of the
revenue from visitor spending is reinvested back in to the local economy leading to employment and job
creation. Third, tax revenues are used for investment in public works (roads, parks, and public spaces),
programs, and services. Better facilities and infrastructure brings in more visitors but also benefits the
local community by adding to an overall better quality of life.
The key performance measures that offer a relatively good indication of how well a visitor based
economy is doing include:
[*] As there are no borders for domestic or interstate travel visitor flows, total visitor numbers are not
always available. Per Longwood International’s Colorado Travel Year 2014 Final Report (May 2015)
produced on behalf of the Colorado Tourism Office there are an estimated 71.3 million overnight visitors
to Colorado each year. Of these, 29.4 million or 41% fall under the overnight/leisure category. There is
no further break down specific to the Roaring Fork Valley/Aspen area.
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
The Aspen community aims to attract visitors through its small-town character coupled with its
international brand appeal. Some of the current and proposed actions as relates to both aspects are
briefly summarized below. Note the web links highlighted for each for more detailed information.
Current Actions
• The Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) continues to market and promote Aspen to
domestic and international visitors through a wide range of activities and channels. Some of
these include:
o Membership: Developing relationships between businesses and government entities
through events and improving marketing of members through shared advertising.
o Communications: Providing information to its member-businesses through newsletters,
social media and other sources.
o Employee Sustainability: Developing methodologies and strategies for assessing
Employee Sustainability in Aspen.
▪ Economic Impact of Visitors
▪ Median Age of Visitors
▪ Satisfaction Level of Visitors
▪ Visitor Retention Rate
P108
II.
79
o Public Affairs: Enhancing relations with City and County governments and increasing
involvement in local public affairs to assist with the local economy.
o Marketing: Utilizing advertisement, PR, social media, events, and promotions to
improve the occupancy rates during Spring and Fall seasons, improve the “Fall in Love”
and “Secret Season” campaigns, and increase the overall appeal of Aspen year-round.
o Interactive: Improving ACRA’s website presence and other platforms to improve the
experience of members and users of the ACRA website.
o Partnerships: Partnering with local and government resources to improve ACRA’s
destination marketing campaigns.
o Community Outreach: Supporting members with marking and advertising campaigns to
benefit the community.
o Special Events: Promoting and assisting with Aspen events to increase the appeal of the
events and increase the attendance.
o Visitor/Guest Services: Enhancing the visitor experience by emphasizing the “Defy
Ordinary” brand and uniqueness of Aspen with their Visitor Center.
• Aspen Skiing Company attracts visitors (of all ages) to 4 mountains in the Aspen area for world
class skiing and outdoor activities year-round. Some of its marketing activities include digital
marketing, emails, and other methods.
• The Aspen Institute is a non-partisan forum for values-based leadership and exchange of ideas.
It is host to the Aspen Ideas Festival each year. It also has a wide range of programmatic areas
and events that gather global leaders to address complex societal problems such as:
o Aspen Center for Urban Innovation
o Economic Opportunities Program
o Education and Society Program
o Energy and Environment Program
o Financial Security Program
o Future of Work Initiative
The Institute is host to a wide range of events to support its programs at its Aspen campus
throughout the year. Per its online calendar, some of the events currently underway are:
o Economic Security Summit: Annual Convening of the nation’s top leaders in industry,
academia, philanthropy, government, and nonprofit organizations, to explore challenges
facing American workers and families in today’s changing economy.
o Energy Policy Forum: Has convened a small group of diverse energy experts in Aspen for
over 40 years with 2017 topics including future of baseload generation, the internet of
things, North American Grid Generation, national security role of the electric sector,
value creation, deep-decarbonization, and many other topics.
o Aspen Security Forum: Each summer, the key security issues of the day are explored in
detail during three days of in-depth discussion by top level former and current
government officials, industry leaders/ investors/investment bankers/venture
capitalists, thought leaders from think tanks and academe, and nationally noted print
and broadcast journalists.
P109
II.
80
• In support of the Aspen Idea: Mind, Body, Spirit there are a wide range of cultural and
recreational offerings and initiatives that engage this principle such as:
o Aspen Music Festival founded in 1949, the Aspen Music Festival and School is regarded
as one of the top classical music festivals in the United States, noted both for its concert
programming and its musical training of mostly young-adult music students.
o Food & Wine Classic in Aspen is a premier event where the world's most accomplished
winemakers, celebrity chefs, and culinary experts come together.
o Aspen Words Founded in 1976 this organization is now one of the nation’s leading
literary centers and a stage for the world’s most prominent contemporary writers.
o Aspen Santa Fe Ballet through a bold vision – top global choreographers, distinctive
groundbreaking repertoire, and virtuoso dancers – has fostered a jewel of a dance
company in the American West.
o Theater Aspen Aims to rekindle a sense of discovery in audiences who live in and visit
the Roaring Fork Valley by producing big theatre in a small space with intimate, exciting
storytelling; to educate the next generation of theatre artists and enthusiasts and to
support the creation of new work for the American theatre canon.
o X-Games Aspen is one of the nation’s premier events for snowboarding, skiing, and
other various Winter Sports.
Proposed Actions
ACRA’s 2017 Strategic Plan sets out objectives and goals in support of the metrics and outcomes. As
relates to Destination Marketing, ACRA continues to plan actions in support of the following
objectives:
• Position Aspen as a premier resort destination with initiatives and resources strategically
allocated based on historical occupancy data.
• Utilize interactive platforms to ensure ACRA is the best source of information during all phases
of the travel planning process, while providing valuable exposure to members.
• Work with partners on the local, state and national level to leverage ACRA’s marketing
resources and reach.
• Facilitate collaboration with local stakeholders on sales, marketing and PR initiatives for
maximum benefit to the community.
• Produce, act as umbrella organization to promote, and/or act as event manager of 3-5 high
quality special events that drive visitation, add vitality and benefit the community, visitor and
ACRA membership.
• Ensure menu of events and components within each event ACRA is producing is aligning with
organizational mission.
• Obtain support, both financial and in-kind, and maintain sponsor relations for the sustainability
of ACRA’s special events.
• Be a source of event information for the community.
• Provide the highest level of service and training available to showcase aspen as a premier
destination.
P110
II.
81
Recommendations
The City of Aspen proposes the following recommendations for its workplan in support of the
metrics and outcomes:
➢ Consider acquiring or developing a customized regional economic model that would capture
the impact of economic activity in Aspen.
P111
II.
APPEAL OF THE ASPEN BRAND
Economic Impact of Visitors
What is it? Why is it important?
Per a report entitled Colorado Travel Impacts 1996 – 2015 p (prepared for the Colorado Tourism Office), the economic impact of
visitors is defined as “the level of overnight international and domestic visitors travelling to and through the state and the impact this
spending had on the economy in terms of earnings, employment, and tax revenue”1. For the purposes of the local economy, this same
definition applies when using the Pitkin County data found in the report. Understanding the impact of visitors on Aspen’s economy is
important as it underscores the relative significance of a visitor based economy. Businesses, local governments, and communities can
then plan how to support and maintain this visitor based economy at optimal levels including the provision of adequate
infrastructure (lodging and mobility), restaurants, shops, and venues for events and entertainment.
What does the data/trend say?
Per the report, visitor spending in Pitkin County increased steadily from $586.6 M in 2010 to $714 M in 2015p (Figure 1)2. This
represents a percentage increase of approximately 22%. To put this in context, the total direct travel spending in Colorado during
2015 was approximately $19 billion dollars. Figure 2 shows that local tax revenue also increased during the same period. From 2010
to 2015p, there is a steady increase in local tax revenue resulting in approximately 30%. Both demonstrate a corresponding increase
in visitor economic impact over the last few years.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Dean Runyan Associates prepared the Colorado Travel Impact 1996 – 2015p report for the Colorado Tourism
Office (CTO) in June 2015. The data is based on a Regional Travel Impact Model (RTIM), a proprietary
computer model for analyzing travel economic impacts at the state, regional and local level.5 While the
methodology is described in the report, the inputs (reported results) are not verifiable.
Sources: [1] Colorado Travel Impacts 1996 – 2015p. Dean Runyan Associates (Commissioned by Colorado Office of Tourism). June 2016. <http://deanrunyan.com/doc_library/COImp.pdf>. Retrieved March, 2016. [2] Ibid. p. 48. [ 3]
Ibid. p. 7. [4] Ibid. p. 7. [5] Ibid. Preface. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
586.6 584.9 619.5 668 714
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2010 2012 2013 2014 2015DOLLARS IN MILLIONSYEAR
Annual Travel Spending ($M) Generated from
Pitkin County Visitors (2010-2015p)
24 24.8 26.4 28.9 31.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2010 2012 2013 2014 2015DOLLARS IN MILLIONSYEAR
Annual Local Tax Revenue ($M) from
Pitkin County Visitors (2010-2015p)
Total direct travel spending
($Million) in Colorado during
2015p was $19.1 billion.3
Total local tax revenue for Colorado
generated by travel spending ($Millions)
during 2015p was $663.1 million.4 P112II.
APPEAL OF THE ASPEN BRAND
Median Age of Visitors
What is it? Why is it important?
Traveler demographics are impacting tourism and its growth.1The demographics of traveler groups is important in
understanding who is visiting a place and why. The median age of visitors gives an indication of the age of a population of
visitors. Understanding what the median age of the Aspen visitor is allows it as an international resort destination to plan
what the appeal is for attracting key visitor age groups now and in the future.
What does the data/trend say?
Per the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) Summer Survey conducted every second year (2006-2016), the median
age of Aspen summer visitors was consistently 48 or 49 years of age2. Figure 1 below shows the distribution of age groups
among those summer visitors surveyed in 2016. The largest age groups represented were 25-34 and 35-44 respectively at
20%. The age group 65+ had 19%. Both age groups 45-54 and 55-64 were 18% and 17% respectively. Meanwhile, the
youngest age group 18-24 is at 6%.3 Per AspenSnowmass Skiing Company 2016/2017 survey results, the largest age group is
55-64 at 24%. The smallest age groups represented are 75+ and Under 18 at 2% and 3% respectively. The detailed age
distribution is depicted in Figure 2.4
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
ACRA surveys summer visitors every second year. The sample population of those surveyed represents a limited
number of the total summer visitor population. The data in Figure 2 was reproduced from a graph provided by
Aspen Skiing Company. It displays comparative winter survey data.
Sources: [1] World Travel & Tourism Council. Session 2 Economics Politics and Demographics. <http://www.wttc.org/errors/95e1dba1-c749-4f67-8f2b-807618e391d0>. Retrieved April 2016. [2] Aspen Chamber Resort Association
(ACRA) Summer Survey (2016). Retrieved April 2017. [3] Ibid. [4] Aspen Skiing Company. Email from J. Jacobi (05.13.17) [Photo 1] Courtesy Kolacek, Zbynek.
6%
20%
20%
18%
17%
19%
ACRA Summer Survey Visitor Results
by Age Group (2016)
By Age Group 18 - 24
By Age Group 25-34
By Age Group 35-44
By Age Group 45-54
By Age Group 55-64
By Age Group 65+
3%
12%
24%
17%
19%
14%
9%
2%
AspenSnowmass Survey Results
(2016-2017)
By Age Group Under 18
By Age Group 18 - 24
By Age Group 25-34
By Age Group 35-44
By Age Group 45-54
By Age Group 55-64
By Age Group 65-74
By Age Group 75+P113II.
APPEAL OF ASPEN BRAND
Visitor Satisfaction Levels
What is it? Why is it important?
Visitor satisfaction level is a measure of how pleased an individual is with destination in terms of their expectations and
overall experience. This often starts with the general impression of a place, its character, and environment (natural and
built). More specifically, this might include the relative appeal/quality of nature, culture, lodging, restaurants, transportation,
recreational activities, entertainment and events, shopping, among other goods and services. Visitor satisfaction levels for
these attributes (individually and collectively) are important as people have high expectations in how they spend their
resources and time. If visitors are satisfied with a place they will return and influence others to do the same. If not, they will
go elsewhere. For Aspen, visitor satisfaction levels are critical for sustaining its visitor based economy at optimal levels.
What does the data/trend say?
Every two years the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) conducts a Summer Survey on a sampling of Aspen visitors.
Among the questions, it asks visitors on their level of trip satisfaction and overall experience. ACRA uses an Intercept Survey
with a possible follow-up survey after the trip. The individuals surveyed rate attributes based on a scale from 1 (poor) to 10
(excellent).1 From 2006 to 2016, the average ratings for Overall Experience was 9.1. During the same period, there was a
slight increase in the rating from 9 in 2006 to 9.1 in 2016.2 While this data represents a limited sample visitor population, it is
somewhat representative of how visitors rate their overall experience and level of satisfaction.
WORLD GUIDES
“Aspen, Colorado is home to a number of
exceptional ski resorts and features some
truly spectacular mountain scenery and
many summer activities. Aspen has become
a major tourism destination throughout the
year…..”3
POWDERHOUNDS
“Aspen Snowmass offers a brilliant all
round ski resort experience with world-class
facilities.”4
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data generates an
average rating for Overall Summer Experience at 9.1 (2006-2016).
Data Sourcing & Considerations
ACRA surveys summer visitors every second year. The population of those surveyed
represents a limited sample of the summer visitor population.
Sources: [1] Aspen Chamber Resort Association. Summer Survey (2014; 2016). [2] Ibid. [3] World Guides. Aspen Tourist Information and Tourism. <http://www.world-guides.com/north-america/usa/colorado/aspen/>. Retrieved
April 2016. [4] OnTheSnow 2016. PowderHounds. <http://www.powderhounds.com /USA/Colorado/Aspen.aspx>. <http://www.powderhounds.com/USA/Ski-Resorts-Ratings.aspx>. Retrieved April 2016.
[Photo] Courtesy Kolacek, Zbynek.
9 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.1 9.1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016Ratiing Year
ACRA Summer Survey -Average Ratings
for Overall Summer Experience (2006 -2016)P114II.
APPEAL OF ASPEN BRAND
% of Repeat Visitors to Aspen
What is it? Why is it important?
The percent of repeat visitors is the number of people within a given visitor population that have returned to a
place and/or destination. Repeat visitor rates are important as they give an idea of the level of satisfaction in a
place. This, in turn, is a relative indication of visitor “demand” for a place on which the tourist based economy
can depend and develop its infrastructure and offerings “supply” on a sustainable basis.
What does the data/trend say?
Every two years the Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) conducts a Summer Survey on a sampling of
Aspen visitors. Among the questions, it asks visitors on whether they are a repeat visitor to Aspen. ACRA uses
an Intercept Survey with a possible follow-up survey after the trip. From 2006 to 2016, the percent of repeat
visitors averaged 66.5%. During the same period, there was an absolute decrease from 70% (2014) to 60%
(2016).1 While this data represents a limited sample of the overall visitor population, it is somewhat
representative of the percentage of repeat summer visitors to Aspen.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data
generates an average Percent of Repeat Summer Visitors at 65%.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
ACRA surveys summer visitors every second year. The population of those surveyed
represents a limited sample of the summer visitor population.
Sources: [1] ACRA Summer Survey (2016). Retrieved in March 2017. [Photo 1] Courtesy Kolacek Zbynek. [Photo 2] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
67%64%67%71%70%
60%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016Repeat Summer Visitor RateSurvey Year
ACRA Summer Survey -
Percent of Repeat Summer Visitors to Aspen
(2006 -2016)P115II.
86
Aspen is a distinguished community and tourist destination that draws people from all over the world.
In winter, travelers from near and far enjoy world class skiing. Year-round, outdoor enthusiasts
experience the many recreational activities that the region offers. Aspen is also rich in history and
culture. It is host to many festivals including the renowned International Music Festival, Food & Wine
Festival, and Ideas Festival, among many others.
For many towns like Aspen, tourism is a main instrument for maintaining and stimulating economic
activities. Once recognized as an area destined for niche tourism, infrastructure, accommodations, and
amenities naturally followed. These factors are all essential to sustain the viability of its tourist based
economy then, now, and in the future.
To a greater degree than most activities, Tourism Access, Lodging, & Mobility depends on a wide range
of infrastructure and services. For Aspen, this includes the airport, roads, transit system, trails, as well
as, hotels (lodging), restaurants, shops, and recreation facilities. Good infrastructure is a key factor in
the tourist industry’s ability to accommodate and manage visitor flows and to satisfy their expectations.
Figure 1. Skiers above Aspen Downtown7
7Photo Courtesy: Kolacek, Zbynek.
Tourism
Access,
Lodging, &
Mobility
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪ Total Short Term Beds (Pillow Count)
▪ Occupancy Rates
▪ Value for Price for Lodging
▪ Total Non-stop Airline Routes / Trips
▪ Total Number of Airlines Serving Aspen
▪ Walkability, Bike ability, & Transit
Desired Outcome: Visitors to Aspen can readily access the resort via air or ground transport, with a
minimum of delays and at a competitive price. Once here, visitors find modern, safe and comfortable
facilities and amenities that cater to those with moderate to luxury tastes in lodging. A mix of rentals,
fractional ownership offerings, and short-term lodge beds result in a diverse array of lodging options.
Well-developed transportation alternatives assure easy access to amenities and recreational
opportunities.
P116
II.
87
From a sustainability perspective, tourism (and all that it entails) should aim to optimize the benefits it
brings in terms of economic prosperity, activity, and jobs. At the same time, it is important to balance
tourism with the need to preserve the natural environment and the integrity of the host community.
Community stakeholders should be conscious of the trends and issues that will shape the future of
tourism in general and Aspen in particular. This includes considering consumer behaviors and
expectations in terms of value for money and the opportunity cost of choosing one place over another.
This is coupled with the principles of responsible tourism which provides infrastructure and services that
support economic, environmental, and social sustainability.
Lodging
Lodging, both in terms of the right quantity and quality, is a critical
foundation of tourist communities. Aspen’s lodging history reflects
the trend toward a premier resort while striving to maintain its “small
town character.”
Overall, the philosophy of the “Lodging Sector” contained in the 2012
Aspen Areas Community Plan (p. 13) states it well:
“The formulation of a strategy that replenishes the lodging base and
factors a diverse lodging inventory is important to the long-term
sustainability of a visitor based economy. Without a diversity of
lodging options, we limit the ability for future generations of visitors
to experience the Aspen area and surrounding public lands.”8
Over the years, the Aspen community has strived to strike the right
balance between deluxe, moderate, and economy lodging to satisfy a
diverse visitor population. This includes hotels, guest lodges, B&Bs,
private homes and condos.
Other accommodation channels are presenting an emerging
opportunity in the lodging sector. It should be noted that Airbnbs
(single room rentals in a home) are not allowed, but entire unit
vacation rentals such as VRBO or Homeaway are.9 This presents an
opportunity for property owners to utilize their property assets while
filling in the lodging inventory where smart development of the built
environment is desired. However, the total pillows (actual or
potential) associated with Aspen’s other lodging inventory is
unquantified at this stage.
PERSPECTIVE
Per the 2012 Lodging Study,
one of the earliest expressions
of what the Aspen lodging
sector aspired to is found in
the 1966 Aspen Area General
Plan, which defined the
Accommodations / Recreation
Zone District as:
“…..encouraging varied and
interesting development as a
means of perpetuating
Aspen’s prominence as a
quality resort:”10
Meanwhile, the 2000 Aspen
Community Plan’s Economic
Sustainability chapter called
for a:
“lively small scale down town
with a varied choices of
accommodation including
small lodges”.11
The 2011, Community Survey,
the most beneficial type of
development was identified
as “essential businesses” with
“diverse balanced lodging”
coming in second.12
8 Aspen Area Community Plan, p. 13. <http://www.aspencommunityvision.com/page_1>. Retrieved March 2016.
9 Community Development. Email dated July 10, 2017.
10 Aspen Area Community Plan. p. 10.
11 Ibid. p.11.
12 Ibid. p.12.
P117
II.
88
From an economic sustainability perspective, an optimal amount and mix of lodging is critical in
supporting the tourist based economy. This does not mean an endless amount, but the right amount,
mix, and quality to meet differing visitor expectations today and in the future. The key performance
measures that offer a good indication of lodging accessibility and “health” include:
▪ Total Short Term Beds (Pillow Counts)
▪ Occupancy Rates
▪ Value for Price for Lodging
These measures are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section.
Mobility
Figure 3. Aspen Pitkin Airport13 Figure 4. Aspen Transit Center14 Figure 5. Aspen Walk / Bike15
Air transport is essential for tourism, particularly for more remote destinations, like Aspen. Not only
does a regional airport stimulate economic prosperity, but it also brings enormous benefits to
economies by unlocking their potential for tourism and trade.
Some of the economic and social benefits of air transport are that it:
• Provides access to remote areas
• Facilitates tourism and trade
• Generates economic activity
• Creates employment and opportunity
• Increases tax revenues
• Contributes to consumer welfare
The increasing accessibility and availability of air travel has considerably enhanced Aspen’s tourism
based economy. Air transport is now accepted as a fundamental pillar of the community and essential
for economic sustainability.
Officially serving Aspen since 1956,16 the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport has increased infrastructure
capacity over the years to meet mobility requirements of its domestic and international visitors.
Additional capacity has made Aspen more accessible at relatively more competitive prices.
Meanwhile, stakeholders continue to look for a balance between the environmental, social and
economic effects of increased infrastructure capacity. This means continuing to work closely with
governments, planners, environmental groups, and the public to achieve this balance and to ensure that
the right degree of commitment is made in time to meet mobility requirements.
13 Holder, Michelle. 2016.
14 Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
15 Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
16 Aspen Airport Website/History. <http://www.aspenairport.com/about-aspen-airport/history>. Retrieved April 2016.
P118
II.
89
The key performance measures that provide a relatively strong indication of airline accessibility to Aspen
include:
▪ Total Non-Stop Airline Routes / Trips to Aspen
▪ Total Number of Commercial Airlines Serving Aspen
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section.
Beyond the airport, visitors arrive in town using a range of mobility options including bus, shuttles, car
(taxi, rental, Car-to-Go, Downtowner) and even bike (We-Cycle). Development and mobility patterns of
the Aspen have been dictated in great part due to the natural geography of the landscape. Aspen is in
the central region of the Colorado Rocky Mountains. It sits along the Roaring Fork River, a tributary of
the Colorado River, about 40 miles (64 km) south of Glenwood Springs. Aspen is surrounded by
mountain and wilderness areas on three sides: Red Mountain to the north, Aspen Mountain to the
south, Smuggler Mountain to the east.
Figure 6. Map of Aspen Downtown Core & Surrounding Area/Mountains17
[Note: A larger version of this map is attached as Appendix 2]
Per the Census Bureau, Aspen has a total area of 3.5 square miles (9.1 km2) with a population of
approximately 6,658 (2010).18 Aspen proper was established on a grid pattern. The pedestrian oriented
downtown (mall) is a prominent trademark. There are plenty of easy, paved trails for leisure bicycling
and walking. There is also a free public transit system supporting in town mobility, as well as,
connections with neighboring towns along the Roaring Form Valley.
17 Source: City of Aspen GIS/Mapping. Retrieved July 2016.
18 US Census (2010). <http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0803620>. Retrieved April 10, 2016.
P119
II.
90
Walkability, bike-ability, and transit options are often rated among Aspen’s top amenities or attributes.
This contributes to the attraction of and to a place and the visitor experience. In terms of sustainability
this touches on all 3 aspects: environment (reduced traffic and emissions), economic (amenity and value
added experience), and social (safety and well-being).
The key performance measure that provides the best indication of personal mobility is:
▪ Qualitative Ratings of Walkability, Bikeability, & Transit
The measure listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
As articulated in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP), the Aspen community seeks to strike a
balance between preserving the small-town character while still appealing to a thriving, diverse visitor
base. Tourism Access, Lodging, & Mobility is an important contribution to the community experience
whether a visitor or resident.
Diversification of the Tourist Based Economy
The City of Aspen/Community Development has developed an Uphill Economic Development Plan
(Plan). This forms one of Council’s Top Ten Goals in recent year to achieve “economic development
without development”. The Plan is in contention for a state Blueprint 2.0 grant.
Lodging
With a parallel interest in optimizing the lodging inventory to meet current and future needs, the
Aspen community continues to look for ways to improve the lodging stock at all levels and, particularly
the moderate and economy categories.
The main way this is implemented is through the Small Lodge Preservation Program, adopted in 2016
and in place through 2020. The program provides building permit fee reductions, expedited building
permit and planning processing, and energy efficiency grants to existing small lodges to enable them to
remain lodges instead of converting to a different use.
Tourism Access & Mobility
Convenience and accessibility to Aspen especially an international tourist destination, is critical to
attracting visitors near and far. It is additionally important for people who take up residence in a more
remote place. Several actions are being taken to further optimize mobility to/from and within the
Aspen area. To gain a fuller understanding of the tourism access and mobility efforts in the Aspen
community explore the following initiatives and links below:
Airport
• Aspen/Pitkin Airport County Airport Master Plan (Expansion Plan). The Aspen Airport conducted the
second half of their environmental assessment for the proposed Airport expansion and conducted an
open house in Spring 2017 for public comment. The Airport will conduct a second open house in
Summer 2017 before bringing the draft environmental assessment plan to the Pitkin Board of County
Commissioners.
Public Transportation
• The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) is an interjurisdictional committee of
Pitkin County, City of Aspen, and Town of Snowmass Village elected officials to discuss long-
range transportation issues.
• Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) provides a variety of transit options for
commuters in the Roaring Fork Valley and beyond.
P120
II.
91
• The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is the first rural bus rapid transit system in the nation and
transports commuters from Aspen to Glenwood Springs.
• Aspen and the Highway 82 corridor offer bus lanes to promote faster high occupancy travel.
• The City of Aspen/Transportation partners with RFTA to offer eight free shuttle routes
throughout town for easier transit to local destinations.
• In 2016, the Burlingame bus route frequency was increased as part of a pilot program
to encourage more bus use on this route.
Parking
• Free parking permits are available for commuters who carpool into Aspen.
• Hybrid-vehicle parking is being phased out so that there are more equitable parking policies
for vehicles.
• The Buttermilk Parking Area is now being managed by the Aspen Parking Department.
o The Department is encouraging more commercial vehicles and RVs to utilize this
parking area which will free-up more downtown parking spots for tourists.
Bike & Pedestrian
• We-Cycle is a nonprofit dedicated to bringing bike sharing to Aspen, Basalt, and the Roaring
Fork Valley as part of a public/private partnership. We-Cycle expanded into Basalt in May
2016. RFTA is working with We-Cycle to develop a longer-term partnership; the RFTA Board
approved a multi-year commitment to supporting We-Cycle.
• The City of Aspen Downtowner offers free, on-demand door-to-door electric car service
within the core area boundaries.
• City of Aspen / Main Street Citizen Pedestrian Safety Committee was established in 2012. A
Council working session on the Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan Phase II was held in April
2017. It sought to update Council and receive input for installation of the following
temporary treatments currently underway:
▪ Super Sharrows in the downtown core on Durant Avenue & Hopkins Avenue
▪ A seasonal pedestrian way treatment on 4th Street from Main Street to Music Tent
▪ Improved definition of Hallam St as a Bicycle & Pedestrian corridor
The committee also provided Council with an update on the use of Aspen Community Voice for
community input on bicycle rack locations, additional bike lane striping, and the top five sidewalk gap
locations.
Proposed Actions
Airport
Pitkin County/Aspen Pitkin Airport proposes to maintain/enhance the number of airlines coming into
Aspen and enhance the airport through the following actions:
• Airport Improvements Overview: The Airport is in the process of finalizing the draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) for Airport Improvements. This will then be brought back to the
community for a final open house/public hearing before it goes to the Pitkin County Board of
Commissioners for a vote in spring/summer 2017. If the EA for Airport Improvements is
approved, the airport will enter the 'design phase' for a new airport terminal.
• Future Air Service Study Phase III: On July 15th, Phase III of the Study, including significant public
outreach was approved. Meeting with and hearing from the community about the future of the
airport is a key component of Phase III of the Air Service Study now underway.
P121
II.
92
• Recommended Improvement Plan: Proposed development of new terminal south of current
terminal to accommodate current and future demand and use. This includes expanding aircraft
parking and improvements to existing space.
Public Transportation
RFTA proposes to maintain/enhance the public bus transit system through the following planned
actions:
• Complete the Upper Valley Mobility Study to improve mobility, reduce busses and congestion,
enhance transit service, and support local governance policies. This is a joint effort between
RFTA and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC).
• Aims to increase paved parking spaces at the Intercept Lot.
Parking
The City of Aspen/Parking Department propose the following actions for its workplan, in support of the
metrics and outcomes:
• Commercial Service Vehicles will start using the Easy Park pre-paid, in-vehicle parking meters
allowing for more convenient parking payments.
• Using “Smarking” resources to better analyze parking behavior and demand for parking to
recommend improvements to pricing models.
Bike & Pedestrian
The City of Aspen/Engineering & Parks Departments propose the following actions for its workplan, in
support of the metrics and outcomes:
• The Main Street Citizen Pedestrian Safety Committee continues to implement the Council
approved treatments as follows:
o Painted Bulb-outs on Hopkins Avenue at Aspen Street & Mill Street intersections
o A seasonal mini-roundabout at the intersection of Hopkins Avenue & Monarch Street
o Installation of removable planters on Hopkins Avenue Bike-Ped Way
Recommendations
The City of Aspen proposes the following recommendations for its workplan in support of the
metrics and outcomes:
➢ Assess Airbnb parking for better management of these parking areas.
P122
II.
TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Short Term Beds (Pillow Count)
What is it? Why is it important?
The total number of short term beds or “bed base” may be expressed in terms of the number of units and/or pillows for traditional lodging
(hotels/lodges), as well as, for condos and private homes. For the purposes of this report, the total pillow count is used as the most
representative of total capacity. Short term means those beds reserved for relatively short term guests (up to 30 days). The total number of
lodging pillows represents the capacity for lodging. Additional lodging capacity and inventory afforded through such channels as Airbnb are
unaccounted for in these totals. Understanding the lodging market and size to meet visitor expectations is key to making sure the right
products, services, and value at all levels (deluxe, moderate, economy) match respective visitor expectations and demands. This is a critical
element of economic sustainability for a visitor based economy such as Aspen.
What does the data/trend say?
Per Destimetric Lodging Reports (2009-2015) data1, the total pillow count of Aspen Lodging decreased by 2% in that period. In 2015 the total pillow counted reported was
9,193. The total number of short term beds (pillow count) for the deluxe category dropped from 5,804 to 5,034, or about 15%. The moderate category saw the most growth
from 3,213 to 3,773 pillows, or roughly 15%. The economy category increased slightly from 368 pillows to 386 pillows, or about 5%. During this same 5-year period, the
overall composition appears to have shifted most significantly in the direction of the moderate category.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by
Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The M Trip/Destimetrics Reports are prepared every three years with the next report expected in 2018. Since pillow
counts by category (deluxe, moderate, economy) are self-reported to Destimetrics by the property management
companies, there is a fair amount of variability in the total numbers. It is expected that the methodology for x will
change. As for the data, this is most apparent in the difference between the 2012 pillow count numbers as compared
to 2009 and 2015 respectively. In the deluxe category, there is significant difference between the 2009 & 2015 pillow
counts as compared to that of 2012. Airbnb lodging capacity is not included in above totals.
Sources: [1] Destimetrics Aspen Lodging Inventory Reports (2009-2015). [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
Deluxe Moderate Economy
2015 5,034 3,773 386
2012 6,876 2,407 802
2009 5,804 3,213 368
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
Figure 1. Short Term Beds -Pillow Count (2009-2015)
2015 Destrimetrics Total
Pillow Count: 9,193
5,804 ,
62%3,213 ,
34%
368 ,
4%
Fig 2. Pillow Count by Category (2009)
Deluxe Moderate Economy
5,034 ,
55%
3,773 ,
41%
386 ,
4%
Fig 3. Pillow Count by Category (2015)
Deluxe Moderate Economy
P123II.
TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Occupancy Rates
What is it? Why is it important?
In Aspen, as with most resort destinations, occupancy rates are a good indication of supply and demand of lodging options available at
different times (peak/off peak). Occupancy is one of the three main indices used in of Hospitality Revenue Management along with Average
Daily Rate (ADR) and Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR). It is the percentage of all units in the hotel (lodging) that are occupied at a given
time1. Occupancy rates are important to various stakeholders because they provide a relatively good indication of the “health” of lodging
offerings in terms of anticipated cash flows/revenue, as well as, availability at the desired quality and price for the time of year.
What does the data/trend say?
The seasonality of Aspen’s tourist based economy is evident in the occupancy and room rate information, with the highest occupancy rates in December through March and
June through August2. The properties represented by the data range from small to large hotels/lodges and span the economy, moderate, and deluxe segments. Occupancy is
calculated as the total number of occupied rooms divided by the total number available rooms, and is expressed as a percentage. Per Destimetrics Aspen Seasonal Outlook
Report (2015)3, the occupancy rates during peak times consistently sits between 75% and 80%. At off peak times it drops to 23.5%3. Due to the economic downturn starting in
2008, Aspen and the entire state saw a decline in occupancy in 2009 and 2010. The data shows that it has since rebounded to pre-recession levels4.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data
(2007-2015) generates an average occupancy rate of 73% during peak months
(January – March)(July-August). And an average 54% occupancy rate during the
months of December, June and September respectively.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The M Trip/Destimetrics Reports are prepared every three years with the next report
expected in 2018. Since pillow counts by category (deluxe, moderate, economy) are self-
reported to Destimetrics by the property management companies, there is a fair amount of
variability in the total numbers. It is expected that the methodology for x will change.
Sources: [1] Hotel Industry Terms to Know. Hotel News Now. March 2015. <http://hotelnewsnow.com/articles/6217/Hotel-Industry-Terms-to-Know>. American Hotel & Lodging Educational Institute. Retrieved May 2016. [2]
Destimetrics Aspen Seasonal Outlook Report (2015). [3] Ibid. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Occupancy RateYear
Figure 1. Aspen Lodging Monthly
Occupancy Rate (2007-2015)
Monthly Occupancy Rate Average Maximum
Average Minimum Average
0%20%40%60%80%100%
December
January
February
March
Occupancy RateMonthFig 2. Winter Season Lodging
Occupancy Rates (2012-2015)
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15
0%50%100%
June
July
August
September
Occupancy RateMonthFig 3. Summer Season Lodging
Occupancy Rates (2013-2015)
2013 2014 2015
P124II.
TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Value for Price for Lodging
What is it? Why is it important?
Universally, the Value for Price for Lodging is the value of accommodations for the money paid. As per Aspen Chamber
Resort Association (ACRA) value is defined largely by the following attributes: Friendliness of Lodging Employees;
Cleanliness / Housekeeping; Overall Satisfaction with Lodging Property; Overall Quality of Lodging; Appearance of Property;
Age and Upkeep of Property; and Room Quality1. Creating quality accommodation plays a vital role within the visitor
economy, particularly, as consumers today have high expectations with regards to their travel and lodging experience.
What does the data/trend say?
Every two years ACRA conducts a Summer Survey on a sampling of Aspen visitors. Among the questions, it asks visitors on
their level of trip satisfaction, including a value of accommodation based on price paid. ACRA uses an Intercept Survey with
a possible follow-up survey after the trip2. The individuals surveyed rate attributes based on a scale from 1 (poor) to 10
(excellent). From 2006 to 2014, the average ratings for Value for Price for Lodging was 8.16. During the same period there
has been a slight increase in the rating from 8 to 8.4 in 2010 with a return to 8 by 20143. While this data represents a
limited sample of the overall visitor population, it is somewhat representative of how visitors perceive the value of lodging
as per the attributes listed above.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data (2006-
2016) generates an average rating for Value for Price for Lodging at 8.1.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The Aspen Chamber of Commerce (ACRA) surveys summer visitors every second
year. The population of those surveyed represents only a sampling of the
summer visitor population.
Sources [1] ACRA Summer Survey (2014). Retrieved April 2016. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [Photo] Courtesy Kolacek, Zbynek.
8 8.2 8.4 8.2 8 7.9
0
2
4
6
8
10
2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016Rating
Year
ACRA Summer Survey
Value for Price for Lodging
(2006-2016)
9.1
8.8
8.8
8.5
8.5
7.9
0 2 4 6 8 10
Friendliness of Lodging Employees
Overall Quality of Lodging
Overall Satisfaction with Lodging…
Room Quality
Age and Upkeep of Property
Value
RatingLodging AttributesACRA Summer Survey
Ratings of Lodging Attributes
(2016)P125II.
TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Number of Commercial Airlines Serving Aspen
What is it? Why is it important?
This is the number of non-stop (direct) commercial airlines serving Aspen by month (represented in an
annualized average). With increasing commercial air access (direct or through partner alliances) air travel
is no longer a luxury commodity. One of the potential benefits of more airlines serving an area like Aspen
is that the increase of access can spur demand. This allows airlines to operate larger, more efficient
aircraft and to spread end point fixed costs over a larger number of passengers. With a large and regular
flow of passengers, airlines can use an aircraft large enough to produce the low unit costs necessary to
charge a competitive fare.
What does the data/trend say?
From 2005 – 2016, the total number of commercial airlines serving Aspen remained relatively steady over
the years with an annual average of approximately 2.1 In May of 2007, the Aspen-Pitkin airport was closed
for a runway widening project which dropped the annual average to about 2 with an increase in 2012 to
about 4.2The change in the number of commercial airlines over the years is due in part to airport and
airplane capacity with the goal to achieve the optimal level throughout the year.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data (2005-2016)
generates an average number of airlines serving Aspen of 3.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Stay Aspen Snowmass provided the Destimetrics data. The city will require
updated access to the Destimetric system and know how to produce this data
in the future. Outside expertise may be required for accurate retrieval of the
data.
Sources: [1] Destimetrics Data via Stay Aspen Snowmass. B. Tomcich. See multiple emails dated: March/April 2016. [2] Ibid. [3] Map graphic:
<http://www.aspenchamber.org/sites/default/files/images/AspenFlightMap_VP_072213-600.jpg>. Retrieved March 2016.
2.66
2.21
1.83
2.56
2.21 2.12 2.10 1.95 1.74 1.76 1.94 1.94
3 3
2
3 3 3 3
4
3 3 3 3
0
1
2
3
4
5
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Number of Commercial Airline Year
Figure 1. Average Annual Airline Amount vs. Peak Annual Airline Amount (2005-2016)
Annual Average Peak Number of Airlines Per Year
P126II.
TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Qualitative Assessment of Walkability, Bikeability, & Transit
What is it? Why is it important?
A walkability, bikeability, and transit rating is a qualitative assessment of the ease by which a community and/or its visitors can take
advantage of walking, bicycling, and public transit. Accessible, alternative forms of mobility are important for safety as well as quality
of life and visitor experience. These factors impact a visitor or resident’s attraction to a place and thereby contribute to its
environmental, economic, and social sustainability. Walking, cycling, and bussing can reduce congestion, pollution (GHG emissions),
and noise, while improving the quality and care of movement in and between public places and spaces. These modes of transit also
promote greater independence of travel for all ages, encourages an active lifestyle, and enhances the overall visitor and residential
experience.
What does the data/trend say?
The City has made efforts to improve alternate transit access and availability. In 2012, Council designated one of its Top Ten Goals toward creating a comprehensive Bike and
Pedestrian Master Plan. Ultimately, it’s primary goal “is to make movement around downtown a more pleasant, safe and efficient process for all modes of traffic.”1 The City’s
Complete Streets Policy was established to make streets accessible for everyone. This means that “streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users.
Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public transportation users of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across a complete street.”2 The City also uses a
qualitative assessment of connectivity of community infrastructure in new developments, to further encourage walking, biking, and use of public transit.1 Key stakeholders
rated Aspen’s walkability, bikeability, and transit as follows:
▪ Walkability: In the 2016 City of Aspen’s Citizen Survey (p. 11), respondents rated pedestrian/bike trail attributes 89.75 out of
100.3 Future iterations of this measure may display trail usage data, walk scores (to demonstrate relative proximity to amenities),
and infrastrucuture and safety elements.
▪ Bikeability: The League of American Bicyclists has designated Aspen as a Bicycle Friendly Community at the SILVER level. The
evaluators determined that “Aspen is taking steps to address the needs of bicyclists. For example, Aspen recently implemented a
policy to engineer streets with consideration of bicyclists including the Complete Streets policy. All schools have Safe Routes to
schools programs. Education classes on safe cycling are offered in the community regularly. The city promotes community rides
and commuter challenges to encourage cycling as a form of mobility.”
▪ Transit: Aspen has a comprehensive free transit system that provides frequent and convenient service. There are currently 9 free
transit routes that cover the city core and surrounding area depending on the season. According to the RFTA website, RFTA has
received numerous awards, including the “Best Mass Transit System of North America” by Mass Transit Magazine and the best
“Large Transit Agency of the Year” from Colorado Association of Transit Agencies. In 2012, RFTA received the White House
Champions of Change Transportation Innovator Award. In 2014, RFTA received the Federal Transit Administrator’s Outstanding
Public Service Award and a SHIFT Sustainability Award.5
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Quantitative data on walkability, bikeability, and transit ratings is limited. The reference of governing
documentation, implementation actions, qualitative statements, certifications/awards, and related survey data were
used to give a holistic idea of relative performance in these areas at this stage.
Sources: [1] City of Aspen Website/Council Webpage/Bike and Pedestrian Plan Retrieved on 07.11.16. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/City-Council/Bike-and-Pedestrian-Plan>. [2] Ibid. [3] Citizen Survey 2016. p. 11. [4]
League of American Cyclists. Bicycle Friendly Community Application/Feedback Report. 2012. p. 1. [5] RFTA Website/About. < http://www.rfta.com/about-rfta/>. June 2016. [6] [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016 P127II.
TOURISM ACCESS, LODGING, & MOBILITY
Total Non-Stop Airline Routes/Trips to Aspen
What is it? Why is it important?
Aspen is situated in a relatively remote area of the Rocky Mountains' Sawatch Range and Elk Mountains on the Western Slope,
11 miles west of the Continental Divide.1 For it to be viable as a tourist destination it must be accessible to its visitors. Aspen–
Pitkin County Airport (ASE), also known as Sardy Field, is a county-owned public-use airport located three nautical miles (6 km)
northwest of the central business district of Aspen in Pitkin County, Colorado.2 Air travel tends to be a dominant mode of
transportation for Aspen visitors especially for those travelling a long distance. The primary routes serving Aspen are Los
Angeles, San Francisco, Denver, Atlanta, Houston, and Chicago.3 Achieving the optimal number of non-stop (direct) commercial
airline routes and trips to Aspen by month (peak/off peak) is important as it provides access, convenience, and affordability for
visitors from across the country and the world.
What does the data/trend say?
Per Destimetrics data4, the average number of routes per year was 4.74 (2005–2016). There was some variation throughout the
years with a steady increase to 6.7 by 2015. From 2005 to 2016 the average maximum trips per month was 751 and average
minimum trips per month was 171. The change in the number of routes/trips over the years is due in part to airport and
airplane capacity with the goal to achieve the optimal level throughout the year and on a seasonal basis.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data (2005-2016)
generates an average number of airline routes of 5.5 and trips of 429.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Stay Aspen Snowmass provided the Destimetrics data. The city will require updated
access to the Destimetric system and know how to produce this data accurately in
the future. Outside expertise may be required.
Sources: [1] About Aspen Location. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado>. Retrieved April/July 2016. [2] Aspen Pitkin Airport Website/About <http://www.aspenairport.com/about-aspen-airport/history>. Retrieved April
2016. [3] Ibid. [4] Destimetrics Data via Stay AspenSnowmass. See multiple emails from B. Tomcich dated: March/April 2016. [Photo] Holder, Michelle. 2016.
3.58
3.00
4.25 4.67 4.17 4.33 4.42
5.17 5.08 5.58 5.92
6.67
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 1. Average Annual Scheduled
Airline Routes to Aspen (2005-2016)
Average Monthly Routes Average
Average Maximum Average Minimum
0
200
400
600
800
1000
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of TripsYears
Figure 2. Monthly Scheduled
Commercial Airline Trips (2005-2016)
Monthly Airline Trips Average for Values
Average Maximum Average Minimum
P128II.
99
Figure 1. Map of the Roaring Fork Valley19
The Roaring Fork Valley is home
to the communities of Aspen,
Snowmass Village, Basalt,
Carbondale, and Glenwood
Springs, among smaller ones.
It has a population of
approximately 30,265, which
contributes to an economically
vibrant and dynamic region of
the Colorado Western Slope.20
Aspen is a significant contributor to the region’s economic activity. This is largely due to its world class
ski resort and celebrated summer events. As a renowned resort destination, the City of Aspen’s
economy is largely seasonal and visitor-based.
When speaking of business viability, it is important to recognize the community’s aspiration for the
economy as evidenced in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan, which commits to:
“[Achieve] sustainable land use practices that support a healthy year-round community a
thriving, vibrant visitor-based economy.”21
19 Google Maps. 2016. Web. July 2016. <https://goo.gl/maps/cyufyTZ8xKp/>.
20 “Population Estimates.” U.S. Census Bureau. Web. July 2016. <http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2015/ SUB-EST2015.html/>.
21 “Aspen Area Community Plan.” City of Aspen and Pitkin County, 27 Feb. 2012. Mar. 2016. Web. <http://www.aspencommunityvision.com/
media/uploads/FINAL_AACP_2272012_reduced.pdf/>.
Business
Diversity &
Sustainability
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪ Aspen economic activity level
▪ Total number of business licenses
▪ Seasonal business sales activity
▪ Mix of top business types
Desired Outcome: While providing a positive business environment during its traditional winter season,
Aspen also is able to sustain events and businesses that lead to strong year-round economic health.
Commercial/retail spaces at a variety of price points exist, providing space for start-ups, businesses that
cater to basic living needs, and businesses that cater to a variety of visitors. Businesses focused on
recreation find the city an attractive center for product design, development and testing. Partnerships
with other jurisdictions in the valley lead to a stronger ability to attract and retain key businesses and
events. Because it has a diverse economic base, Aspen, as well as the Roaring Fork Valley, is capable of
withstanding changes in the popularity of visitor activities, economic downturns and other challenges
such as climate change.
Aspen
Snowmass Village
Basalt Carbondale
Glenwood Springs
P129
II.
100
Visitors contribute largely to the local business community. Per a report commissioned by the Colorado
Tourism Office entitled Economic Impact of Visitors 1996-2016p, the following economic indicators are
represented for Pitkin County:
Figure 3. Pitkin County Overnight Travel Impacts 2000-2016p
*Table was adapted from: County Overnight Travel Impacts, 2000-2015p & County Overnight Travel Impacts, 2002-2016p2425
This data gives a relatively good idea of the visitor-based economy of the region. To put these figures in
context, they represent approximately 18-22% of the Colorado Mountain Resort numbers in 2014.26 The
Mountain Resort region includes Eagle, Grand, Gunnison, La Plata, Montrose, Pitkin, Routt, San Miguel,
and Summit counties.27
To support this level of economic activity, the region, and specifically Aspen, requires a stable and
diverse business base. Businesses supply consumers with everything from basic goods and services to
world-class shopping and dining.
This business base needs to be suitably adapted for both peak winter and summer seasons, as well as an
off-season economy year-round.
22 Babbie, Sheila. 2009.
23 Babbie, Sheila.
24 Dean Runyan Associates. “Colorado Travel Impacts 1996-2015p.” prepared for the Colorado Tourism Office, June 2016. April 2017. Web.
<http://www.deanrunyan.com/doc_library/COImp.pdf/>. P. 48.
25 Dean Runyan Associates. “Colorado Travel Impacts 1996-2016p.” prepared for the Colorado Tourism Office, June 2017. July 2017. Web.
<http://www.deanrunyan.com/doc_library/COImp.pdf/>. P. 48.
26 “Colorado Travel Impacts 1996-2015p.”
27 Ibid.
Figure 2. Winter and Summer Events; Owl Creek Chase (left)22; Race (right)23
($M) 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016p
Direct
Travel
Spending
385.3 392.0 428.6 517.7 552.7 586.6 539.7 584.9 619.5 668.0 713.9 703.0
Industry
Earnings
Generated
135.5 139.2 149.5 176.6 193.6 193.4 193.9 206.9 225.9 246.2 259.4 261.5
Local
Taxes
Generated
11.9 13.0 16.0 19.8 21.3 24.0 22.7 24.8 26.4 28.9 31.3 33.8
P130
II.
101
▪ Aspen economic activity level
▪ Total number of business licenses
▪ Seasonal business sales activity
▪ Mix of top business types
The center of downtown commercial property is the 500 block of Galena Street and two blocks of South
Mill Street. Both streets get large amounts of foot traffic and have Aspen Mountain views.
Figure 5. Shop Aspen map of the downtown core.
28 Babbie, Sheila.
29 Giudice, Linda.
30 Babbie, Sheila.
31 Babbie, Sheila.
Particularly in times of
fluctuating visitor numbers,
economic downturn, and other
challenges, a diverse business
environment is necessary to
sustain through the seasonal
nature of the community.
A diverse commercial mix
encourages local access and
inclusivity to all and preserves the
small-town vibrancy that reveals
itself during the quieter seasons.
The key performance measures
that provide perspective on these
areas include:
Figure 4. Downtown Galena St. in Winter28; Downtown Commercial
Core29; Downtown Saturday Market30; Downtown Commercial
Core31
P131
II.
102
Commercial property availability and accessibility are key contributors to business sustainability and
diversity. A robust business environment requires a balance of occupied and vacant space. Vacant space
is available on a competitive basis to long-term businesses and start-ups, and creates opportunities for
relocation. Likewise, a diverse and sustainable business community offers a range of price options for
commercial rental spaces.
The Aspen commercial market offers three primary types of business space: retail/restaurant, office,
and industrial. Within these categories, rental rates vary from affordable to exclusive to accommodate
for different price points. Rental rates for office and industrial space prove more available and
affordable in other locations throughout the valley.
The key performance measures that provide perspective on these areas include:
▪ Commercial vacancy rates
▪ Commercial rental rates
While these commercial space viability measures are important, the data is not readily available now.
Data for both measures may be pursued in future iterations of the report.
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section. Below
is a summary of current / proposed actions that help move us move toward the outcomes we want for
Business Diversity & Sustainability.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
Below is a summary of programs, initiatives, and recommendations that support Business Diversity &
Sustainability outcomes and associated key performance measures. Note the web links highlighted for
each organization for more detailed information.
Current Actions
• The City of Aspen is in process of creating a new city website with a section for businesses.
• In February 2017, the City of Aspen expanded the responsibilities of the Parking Director to
include Downtown Services. New responsibilities include acting as a liaison between business
owners and the City and expanding business opportunities in Aspen, and coordinating the
activities of multiple City departments in the downtown core.
• Through the summer and fall of 2017, the City of Aspen and the Aspen Chamber Resort
Association (ACRA) partnered to launch the Shop Aspen campaign. Shop Aspen highlights local
shopping and dining options, including the Aspen Saturday Market, the Aspen Arts Festival, and
local Art Walks.
• The City of Aspen has land use regulations such as SCI, that are intended to help preserve locally
serving businesses.
• In 2017, the City of Aspen approved an initiative to give extra scrutiny to chain stores before
they are approved.
• In 2015, the City of Aspen held its first uphill economy event at Aspen Mountain to encourage
new economic opportunities for the industry.
• The Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to
supporting the business community and enhancing the visitor experience. ACRA supports many
large special events and gatherings in the community.
• The City of Aspen Commercial Core and Lodging Commission is a City advisory board that
provides guidance to council on related business issues.
• The 2015-2017 Aspen City Council Top Ten Goals identify priorities for City staff to focus on,
including to “identify and pursue economic opportunities that diversify Aspen’s economy
without relying on physical development.”
P132
II.
103
• The City of Aspen Business Navigator tool helps guide business owners guide through the City of
Aspen's permitting and approval processes.
Proposed Actions
ACRA proposes the following action for its workplan in support of the metrics and outcomes:
• Give a voice at Council table to the business community of Aspen. Many business owners and
employees do not live in Aspen and cannot vote on issues that effect their businesses and
impact their employees.
• ACRA has a strategic plan that has a number of policy areas that are planned. Some of these
include marketing and special events.
Recommendations
The City of Aspen proposes the following recommendations for its workplan in support of the
metrics and outcomes:
➢ Consider acquiring or developing a customized regional economic model that would capture
the impact of economic activity in Aspen.
P133
II.
BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY
Aspen Economic Activity Level
What is it? Why is it important?
Economic activity is an indication of a region’s productive capacity. Since an absolute value for a regional GDP is not readily
available, annual taxable retail sales totals offer a relative proxy for showing economic activity level in Aspen. Taxable retail
sales equal gross sales for goods purchased or consumed within the City, less any deductions such as refunds, bad debt,
interest and finance charges. Retail sales tax is collected on the sale of all goods. Aspen’s economic activity is largely a
reflection of Aspen’s tourist-based economy. Annual retail sales tax numbers give insight into the level of economic activity in
the area since sales are a significant contributor of economic exchange. Examining taxable retail sales numbers reported year-
on-year is an indication of how well Aspen’s tourist-based economy and business base are performing and their contributions
to economic sustainability.
What does the data/trend say?
The City of Aspen Finance Department provided total taxable retail sales numbers for the period from 2007-2016 (Figure 1).1
These numbers have been inflation adjusted to 2016 dollars. During this period, Aspen’s taxable retail sales as a reflection of
economic activity show an increase of 19.3%. Year-on-year, there is an average change of 2.2%. Overall, taxable retail sales
numbers hover around the inflation-adjusted ten-year average of approximately $576,888,100. In 2009, there was an
observable decrease of -12% in taxable retail sales related to the economic downturn. In 2016, taxable retail sales were
$713,876,169 following steady growth from 2009.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data (2007-2016)
generates an average annual total taxable sales level of $576,888,100 (in 2016
dollars).
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Note that taxable retail sales are updated up to 12 months following the initial
reporting date to reflect late filings. Data from 2016 is as of December 2016 and is
subject to change. Total taxable retail sales are not a total representation of
economic activity.
Sources: [1] City of Aspen Finance Department. “Taxable Sales through Dec 2016.” 2017. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
$598M
$576M
$505M $514M $538M $556M
$586M $634M
$685M $714M
$0
$200,000,000
$400,000,000
$600,000,000
$800,000,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*SalesYear
Figure 1. Aspen Annual Total Taxable Sales Adjusted for Inflation (2007-2016)
Aspen 10-Year Average (2007-2016)
*2016 is being continually updated; data as of December
2016 and adjusted for inflation to 2016 dollars P134II.
BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY
Total Number of Business Licenses
What is it? Why is it important?
The total number of business licenses consists of those businesses that have paid license fees in Aspen and registered for a given
calendar year. This includes businesses that have a physical presence within the City limits and contractors located outside of the limits
who conduct business in Aspen. Two types of business licenses exist: the year-round and the 1 or 2-day special event licenses. Short-
term licenses are for those businesses that participate in the Aspen Saturday Market and the Arts Fair. The number of licenses gives
insight into the volume of commercial and thereby economic activity in Aspen each year. An economically sustainable Aspen requires a
stable and diverse business base that is properly licensed and registered.
What does the data/trend say?
From 2013 to 2015, licenses have increased on average 16% year-on-year (Figure 1).1 In general, 1 and 2-day special event licenses make up 6% of the total business licenses
per year.2 Figure 2 shows new business licenses to the City.3 The overall increase of licenses from 2013 to 2015 is 35%. With the influx of the residential rental sharing
economy, the City began an initiative to increase residential vacation rental business licenses.4 Tourist accommodations account for 3.8% of new licenses from 2013-2015 on
average. Construction has also increased over the years. During the 2013-2015 period, contractor licenses account for 21% of new licenses.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Data was sourced via a specific query of the City of Aspen Finance Department
Innoprise system. This data excludes businesses that are not registered to conduct
business within the City. In 2012, the Finance Department began using a new
software system. Due to transition of data between systems, data from this year
and prior years is not usable. Data was not updated in 2017, as a more robust
methodology for tracking is in progress.
Sources: [1] City of Aspen Finance Department [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Wackerle, Curtis. “More short-term rentals on city of Aspen’s radar.” Aspen Daily News, 3 February 2014. Web. 3 May 2016. <http://www.aspendailynews.com/
section/home/161115/>. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
2237 2635 2985
122
191
209
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2013 2014 2015Total Number of Business LicensesYear
Figure 1. Aspen Business Licenses, by type (2013-2015)
Year-Round License 1 or 2-Day Special Event License
379
545
472
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2013 2014 2015Total New Business LicensesYear
Figure 2. Aspen New Business Licenses (2013-2015)P135II.
BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY
Seasonal Business Sales Activity
What is it? Why is it important?
Seasonal business sales activity gives an indication of the level of economic activity in Aspen during peak and off season s. Aspen total
taxable retail sales numbers reported monthly are used as a proxy to look at such economic activity. Taxable retail sales equal gross
sales for goods purchased or consumed within the City, less any deductions such as refunds, bad debt, inter est and finance charges.
Retail sales tax is collected on the sale of all goods. The Aspen community serves both visitors from around the world and residents. By
observing year-round business sales activity, one can better understand the economy that is fueled by both groups. Tracking the Aspen
retail sales activity (total taxable sales) during each month provides a glimpse of the local economy and businesses that primarily serves
residents (during the low, off-season months) and the economy that primarily serves tourists (during the high, on-season months). This
metric helps to enlighten the viability of the tourist -based economy and the local economy and whether the business base and mix is
appropriate for both.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows total taxable retail sales figures for 2012-2016, which have been inflation adjusted to 2016 dollars.1 To measure seasonal
business activity, this metric reports monthly retail sales activity data for comparison. Off-season sales months (April, May, October,
November) differ considerably from on-season months (January, February, July, August, December). During the off -season months in
2016, retail sales activity ranges from $24,510,001 to $31,290,356. On-season numbers in 2016 range from $68,459,043 to
$107,980,269. Historically, the data shows that the lowest level of retail sales activity is in May. Over the 2012-2016 period, on-season
retail sales activity shows an increase at an average rate of 6.2% while off-season activity shows an average increase of 6.9%.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
To measure seasonal business activity, this metric considers retail sales tax data throughout the year as a proxy for
business activity (e.g. open/closed). Note that taxable retail sales are updated up to 12 months following the initial
reporting date to reflect late filings. Data from 2016 is as of December 2016 and is subject to adjustments.
Sources: [1] City of Aspen Finance Department. “Taxable Sales through Dec 2016.” 2017. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
$78M $74M $80M
$29M $25M
$60M
$78M
$68M
$55M
$31M $28M
$108M
$0
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Figure 1. Aspen Sales Activity During On and Off-Season (2012-2016*)
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016*
*2016 is being continually updated; data as of December
2016 and adjusted for inflation to 2016 dollars P136II.
BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY
Mix of Top Business Types
What is it? Why is it important?
Aspen’s mix of top business types is represented by City industry taxable retail sales data. Business types are reported in NAICS1 form, the Federal
standard used to describe industries. In this measure, top business types are equated to top business industries. Data was consolidated into
three-year averages due to the similarity of industry retail sales year-on-year and to simplify presentation of the data. The City’s mix of top
business types helps to tell the story of Aspen’s business diversity and sustainability. A diverse industry base provides bus inesses that cater to the
two types of economy: visitor and local. Business diversification also provides resiliency especially in the face of varying economic d ynamics,
visitor levels and preferences, among other factors. A diverse commercial mix encourages access and inclusivity and preserves the small-town
vibrancy that reveals during the quieter seasons.
What does the data/trend say?
Top business type data has been adjusted for inflation to 2016 dollars. Figure 1 shows average retail sales for each industry category,
consolidated into two groupings (2011-2013; 2014-2016).2 Industry retail sales were relatively consistent between the 2011-2013 and 2014-2016
groupings. Accommodations and Restaurants & Bars reflect an exception. For Accommodations, total retail sales increased 9.6% on average from
2014-2016 compared to the 5.2% change from 2011-2013. For Restaurants & Bars, retail sales increased 6.6% on average from 2014 -2016
compared to the 3.3% change from 2011-2013. Figure 2 shows the total earnings of each industry in 2016, ranked in order.3
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Note that taxable retail sales are updated up to 12 months following the initial reporting date to refl ect late
filings. Data from 2016 is as of December 2016 and is subject to adjustments.
Sources: [1] North American Industry Classification System. See more at <http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/faqs/faqs.html#q1/>. [2] City of Aspen Finance Department. “Taxable Sales through Dec 2016.” 2017. [3] Ibid. [Photo]
Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
$0 $25 $50 $75 $100$125$150$175$200$225
Jewelry/Gallery/Fur
Liquor & Marijuana
Specialty Retail
Automobiles
Miscellaneous
General Retail
Utilities & Telecommunications
Construction
Sports Equipment & Clothing
Food & Drug
Clothing/T-Shirt
Restaurants & Bars
Accommodations
3-Year Average Sales (in millions)IndustryFigure 1. Total Industry Sales Over 3-Year Averages
(2011-2013) & (2014-2016*)
2011-2013 2014-2016*
29%
18%
8%
8%
8%
7%
6%
4%
3%
3%3%2%1%
Figure 2. Total Taxable Sales by Industry (2016*)
Accommodations
Restaurants & Bars
Clothing/T-Shirt
Construction
Food & Drug
Sports Equipment & Clothing
Utilities & Telecommunications
General Retail
Miscellaneous
Automobiles
Liquor & Marijuana
Specialty Retail
Jewelry/Gallery/Fur
*2016 is being continually updated;
data as of December 2016 and
adjusted for inflation to 2016 dollars
*2016 is being continually updated; data
as of December 2016 and adjusted for
inflation to 2016 dollars P137II.
108
A qualified and capable workforce is the backbone of a sustainable economy. The connection between
workforce supply and match and productive capacity is key especially in a tourist based economy.
The aim of workforce development is to attract, educate, and train individuals to meet job market needs
year-round. This is essential to maintaining a sustainable and competitive economic environment.
Figure 1. Ski Instructor with Guests 32
For businesses, capable workers are a necessity, not
an amenity. The workforce is central to business
attraction, retention, and stability to and in a place.
A trained and qualified workforce is also
important for its customers. In a world class resort
town like Aspen, patrons expect high standards and
service levels. To achieve an optimal workforce,
competence and capabilities must match those
demanded in the marketplace. This means matching
the workforce to positions generated by Aspen’s
tourist based economy.
In the winter season, this calls for a workforce
specialized in the ski and snow sports industry. Aspen
Skiing Company (ASC) is one of the largest employers
in the area with both full time and seasonal
employees.
In summer, Aspen requires a workforce that services world renowned cultural and special events. This
includes the Food & Wine Festival, Ideas Festival, Music Festival, among others.
Throughout the year, the economy needs an adaptive workforce to service the local community. This
includes hospitals, schools, government and public services, grocery and retail stores, restaurants,
among others. For Aspen, getting workforce size and match right especially given seasonality presents
both challenges and opportunities.
32 Photo: Courtesy Kolacek, Zbynek.
Workforce
Supply &
Match
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪Size of Valley Workforce / Top Job Occupations
▪Unemployment Rate by Age
▪Median Pay (Compared to Other Colorado Resorts)
▪% Households Housing Cost Burdened
▪Workforce Commuter Costs
▪Number of Employer Bus Passes (By Season)
Desired Outcome: A sufficient supply of well-qualified workers is available to Aspen businesses. Local schools
and colleges, locally-held training programs, and other professional development venues compliment
Aspen’s resort economy and provide the opportunities needed for potential, existing, and returning
employees to hone their skills and knowledge. Employer support of training opportunities is strong, and
wages are competitive with other resorts on a total-cost-of-living basis, leading to high retention rates in key
job classes. Workers who must live down-valley have the ability to commute to Aspen jobs via excellent
transportation options and reasonable commute costs and times.
P138
II.
109
In addition to the year-round workforce, seasonal businesses in Aspen rely heavily on filling temporary
vacancies. This includes hotels and restaurants, sports and recreational activities, cultural events,
property management and maintenance, among other occupations. The seasonal nature of these
businesses and industries means that they potentially face shortages of local workers during their peak
work periods. By filling temporary jobs, temporary workers not only keep these businesses open, they
contribute to the creation of additional, year-round jobs for local workers. The relative expansionary and
contractionary nature of the economy and workforce is represented in Figure 4 below.
As depicted above, the contraction of the workforce is approximately 7% between winter and off season
months. And approximately 4% between summer and off season months. This represents a reduction of
2,203 and 1,150 members of the workforce, respectively.
Competition for a qualified workforce magnifies the importance of quality of life factors. Talented and
skilled people gravitate to places where they can attain a certain standard of living and enjoy a certain
lifestyle. This influences the workforce supply and match equation and, ultimately, the composition (and
quality) of the workforce.
Sustainable economies create conditions for secure employment and competitive pay. This supports a
virtuous cycle where people can afford to buy goods and services. This, in turn, supports local businesses
and the local economy. Workforce development also involves issues such as affordable housing,
transportation, education, among other considerations. 33
33 Photos: Babbie, Sheila.
33815 32762 31612
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
Winter [Dec-Mar]Summer [June-Sep]Other [Apr/May; Oct/Nov]Worforce sizePeak/Off Season By Months
Figure 4. Average Valley Workforce
Expansion/Contraction By Season (2006-2016)
P139
II.
110
These necessities and amenities factor in to a stable and sustainable workforce, viable employment
market. More broadly, it contributes to economic development (productive capacity) aimed at
improving the economic and social well-being of people and communities.
Further below are some quick facts excerpted from Sperling’s Best Places on certain basic living costs.
Since 1985, Sperling’s performs studies and provides comparative place information on cost of living,
schools, crime, housing prices, transportation, and more.34 Sperling’s cost of living indices is based on a
US average of 100. An amount below 100 means Aspen, Colorado is cheaper than the US average. A cost
of living index above 100 means Aspen, Colorado is more expensive.35
Compared to the rest of the country, Aspen's cost of living is 132.50% higher than the U.S. average.
Figure 6 summarizes cost of living factors in Aspen against the national average. Note: Those figures
(cells) highlighted in blue are above the national average.
The cost of living indicators further emphasizes the need to not only have the right size and capabilities
in the workforce but also the right accommodations (wages/benefits, housing, transport, healthcare,
etc.) to support it. Workforce development involves the coordination of public and private-sector
policies and programs. These provide individuals with the opportunity for a sustainable livelihood. And
help organizations achieve goals that are consistent with the Aspen societal and economic context.
The key performance measures that offer a good indication of workforce supply and match its
sustainability include:
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section. Each
highlights the key data/trends with targets when set.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
For the Aspen community successful workforce supply and match and development requires strategies
that cut across many areas. This includes workforce development, education, job training, housing,
transportation, health and human services, among others.
34 Sperlings Best Places. <http://www.bestplaces.net/docs/about.aspx>.
35Sperlings Best Places < http://www.bestplaces.net/city/colorado/aspen>.
36 Ibid.
Figure 6.36
COST OF LIVING
Aspen, Colorado
United States
Overall 233 100
Grocery 98.8 100
Health 104 100
Housing 516 100
Utilities 94 100
Transportation 97 100
Miscellaneous 101 100
▪ Size of Valley Workforce / Top Job Occupations
▪ Unemployment Rate by Age
▪ Median Pay (Compared to Colorado Resort/Towns)
▪ % Households Housing Cost Burdened
▪ Workforce Commuter Costs as % of Annual Average Wage
▪ Subsidized Bus Passes Purchased by Employers (Season)
P140
II.
111
Workforce Development
Current Actions
In 2017, Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) established an Employee Sustainability Committee.
The objective of this committee is to:
“Become a valuable partner and resource for the business community to maintain a qualified and
sustainable workforce.”
As excerpted from ACRA’s 2017 Strategic Plan the following goals and strategies were established for
the Committee:
A. Goal: Develop Employee Sustainability Committee to identify specific issues that are
impacting the success and operation of valley-wide businesses.
Strategies:
(1) Survey the entire membership, representing the employer and the employee with
questions specific to employee sustainability.
(2) Constitute a committee that represents the interest of the valley wide labor force.
(3) Review City of Aspen Economic Sustainability Report and results from membership
survey to identify challenges that directly impact the workforce.
(4) Identify objectives and strategies based on information from the Economic Sustainability
Report and membership survey.
B. Goal: Regionalization- work with valley-wide stakeholders on issues that directly impact
businesses and employee’s.
Strategies:
(1) Submit benchmarks and strategies to the City of Aspen to create standards for
workforce development.
The Colorado Mountain College’s targeted programs support workforce development in the
region. Certificate programs are designed to build knowledge and skills for a tourist based economy.
This includes Hospitality & Resort, Culinary Arts, Outdoor Studies, Ski & Snowboard Industry, English
Language, among others.
Proposed Actions
The Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) proposes the following actions for its workplan in
support of the metrics and outcomes:
• Perform a more detailed analysis of the valley workforce size and composition.
• Track of the Aspen unemployment rate along with the job open. This data could be compared to
the same measures in Basalt, Carbondale, and Glenwood. When viewed with wages (benefits)
and residence, this could inform whether Aspen’s jobs are competitive.
• Continue to encourage the modernization of APCHA with a budget approval for the database
which will lead to more efficiencies.
• Support the business community voice in terms of workforce issues and representation at City
Council.
Workforce Housing
The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) provides affordable workforce housing to full-time
or seasonal employees who could not otherwise afford to own or rent a home in Pitkin County. With
almost 3,000 deed restricted homes under its oversight, APCHA is the largest workforce housing
program relative to population in North America, if not the world. To protect the integrity and
P141
II.
112
sustainability of workforce housing now and into the future, APCHA has begun the process of
modernizing and streamlining operations and policies.
Current Actions
• APCHA partnered with Real America to develop a 56-unit Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC) project called Roaring Fork Apartments in the Town of Basalt (Pitkin County).
• The City of Aspen has negotiated a Developer’s Agreement to form a Public-Private Partnership
(PPP) with Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) for development of approximately 49 affordable rental
housing units in three locations: 802 West Main Street, 517 Park Circle, and 488 Castle Creek
Road.
• APCHA and the City of Aspen’s Community Development Department are working together to
improve public transparency and remove competitive market barriers associated with the
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (Housing Credits) market. The Housing Credits
program was created to encourage private sector development of affordable workforce
housing, and to establish it as an option for housing mitigation that would immediately offset
the impacts of development.
• To better inform and serve policy makers, APCHA is working with a team of internal/external
consultant to develop an Interim Database (IDB). The IDB will be used to more effectively
manage and report on the overall performance of the workforce housing system. This will also
translate into faster and more accurate information for users of the system – i.e. buyers, sellers,
and renters.
• APCHA is working to build a new customer-friendly website featuring advanced functionality
and GIS capabilities to better serve and inform the community, decision makers, and interested
parties.
• APCHA has proposed implementing income qualification changes to meet state and federal
standards to make the housing system more transparent, consistent, fair, and easier to
navigate.
• APCHA has proposed implementing an Affordability Standard to improve system-wide equity,
which should also improve affordability for lower category households.
• APCHA continues to work with down valley and regional partners on ways to enhance workforce
housing opportunities.
Proposed Actions
APCHA proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the outcomes and measures:
• Adopting key reform recommendations from the 2016 Policy Study of the Affordable Workforce
Housing Guidelines.
• Creating a Housing Efficiency Reform Strategy (HERS) that will:
o Create a culture of process improvement using the DMAIC model – Define, Measure,
Analyze, Improve, and Control.
o Train and develop staff committed to continuous improvement, including Lean Six Sigma
Green Belt Certification.
Supporting the goal of 100% compliance and proposals to improve compliance and enforcement
capabilities and measures.
Recommendations
APCHA proposes the following recommendation for its workplan, in support of the metrics and
outcomes:
➢ Promote workforce housing market efficiency, transparency, accountability, and
effectiveness through investments in modernization, including process improvement,
information management (database), and supportive policy changes.
P142
II.
113
➢ Creating a Housing Efficiency Reform Strategy (HERS) that will Develop a pre-
automation/modernization implementation roadmap based on continuous improvement.
➢ Creating a Housing Management Information System (HIMS) that will:
o Increase overall deed restricted market information and transparency for the sake
of the community and its customers.
o Improve deed restricted market efficiencies leading to increased market
transactions and program effectiveness.
o Provide real-time, accurate, and reliable data reporting for today’s and tomorrow’s
decision (policy) makers.
➢ Developing a long-term solution to incentivizing owner/HOA investment in ‘for-sale’
inventory and (dis)incentivizing deferred maintenance and deficient capital reserves.
➢ Supporting policy discussions to seek policy solutions to encourage greater movement of
people within and out of the system as life circumstances and household sizes change.
➢ Hiring a 3rd party to conduct a Housing Inventory Census to help guarantee and protect the
successful implementation and investment in the HERS and HIMS.
➢ Creating a customer portal through its new website into the HIMS.
Public Transportation
• Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) provides a variety of transit options for
commuters in the Roaring Fork Valley and beyond.
• The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is the first rural bus rapid transit system in the nation and transports
commuters from Aspen to Glenwood Springs.
• Aspen and the Highway 82 corridor offer bus lanes to promote faster high occupancy travel.
• The City of Aspen/Transportation partners with RFTA to offer eight free shuttle routes
throughout town for easier transit to local destinations.
• In 2016, the Burlingame bus route frequency was increased as part of a pilot program to
encourage more bus use on this route.
• Free parking permits are available for commuters who carpool into town.
Some of the other transportation initiatives include:
• Transportation Options Program (TOP)
• Grant Opportunities
• Carpool program
• Car to Go
• We-Cycle bike share program
• Commuter Connect
• Ruby Park Remodel Project
• Drive Less Campaign
• Downtowner
P143
II.
114
Proposed Actions
RFTA proposes to continue the following actions for its workplan in support of the metrics and
outcomes:
• Upper Valley Mobility Study which analyzes the options of light rail transit and bus rapid transit
between Brush Creek and Ruby Park.
• Transportation Demand Management
• Improve integration with the public transit system and connectivity with other forms of
transportation (e.g. We-cycle)
• Improvements to the bus lanes and travel times
Pitkin County proposes the following actions for its workplan in support of the metrics and outcomes:
• Seeks to expand Park & Ride
P144
II.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
Size of Valley Workforce
What is it? Why is it important?
The Roaring Fork Valley is one of the most prosperous regions in Colorado and the U.S. It is also one of the most populous and economically
vital areas of the Colorado Western Slope.1 The Valley includes the communities of Aspen, Snowmass Village, Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood
Springs, among others. The economic engine of the valley is the Aspen/Snowmass recreational skiing complex which directly or indirectly
drives the related tourism, hospitality, retail, construction, real estate, professional service and property maintenance industries. Other
activities and cultural events such as the Aspen Ideas Festival, Aspen Music Festival, Aspen Food & Wine Festival attract visitors in peak
summer months and year round. The right number of employees with the right capabilities and qualities is critical in supporting Aspen’s
tourist based economy with residents and visitors from around the world and high service standards.
What does the data/trend say?
As depicted in Figure 1 below the average size of the Valley workforce is approximately 32,655 employees. There was a peak in workforce size (up to 35,208) in 2008/2009
with a rapid decrease to about the average during the financial downturn.2 By 2016 the total size of the workforce has declined to 31,976 from pre-crisis levels. Per the Labor
Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey, the US civilian labor force shrank from 154,655 (in thousands) in 2008 to 153,111 (in thousands) in 2009. By 2012 the
civilian workforce rebounded above pre-crisis levels at 155,557 (in thousands).3 Pitkin County’s Top 5 Occupations during the period from 2011-2015 are represented in Figure
2 below. These are consistent with the primary activities of a tourist based economy described above. Consistently the “Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, and
Food” occupational category made the top of the list.4
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The
historical data (2006-2016) generates an average
workforce size of 32,655.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The monthly workforce numbers for the Roaring Fork Valley were assembled by the Colorado Department of
Labor. The demographic data was aggregated for each of the towns within the valley boundary. To have
comparative data year on year it is important to query the data source in the same manner. It should be noted
that the data obtained this year slightly varied for the years 2012-2015. The US data was sourced from the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006 – 2016). Data should be queried as per the research protocol or may vary. For
occupation data, an error was found and corrected from last year’s release.
Sources: [1] About Aspen Location. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspen,_Colorado>. Retrieved April/July 2016. [2] Colorado Department of Labor. See emails from D. Johnson April/May 2016. [3] Census/Bureau of Labor Statistics
<http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11000000>. Retrieved June 2016. [4] US Census Bureau.2015. <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_S2405&prodType=table>.
[5].Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
32888
35208
32233 32259 32232 31976
32655
28,000
30,000
32,000
34,000
36,000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Workforce SizeYear
Firgue 1. Average Annual Valley Workforce Size (2006-2016)
Average Annual Workforce Average Maximum Average Minimum Average
- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
ARTS, ENT, REC, ACCOM, FOOD
PROFESSIONAL, SCI, MGT, ADMIN,…
EDUC, HEALTHCARE, SOCIAL SVCS
RETAIL
FIN, INS, R. ESTATE, RENTAL, LEASING
Pitkin County's Top 5 Occupations
(2011-2015)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
P145II.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
Unemployment Rate by Age Group
What is it? Why is it important?
The unemployment rate represents the number of unemployed people as a percentage of the civilian labor force. Unemployment is the total
number of individuals 16 years and older actively seeking a job who do not currently have one. Unemployment by age means the rate by age
group as established by the American Community Survey. Pitkin data represents averaged rates from Aspen, Snowmass Village, Woody Creek,
Redstone, and Basalt. Local unemployment rates lend key insight into the state of the area economy more broadly and health of the job
market more specifically. Unemployment results in loss of jobs and income. This adversely impacts the economic viability of households and
economy more broadly with decreased consumption and reinvestment in the community. High unemployment in the community effects
worker employability, service levels, general attraction, and well-being.
What does the data/trend say?
Averaged annual unemployment rates for Aspen and Pitkin County (Figure 1). Percentage of Unemployment by age (Figure 2). To provide a
baseline of comparison, averages over 2009 to 2015 are indicated for all rates. The Aspen unemployment rate averaged at 5.1% per year,
while the averaged Pitkin unemployment rate was 5.6% from 2009-2015. Both rates increased from 2010 to 2012. Since 2012, the Aspen and
Pitkin rates converged and remained relatively consistent with one another. A significant majority of unemployment in Aspen is for ages 65-74
at nearly 30% per year (Figure 2).
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data
(2006-2016) generates an average unemployment rate of 5.1% (Aspen)
and Pitkin County (5.6%).
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Unemployment rate data for Aspen and Pitkin County was sourced from the American Community
Survey (ACS).1 ACS data for Aspen and Pitkin are not available for years prior to 2009.
Sources: [1] American FactFinder, n.d. Web. May 2017. <http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml/>. [2] Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. Workforce Center. 2017. Web.
<https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdle/wfc>. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
2.2%1.2%
4.3%
6.7%6.6%6.8%
7.9%
2.7%
2.3%
4.7%
6.8%
7.1%
7.8%
7.7%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Unemployment RateYear
Figure 1. Aspen vs. Pitkin Unemployment Rate (2009-2015)
Aspen Aspen 7 yr Average
Pitkin County Pitkin County 7 yr average
2009 2011 2013 2015
16-24 0.0%0.0%4.4%4.4%
25-44 1.4%4.2%6.5%8.0%
45-54 7.1%4.1%5.6%4.8%
55-64 0.0%1.2%4.1%3.2%
65+0.0%26.8%29.8%29.2%
1.4%
4.2%
6.5%8.0%
26.8%
29.8%29.2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%Unemployment RateFigure 2. Unemployment by Age Group (2009-2015)P146II.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
Annual Wages Per Employee by Peer County
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure compares the annual wages per employee in Pitkin County and five counties with peer resort communities. Per the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, average annual wages per employee for any given industry are computed by dividing total annual wages
by annual average employment.1 When comparing annual wages per employees across locations there are many reasons for
discrepancies in wages, including the type of role, employment conditions, and other benefits on offer. In terms of workforce supply
& match, competitiveness on wages is important as it is often the primary factor that attracts workers to jobs in a place over another.
If places like Aspen have highly competitive wages, it may attract a more suitable and stable workforce that meets the needs of its
citizens, visitors, and businesses.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 below displays comparative annual wages per employee for five peer counties. In 2015, Pitkin County (Aspen/Snowmass) had the highest annual wages
reported at $59,488. It is followed by Routt County (Steamboat Springs) at $46,956 and Eagle County (Vail/Beaver Creek) at $46,748. San Miguel County (Telluride)
and Summit County (Breckenridge) are at the lower end of the range with $37,284 and $36,660, respectively.2 Pitkin County annual average wage increased by
approximately 29% from 2011 to 2015 which is likely attributed to a rebound in hiring and wages post the economic downturn in 2008/2009. Figure 2 lists the
Colorado state minimum wage values for regular and tipped employees respectively. It shows the effective dates with the current year highlighted in yellow.
Figure 2. Colorado State Minimum Wage Per Hour
Effective Date
Minimum
Wage
Tipped
Employee
Minimum Wage
January 1 2020 $12.00 $8.98
January 1 2019 $11.10 $8.08
January 1 2018 $10.20 $7.18
January 1 2017 $9.30 $6.28
January 1 2016 $8.31 $5.29
January 1 2015 $8.23 $5.29
August 8, 1998 $5.15 $2.13
As of January 1, 2017, employers in Colorado should pay
their employees $9.30 per hour under Colorado law.5
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
The historical data (2011-2015) generates an average
Pitkin County annual wage per employee at $50,224.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
This data was sourced from the Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages – Bureau of Labor Statistics by
querying its QWEC database. Average annual wages per employee for any given industry are computed by
dividing total annual wages by annual average employment. A further division by 52 yields average weekly
wages per employee. Annual pay data is only approximate annual earnings, because an individual may not be
employed by the same employer all year or may work for more than one employer at a time.4
Sources: [1] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages (2014). <http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultncur.htm#Wages>. Retrieved July 2016. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment/labor Laws/Minimum Wage via link: <https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdle/minimumwage>. Retrieved July 2017. Graphic of US Median Income Counties <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-
income_counties_in_the_United_States#/media/File:USA_highest_income_counties.PNG>. Retrieved May/July 2016.
$46,020 $48,152 $47,528 $48,932
$59,488
$35,048 $34,944 $36,660 $37,492 $36,660
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Annual Wage Level Per Employee Year
Figure 1. Annual Wage Level Per Employee by Peer County (2011 -2015)
Pitkin Routt Eagle San Miguel Summit
P147II.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
% of Households Housing Cost Burdened (Owners/Renters)
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure is defined as households employed in Pitkin County and APCHA employed households that are housing cost burdened. The US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines housing costs above 30% of one's annual income as housing cost burdened.1
HUD housing costs include rent or mortgage, and PITI+HOA fees. Households are severely cost-burdened when housing costs comprises 50%
or more of gross income.2 From an economic sustainability perspective, disproportionate housing costs can present a burden for the
workforce, households, and individuals which limits spending on other living costs (necessities). APCHA “exists to help people who work within
Pitkin County seeking home ownership or long and short-term rental opportunities, and who would not otherwise have the opportunity to
build a life as part of our community.”3
What does the data/trend say?
The Aspen/Pitkin employee housing program has 2,967 units including those for sale and rent.4 The program applies to full-time employees working in Pitkin County and who
meet the income and asset guidelines. There is an ongoing demand for affordable housing in the Aspen community that exceeds supply. As demonstrated in Figure 1 below,
approximately 20% of owners employed in Pitkin County and 10% of owners employed APCHA households are housing cost burdened. As for rental properties, approximately
28% of Pitkin County employed households and 23% of employed APCHA households are burdened with costs more than 30% of their income.5
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
This data was sourced from the APCHA’s Policy Study (February, 2016), p. 39. The
first series of numbers do not equal 100% due to rounding. Note that there is an
inherent shortage within price-capped markets, including APCHA.
Sources: [1] US Housing & Urban Development website. <http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/comm_planning/affordablehousing>.Retrieved March 2016. [2] Ibid. [3] APCHA website
<http://www.apcha.org/>. Retrieved May / July 2016. [4] Navigate LLC., Rees Consulting, WSW Consulting. Policy Study Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority Affordable Housing Guidelines. p. 41. February 8, 2016. [5] Ibid. [Photo]
Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
81%
90%
72%77%
9%7%14%14%
4%2%5%2%7%1%9%6%
Owners - Employed in Pitkin County*Owners - Employed APCHA Households Renters - Employed in Pitkin County Renters - Employed APCHA Households
Figure 1. Employed Households Housing Cost Burdened -Owners & Renters
Not Cost Burdened (Under 30% of income)Cost Burdened (30%-39% of income)
Cost Burdened (40%-49% of income)Cost Burdened (50% or more of income)
*Numbers do not equal
100% due to rounding P148II.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
Workforce Cost of Commuting by Bus (Compared to Drive Alone Commuting)
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure is the average cost that a typical valley bus commuter would incur as a portion of Pitkin County’s average annual wage. This
measure assumes a 30% discounted pass is purchased. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) bus system provides public transit
between Aspen and Glenwood Springs (and beyond). A large part of the workforce commute to and from work along this corridor every day.
Since basic cost of living is relatively high in the Aspen area, it is important to provide affordable transportation and/or commuting options for
the workforce. Commuting by bus reserves disposable income for other necessities in support of sufficient living standards. It also reduces
traffic and emissions by less personal vehicles which is especially important during peak visitor seasons (winter/summer).
What does the data/trend say?
In these/this figure(s), commuting cost for a round trip flat rate fare to mid-valley was discounted by 30% to account for purchase of a value card.1 Under these assumptions,
the total average cost to commute by bus is $2,100. From 2011-2015, the average annual wage per employee (Pitkin County) increased from $46,020 (2011) to $59,488
(2015).3 Meanwhile, daily bus fares remained the same over the period.2 As depicted in Figure 1, by calculating the ratio between annual commuting cost (discounted) and
annual average wage there appears to be a 1% decrease in the commuting cost burden (ratio) over the period. Figure 2 compares the 2015 commuting cost by bus to the
annual round trip cost for drive alone commuting for Aspen/Carbondale and Aspen/Glenwood Springs routes, respectively.4 The 2015 AAA average of $0.56 per mile was used
for the fuel, maintenance, and insurance costs input in the calculator.5
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by
Council. The historical data (2011-2015)
generates an average cost burden of 4.23%.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Data was sourced from RFTA, the City of Aspen Transportation Department, and the Census (Bureau of Labor Statistics),
respectively. Different assumptions will change the typical commuter cost ratio/comparisons. The annual average wage
(Pitkin County) was used instead of the median household income as believed to be more representative of the
commuter population. However, further study of the “transit dependent” and “choice riders” is necessary to better
understand how commuting costs and other factors such as time saved (avoiding traffic) are best leveraged to increase
ridership.
Sources: [1] RFTA Rate Fares. See emails from M. Yang/D. Johnson (March–July 2016) [2] RFTA / CoA Transportation Department. See emails and meeting notes March – July 2016. [3] Bureau of Labor Statistics. Quarterly Census of
Employment & Wages (2014). <http://www.bls.gov/cew/cewbultncur.htm#Wages>. [4] Commute Cost Calculator, CoA Transportation Department Website/Carpool.
<http://www.rideshareonline.com/commuters/calculator.html>. Retrieved July 2016. [5] AAA. Your Driving Costs. 2013 Edition. p. 2. http://exchange.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Your-Driving-Costs-2013.pdf.Retrieved
July 2016. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
4.56%4.36%4.42%4.29%
3.53%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Burden Rate Annual Commuting Cost Figure 1. Average Commuting Cost & Burden
Based on Value Pass Discount (2011-2015)
Annual Commuting Cost Annual Commuting Cost Burden
$2,100
$10,483
$14,011
$0
$2,500
$5,000
$7,500
$10,000
$12,500
$15,000
$17,500
By Bus (Based on 30%
Discount Attributed to the
Value Card)
By drive alone commuting
(Aspen/Carbondale)
By drive alone commuting
(Aspen/Glenwood
Springs)Commuting Cost Figure 2. Comparative Annual Round Trip Commuting Costs (2015) by
Bus (Carbondale) & Drive Alone Commuting (Roaring Fork Valley)P149II.
WORKFORCE SUPPLY & MATCH
Employer Purchased and Subsidized Zone Bus Passes (By Season)
What is it? Why is it important?
The Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) allows area employers to purchase seasonal zone passes at a significant discount. Employers
then offer these on to their employees for free or at a subsidized rate. In this measure, zone passes purchased by an employer is equated
to passes used. This measure shows the total number of Aspen employers purchasing subsidized zone passes by season. This workforce
benefit encourages employees to both commute to and from work by bus and reduce individual car trips. Additionally, commuting by bus
helps to reduce workforce commuting costs, keeps traffic congestion at a minimum, and reduces air pollution and carbon impacts.
Bussing also helps alleviate demand for parking where spaces in the core are scarce. In addition to subsidized passes, the City of Aspen
has a comprehensive free transit system that provides frequent and convenient service around Aspen.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 below presents data on the total number of businesses purchasing zone passes. It also shows seasonal (winter/summer) zone passes purchased by businesses. While
the total number of employers purchasing zone passes has declined from 2011 to 2015, the total number of seasonal passes steadily increased. The average number of winter
zone passes purchased over the period is 620. The average number of summer passes purchased over the period is 527. From 2011-2015, there was an absolute increase of
passes; 37 in winter and 86 in summer. Meanwhile, there was a decrease in the number of businesses purchasing seasonal zone passes with 100 in 2011 down to 59 in 2015.1
Based on the total number of passes sold over the period, it appears that some businesses (less capacity/employees) ceased to purchase zone passes while those with greater
capacity (larger/more employees) continued to purchase them. Figure 2 shows the number of passes purchased from respective locations in 2015 (January-August).2
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The
historical data (2012-2015) generates an average number of zone
passes purchased by businesses at 1,169 (overall); 628 (winter); and
541 (summer).
Data Sourcing & Considerations
This data was sourced from RFTA and CoA Transportation department, respectively. This represents the
total zone passes sold. The breakdown by location represents 2015 data (Jan-August) and therefore
does not match the 2015 totals represented on Figure 1 (partial numbers?).
Sources: [1] RFTA email from M. Yang. February 23, 2016. [2] COA Transportation Department Emails with L. Rumbaugh. March – July 2016. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
584 622 678 627
476 513
617 558
100
300
500
700
2012 2013 2014 2015Number of PassesFigure 1. Seasonal Pass Type Purchased by Businesses vs.
Number of Businesses Purchasing Zone Passes (2011-
2015)
Winter Seasonal Zone Pass Spring/Summer/Fall Seasonal Zone Pass
82 81 85
58 51
17 13 15
8 10
9 8 5
9
8
6 6 5
6
7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Number of PassesFigure 2. Employer Purchased Punch Passes by Location
Aspen/Woody Creek Snowmass Village
Carbondale/Basalt/El Jebel Glenwood Springs/New Castle/Rifle/Silt
P150II.
121
Social Sustainability
The “social” sphere is an integral part of sustainability. Yet, it
is distinct from the environmental or economic ones. Among
the pillars of sustainability, it is the most difficult to define as
broadly encompassing. The definition below aims to capture
the meaning for communities:
“Social sustainability occurs when the formal and informal
processes, systems, structures and relationships actively
support the capacity of current and future generations to
create healthy and livable communities. Socially sustainable
communities are equitable, diverse, connected and
democratic and provide a good quality of life”.1
When applying this definition, it is important to consider it in
context. For Aspen, this means a celebrated mountain town and international tourist destination. To gain
spatial perspective, see the aerial image of the Aspen area (core) 2 and key demographic indicators below.
1 McKenzie, S. Social Sustainability: Toward Some Definitions, 2004.
l<http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/SmallBusiness/documents/sustainability/SocialSustainabilityTowardsSomeDefinitions.pdf >
2 City of Aspen / GIS / Aerial Map of Aspen
3 “Population and Housing Time series.” Colorado State Demographer’s Office.2015.
<https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/data/muni-pop-housing/>.
4 “Economic Characteristics.” US Census Bureau. 2015.
<https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_DP03&prodType=table>.
ASPEN DEMOGRAPHICS: KEY INDICATORS 3&4
Land area in square miles, 2010 3.87 Permanent Households, 2011- 2015 3,750
Population estimates, July 1 2015 7,099 Persons per household 1.88
Population per square mile, 2010 1,718.6 Median Household Income, 2011-2015 $67,165
Estimated population, peak times 25,000 (+) Median Age 45
Environmental
EconomicSocial
P151
II.
122
The demographic profile above shows the composition and population dynamics. Aspen has 3,269 permanent
households and is also home to many second residences. It is also host of up to 25,000 or more visitors at peak
times of the year (winter/summer months.) The visitor demographic is international, diverse, and prosperous.
The full-time and seasonal resident profiles vary including by age, origin, occupation, longevity, and means.
Aspen has always taken pride in a strong sense of community, well-being, and culture. It has a high standard of
living and offers an exceptional visitor experience. This is consistent with the Aspen Idea of Mind, Body, and
Spirit. Within a social context this means individuals have access to stable jobs, sufficient income, and basic
needs and services. It also means they have a wide range of recreational, leisure, and cultural opportunities
and amenities. Figure 1 is intended as a mosaic of some of Aspen’s most notable community offerings and
events.
Figure 1 – Mosaic of Aspen’s Most Notable Community Offerings
Aspen Pitkin County
Housing Authority
(APCHA) provides 2956
housing units
(rental/owner) to make it
affordable for the
workforce to live in
Aspen.
World Class Ski Resort
The Aspen Skiing Company
(Ski CO) operates the
world-class Aspen /
Snowmass resort complex
comprising 4 ski areas near
the town of Aspen.
Kids First helps make
quality child care
accessible and affordable
for eligible families.
Wheeler Opera House is
historical icon dating back
to 1889. Today it is host to
world famous entertainers
and serves as one of the
town’s cultural focal points.
The Aspen School District
offers a high-quality
education with a
graduation rates
averaging 95%.
Food & Wine Classic in
Aspen is a premier event
where the world's most
accomplished winemakers,
celebrity chefs, and
culinary experts come
together.
Roaring Fork Transit
Authority (RFTA)
provides free or
subsidized bus travel
along the Roaring Fork
corridor each year.
The Aspen Institute is a
non- partisan forum for
values-based leadership
and exchange of ideas. It
gathers some of the
world’s thought leaders to
address complex societal
problems. It is host to the
Ideas Festival each year.
Aspen Recreational
Center (ARC) provides a
range of recreational
opportunities for people
of all ages. This includes
state-of-the-art facilities.
International Music
Festival is regarded as one
of the top classical music
festivals in the US. Founded
in 1949, the festival is
known for its programming
and more than 400 classical
music events.
P152
II.
123
Viewed through a social sustainability lens, it is important to perceive all that Aspen offers its residents and
visitors alike. The above is not a complete picture but it is a tell-tale one.
A range of indicators can help determine the social health and well-being of a place. Key stakeholder groups
first helped identify outcome themes and statements for a sustainable society. These represent
statements of what we will see if Aspen is socially sustainable (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Social Outcome Themes
The specific outcome statements for each these are detailed on the following page. To help gauge
whether the outcomes have been achieved, stakeholders identified potential measures of progress. The
final list of measures included in this report reflects those for which information is available and of a
sufficient quality to use.
For each outcome and each of its associated measures, respective dashboards are included in the
following sections of this report.
ASPEN SOCIAL
SUSTAINABILITY
Education & Lifelong
Learning
Household Financial
Security
Health & Well-being
Public Safety &
Preparedness
Community
Connections
P153
II.
124
•EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
Parents are engaged with their children, and have the skills and support
needed to effectively parent. Children are ready for kindergarten, having
benefited from high-quality childcare settings. They have access to
excellent schools; succeed academically; develop the social and life assets
needed for success and happiness; and graduate ready for college or a
career. After graduation, adults are able to find work in the Valley should
they wish to; have access to continuing professional development
opportunities; and can contribute as the next generation of Aspen
residents.
•HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY
Individuals and families can thrive in Aspen. Workers are able to find
housing options that allow them to live in or near Aspen, without
excessive wait times. Housing that matches the needs of all stages of life,
income and abilities is available. Jobs are available and diverse, and
wages sufficient to support seasonal and permanent workers at an
acceptable quality of life. Housing and job opportunities are well-
communicated (available and known) to job seekers. In times of difficulty,
residents know where and how to access assistance. Local assistance
resources are available.
•HEALTH & WELL-BEING
The balance of mind, body and spirit is exemplified in Aspen. Aspen
residents are active, have healthy life habits and excellent health
outcomes. They have close by access to medical, dental and mental
health services. Prices for care are reasonable in comparison with other
locations. A variety of providers focused on well-being and prevention, as
well as care, are available. Quality of life is high.
•PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
Crime rates are low, and victim supports are available. Public spaces,
commercial areas and neighborhoods do not present major safety
hazards. Further, they are accessible to people of a variety of ages and
abilities. Effective precautions and plans to deal with emergencies or
extreme conditions (such as epidemics, wildfire, climate change, drought
or power outages) are in place. Discrimination and associated violence
against others is rare.
•COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
Residents have a variety of opportunities for nurturing relationships and
spirituality. Choices for community engagement through schools, non -
profits, churches, businesses, and local government are plentiful.
Participation rates in key opportunities are high, across age groups,
income groups and ethnicities. Residents report having supportive
relationships; actively participating in activities of importance to them;
enjoying their community; and taking pride in their community.
SOCIAL
SUSTAINABILITY
OUTCOMES
P154
II.
125
Public education is one of the most important factors for societal outcomes. As consumers of quality
education, families are drawn to places where the standard of education is valued and high. In terms of
sustainability, education supports the availability and development of human capital. This is crucial for
economic and social prosperity and progress.
Aspen aims to provide an encompassing learning environment — one that encourages learning at all
ages. The educational environment also addresses various facets of a learning system: preparation,
quality, support, readiness, engagement, skills, and opportunities.
Preparation & Capacity
Preschool is widely recognized as a telling
factor in educational and social outcomes.
Research shows that children who attend
preschool prior to kindergarten enrollment
have better life outcomes, including college
attendance, higher scores of academic
success, and a lower likelihood of teen
pregnancy.1
Given work schedules and obligations, a
robust education system is supported by
family access to affordable and available
childcare.
1 Databank Indicator. “Preschool and PreKindergarten.” Web. Accessed May 2017. <https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/preschool-and-
prekindergarten/>.
Education
& Lifelong
Learning
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪% of kindergarteners who participated in preschool
▪Licensed childcare capacity for children under 5
▪% 3rd graders reading at grade level
▪% of students with IEPs
▪High school student life readiness
▪% of adults with sufficient access to opportunities to learn
Desired Outcome: Parents are engaged with their children, and have the skills and support needed
to effectively parent. Children are ready for kindergarten, having benefited from high-quality
childcare settings. They have access to excellent schools; succeed academically; develop the social
and life assets needed for success and happiness; and graduate ready for college or a career. After
graduation, adults are able to find work in the Valley should they wish to; have access to continuing
professional development opportunities; and can contribute as the next generation of Aspen
residents.
P155
II.
126
In 1992, Kids First was established to provide quality and
affordable childcare sufficient for the Aspen community. Since
significant portions of family earnings go toward childcare,
Pitkin County childcare cost data is discussed in the sidebar.
Availability of childcare affects caretakers’ abilities to work,
earn income, and provide for other basic needs for their
households. Some parents who have not been able to secure
affordable childcare have identified the need to quit their job,
work alternate hours, and bring their child to work with them.
Total number of childcare spots for Pitkin County programs
are reported to give a sense for area capacity.
The key performance measure that provides perspective on
this area include:
▪ % of kindergarteners who participated in preschool
▪ Licensed childcare capacity for children under 5
Quality & Support
The quality of education and support provided illuminate the
status of social sustainability/education and lifelong learning.
Reading comprehension is another telling indicator of long-term student success. Through the third-
grade level, students are “learning to read.” Further, the ability of third graders to read at grade level is
cited as a relatively accurate predictor of high school graduation. Reading ability is strongly correlated to
other economic outcomes for individuals, including earning potential and general productivity.2
Important to the discussion is education for children with special needs. The proportion of students in
special education in Aspen is higher than in some districts, because the district is known for the quality
of its special education programs. Individualized education plans (IEPs) serve students with special needs
and allow for strategic planning to accommodate learning for every student.
The key performance measures that provide perspective on these areas include:
▪ % of third graders reading at grade level
▪ % of students with individualized education plans (IEPs)
2 “Early Warning! Why Reading by the End of Third Grade Matters” AECF. 2010. <http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-
Early_Warning_Full_Report-2010.pdf>.; see also: http://gradelevelreading.net/uncategorized/study-links-3rd-grade-reading-poverty-and-hs-
graduation.
Cost of Childcare
In 2014, Colorado was ranked the 5th
and 7th least affordable state for center-
based infant and four-year old child
care, respectively.1 In general, a
significant portion of family earnings go
toward childcare. Without affordable
childcare, parents would be limited in
their ability to afford childcare services
and other basic needs for their families.
This is particularly important given the
relative high cost of living in Aspen.
Daily rates averaged overall from 2010
to 2015 show an increase of 3% on
average each year. Rates charged do not
include any applicable financial aid, from
which 109 children in area programs
benefit in some form.3 In 2014, the
average Pitkin County annual infant
childcare rate4 was 33% more costly
than the state average.5
P156
II.
127
Readiness & Opportunity
Aspen is known as a place of quality education
and an educated populace. Quality and life
readiness is often measured by high school
completion rates, as high school completion
enables individuals to better opportunities,
attracting a population that values high quality
education, and improving human capital
resources and productivity in society.
Completion allows individuals to gain access to
better job opportunities and higher incomes, and
is often required for progressing on to higher
education.
The 2016 Aspen High School exit self-assessment survey gives insight into seniors’ feelings of
preparedness for their next step in life. When prompted “I feel Aspen High School has prepared me well
for my next phase in life (work and/or college),” 83.9% agreed or strongly agreed, 11.4% were neutral,
and 4.7% disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement.3
In Aspen in 2015:
96.7% of persons 25 years and older held a high school diploma or higher4
64.5% of residents 25 years and older held a Bachelor's degree or higher3
Opportunity for education extends beyond the typical K-12 or college notions. Adult education is
defined as “activities intentionally designed for bringing about learning among those whose age, social
roles, or self-perception define them as adults.”5
Adults who develop their skills and capacities through further education are known to make greater
contributions to the economy and society. And have greater diversity of thought.6 A variety of means,
3 “Exit survey.” Aspen High School. 2016.
4 US Census Bureau. Educational Attainment. 2015.
<https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_S1501&prodType=table>.
5 Infed. “What is adult education?” YMCA George Williams Colllege. http://infed.org/mobi/what-is-adult-education/
6 “Why is Adult Education important?” AONTIS: The National Adult Learning Association. 5 July 2017.
<http://www.aontas.com/about/whoweare/adedimportant.html>.
P157
II.
128
content, opportunity, and access is important to enable
more adult learning. The key performance measures that
provide perspective on these areas include:
▪ High school student life readiness (hope, social,
and life skills)
▪ % of adults with sufficient access to opportunities
to learn
The measures listed above are presented on the
respective dashboards at the end of the section. Below is
a summary of current / proposed actions that help move
us move toward the outcomes we want for Education &
Lifelong Learning.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
Below is a summary of programs, initiatives, and
recommendations that support Education and Lifelong
Learning outcomes and associated key performance
measures. Note the web links highlighted for each
organization for more detailed information.
Preparation & Capacity
The City of Aspen Kids First Department works to support
families with service programs designed to meet childcare
quality, affordability and capacity. Kids First works in
conjunction with and support of many care facilities and
various other resources and organizations, including:
Current Actions
• Sixteen additional slots for preschool care were added in 2016.
• Colorado State Program for those requiring financial assistance or special needs.
• Headstart in Carbondale offers free pre-school for 3 and 4-year-olds to qualifying families.
• The Colorado Preschool Program (CPP) is a state funded early childhood education program
available in the Aspen School District and Roaring Fork School District. CPP administers programs
for children ages 3 and 4 that may have risk factors for success in school.
• The Colorado Childcare Assistance Program (CCAP) provides child care assistance to families
who are working or seeking employment. It also includes families who are enrolled in the
Colorado Works program and need child care services to support their efforts toward self-
sufficiency. CCCAP provides access to reduced cost child care at licensed child care facilities or
qualified (unlicensed) providers.
Proposed Actions
• Kids First is offering Pyramid Plus training for Pitkin County teachers in the summer of 2017. This
training offers a social and emotional development framework for teachers of infants, toddlers,
and preschoolers and contributes to points toward the Professional Development Information
System.
Parent Engagement
Parent engagement in their children’s
education is shown to be strongly correlated
to better student outcomes.
Southwest Educational Development
Laboratory synthesized research from 51
studies in A New Wave of Evidence. Findings
show that regardless of income and
background, students with involved parents
are more likely to:
▪ Earn higher grades and test scores, and
enroll in higher-level programs
▪ Be promoted, pass their classes and earn
credits
▪ Attend school regularly
▪ Have better social skills, show improved
behavior and adapt well to school
▪ Graduate and go on to post-secondary
education
Source: Center for Public Education.
http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Ma
in-Menu/Public-education/Parent-
Involvement/Parent-Involvement.html
P158
II.
129
• Kids First is engaging stakeholders in a discussion about increasing childcare capacity in the
coming years.
Quality & Support
The Aspen School District aims to enable students to realize their full potential, appreciate the relevance
of their education, be excited to learn, and be empowered for success. The Aspen School District
consists of a Preschool, Elementary School, Middle School, High School, and a Community School. The
District works in conjunction with various other resources and organizations, including:
Current Actions
• The Aspen School District uses STAR Renaissance as a supplemental tool to gauge reading levels
and uses other school districts such as Boulder as a measure of comparison.
• The Colorado Department of Education envisages that all students in Colorado will become
educated and productive citizens capable of succeeding in society, the workforce, and life.
• Aspen Community Foundation (ACF) works to build philanthropy and support non-profit
organizations in the greater Roaring Fork and Colorado River valleys. ACF’s Cradle to Career
Initiative works towards “needle-moving” youth success by way of over a dozen projects and
programs, spanning from support for new mothers to college and career guidance.
• Mountain Valley Developmental Services offers a range of services for individuals who are
developmentally disabled and their families.
• The Roaring Fork School District serves about 5,200 students in the Roaring Fork Valley including
the communities of Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, and Basalt as well as unincorporated areas
of Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin Counties.
• Childfind is a resource for identifying and coordination of services for children ages 0-5 years
that have developmental challenges or special health care needs.
Proposed Actions
• The Aspen School District aims to grow programming, especially technical education pieces
(social media, computer programming etc.).
• The Aspen School District aims to inventory the services available to those with challenges/
disabilities. This will attempt to address how successfully these students are integrated into the
community.
Readiness & Opportunity
Aspen High School promotes critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, academic achievement, ethical
behavior, and meaningful engagement in the community and the world. The High School provides
quality education and encourages life readiness for Aspen students. Colorado Mountain College serves
as a local extension of opportunities to learn into adulthood. These instutitions work together with
other community resources as listed below.
Current Actions
• The Aspen Middle School offers new alternative education pieces to encourage a broader range
of learning and interests.
• The School on the Mountain Initiative allows school staff to visit other school districts and
explore potential change areas.
P159
II.
130
• The Aspen School District employs full time counselors at each school: 1 for 500 students at the
elementary level, 2 for 480 students at the middle school level, and 2 for 570 students at the
high school level. There are 2 counselors dedicated to college counseling.
• The Aspen High School surveys students exiting the school with special emphasis on social and
emotional learning.
• The Aspen Education Foundation is a 501(c)3 fundraising organization that partners with school
administrators and the community to identify and fund in-school or beyond classroom programs
across our five schools. The Foundation has invested in many educational experiences,
including: Outdoor Education, Aeronautics, Performing Arts, International Baccalaureate, and
College Counseling.
• The Aspen Youth Center is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing a safe and supportive
place where youth (grades 4 through 12) can connect, learn, and grow during their out-of-school
hours.
• The Buddy Program offers various mentoring programs to ultimately allow youth to fulfill their
full potential.
• The Colorado Western Slope College Fair provides an annual opportunity for high school
students to visit with over 250 national and international college admissions officers and attend
over 30 workshops.
• The Aspen Citizens Academy is a City-run course offering an in-depth understanding of
government functions and informing participants of opportunities to be civically involved.
• Our Community Listens is a free three-day communication skills course to raise awareness of
communication profiles and core behavioral tendencies of others. The course uses classroom
instruction, experiential activity, and group discussion to explore communication, verbal and
body language, listening, and confrontation.
• Roaring Fork Leadership is an annual leadership development program. The course brings 40
community members through 100+ hours of training and dialogue critical for personal,
professional, and community problem solving and effectiveness.
Proposed Actions
• Aspen High School will begin implementing individualized (specialized) training for interested
students (e.g. computer coding).
P160
II.
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
% of Kindergarteners Who Participated in Some Form of Preschool
What is it? Why is it important?
The percent of kindergarteners who participated in some form of preschool is collected from kindergarten enrollment
forms in the Aspen School District. This includes data from Aspen Elementary and Aspen Community Charter School.
Families have differing day care arrangements, including staying at home with children, enlisting a nanny or family
member for care, or enrolling children in licensed programs, among others. This measure addresses all families who
have utilized some form of pre-school. This can include a child participating for one day to a child participating in
preschool daily, and all options in between. Participation was reported on school registration forms. Research shows
that children who attend preschool prior to kindergarten enrollment have better life outcomes, including higher
college attendance, higher scores of academic success, and lower likelihood of teen pregnancy.1
What does the data/trend say?
The Aspen School District began consistently collecting data on preschool enrollment in 2015. A relatively high
number (96.5% on average in 2015 and 2016) of families reported preschool experience of some form prior to
kindergarten enrollment.2
“Research from a variety of disciplines
concludes that educational outcomes are
strongly associated with what children
experience during their first five years
of life (including whether they are ready
to or have access to adequate health
care, nutrition and housing).”3
Targets
A target for this measure
has not been set by
Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Data is provided by the Aspen School District and includes Aspen Elementary School and Aspen Community Charter School.4 Parents
report on some form of preschool participation upon enrollment into elementary school. Enrollment begins in the spring season prior to
the start of the school year and continues throughout the school year. Data presented here is collected in late October. Historical data is
not included as it was collected at a different time and captured students who enrolled at different points in the enrollment period.
Sources: [1] Child Trends. “Databank Indicator.” 2013. <https://www.childtrends.org/indicators/preschool-and-prekindergarten/>. [2] Childress, Brian. “Kindergarteners who Attended Preschool.” Message to the Author. 23 May
2017. E-Mail. [3] Takanishi, Ruby. “Reconsidering when education begins.” 14 June 2010. <https://www.fcd-us.org/reconsidering-when-education-begins-what-happens-before-kindergarten-matters/>. [4] Childress, Brian. “Data
Considerations.” Message to the author. 23 May 2017. E-Mail. [Photo] City of Aspen Kids First Department. 2016.
95%98%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2015 2016
Figure 1. Aspen School District Kindergarteners who attended
some form of preschool (2015-2016)P161II.
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
Licensed Childcare Capacity for Children Under 5
What is it? Why is it important?
Licensed childcare capacity is the amount of state-regulated center spots available for children under 5 years in Pitkin County.
Pitkin County population counts are used to give a sense for childcare need. However, the demand for licensed childcare in
Pitkin County extends to families who live outside of the county. Many factors impact the need for childcare, including
employment, family instability, single parenting, nonstandard work hours, and part-time work.1 Childcare enables and enhances
parents’ abilities to work, earn income, and provide basic needs for their families. Investment in high-quality child care and early
education strengthens families and creates more productive and livable communities in the long-term.2 Kids First aims to
maintain and increase capacity for local families in need of childcare.
What does the data/trend say?
From 2010 to 2015, children under 5 years old in Pitkin County averaged at 748, while area capacity is averaged at 343 spots (from 2010-2016) (Figure 1).3 This fulfills nearly
half (46%) of the potential need for childcare in the county annually. Similarly, Colorado licensed childcare spots account for roughly 45% of children birth to age 6 with
working parents.4 Figure 2 features local childcare needs and preferences from the 2016 Kids First Survey.5 Of respondents, 65% prefer childcare in licensed centers compared
to the 48% currently served. This may be an indication of an increased need for licensed childcare.
Targets
A target for
this measure
has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Kids First provided childcare capacity data and survey responses, while population counts were sourced from the Kids Count Data Center. Population data
for 2016 is not available as of report publication. In Figure 1, different programs are represented over the years due to changing programs and classrooms.6
Only licensed local childcare spaces for long-term working families are included. Figure 2 totals add up to more than 100% as respondents were allowed
more than 1 answer choice.7 Some answer choices are not featured on graph as they were not applicable to the measure.
Sources: [1] Bianchi, Suzanne M. “Changing Families, Changing Workplaces.” Work and Family. 21.2 (Fall 2011). Web. 6 May 2016. <https://ncfy.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/docs/20204-
Changing_Families_Changing_Workplaces.pdf>. [2] “Unfinished Business.” CED. 2012. Web. 6 May 2016. <http://www.ced.org/pdf/Unfinished-Business.pdf>. [3] City of Aspen Kids First Department [4] “Ensuring Access to High-
Quality Child Care.” Colorado Children’s Campaign. 2017. Web. 6 May 2016. <http://www.coloradokids.org/issues/earlychildhood/ensuring-access/>. [5] City of Aspen Kids First Department [Photo] City of Aspen Kids First
Department. 2016. [6] City of Aspen Kids First Department [7] Ibid.
326 364 344 323 326 337 378
749 759 751 738 751 737
0
200
400
600
800
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Year
Figure 1. Pitkin County Childcare Capacity & Under 5
Population (2010-2016)
Childcare Capacity Under 5 Population in Pitkin County
7%
12%
15%
26%
48%
20%
17%
26%
65%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
At-home licensed provider
Cannot find regular spot
Relatives, neighbors, or friends
Home with parents
Licensed childcare center
Respondent choices (% of total respondents)
Figure 2. Kids First Survey Results on Under 5 Childcare
Needs and Arrangements (2016)
Preferred Needs & Arrangements Current Needs & Arrangements
Respondents: 322;
respondents may choose >1 P162II.
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
% of 3rd Graders Reading at Grade Level
What is it? Why is it important?
The percent of third graders reading at grade level is data collected from annual tests. Given state-mandated changes,
different test instruments are used over the period. Test data is collected at the end of the third-grade school year by the
Aspen School District. Aspen School District includes Aspen Elementary School and Aspen Community School. Reading
comprehension is a widely-used indicator of long-term student success. In the education realm, third grade represents the
change in educational focus from “learning to read” to “reading to learn.” Third grade reading ability is strongly correlated to
other economic outcomes for individuals, including earning potential and general productivity.1
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows that in 2016, 75% of third graders in the Aspen School District were reading at grade level.2 Over the period of 2013-2016, the percentage averages at
76%. State data (not featured) on third grade proficient and advanced reading percentage is measured on a different basis. Between 2012 and 2014, Aspen
consistently scored higher than relative Colorado comparisons at an average of 92% proficient and advanced third graders reading level.3
“Any child who’s not reading fairly well by the
end of third grade is unlikely to graduate high
school. Policy makers note big ramifications
beyond the classroom, too, since poor readers
tend to have more behavioral and social
problems.”4
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by
Council. The historical data (2013-2016)
generates an average rating for third graders
reading at grade level of 75.5% or above.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 1 data is provided by the Aspen School District Director of Curriculum. Demographic breakdowns are not
provided as student group numbers are so small that individual students may become identifiable. There are
discrepancies between the Aspen School District data and Colorado Department of Education data (Figure 1 and data
mentioned in the narrative). Methodology for state data can be found on the Department of Education website.5
Sources: [1] Annie S. Casey Foundation. “Learning to Read-Reading to Learn.” 2010. Web. 2017. <http://www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-Early_Warning_Full_Report-2010.pdf>; see also The Campaign for Grade Level Reading.
“Study Links 3rd Grade Reading, Poverty, and Graduation.” 2017. Web. <http://gradelevelreading.net/uncategorized/study-links-3rd-grade-reading-poverty-and-hs-graduation>. [2] Childress, Brian. “Data Considerations.” Message
to the author. 23 May 2017. E-Mail. [3] Colorado Department of Education. “SchoolView Data Center.” 2017. Web. 2017. <https://edx.cde.state.co.us/SchoolView/DataCenter/>. [4] Robinson, Gail. “What’s so important about 3rd
grade?” 4 March 2016. <http://www.greatschools.org/gk/articles/importance-third-grade-reading/>. [5] Colorado Department of Education. [Photo] Holder, Michelle. 2017.
78%
69%
80%75%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 1. Aspen School District Third Grade
Reading Level (2013-2016)
% of third graders reading at grade level
P163II.
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
Percent of Students with Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
What is it? Why is it important?
“An Individualized Education Program (IEP) is a written statement of the educational program designed to meet a
child’s individual needs.”1 IEPs are federally-mandated for applicable students. The percent of students with
individualized education plans (IEPs) refers to those special needs students with individually developed plans for their
school success, including goals and support needed. The proportion of students in special education is higher in
Aspen than in some districts, because the district is known for the quality of its special education programs.
What does the data/trend say?
From 2011-2016, the percentage of Aspen School District students with IEPs has shown relative consistency around
the average of 11%. Though the percentage varies slightly from year to year, the overall average percent change is
close to 0%. Figure 2 shows the graduation rate for IEP students with the average being 92%. IEP student populations
can fluctuate annually which may contribute to fluctuations in graduation rates.
Targets
A target for this measure has
not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 1 data is provided by the Aspen School District.2 Demographic breakdowns are not provided as student group numbers are so
small that individual students may become identifiable. Figure 2 data is sourced from the Colorado Department of Education
Graduation Statistics.3 Graduation rates only include those who have achieved a degree from the educational institution; those who
have achieved a GED or non-diploma certificate are considered as a “Completer” but may not be considered a graduate.4
Sources: [1] Center for Parent Information Resources. “Short and Sweet IEP Overview.” 2 July 2016. Web. 2017. <http://www.parentcenterhub.org/repository/iep-overview/>. [2] Childress, Brian. “Students with Individualized
Education Plans.” Message to the author. 23 May 2017. E-Mail. [3] “Graduation Statistics.” Colorado Department of Education. 2017. Web. 27 June 2017. <https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/gradratecurrent>. [4] “Graduation
Statistics – Definitions.” Colorado Department of Education. 2017. Web. 27 June 2017. <https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/gradcurrentdefinitions>. [Photo] The Aspen Times. 2016.
13%10%10%11%12%11%0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 1. Aspen School District Students with Individualized
Education Plans (IEPs) (2011-2016)
Percent of students with IEPs Total Average
100%
75%
100%100%92%82%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 2. Aspen School District Students with IEPs
Graduation Rate (2011-2016)
Graduation Rate Total
P164II.
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
High school student life readiness
What is it? Why is it important?
High school student life readiness means a student is prepared academically and socially for life beyond base education. For the purposes
of this measure, high school graduation rates and district ACT scores are represented. High school graduation rates are reported to show
the population of Aspen High School (Pitkin County) students who receive a four-year “on-time” diploma. From 2012-17, Colorado required
students to take the ACT for state college admissions. ACT tests can be taken multiple times and data presented was collected at the end of
the school year. High school completion and college readiness assessments enable individuals to better opportunities, attracting a
population that values high quality education, and improving human capital resources and productivity in society. Successful completion
and competitive exam scores allow individuals to gain access to better job opportunities, and higher incomes, and higher education.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 represents graduation rates for Pitkin County, an averaged compilation of Colorado resort communities (includes Vail/Eagle County; Telluride/San Miguel County),
Colorado, and the United States.1 From 2010 to 2016, Pitkin County graduation rates are 95.1% and completion rates are 96.6% on average. Compared to resort communities
in the state, Pitkin County rates are consistently higher except for 2011 and 2016. Figure 2 shows that on average, Aspen School District (ASD) composite scores are 4.22
points or 12% higher than the state composite average.2 ASD consistently scores higher in each category, historically stronger in English and increasingly stronger in Reading.3
Targets
Targets for this measure have not been set by Council. The
historical data (2010-2016) for Figure 1 generates an average
annual total taxable sales level of $576,888,100 (in 2016
dollars). The target for Figure 1 is to maintain graduation rates
of 95.1% or above. The historical data (2012-2016) for Figure 2
generates an average ACT composite score of 24.8.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Note that Aspen is the only school district within Pitkin County and the terms are used interchangeably.
High school graduation data was sourced from the Colorado Department of Education (CDE). Graduation
rate methodology and demographics can be found annually on the CDE website. Potential drop-outs are
included in the figures. Note that out-of-state communities may define graduation terms differently and
these figures may not be a direct comparison. Figure 2 data is sourced from the Aspen High School Profile
for 2016-17. Reported scores include most of the ASD junior population.4
Sources: [1] “Graduation Statistics.” Colorado Department of Education. Web. 18 February 2016. Web. 2017. <https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdereval/gradcurrent>. [2] “The Aspen High School 2016-2017 Profile.” Aspen High
School. 2017. Web. 2017. <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Gyt-zQN7-ZM3hUMWxqQWpaVXc/view>. [3} Ibid. [4] Ibid. [Photo] The Aspen Times. 2016.
95.1%91.4%95.3%96.7%99.3%95.6%92.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 1. High School Graduation Rate, Pitkin County &
Comparisons (2010-2016)
Pitkin County State of Colorado Eagle County
San Miguel County United States
24.5 24.2 24.7 25.3 25.3
20.6 20.4 20.6 20.7 20.6
0
6
12
18
24
30
36
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 2. Aspen School District Average ACT Scores by
Category (2012-2016)
English Mathematics Reading
Science District Composite State Composite
Total Tested in 2016
District: 144
State: 58,616 P165II.
EDUCATION & LIFELONG LEARNING
% of Adults with Sufficient Access to Opportunities to Learn
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure refers to adults’ perceptions of whether they have sufficient access to learning opportunities. The percent
indicating access to opportunities to learn includes City of Aspen residents who responded to the Annual Citizen Survey. Access
is defined as the ability to participate in learning opportunities. This may be affected by the quantity and quality of facilities,
programs, openings, scheduling, topics/content, and cost. A sustainable education system fosters sufficient quality educational
opportunities for all ages including adults. Adult learning facilitates knowledge, intellectual discourse, and engagement. There
are a number of educational opportunities and offerings in the Aspen Area. These include Colorado Mountain College, the
Aspen Center for Physics, Aspen Institute (Ideas Festival), the Aspen Citizens Academy, Our Community Listens, Roaring Fork
Leadership, and more. Ultimately, such learning opportunities encourage social connection and a culture of enlightenment,
critical thinking, and learning.
What does the data/trend say?
Data has not yet been collected on this measure. A survey question(s) will be included in the upcoming 2017 Aspen Citizen
Survey.
% answering/indicating sufficient/adequate level of access to learning opportunities.
PENDING SURVEY DATA
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Data is sourced from the City of Aspen Citizen Survey. See survey for precise methodology.
Sources: [1] 2017 Aspen Citizen Survey (Forthcoming). [Photo] City of Aspen. P166II.
137
Healthy communities and vibrant economies start with secure households. Whether households can access
and afford necessities determine their social and economic viability. This is a reflection on the standard of
living or “livability” of a place. Both are important for social sustainability.
Household financial security means the ability to
meet basic household needs. There are many
factors that contribute to building or eroding
household financial security.
Some of the these include housing, food,
healthcare, child care and, transportation, among
other things. It is important to understand how
these are interrelated. And their implications for
community and regional economic stability.
Many families are challenged with meeting their
household financial needs. For Aspen’s
permanent households and workforce there is no
exception.
As a resort destination, Aspen is an appealing place to visit and live. The tourist based economy and
residential community offer a wide range of opportunities. There are also relative constraints for
households and workforce members seeking to sustain a living here.
To understand the type and size of households for Aspen a comparative profile is summarized below.
Household
Financial
Security
Income
Housing
Food
Health
Childcare
Transport
Household
Financial
Security
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪Self Sufficiency Wage
▪Household Capability Index
▪Bids per APCHA Ownership Housing Inventory
▪Bids per APCHA Rental Housing Inventory
▪Match in the Housing System
▪Household Economic Assistance
Desired Outcome: Individuals and families can thrive in Aspen. Workers can find housing options that
allow them to live in or near Aspen, without excessive wait times. Housing that matches the needs of
all stages of life, income and abilities is available. Jobs are available and diverse, and wages sufficient
to support seasonal and permanent workers at an acceptable quality of life. Housing and job
opportunities are well-communicated (available and known) to job seekers. In times of difficulty,
residents know where and how to access assistance. Local assistance resources are available.
P167
II.
138
Household & Family Composition
[Full Time Residents] (2015)
Aspen Colorado
Total Households [1] 3,750 2,132,365
Average Household Size 1.88 2.37
Total Family Households [2] 1,261 1,300,972
Average Family Size 2.83 3.14
“60 percent of residential
properties in Pitkin
County, where Aspen is
located, are second or
third homes.”3
Per the State Demographer’s Office data, there are 3,750 households in Aspen. The U.S Census Bureau
data shows that among the households there are 1,261 families with an average size of 2.83 persons per
family.
Regardless of composition, households face challenges when trying to balance their needs. Due to Aspen's
high cost of living, several factors contribute to household viability. This includes employment, housing,
transportation, childcare, and healthcare. Below is a brief discussion of each of these to illuminate further.
Jobs, Income & Wages
There are approximately 3,750 year-round households in Aspen. They
need stable incomes to cover basic household costs. Households
receive income generally through employment wages and benefits. As
a tourist based economy, many of Aspen’s jobs are in the service
industry and seasonal in nature. Maintaining adequate wage levels are
vital especially given the cost of living. The self-sufficiency wage tells
whether families’ incomes are enough to meet basic needs without any
level of assistance. Sufficient incomes enable residents to maintain a
certain standard of living and quality of life.
Housing
Living in satisfactory housing conditions is one of the most important
aspects of people's lives. Housing is essential to meet basic needs,
such as shelter, privacy, and personal space for rest and family.
Housing costs take up a large share of the household budget and
represent the largest expenditure for many individuals and families.
Much of Aspen’s year-round households compete for workforce
housing that meets their needs, especially families.
1 Colorado State Demography Office. Population and Housing Time Series.2017. <https://demography.dola.colorado.gov/population/data/muni-
pop-housing/>.
2 U.S Census Bureau. American FactFinder. 2017.
<https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_S1101&prodType=table>
3 Knight, Wendy. A Place in the Still Wild West. New York Times Great Homes and Destinations.
<http://www.nytimes.com/ref/realestate/greathomes/GH-MtnStates.html>.
P168
II.
139
Healthcare
Affordable healthcare is a necessary offering and helps to ensure a
healthy and thriving community. Medical care is available in the
Aspen area but can be relatively inaccessible due to higher costs.
This includes the cost for health insurance premiums. There is also
relatively limited and proximate providers and specializations. There
is not an abundance of medical clinics to support basic needs
especially among low to moderate households.
Childcare
Childcare is a necessity especially for working households. A
significant portion of family earnings go toward childcare. Childcare
enables and enhances parents’ abilities to work, earn income, and
provide basic needs for their families. This is particularly important
given Aspen’s relatively high cost of living. In 1992, Kids First was
established to provide accessible, affordable, and quality childcare
for the Aspen community. This program aims to maintain and
increase capacity for local families in need of childcare.4 Transportation
A large part of the Aspen workforce commute to and from work
along the Roaring Fork Valley corridor every day. Affordable and
accessible public transportation for working individuals and families
is an important contributor to household financial welfare. Since the
cost of living is relatively high in the Aspen area, it is important to
provide affordable transportation and/or commuting options for the
workforce. Commuting by bus reserves more disposable income for
other necessities.
The key performance measures that offer a relatively good indication of how well the community is
doing in terms of household financial security include:
• Self Sufficiency Wage
• Household Capability Index
• Number of Bids per APCHA Ownership Unit by Category
• Number of Bids per APCHA Rental Unit by Category
• Match in the Housing System (APCHA-Managed)
• Household Economic Assistance
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section. Below
is a summary of current / proposed actions and potential recommendations around these measures.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
Below is a summary of programs, initiatives, and recommendations that support Household Financial
Security outcomes and associated key performance measures. Note the web links highlighted for each
4 Kids First website. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Kids-First>. June 2017.
P169
II.
140
organization for more detailed information.
Workforce Housing
The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) provides affordable workforce housing to full-time
or seasonal employees who could not otherwise afford to own or rent a home in Pitkin County. With
almost 3,000 deed restricted homes under its oversight, APCHA is the largest workforce housing
program relative to population in North America, if not the world. To protect the integrity and
sustainability of workforce housing now and into the future, APCHA has begun the process of
modernizing and streamlining operations and policies.
Current Actions
• APCHA partnered with Real America to develop a 56-unit Low Income Housing Tax Credits
(LIHTC) project called Roaring Fork Apartments in the Town of Basalt (Pitkin County).
• The City of Aspen has negotiated a Developer’s Agreement to form a Public-Private Partnership
(PPP) with Aspen Housing Partners (AHP) for development of approximately 49 affordable rental
housing units in three locations: 802 West Main Street, 517 Park Circle, and 488 Castle Creek
Road.
• APCHA and the City of Aspen’s Community Development Department are working together to
improve public transparency and remove competitive market barriers associated with the
Certificates of Affordable Housing Credits (Housing Credits) market. The Housing Credits
program was created to encourage private sector development of affordable workforce
housing, and to establish it as an option for housing mitigation that would immediately offset
the impacts of development.
• To better inform and serve policy makers, APCHA is working with a team of internal/external
consultant to develop an Interim Database (IDB). The IDB will be used to more effectively
manage and report on the overall performance of the workforce housing system. This will also
translate into faster and more accurate information for users of the system – i.e. buyers, sellers,
and renters.
• APCHA is working to build a new customer-friendly website featuring advanced functionality
and GIS capabilities to better serve and inform the community, decision makers, and interested
parties.
• APCHA has proposed implementing income qualification changes to meet state and federal
standards to make the housing system more transparent, consistent, fair, and easier to
navigate.
• APCHA has proposed implementing an Affordability Standard to improve system-wide equity,
which should also improve affordability for lower category households.
• APCHA continues to work with down valley and regional partners on ways to enhance workforce
housing opportunities.
Proposed Actions
APCHA proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the outcomes and measures:
• Adopting key reform recommendations from the 2016 Policy Study of the Affordable Workforce
Housing Guidelines.
• Creating a Housing Efficiency Reform Strategy (HERS) that will:
o Create a culture of process improvement using the DMAIC model – Define, Measure,
Analyze, Improve, and Control.
o Train and develop staff committed to continuous improvement, including Lean Six Sigma
Green Belt Certification.
P170
II.
141
• Supporting the goal of 100% compliance and proposals to improve compliance and enforcement
capabilities and measures.
Recommendations
APCHA proposes the following recommendation for its workplan, in support of the metrics and
outcomes:
➢ Promote workforce housing market efficiency, transparency, accountability, and
effectiveness through investments in modernization, including process improvement,
information management (database), and supportive policy changes.
➢ Creating a Housing Efficiency Reform Strategy (HERS) that will Develop a pre-
automation/modernization implementation roadmap based on continuous improvement.
➢ Creating a Housing Management Information System (HIMS) that will:
o Increase overall deed restricted market information and transparency for the sake
of the community and its customers.
o Improve deed restricted market efficiencies leading to increased market
transactions and program effectiveness.
o Provide real-time, accurate, and reliable data reporting for today’s and tomorrow’s
decision (policy) makers.
➢ Developing a long-term solution to incentivizing owner/HOA investment in ‘for-sale’
inventory and (dis)incentivizing deferred maintenance and deficient capital reserves.
➢ Supporting policy discussions to seek policy solutions to encourage greater movement of
people within and out of the system as life circumstances and household sizes change.
➢ Hiring a 3rd party to conduct a Housing Inventory Census to help guarantee and protect the
successful implementation and investment in the HERS and HIMS.
➢ Creating a customer portal through its new website into the HIMS.
Childcare
Current Actions
• The Kids First Department is an early childhood resource center that supports quality, affordable
childcare choices in Aspen/Pitkin County. It also provides information about community and
financial support for young children, their families, and early childhood education programs.
• The Rocky Mountain Early Childhood Council provides efficient, community-based infrastructure
to support a state-wide early childhood system. The Council serves four counties: Pitkin, Eagle,
Garfield, and Lake.
• Pitkin County Human Services Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) offers financial
assistance to families with children in licensed child care, public assistance, Child Welfare,
Medicaid.
P171
II.
142
• Eagle County Health and Human Services administers programs such as CCAP, Early Head Start,
prenatal and well child visits.
• Garfield County Social Services administers programs including CCAP, as well as a Women Infant
& Children program offering nutritional supplements for mothers with young children in
financial need.
• Head start in Carbondale offers free pre-school for 3 and 4-year-olds to qualifying families.
• Mountain Family Health Center accepts CHP+ (child health plan plus) affordable health
insurance, Medicaid, medical services on sliding scale.
• The Colorado Department of Education provides information regarding children with special
needs, Colorado Preschool Program, food programs, and more government services.
• The Colorado Division of Childcare provides licensing information, childcare assistance for low-
income families, tax credits, and childcare food programs.
• Colorado Mountain College has an Even Start Family Literacy Program for 2 and 3-year-olds and
parents, income qualified.
Proposed Actions
The City of Aspen/Kids First proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the metrics
and outcomes:
• Engage stakeholders in discussion about increasing licensed childcare spaces in Pitkin County.
Economic Assistance
Pitkin County Public Health (PCPH) & Human Services (PCHS) and the City of Aspen (COA) support
economic assistance in several programmatic areas such as housing, healthcare, childcare, and
transportation. In addition to Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) and Kids First (detailed
above) some of the other programs and initiatives include:
Current Actions
State programs that provide economic assistance include:
• The Colorado Childcare Assistance Program (CCAP) provides child care assistance to families who
are working, searching for employment, or are in training. It also provides support to families who
are enrolled in the Colorado Works program and need child care services to support their efforts
toward self-sufficiency. CCAP provides access to reduced cost child care at licensed child care
facilities or qualified (unlicensed) providers.
• The Colorado Works -Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program is designed to
help needy families achieve self-sufficiency. This includes care for children, job preparation, and
more.
• The Old Age Colorado Pension program provides basic financial and health care assistance for
people who are 60 years or older.
• Health First Colorado (formerly known as Medicaid). This program is to support low-income
families and individuals who have medical care needs.
• The Low Income Energy Assistance Program(LEAP) is for families and individuals with limited
incomes who need help in paying their utility bills. The program is open from November 1
through April 30 and can provide up to $700 to help eligible families with heating costs.
Local programs that provide economic assistance include:
• The Aspen Youth Center is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing a safe and supportive
place where youth can connect, learn, and grow during their out-of-school hours.
P172
II.
143
• PCHS supports adults with disabilities who do not receive Social Security Insurance (SSI). The Aid
to the Blind program is for adults who are legally blind and who do not receive SSI.
• There are several food assistance programs in the county to support low-income individuals and
families including the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), LIFT UP (Aspen Food
pantry), Monthly Box of Food for Qualifying Seniors, the Hunger Free Hotline and The Food Bank
of the Rockies.
Proposed Actions
Pitkin County proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the metrics and outcomes:
• Establish a Benefits Outreach Coordinator (2017-2018) to enroll people who qualify for state and
federal programs and initiatives.
• Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) committed to 200% of the Federal Poverty
Level for Colorado Childcare Assistance Program (CCAP) eligibility (SFY 2018)
• Engage social workers to help relocate seniors avoid eviction and /or appropriate housing.
• Transfer of Pitkin County’s Basalt (Emma Road) office to Mountain Family Health Center for low
income access to high quality, integrated health care services.
• Expand enrollment in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAPS) program to
support seniors, adults, families and children in meeting their food and nutritional needs.
• Perform a detailed (forensic) review of health & human services program(s) subsidies.
Recommendations
Pitkin County Public Health & Human Services proposes the following recommendations for its
workplan, in support of the metrics and outcomes:
➢ Perform a detailed (forensic) review of community-wide social program(s) subsidies
(transportation, health, housing, childcare, etc.) to create a strategic and sustainable plan
for the future subsidies.
P173
II.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY
Self Sufficiency Wage
What is it? Why is it important?
The self-sufficiency wage is the income working adults require to meet their basic needs without assistance of any kind including housing. The
wage (also Standard) assumes that all adults (whether married or single) work full-time and includes the costs associated with employment.1234
This measure looks at the Pitkin County self-sufficiency wage which is established by using regional data, family composition, and other real-
world assumptions including the net effect of taxes and tax credits. The self-sufficiency wage is an important indicator because it gives a sense
as to whether families’ incomes are enough to meet basic needs (e.g. housing, childcare, transportation). In terms of economic and social
sustainability, it is an effective way to measure the economic and social well-being of families in Pitkin County/Aspen area. It gives an
understanding of what wage level is necessary for a family to make it on its own and/or to be self-reliant.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows the Self-Sufficiency Wage for 2 model households; one composed of a single adult and one of a family of four (Two adults, one
school-age, and one preschooler). A family of four saw the sharpest increase in the Self-Sufficiency Standard from $55,958 to $79,894 between
2004 and 2015. This is approximately a 30% increase. Whereas a single adult in Pitkin County saw an increase from $22,214 to $28,051 (20%
increase) for the same period. This data shows that the income working adults require to adequately meet their basic needs without assistance
has been steadily increasing over time with exception of the economic downturn years. Comparatively the Self Sufficiency Wage for a 4-person
family is like that of other resort communities with Pitkin County having the highest (Figure 2).
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The historical data (2004 –
2015) generates an average self-sufficiency wage of $25,697 (One Adult) and
$70,544 (Family of 4).
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The Colorado Center on Law and Policy (CCLP) published the Self Sufficiency Standard for
Colorado in June 2015. Per CCLP, the data in the report is to be updated in 2018. The
report updates semi-regularly such that the data above is every 3-4 years.5 The data
measures and metrics are further described in the report.
Sources: [1] Pierce PhD, Diane M. "Self Sufficiency Standard for Colorado 2015." June 2015. CCLP Online. Ed. Colorado Center on Law and Policy. Web. 1 March 2017. <http://cclponline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/SSS-
FINAL.pdf>. [2] Ibid. 2011. [3] Ibid. 2008. [4] Ibid. 2004. [5] Ibid. [Photo] Colorado Self Sufficiency Standard. 2015.
$22,214 $25,347 $27,177 $28,051
$55,958
$73,914 $72,408 $79,894
$-
$50,000
$100,000
2004 2008 2011 2015
Sufficiency StandardFigure 1. Pitkin County Sufficiency Wage (2004-2015)
One Adult (1) Annual Self-Sufficiency Standard
Two Adults, One Preschooler, One School-Age (4) Annual Self Sufficiency Standard
$79,894 $78,794
$64,865
$78,254
$64,609
$-
$50,000
$100,000
Pitkin Routt Eagle Summit San MiguelSelf Sufficiency Wage County
Figure 2. Sufficiency Wage by County (2015)
[Two Adults, One Preschooler, One School-Age]P174II.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY
Household Capability Index
What is it? Why is it important?
The Household Capability Index (HCI) is a cluster or grouping of measures intended to collectively gauge basic household
capability. The index is made up of three survey questions to be included on the 2017 Citizens Survey. These questions are
designed to get at key household capability areas as relates to meeting food, childcare and housing needs. As a summary
index, the HCI provides a general overview of what [capabilities] a household has as a relative indication of its health. A high
HCI rating means that households have met basic needs and a low means that it has not. From a social sustainability
perspective, a HCI rating closer to the maximum is synonymous with a high quality of life which is an indication of human
prosperity, dignity, and welfare.
What does the data/trend say?
Data has not yet been collected on this measure. A survey question(s) will be included in the upcoming 2017 Aspen Citizen
Survey.
% answering households that could buy high-
quality food to meet needs
% answering households that could afford
high-quality childcare
% answering households that had
adequate housing
PENDING SURVEY RESULTS
PENDING SURVEY RESULTS
PENDING SURVEY RESULTS
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Sources: [1] 2017 Aspen Citizen Survey (Forthcoming).
Prosperity
DignityWelfare
P175II.
HOUSEHOLD FINANICAL SECURITY
Number of Bids per APCHA Ownership Unit by Category
What is it? Why is it important?
Workforce ownership housing refers to housing units available for purchase in the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA). The
Housing Authority was established in 1984 to provide affordable housing for employed community members.1 The ability and timeliness of
individuals and families to find proximate housing impacts the community socially, economically, and environmentally. Workers who
cannot find housing within a reasonable period, budget, and other needs may forego the area in search of a more viable place to live.
What does the data/trend say?
Ownership units are organized and managed by category, which are defined by household income and net assets of prospective buyers.2 The data below depict the total
inventory of APCHA ownership units and the number of bids per available units. Figure 1 shows the total supply of workforce ownership units by category as of June 14, 2017.
Most the APCHA Ownership units were sold at Category 4 (36%), Category 3 (18%), and Category 2 (15%) prices.3 Figure 2 displays the average number of bids per available
ownership unit by category. Since 2005, average bids per ownership unit have decreased overall by 51%. Over that same period, Category 1 and 2 units generally saw the
highest average number of bids, except for 2016. Meanwhile categories 5, 6, 7, and RO generally saw the lowest number of bids.4
Targets
A target for this
measure has not
been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
To simplify data presentation in Figure 2, categories 1-2, 3-4, and 5-RO were grouped together. Figure 2 represents demand for only those units that
became available for sale. Note that many units categorized at RO currently sell at Category 1-7 prices and were placed in their respective categories.
There are also 168 RO units which could not be categorized due to lack of purchase price and/or unit size information provided to APCHA. Note that
prospective owners often bid on more than one unit. Variability of average bids per unit is affected by new available inventory.
Sources: [1] “Housing Guidelines.” APCHA, 2016. Web. Mar. 2016. <http://www.apcha.org/sitepages/pid4.php/>. [2] “APCHA Employee Housing Guideline Tables.” APCHA, Sept. 2015. Web. Mar. 2016.
<http://www.apcha.org/2015FinalAdoptedGuidelinesTables(1).pdf/>. [3] “APCHA Sales.” APCHA. May 2017. [4] "APCHA Sales Activity 2016." 31 December 2016. APCHA.org. <http://www.apcha.org/sitepages/pid77.php>. [5]
APCHA Staff. Inventory distribution. 17 June 2017.
59
250
298
592
51
73
8
168
132
Figure 1 APCHA Ownership Inventory By Category (2017)
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
Category 5
Category 6
Category 7
RO-Category Unknown
RO Category
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Category 5-RO 37 44 11 10 7 3 4 2 1 4 3 10
Category 3-4 40 21 30 24 23 14 9 8 11 17 16 34
Category 1-2 71 24 29 44 16 16 17 33 8 37 27 25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Bids per APCHA Owned UnitFigure 2. Average Number of Bids per APCHA Ownership
Unit by Category (2006-2016)
[*] Bids may only be
made on available units.
Total inventory
as of June 14,
2017: 1,631
units
P176II.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY
Number of Bids per APCHA Rental Unit by Category
What is it? Why is it important?
The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) was established in 1984 to provide desirable, affordable housing for employed
community members and the seasonal workforce. APCHA’s affordable rental housing refers to seasonal and long-term units available for
lease for working households.1 Affordable workforce housing enables Pitkin County and Aspen residents (including temporary ones) to
sustain a viable livelihood. The ability and timeliness of individuals and families to find rental housing impacts the community – socially,
economically, (and environmentally). Workers who cannot find affordable and available seasonal and long-term rental housing may forego
the area in search of a more viable living in another community.
What does the data/trend say?
APCHA rental units are organized by category, which are defined by household income and net assets of prospective renters. APCHA provided total inventory and rental
application and unit data below. Figure 1 shows the total supply of rental units by category as of June 14, 2017, Category 2 (42%) and Category 3 units (31%) comprise most
the APCHA rental inventory.2 From 2014 to 2016, the average number of applicants per available deed restricted rental unit increased in all three groupings at 60% (Category
1-2), 13% (Category 3-4), and 29% (Category RO) (Figure 2).3
Targets
A target for this
measure has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
To simplify data presentation in Figure 2, categories 1-2 and 3-4 were grouped together. Figure 2 data represents demand for only APCHA-
managed property units when they become available. Aspen Country Inn and Truscott properties are included in 2014-2016 data and Smuggler
Mountain units are also included in the 2016 data.4 Note that many units categorized at RO currently rent at Category 1-4 prices and were placed
in their respective categories. There are also 170 RO units which could not be categorized due to lack of rental price information provided to
APCHA.5 Note that prospective renters often apply for more than one unit. Variability of applications per unit is also based on unit availability.
Sources: [1] “Housing Guidelines.” APCHA, 2016. Web. Mar. 2016. <http://www.apcha.org/sitepages/pid4.php/>. [2] APCHA Staff. “Inventory distribution.” June 2017. [3] “Applications per Available Unit.” APCHA. April. 2017. [4]
Ibid. [5] “Inventory Distribution.” [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
148
553
416
37
1
170
Figure 1. APCHA-Managed Rental Inventory By Category
(2017)
Category 1
Category 2
Category 3
Category 4
RO Category
RO- Category Unknown 2014 2015 2016
Category 1-2 24 33 48
Category 3-4 22 37 25
Category RO 27 28 36Average Aplications Per (1) Rental UnitFigure 2. Average Number of Applications Per Available
APCHA-Managed Rental Unit by Category (2014-2016)
Total inventory as
of June 14, 2017:
1325 units
P177II.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY
Match within the Housing System (APCHA-Managed)
What is it? Why is it important?
Match within the housing system means the capacity to match households needs to the available housing stock. This measure uses the
APCHA managed inventory as a proxy to represent relative opportunity to transfer to other units within the system. It uses both the total
number of requests for transfer, as well as, those successfully placed per year. The possibility of securing a unit that meets needs is
especially important as household requirements change and families grow. Household preferences may not always be satisfied because
of lack of opportunities in the housing stock and due to income constraints, which limit choices. In terms of social sustainability, and
specifically household security, housing availability and quality has serious implications for economic and social well-being, quality of life,
and thereby workforce stability.
What does the data/trend say?
In sum, the data shows that ownership and rental unit transfer requests and placements have risen in the period from 2012-2016. From
2012 to 2016 the average annual transfer requests for ownership units was 10 in relationship to an average inventory of 1631 units
(Figure 1).1 During the same period the average annual transfer requests for rental units was 7 in relationship to an average APCHA
Managed Rental Inventory of 356 units (Figure 2).2 This indicates the relative mobility capacity, and constraints within the housing
system to meet potential needs as family or personal circumstances change.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The APCHA Deed Restricted In-Complex Eligible include properties that allow for the right to request and in-complex priority.3 If
people are moving from a smaller to a larger project this is not captured. This is considered a transfer but does address household
size. In a considerable number of cases the people who request a transfer are offered a unit within the category they want but
decline to move for a variety of reasons.4 It is important to note that transfers requests can only be made when a unit becomes
available. For long-term rental or ownership units, availability may be limited.
Sources: [1] APCHA Staff. Ownership Inventory Transfers. 12 May 2017. [2] APCHA Staff. “Rental Transfer List.” June 2017. Microsoft Excel File. [3] APCHA Staff. “Ownership Inventory Transfers.” 12 May 2017. [4] Ibid. [Image]
3
10
18
8
10
3
8
10
4 4
0
5
10
15
20
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Transfer Requests & PlacementsFigure 1. APCHA Deed Restricted Ownership Properties:
Transfer Requests & Placements (2012-2016)
Formal requests for transfer w/in the system
Successful transfers/placements APCHA Deed Restricted
Ownership Inventory -
1631 Units (June, 2017)
2
4 5
7
15
1
3 4
6 7
0
5
10
15
20
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Transfer Requests & PlacementsFigure 2. APCHA-Managed Rental
Transfer Requests & Placements (2012-2016)
Formal requests for transfer w/in the system
Successful transfers/placements
APCHA-Managed
Rental Inventory -
356 Units (June, 2017) P178II.
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL SECURITY
Percent of Households Receiving Economic Assistance (By Type)
What is it? Why is it important?
Household economic assistance provides aid for those in need. There are distinct types of assistance programs that help with affordable housing,
childcare, medical/healthcare, food support, and more. Assistance programs are often aimed at qualifying low to moderate income families,
seniors and the disabled. This measure looks at the types of assistance available as a percentage of total Pitkin/Aspen households respectively.
Household economic assistance can be an element of economic and social sustainability as it contributes to household financial security and by
extension social stability and welfare.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows that Pitkin County and Aspen APCHA housing/childcare assistance have remained relatively stable from 2012 to 2015.123 In Pitkin County housing assistance is
afforded to approximately 38% of the households while for Aspen it is afforded to approximately 65%.4 Childcare assistance represents approximately 1% of households at the
county level with 2% at the city level. Figure 3. data shows that the Pitkin County combined Medicaid and Children’s Health Plan Plus (CHP+) population, that is Eligible but
Not Enrolled (EBNE), is significantly higher than the State.5 Approximately 12% of the Pitkin County and 54% of Colorado residents are eligible for Food Stamps (SNAP).
FIGURE 2. MEDICAID5/SNAPs6/MEDICARE7 (2017)
COLORADO PITKIN
MEDICARE 654,040
(12%)
1,908
(10.7%)
MEDICAID (HEALTH FIRST
COLORADO) + CHP+
Eligible Not Enrolled
129,500
(9.5%)
592
(27.4%)
MEDICAID (HEALTH FIRST
COLORADO) + CHP+
1,233,145
1,570
SUPPLEMENTAL
NUTIRITIONAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(SNAPS) Population
Enrolled
54%
12%
[*] The average median household income for seniors
in the Mountain Resort Sub Areas are respectively
$56,375 (age 65-74) and $32,324 (age 75+).8
Targets
A target for this measure has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 1 data is based on the total number of households. Medicaid data and Children’s Health Plan Plus (CHP+) is only available
for Pitkin County in 2015. Due to provider and jurisdictional boundaries CPP+ECARE and CCCAP numbers are attributed only to
Pitkin County. Medicaid and CHP+ eligible-but-not-enrolled (EBNE) data includes only non-elderly population (65+).
Sources: [1] APCHA. ”Units.” 2017. [2] “About the Colorado Preschool Program.” Colorado Department of Education. 30 March 2017. <http://www.cde.state.co.us/cpp/facts>. [3] Kids First. Childhood Assistance 2016. [4] U.S.
Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. City of Aspen and Pitkin County, 2015. Web. <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none>. [5] Sundeen, Nan. “Medicaid Target and EBNE.”
Message to the author. 30 June 2017. E-Mail. See also: “Colorado’s Eligible but Not Enrolled.” Colorado Health Institute. 2017. <http://www.coloradohealthinstitute.org/research/colorados-eligible-not-enrolled>. [6] Hunger Free
Colorado. “Pitkin County – 2017 SNAP Impact Report.pdf.” 2017. <https://www.hungerfreecolorado.org/impact-reports/>. [7] “Medicare Enrollees.” Colorado Heath Institute. 2017.
<http://www.coloradohealthinstitute.org/data/medicare-enrollees>. [8] The Highland Group, Inc. Housing and Care Facility Needs Forecast, Gaps, and Opportunities: State of Colorado and Five Sub-Areas. Boulder: Strategic Action
Planning Group on Aging, 2016. Web. <https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/SAPGA%20Housing%20Report%20Highland%20Group%20FINAL%20BINDER%20August%2022%202016.pdf May 2017>. [Photo]
Courtesy of National Council on Aging. <https://www.ncoa.org/economic-security/money-management/scams-security/top-10-scams-targeting-seniors/>.
2,828=38%2,919=39%
85=1%115=2%
2017=64%2166=66%
50=2%
70=2%
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
Assistance LevelFigure 1. Pitkin County and Aspen Household Economic Assistance (2012 & 2015)
Pitkin Workforce Housing Pitkin Childcare Assistance Pitkin Households without Assistance
Aspen Workforce Housing Aspen Childcare Assistance Aspen Households without Assistance
Pitkin Households: 7347
Aspen Households: 3244
Pitkin Households: 7570
Aspen Households: 3269
2012 2015
P179II.
150
A healthy community begins with a healthy citizenry. While varied definitions exist, one similar tenet
persists: health and well-being encompass a person’s holistic palette of health.
With respect to social sustainability,
health and well-being means the
physical, emotional, psychological, and
spiritual aspects of individual and
community wellness. Like these pieces
combine to display a whole view of
health, so do the factors that
contribute to it.
This includes a variety of facilities,
practitioners, organizations, social
groups, parks, trails, open space, and
culture. These coalesce to support a
robust and informal infrastructure for a
healthy community.
A community’s health and wellness can directly impact the social sustainability of a place. For example,
a robust natural environment paired with alternative wellness-related facilities provides the means for a
more active and healthy population. Alongside, a strong medical health infrastructure may support
more positive health outcomes, leading to and including lower disease rates. Even more, a larger market
and variety of health practitioners may encourage lower costs and less financial burden on households
and better quality of life.
Health &
Well-Being
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪Relative household health care cost burden
▪Availability of providers within 20 and 45 miles of Aspen
▪Leading health indicators
▪Prevalence and risk of health conditions
▪Percent of residents indicating their household is able to provide for its
health care needs
Desired Outcome: The balance of mind, body and spirit is exemplified in Aspen. Aspen residents are
active, have healthy life habits and excellent health outcomes. They have close by access to medical,
dental and mental health services. Prices for care are reasonable in comparison with other locations.
A variety of providers focused on well-being and prevention, as well as care, are available. Quality of
life is high.
Aspen Health
& Well-Being
Prevention
Habits
Active
Access Cost
Providers
Outcomes
P180
II.
151
As with many themes in sustainability, the health and well-being system of a place is a self-reinforcing
one. A population immersed in health and activity creates a level of demand for relevant and related
practices surrounding basic healthcare, nutrition, therapy and healing arts, and more. An adequate
supply of wellness-centered businesses, organizations, and social groups insists on a culture of
prevention, treatment, and healthy lifestyle practices.
Health and Well-Being in Aspen
Aspen’s treasured natural environment serves as a gateway to a
healthy living culture that enhances the health and well-being
of the community and surrounding area. The geographic
location is primed for easy access to outdoor recreation, from
winter sports like skiing and snow shoeing to summer activities
like biking, climbing, and hiking, the community thrives as a
place for wellness.
This notion of a community promoting health and well-being
presents itself in the community visioning Aspen Area
Community Plan guidance document.1
Accessibility: Availability & Cost
Integral to the discussion is access to health and well-being in
terms of availability and cost. Aspen’s natural landscape offers
many active recreation opportunities that are free to access.
Though less accessible from a cost perspective, well-being
opportunities are available, including physicians, physical
therapists, fitness and recreation centers, and yoga studios,
among others.
Provider accessibility is an issue in many places other than
metropolitan areas. Whether citizens can access quality care
within reasonable distance is an important factor in a
community’s and individual’s health and well-being. Further,
those providers’ willingness to accept public insurance
programs is yet another value added to a healthy community.
Individuals and Community
A complete approach to community health and well-being examines individual health in tandem with
community health. Measures tracking both provide glimpses into these distinct levels of wellness.
1 City of Aspen. “Aspen Area Community” City of Aspen. Aspen Area Community Plan. 27 Feb 2012. Web. 2017.
<http://www.apcha.org/FINAL_AACP_2272012_reduced.pdf>.
Aligning Community Vision
As part of the visioning process for the
community, the Aspen Area Community
Plan crafted statements around a
citizen’s quality of life: the Lifelong
Aspenite.
The plan highlights the following vision
for the Lifelong Aspenite: “We will
strengthen the quality of life and well-
being for all people in our community by
providing or promoting opportunities in
housing, jobs and access to services, such
as education, public safety and health
through all phases of life.”
Speaking specifically to health and well-
being, the plan states that “we must
encourage the highest level of personal
health for everyone in our community
through programs that encourage
healthy lifestyles, reduce risks and create
access to quality health care regardless of
age, income or ability. Local and regional
public health agencies, local boards of
health, providers and non-profits must
work together to ensure community-wide
access to a comprehensive set of health
services.”
P181
II.
152
The key performance measures that offer an indication of the Aspen community’s health and well-being
include:
• Relative household health care cost burden
• Availability of providers within 20 and 45 miles of Aspen
• Leading health indicators
• Prevalence and risk of health conditions
• Percent of residents indicating their household is able to provide for its health care needs
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section. Below
is a summary of current / proposed actions that help move us move toward the outcomes we want for
Health & Well-Being.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
Below is a summary of programs, initiatives, and recommendations that support Health & Well-Being
outcomes and associated key performance measures. Note the web links highlighted for each
organization for more detailed information.
The Pitkin County Human Services Department (HHS) works to ensure that people thrive within the
vibrant, safe and healthy community that is Pitkin County. HHS works in conjunction with and support of
many other groups and organizations, including:
Current Actions
• The Valley Health Alliance (VHA) is a not-for-profit organization composed of the five largest
self-funded employers in the Roaring Fork Valley focused on improving access to quality care,
population health management and reduce waste in the healthcare system. VHA publishes the
VHA Scorecard which provides health plan data of its members.
• The Aspen Valley Hospital is a twenty-five-bed community hospital in Aspen that aims to deliver
extraordinary healthcare in an environment of excellence, compassion, and trust.
• Community Health Services, Inc. (CHS) is a private non-profit organization that contracts with
the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Pitkin County and the City of Aspen
to provide public health services to the residents, employees and visitors to Pitkin County and
the Roaring Fork Valley.
• Aspen City of Wellbeing (ACW) is an initiative to connect community and build wellbeing in
Aspen and beyond. ACW uses data to measure wellness in the community and prioritize efforts
accordingly. ACW sponsors several workplace wellness programs.
o The City of Aspen Desk Relief Yoga is an on-site yoga wellness program available
internally to City employees.
• Several employers offer annual wellness fairs where employees and their dependents can
receive free screenings, shots, blood tests, skin checks, and more.
• The City of Aspen offers a wellness nutritionist internally to City employees to gain a better
understanding of their personal wellness and advice on how to achieve their optimum health.
• Programs in place to support mental health include:
o Aspen Hope Center
o Mind Springs Health Center
P182
II.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Relative Household Health Care Cost Burden
What is it? Why is it important?
Relative household health care cost burden refers to health insurance premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximum costs for Valley
Health Alliance (VHA) network employees and dependents. The VHA is a partnership between the five largest self-insured employers to promote
health and well-being by collaborating to provide healthcare that is accessible, affordable, and high quality.1 Premiums include only employee
payroll contributions toward health insurance coverage. Deductibles represent the maximum deductible for the individual or family category.
VHA network data is used as a suitable proxy for broader area cost data that is not currently available. Annual wage data is that of Pitkin County.
Tracking health care costs is important to show how accessible and affordable health care is to employees and employers in Aspen. Affordable
quality health insurance is a significant element of the cost burden and ultimately contributes to health and wellness outcomes for individuals
and the community.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows the composite annualized costs of premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket maximums for VHA network plans, broken out by individual and family costs. On
average, family premiums are more than seven times higher than those of individuals. Family deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums are roughly twice as high as those of
individuals. Figure 2 shows premium and deductible costs of each VHA employer as a percentage of the 2017 Pitkin County annual wage.2 In 2017, Aspen Skiing Company had
the highest premium and deductible costs accounting for 8.5% of the average wage. Aspen School District had the lowest cost at 1.1%. Pitkin County covers the cost of
employee annual premiums.
Targets
A target for this
measure has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
All cost data was sourced from the VHA for the period of September 2016 to February 2017.3 VHA cost data includes medical and prescription costs
only. Vision and dental are excluded. Other costs associated with health care (e.g. costs outside of coverage, transportation) are not represented in
these figures.4 Costs are considered “in-network costs.” Note that employer plans are unique and the member count in each network (including
dependents) differ.5 This may explain some of the cost differential between employers due to an economy of scale in health care plans.
Sources: [1] “Our Mission and Vision.” Valley Health Alliance. Web. May 2016. <http://www.ourvha.org/our-mission-and-vision/>. [2] “County Employment and Wages in Colorado- Fourth Quarter 2016.” Mountain Plains
Information Office, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2017. Web. 2017.< https://www.bls.gov/regions/mountain-plains/news-release/countyemploymentandwages_colorado.htm>. [3] "Benchmarking." Lockton Companies. 2017. PDF. [4]
City of Aspen Human Resources Department. “Insurance costs for major employers.” June 2017. [5] Ibid. [Photo] Holder, Michelle. 2016.
Average
Individual
Premium
Average
Individual
Deductible
Average
Individual
Out-of-
Pocket Max
Average
Family
Premium
Average
Family
Deductible
Average
Family Out-
of-Pocket
Max
Costs $1,185 $1,100 $5,010 $8,754 $2,400 $9,690
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
Figure 1. Valley Health Alliance Profile: Annual Average
Health Care Component Costs (2017)
$2,844 $2,016
$467 $600
$2,000
$500
$1,500
$1,500
8.5%
4.4%
3.5%
2.6%
1.1%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
Aspen Skiing
Company
Aspen Valley
Hospital
City of Aspen Pitkin County Aspen School
District
Figure 2. Valley Health Alliance Health Care Cost Burden by
Major Employer (2017)
Annual Premium Deductible % of Employee Wage
Pitkin County
Annual Wage
P183II.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Availability of Providers within 20 and 45 Miles of Aspen
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure refers to medical health care providers of various specializations within a 20 and 45-mile range of Aspen. Providers include
only those at major care centers, including the Aspen Valley Hospital, Mountain Family Care Center (Basalt & Glenwood), Willits Care
Center, and Valley View Hospital as a proxy for the entire population of providers in the valley. Ranges are defined by physical
address/location. Providers are categorized by specialty or discipline, chosen based on amount spent within the City of Aspen network.
This measure further identifies those providers willing to accept some form of public insurance programs (Medicare/Medicaid). The
availability of providers gives a sense for provider availability and accessibility and the associated health care and well-being that this
enables.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 data shows there is a variety of provider availability within range of the City of Aspen.123 Oncologists are the top used physician within the City of Aspen network and
yet are limited with six providers in the 20 and 45-mile range. Family practitioners, anesthesiologists, and orthopedic surgeons are more prevalent within distance of Aspen
with more than double the number of providers in the larger distance range. Figure 2 shows the significantly lower number of providers who accept any form of public
insurance.4 For example, within the 20-mile range of Aspen, it appears that at least two specialist areas do accept public health insurance.
Targets
There is currently no target for this
measure.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 1 data was sourced from online websites of the Aspen Valley Hospital, Mountain Family Care Center (Basalt & Glenwood), and
the Valley View Provider network. This includes the Willits Care Center and Glenwood Springs Valley View Hospital. Data only represents
those providers available within these major institutions as a proxy for comprehensive provider data which is difficult to track. Figure 2
data was sourced from Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. This data may be incomplete. Figure 2 providers
accept some form of Medicaid and/or Medicare; data was sourced in May 2017 and is updated monthly.5
Sources: [1] “Find-A-Doctor.” Aspen Valley Hospital. 2017. Web. May 2017. <http://www.aspenvalleyhospital.org/Find-A-Doctor>. [2] “Physician Directory.” Valley View Provider Network. 2017. Web. May 2017.
<http://www.vvh.org/directory/?search=&tshowcase-categories=>. [3] “Meet Our Providers.” Mountain Family Health Center. 2017. Web. 2017. <https://www.mountainfamily.org/about-us/meet-our-providers/>. [4] “Find a
Doctor.” Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. May 2017. Web. May 2017. <https://www.colorado.gov/hcpf/find-doctor>. [5] Ibid [Logos] Respective websites. 2017.
10
4
9
8
2
15
10
31
15
6
0 10 20 30 40
Orthopedic surgeon
Gynecologist
Family practitioner
Anesthesiologist
Oncologist
Provider SpecialtyFigure 1. Availability of Providers Within Range
of Aspen at Major Care Centers
Providers within 45 mile radius Providers within 20 mile radius
Data includes only
providers in major
care centers 2
0
6
8
0
6
19
18
2
0 10 20 30 40
Orthopedic surgeon
Gynecologist
Family practitioner
Anesthesiologist
Oncologist
Provider specialtyFigure 2. Availability of Providers Within Range of Aspen
Accepting Some Form of Public Health Insurance
Providers within 45 mile radius Providers within 20 mile radius
Data obtained from
Colorado Department
of Health Care Policy
P184II.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Leading health indicators
What is it? Why is it important?
Leading (prevalent) health indicators are those medical conditions that serve as signs for more serious health outcomes. For this measure,
the leading causes of mortality in Pitkin County are used as a proxy for more generalized indicator data which is not readily available.
Leading causes are determined by the mortality that occurred within Pitkin County from 2013-2015 per 100,000 people. Injury
hospitalizations per 100,000 are also provided for the period to provide context for health indicators. The leading causes of death and injury
are determined by the Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Health indicators are important to track to effectively plan
appropriate preventative health care measures and services.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows the leading causes of mortality per 100,000 people in Pitkin County and Colorado. Malignant neoplasms (72), heart disease (49), and unintentional injuries (32)
rank highest in Pitkin County over the period.1 These top three causes correlate with the top three for the State of Colorado with 138, 126, and 47, respectively. Suicide is the
fourth leading cause in Pitkin County at 25, while it ranks at number 7 on the state list (20). Unlike the State, diabetes mellitus (rank 8 in Colorado; 16 in Pitkin County) and
influenza and pneumonia (rank 10 in Colorado; 12 in Pitkin County) do not comprise any figures on the Pitkin County leading causes list. Figure 2 shows the incidence of Injury
Hospitalizations in Pitkin County and Colorado per 100,000 people. The leading cause of Injury Hospitalizations is Falls at 187 in Pitkin County and 241 in Colorado.2
Figure 2. Injury Hospitalizations
Per 100,000 (2014)
Cause
Pitkin
County
Colorado
Motor Vehicle 27 54
Falls 187 241
Poisoning 6 30
Suicide/
Self-Inflicted
10 49
Other Road
Vehicle Crashes
48 16
Targets
A target for this measure has not
been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Rankings for leading causes of mortality are based on standard categories as used by the CDC/National Center for Health Statistics.5 Data
is available via the Vital Statistics Program of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. State data represented on the
graph only includes those eight categories that overlap with Pitkin County. Complete county and state data is available per the Colorado
Department of Health and Environment.6
Sources: [1] “Leading Causes of Death Quick Report.” Colorado Department of Health and Environment. Web. June 2017. <http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/cohid/topics.aspx?q=Death_Data >. [2] "Injury Hospitalizations."
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 2014. Colorado Health Information Dataset. 2017. <http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/cohid/topics.aspx?q=Injury_Hospitalizations>. [3] Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment. "Cancer Incidence Data." 2012. Colorado Health Information Dataset. 2017. <http://www.chd.dphe.state.co.us/cohid/topics.aspx?q=Cancer_Incidence_Data>. [4] Sabella, Jordana. “Data for Health and
Wellbeing Dashboard.” Message to the author. 14 June 2017. E-Mail. [5] “Leading Causes of Death Quick Report.” [6] Ibid. [Photo] The Aspen Times. 2016.
6 10 13 15 25 32
49
72
3
45
27 32
20
47
126
138
0
25
50
75
100
125
150
Perinatal period
conditions
Chronic lower
respiratory
diseases
Alzheimers
disease
Cerebrovascular
diseases
Suicide Unintentional
injuries
Heart disease Malignant
neoplasmsNumber of Deaths Per 100,000Leading Causes of Mortality by Residence
Figure 1. Leading Causes of Mortality in Pitkin County
& Colorado Per 100,000 (2013-2015)
Pitkin Mortality Rate Colorado Mortality Rate
Heart Disease Hospitalizations
per 100,000 (2012-2014)4
Pitkin County: 1090.5
Cancer Rates per 100,000
(2010-2012)3
Pitkin County: 287.5
Colorado: 417.4
P185II.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
Prevalence and Risk of Health Conditions
What is it? Why is it important?
The prevalence and risk of health conditions indicates the most common health issues and concerns for Pitkin County. Data from the Valley
Health Alliance (VHA) major employers serves as a relative proxy for the prevalence of conditions within the area. Knowing the prevalence of
the most common conditions and illnesses provides a view of what the primary health risks are for the community and its citizenry. It helps
determine whether the health care system has the capacity and capability (e.g. facilities, providers, programs, and resources) in place to help
prevent, treat, and or support those conditions and illnesses. From a social sustainability perspective, a high standard of care is a strong
indication of community and individual health and well-being.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows the top health conditions of the VHA major employers. The most common of these conditions are high cholesterol (18%), high blood pressure (13%), pain
conditions (arthritis [18%], broken bones [16%], and chronic back pain [12%]), and asthma (12%).1 More serious conditions such as diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and stroke
are less common. Figure 2 data shows the percent of the studied population that is at-risk, not at-risk, and currently has the condition.2 Within the VHA employer networks,
the conditions with the highest at-risk populations are Poor Nutrition (47%) and Obesity (46%).3 Note that the population who has these conditions present are relatively low
with the highest incidences in the Poor Fitness category (6%).
Targets
A target for this measure has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 1 and 2 data includes reported condition data from Valley Health Alliance employers (Aspen School District, Aspen Valley
Hospital, Aspen Skiing Company, Pitkin County, and the City of Aspen). Note that conditions can be interrelated and individuals may
have more than one condition. Due to availability of data, Figures 1 and 2 only include data from September 2016 to February 2017.
Data is provided from employees’ health care providers. Data includes employee and dependent data. Note that the percentage of
at-risk population for the Figure 2 dimensions are higher for the State of Colorado and United States as a whole.4
Sources: [1] "Valley Health Alliance Grouped Admin Report." Valley Health Alliance. PDF Document. 2017. [2] Aspen Human Resources Department. “Chronic Illnesses/Conditions Discussion.” 27 June 27, 2017. [3] “Valley Health
Alliance Grouped Admin Report.” [4] “Chronic Illnesses/Conditions Discussion.” [Photo] Valley Health Alliance. 2015.
18%
13%
18%
16%
12%12%
4%5%
1%2%
5%
1%1%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Figure 1. Valley Health Alliance Prevalence of
Top Health Conditions (2016-2017)
1%1%4%1%6%1%
23%31%28%
46%47%24%21%
77%68%71%
50%52%
70%78%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Heart Diabetes Cancer Obesity Nutrition Fitness Mental
Health
Condition
Figure 2. Valley Health Alliance Health &
Wellness Scores (2016-2017)
Condition Present At-Risk Not At-Risk
P186II.
HEALTH & WELL-BEING
% Indicating Household Has Ability to Provide for Its Health Care Needs
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure aims to gauge the ability of households to care for their health care needs. The percent indicating
households can provide for their health care needs includes City of Aspen residents who responded to the Annual
Citizen Survey. Health care needs includes health insurance premiums, unexpected costs, co-pay costs, and extra
costs, such as prescriptions.
What does the data/trend say?
Data has not yet been collected on this measure. A survey question(s) will be included in the upcoming 2017 Aspen
Citizen Survey.
% answering/indicating ability of household to provide for its health care needs.
PENDING SURVEY DATA
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Data is sourced from the City of Aspen Citizen Survey. See survey for precise methodology.
Sources: [1] 2017 Aspen Citizen Survey (Forthcoming). [Graph] Staff team. 2017.
Health
insurance
premiums
Extra costs
(e.g. Rx)
Unexpected
costs
Co-pay
costs
P187II.
158
Vulnerability of any kind has a significant impact on people’s lives and well-being. This includes crime,
abuse, neglect, domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, and homelessness. It also involves
emergencies and disasters that may strike at any time. Safety and preparedness are core elements of
social sustainability and community resilience.
Public Safety & Crime
Crimes of any kind are destructive to the fabric of an individual’s life and that of a community. The
presence of crime makes people feel unsafe and at risk. Perception of one’s safety in their home,
neighborhood, and community is as important as crime itself. The 2016 Aspen Citizen Survey gives a
sense of how community members feel about public safety and community policing.
Aspen Citizen Survey
(2016)
“As in 2015, almost all
Aspen voters in 2016
were very or somewhat
confident in the City’s
police officers’ abilities
to treat all people fairly,
treat and handle
suspects and enforce the
law. These ratings
remained stable
between the two survey
iterations.”1
1 City of Aspen Citizen Survey. “Feelings of Safety in Aspen Compared Over Time.” 2016. p. 6.
Public Safety &
Preparedness
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪Crime Rates by Type
▪Abuse & Neglect Rates by Type
▪% Police cases involving mental illness and substance abuse
▪Incidence of Homelessness
▪% of acres of Wildland Urban Interface deemed as high wildfire risk
▪Qualitative Assessment of Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness
▪Public Space Accessibility
Desired Outcome: Crime rates are low, and victim supports are available. Public spaces, commercial
areas and neighborhoods do not present major safety hazards. Further, they are accessible to people
of a variety of ages and abilities. Effective precautions and plans to deal with emergencies or extreme
conditions (such as epidemics, wildfire, climate change, drought or power outages) are in place.
Discrimination and associated violence against others is rare.
P188
II.
159
The most prevalent types of crimes in Aspen are divided into two main categories as summarized below.
Crimes against persons may include assault, harassment, disorderly conduct, and domestic violence.
Crimes against property may include theft, burglary, fraud, and forgery. Per crime statistics, violent
crime and property crime have both decreased since 2014.2
In general, Aspen experiences a high degree of public safety which supports its quality of life, culture, and
principles. As a tourist destination, the visitor population can swell to 25,000 during peaks seasons or
events. This invites crime of varying types and circumstances such as disorderly conduct, substance abuse,
and theft. This presents added risks and challenges for the Aspen community and law enforcement.
2 Aspen Police Department. Crime Data. Multiple meetings from April – June 2017.
Against Persons
Violent
Domestic Violence
Assualt
Harrassment
Against Property
Theft
Burglary
Fraud
Forgery
219 257 240 252 244
296
227
530 565
691
632
555
638 631
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Recorded Crime CasesYear
Figure 1. Aspen Total Crimes: Against Persons & Property (2010-2016)
Crimes Against Persons
Crimes Against Property
Linear (Crimes Against
Property)
P189
II.
160
Public Safety & Welfare
Besides crime rates other circumstances contribute to community safety and well- being. This includes
abuse, neglect, domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse and homelessness. These can affect a
range of vulnerable populations. This includes children, the elderly, disabled, homeless, underprivileged,
minorities, unemployed and/or underemployed.
The community has made the connection between social sustainability and public safety and welfare. The
Aspen Police Department shares the values of “community policing".3 This is a philosophy that aims to deal
with problems at the circumstantial and situational level. This makes Aspen a safer and healthier place and
is consistent with Aspen’s ideals and values.
The key performance measures that offer a good indication of how well the community is doing in terms
of public safety and welfare include:
• Crime rates by type
• Abuse and neglect rates (by type)
• % of police cases related to mental health and substance abuse
• Incidence of homelessness
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section.
Emergencies, Disasters, & Preparedness
Emergencies and disasters whether natural or manmade can strike without warning. They can cause harm
to people, property, communities, and entire regions. This can lead to loss of basic infrastructure and
services such as water, gas, electricity, and communications. Emergencies and disasters can also leave
people and communities without access to food, medical care, and livelihoods.
In the event of a major disaster, agencies and emergency services do all they can to ensure public safety and
work to restore services so the community can return to normal as soon as possible. The best way to make
the community safe is to prepare before the disaster strikes. No place is immune to disasters and hazards
regardless of whether natural or manmade. Aspen is no exception. That is why it engages in hazard focused
preparedness aimed at reducing near and long-term vulnerabilities.
The City of Aspen is vulnerable to a variety of risks and hazards both natural and manmade. To give a sense
of the range of vulnerability and preparedness areas a few are summarized below.
3 Aspen Police Department. Web. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/departments/police>. May 2017.
P190
II.
161
Climate Change As the local climate continues to change, associated vulnerabilities will only
increase. The Aspen community will feel the impacts. There is an opportunity
to prepare for the future and ensure that the community is anticipating and
addressing changes to create a strong and adaptable community. The
Climate Change Preparedness Index will measure a handful of Aspen’s
known risks and gauge how those vulnerabilities are changing over time. An
example of a preparedness measure is – ‘Aspen’s infrastructure is built to
manage a 10-year flood in the storm water infrastructure and a 100-year
flood in the streets.’ The index will identify a variety of emergency
preparedness and adaptability measures such as this.4
Wildfire
The city’s focus on wildfire mitigation emerged from an increased awareness
of the danger and threat wildfire poses to the Aspen area and associated
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The Wildfire Mitigation Program (WMP) was
established to create a comprehensive approach toward reducing the risk of
wildfire. The program aims to prioritize community activities, capacity, and
capability to effectively plan for and mitigate the risk of wildfire. This includes
infrastructure development and evacuation preparedness, targeted fuel
removal and mitigation, and education and outreach especially within high-
risk wildfire zones.5
4Perl, Ashley. City of Aspen. Canary Initiative. Email dated April 17, 2017. [Photo] Canary Initiative/A. Perl.
5City of Aspen Wildfire Mitigation Program. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Wildfire-Mitigation-Program>. April 2017. [Photo] US
Forest Service.
6[Image] City of Aspen. 2017. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Living-in-the-Valley/Green-Initiatives/Renewable-
Energy/Hydroelectric/Infrastructure/>.
Critical Systems &
Infrastructure6
A system is critical for any organization if its failure results directly or
indirectly in loss of operations and/or results in casualties of life or assets.
For the Aspen (area) some of its most critical infrastructure/assets include:
CATEGORY CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE/ ASSETS
AIR Aspen/Pitkin Airport
TRANSPORT
Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) Bus Network;
Ruby Park Transit Center; Pitkin County Intercept Lot;
City of Aspen Free Shuttle Service; Rio Grande Parking;
Buttermilk Parking
BUILDINGS/
FACILITIES
Pitkin County Emergency Operations Center; Aspen Fire
Protection District (Stations); Aspen Police Department
(Station); Aspen Valley Hospital; Pitkin County (Offices,
Court, Jail); Aspen City Hall;
UTILITIES
Water: Castle & Maroon Creek Hydro Plants; Water
Treatment Plants (East/West)
Electric: Grid and Generators
BRIDGES Castle Creek; Maroon Creek
ROADS/STREETS Highway 82; Aspen Main Street; Pedestrian Mall
COMMUNICATIONS
Pitkin County/City of Aspen Information System
Servers; Back-up Systems
From a sustainability and resiliency perspective it is important to plan for
any events and/or scenarios that could impact such critical assets.
P191
II.
162
Preparedness Planning & Practice
Aspen considers emergency planning and preparedness an essential element of managing its
vulnerabilities and risks. The city together with the county and various emergency services departments
have specified roles and functions to assume when a large-scale emergency or area-wide disaster
strikes. These roles are defined and designed to maintain a steady and secure response and recovery.
And that all steps are being taken to maximize the public’s safety and well-being.
Per Pitkin County’s Emergency Services Management:
“Emergency preparedness starts with local day to day response. It then
escalates to the Incident Management Team (IMT). When the IMT
needs support the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is activated. If
the EOC can’t fill an IMT request (Emergency Support Function Team 5 –
Emergency Management) advances the request to the state. If the state
can't fill it, they advance it to the federal level. The Emergency
Operations Plan (EOP) is about how the county/city emergency
preparedness teams transition quickly from day to day routine response
to full on emergency or disaster.”7
See operating structure on the comprehensive emergency preparedness measure.
The key performance measure that offers a relatively good indication of how well the community is
doing in terms of emergency preparedness is:
• Qualitative Assessment of Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness
There does not appear to be a standard federal or state rating for comprehensive emergency
preparedness at the community level. However, FEMA recommends that communities include the
following elements in their preparedness planning:
Figure 2. Aspen Fire8
Figure 2. FEMA 6 Part Framework 9
7 MacDonald, Valerie. Pitkin County Emergency Services. Email dated 07.06.17.
8 Courtesy Aspen Fire Protection District.
9 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). National Preparedness System. <https//www.fema.gov/national preparedness system>.
Identifying and Assessing Risk
Estimating Capability Requirements
Building and Sustaining Capabilities
Planning to Deliver Capabilities
Validating Capabilities
Reviewing and Updating
P192
II.
163
This is being used as a basis for qualitatively assessing emergency preparedness.
Public Space Accessibility
Urban environments, infrastructures, facilities and services
can impede or enable participation and inclusion of all
members of society. Persons with disabilities or with needs
(e.g. elderly, caregivers, small children) often face lack of
accessibility to built environments. This may include public
buildings and spaces, transportation, and basic urban
services.10
Figure 3. Downtown Aspen11
From a social and economic sustainability perspective, the loss of human capital and opportunity cost
incurred due to inaccessibility may be significant. Communities stand to lose a great deal when
significant groups, such as persons with disabilities or other needs are excluded from participation
and/or their quality of life is diminished due to public access limitations.12
Consistent with its principles,
Aspen aims to make public access
to the built environment, spaces,
and amenities a reality for its
residents. This is evidenced in
buildings, walkways, parking,
transportation. Cities like Aspen
that depend on a tourism
economy are also aware that it
may exclude tourists with
disabilities or other needs if it has
inaccessible infrastructure and
services.
Figure 4. City of Aspen Zone Districts Maps
10Accessibility and Development: Mainstreaming disability in the post-2015 development agenda. United nations. Department of Economic and
Social Affairs; Division for Social Policy and Development. <http://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/accessibility_and_development.pdf>.
June 2016.
11 Giudice, Linda. 2017.
12 Ibid.
P193
II.
164
The key performance measure that offers a relatively good indication of how well the community is
doing in terms of public space accessibility is:
• Public Space Accessibility
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
Below is a summary of the primary organizations, programs, initiatives, and recommendations that
support Public Safety & Preparedness outcomes and associated key performance measures. Note the
web links highlighted for each for more detailed information.
Crime & Public Safety
Current Actions
• The Aspen Police Department (APD) hired a dedicated Human Services Officer to handle crime
and other issues related to social welfare issues such as mental illness, substance abuse, and
homelessness.
• In 2016, the APD broke ground on a new police station in downtown Aspen.
• RESPONSE provides support for domestic violence and sexual assault assistance.
Proposed Actions
Aspen Police Department proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the metrics and
outcomes:
• Plans to continue working with local businesses to educate them to call police prior to
situations escalating.
• Intends to interact more proactively via targeted marketing materials and onsite visits with
local ski and bike shops to minimize ski thefts.
Child/Adult Abuse & Neglect
Current Actions
• Pitkin County Human Services (PCHS) and the City of Aspen (COA) jointly fund programs and
intiiatives to support those experiencing child/adult abuse and neglect.
• Aspen Police Department (APD) developed a Human Services Officer position to focus solely on
social welfare issues, substance abuse, and mental health.
• Pitkin County Adult & Family Services along with other non-profits provide support in the following
areas:
o Adult Protective Services Adult and Family services intervenes on behalf of at-risk adultst to
alleviate situations in which actual or imminent danger of abuse, neglect, or exploitation is
present.
o Child Welfare (Pitkin County) Investigates child abuse/neglect referrals, identifies child safety
concerns, and helps with child placement into safe homes.
P194
II.
165
o Foster Recruitment- Provides a home for temporary and long-term care of children who need
to live outside their own home and need protection and supervision. Additionally, this service
is placement of children with foster parents.
o Stop Fighting It Hurts Campaign- Provides education and assistance to parents and families to
prevent and solve family conflicts which will negatively impact the children.
o RESPONSE – Domestic Violence Assistance Provides support education and advocates for
survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.
o Senior Care Navigation Program- Provides services and programs to facilitate high quality of life
and independence for individuals over 60.
o Collaborative Management Program (CMP)
o Colorado Community Response- Assists families by connecting them and individual child abuse
cases to support services. This is to help solve the issue of child abuse referrals from being
dismissed without investigation.
o Aspen Family Connections is a local resource to help upper-valley families with a variety of
social needs.
o West Mountain Regional Health Alliance is a coalition of health care leaders, providers, and
agencies working to improve health in Pitkin, Garfield, and Eagle Counties. They also provide
education about health information exchange, Medicaid expansion, and health equity issues.
Proposed Actions
Pitkin County Health & Human Services proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the
metrics and outcomes:
• Plans a community effort to focus more on early intervention.
Aspen Police Department proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the metrics and
outcomes:
• Plans to conduct community outreach and campaigns to get community members to proactively
report, step in, and look out for predators.
Recommendations
Pitkin County Human Services proposes the following recommendation for its workplan, in support
of the metics and outcomes:
➢ To continue to strengthen the social determinants of health including the risk or
protective factors such as housing and child support.
Mental Health, Substance Abuse, and Homelessness
Current Actions
• Pitkin County Public Health (PCPH) & Human Services (PCHS) and the City of Aspen (COA) are jointly
funding programs and intiiatives to support mental health and substance abuse issues.
P195
II.
166
• The County, City and Aspen Valley Hospital, and Aspen School District are in dialogue about a
shared Request for Proposal (RFP) to more effectively fund mental health/substance abuse services
to better influence positive outcomes.
• The Aspen Police Department (APD) developed a Human Services Officer position to focus solely
on social welfare issues, substance abuse and mental health.
• Other programs in place to support mental health and substance abuse include:
o Aspen Hope Center
o Mind Springs Health Center
o Aspen Strong Foundation
o Aspen Detox
o A Way Out
o YouthZone
• The Aspen Homeless Shelter provides for a Day Center, overnight shelter13, and daily meals for the
homeless. In addition to helping people just evicted from their home it also helps the Valley’s
transient and homeless population.
• Catholic Charities – Homeless Coalition
Proposed Actions
Pitkin County Human Services proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the metrics
and outcomes:
• Engage more mental health workers in schools, jails, housing, law enforcement, hospital, and
primary care offices. The goal is to better link up services within existing systems.
Aspen Police Department proposes the following actions for its workplan, in support of the metrics and
outcomes:
• Conduct more public outreach on early treatment and prevention. This includes community
classroom based programs that teach children to develop knowledge, attitudes, and skills they
need to make good choices and/or change harmful behaviors.
Recommendations
Pitkin County Public Health & Human Services proposes the following recommendations for its
workplan, in support of the metrics and outcomes:
➢ Explore allocation of local marijuana tax dollars for early prevention and intervention
programs.
➢ Explore the viability of building a crisis stabilization center in the Roaring Fork Valley
serving teens and adults.
➢ Encourage APCHA and Garfield counties to review the expansion and distribution of
Section 8 housing vouchers.
13 The Aspen Homeless Shelter runs an overnight stay shelter at St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Aspen from December 1 through March 31st.
P196
II.
167
Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness
Current Actions
• A local planning committee meets annually to evaluate the implementation of the Pitkin County
Hazard Mitigation Plan. A planning workshop was held in June 2017 to update the Pitkin County
Hazard Mitigation Plan and actions.
• Monthly Public Safety Council meetings are held with Emergency Support Function (ESF) lead
participation
• Table top exercises are conducted regularly across 15 Emergency Support Function areas.
• ICS 100 training is conducted for City of Aspen staff; specifically Agency/Department Heads; Key
Supervisors/Staff
• The City of Aspen/Utilities is conducting a critical load Customer Survey (includes Holy Cross)
Recommendations
City of Aspen/Emergency Preparedness proposes the following recommendations for its workplan in
support of the metrics and outcomes:
➢ Work collaboratively with the county to develop a method for evaluating comprehensive
emergency preparedness performance.
➢ Track updates of the Hazard Mitigation Plan action items especially those directly
involving the City of Aspen.
➢ Develop a system with the county for more formalized emergency preparedness
communications
➢ Require more city staff to undergo Incident Command (ICS) training
Wildfire Mitigation & Preparedness
Current Actions
• The City of Aspen (CoA) acquired Anchor Point’s National Hazard and Risk Model (No-HARM™). This
software uses more advanced modeling techniques to more precisely map wildfire risk. The city is
currently applying all wildfire related elements to make best use of the software/tool.
• The CoA is currently evaluating, surveying, and conducting outreach around potential evacuation
routes in high-risk areas and neighborhoods.
• The CoA’s Wildfire Mitigation Program aims to take advantage of scaled fuel removal. This includes
Right of Ways (ROWs), common areas, and neighborhoods.
• In collaboration with the Aspen Fire Protection District and specialized consultant, the CoA is in the
process of advancing its wildfire education & outreach strategy, plan, and materials.
• The CoA is in the process of updating the wildfire webpage, preparing for workshop(s), and
deploying outreach material to raise community awareness on wildfire preparation.
P197
II.
168
• The CoA is the recipient of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) grant for community wildfire
assistance. Awards may be used for planning, preparedness, mitigation and education and outreach
efforts.
Proposed Actions
The City of Aspen/Wildfire Mitigation proposes the following recommendations for its workplan in
support of the metrics and outcomes:
• Seeks to pilot Eagle County’s REAL App designed to make property wildfire hazard assessments
more efficient and effective.
• Intends to develop and conduct wildfire workshop(s) for homeowners, property managers, real
estate and insurance brokers including information on wildfire behavior, hazards, preparation
(mitigation), and preparedness.
• Plans to attract rolling grant funding through the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) grant for
community wildfire assistance.
Recommendations
The City of Aspen/Wildfire Mitigation proposes the following recommendations for its workplan in
support of the metrics and outcomes:
➢ To participate in the update of the Pitkin County Colorado Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP).
For the City of Aspen to become a signatory of the plan.
P198
II.
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
Crime Rates by Type
What is it? Why is it important?
Security of person or property is a core element of individual welfare and by extension communities. The crime rate is a measure of
change in recorded crime over a given period. Crime rates by type means the level reported and recorded (by type) on an annual basis.
In Aspen, crimes largely break down to those committed “Against Persons” and those committed “Against Property.” Crimes against
persons include assaults, harassment, disorderly conduct, and domestic violence. Crimes against property include theft, burglary, fraud,
and forgery. Viewed through a social sustainability lens, crime has one of the biggest impacts on one’s sense of well-being through
feelings of (in)security and/or vulnerability.
What does the data/trend say?
Per Figure 1, the average total number of crimes against persons in the period from 2010-2016 was 248. The incidence of crimes against persons by type remained relatively
stable with the highest level of incidence in the harassment category. Per Figure 2, the average total number of crimes against property in the period from 2010-2016 was
606.1 The incidence of property crime by type remained relatively stable with the highest level of incidence in the theft category. Both crimes against persons and property
remained at relatively the same levels with a couple outliers in 2015 (against persons) and 2012 (against property).2
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
All data was taken from the Aspen Police Department Annual Summary of Activities and Actions.
**Domestic violence cases reported above are only those of a criminal nature.4
Sources: [1] “Annual Summary of Activities and Actions.” Aspen Police Department. 2016. Web.2017. <http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Police/Annual%20Stats%20past%2010%20years%2006%20to%2016.pdf>.
[2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] Aspen Police Department. “Domestic Violence Cases.” June 2017.
77 67 49 56 43 71 48
46 62 70 87 93
91
77
96
128 121
105 105
134
102
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 1. Aspen Police Summary
Crimes Against Persons (2010 -2016)
Assaults Disorderly Conduct
Harassment Crimes Against Persons-Average
Average Criminal Domestic Violence Cases was 34 (2010-2016)3
320 295 305 325 299 291 318
32 21 25 20 21 34 21
66 75 89 74 66 97 98
51 94 84 97
91
101 946180
188 116
78
115 97
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 2. Aspen Police Summary
Crimes Against Property (2010 -2016)
Forgery/Fraud Trespassing
Criminal Mischief Burglary
P199II.
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
Abuse & Neglect Rates by Type
What is it? Why is it important?
Abuse of any kind is a public health issue especially among the most vulnerable. Abuse and neglect rates are the level of recorded abuses
for a population over a specified period. Child abuse and neglect is any act or series of acts of commission (abuse) or omission (neglect) by
a parent or other caregiver that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat of harm.1 Adult abuse includes neglect, exploitation and
abandonment. This includes physical, sexual, emotional, financial abuses and maltreatment.2 For the purposes of this measure, abuse
rates are reported and recorded at the Pitkin County level which include child abuse referrals and assessments. In terms of adult abuse
the measure only includes data on referrals. Domestic violence is wilful intimidation, physical assault, battery, sexual assault, and/or other
abusive behaviour as part of a systematic pattern of power and control perpetrated by one domiciled partner against another.3 From a
social sustainability point of view, public and personal safety and well-being are components for strong, secure, and stable individuals and
communities.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows the Pitkin County child abuse referrals and those that were further assessed (investigated) based on the nature and evidence (2011-2016). Figure 1 also
displays the adult abuse referrals/cases in Pitkin County (2011-2016).4 On average from 2011 to 2016 there were 139 reported child abuse referrals; of these on average 49
underwent further assessment. Overall, the adult abuse rate has significantly increased in the same period from 25 to 71.5 Figure 2 represents the domestic violence cases for
Aspen and unincorporated Pitkin County. Aspen criminal domestic rates have declined overall by 38% from 2011 to 2016 while Pitkin County domestic abuse rates have
remained relatively stable during those years.67
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Aspen domestic violence data includes only criminal domestic violence cases, while Pitkin County cases include
both criminal and non-criminal cases. The difference in data is in part because Aspen Police and Pitkin Sheriff
collect domestic violence data differently. For Figure 1, the number of child and adult referrals were significantly
higher in 2015 than in 2016. Per Pitkin County Health & Human Services in 2015 it conducted an inventory of all
referrals resulting in additional inclusions.8
Sources: [1] “Mental Health Conditions.” NAMI. 2017. <http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions>. [2] Ibid. [3] “What is Domestic Violence.” NCADV. 2017 <http://ncadv.org/learn-more/what-is-domestic-
violence>. [4] Pitkin County Health and Human Services. “Abuse Referrals.” June 2017; [5] Ibid. [6] Aspen Police Department. “Incidences of Domestic Violence.” June 2017. [7] Matthews, Charlie. “Calls in Pitkin County.” Message to
author. 15 June 2017. E-Mail. [8] Pitkin County Health and Human Services. “Referral Inventory.” June 2017. [Image] Curtesy of Pitkin County Health and Human Services.
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Child Abuse Referrals 100 132 127 120 186 169
Child Abuse Referrals (Assessments)46 52 47 49 54 45
Adult Abuse Referrals 25 30 40 42 47 71
0
50
100
150
200
Reported Cases & ReferralsFigure 1. Pitkin Child & Adult Abuse Referrals (2011-2016)
37 36 38
33 32
2321
26 25
22 24
25
10
20
30
40
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Reported CasesFigure 2. Domestic Violence (2011-2016)
Criminal Domestic Violence (Aspen)All Domestic Violence (Pitkin)P200II.
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
% Police Cases Involving Mental Illness and Substance Abuse
What is it? Why is it important?
Police cases that involve mental illness and substance abuse are characterized as such by the responding officer. The National Alliance
for Mental Health (NAMI) defines "mental illness" as a condition that affects a person's ability to function including a wide range of
disorders.1 The World Health Organization (WHO) refers to “substance abuse” as the harmful or hazardous use of psychoactive
substances, including alcohol and illicit drugs.2 This typically refers to a condition of “dependency”. This measure captures the mental
illness and substance abuse data for Pitkin County and Aspen. Those persons suffering from mental illness, substance abuse, and/or
welfare checks are sometimes at risk to themselves and potentially the community. These circumstances may lead to issues that impact
social welfare, security, safety, and perception of a place or community.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 displays the Aspen Substance Abuse, Mental Illness, and Welfare Check data (MISA) from 2014-2016. The number of recorded Mental Health cases increased from 25
in 2014 to 44 in 2016 which represents a 57% increase.3 The increase is partially related to a more dedicated practice in recording cases. In terms of substance abuse there
were 180 recorded cases in 2014 and 211 in 2016 representing an average of 196 over the period.4 Figure 2 Pitkin County Sheriff calls involving Mental Health/Welfare Checks
has remained relatively stable from 2014-2016 with an average of 199 incidences.5 Sheriff Substance Abuse calls has seen a significant increase from 99 in 2014 to 129 in 2016
representing a 23% increase.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 1 and 2 include drug-related and detox incidences. Note that the Pitkin Sheriff’s Department and
Aspen Police Department track their data differently. The County data only include calls recorded in
unincorporated Pitkin County; meaning they do not include the Aspen numbers.6
Source: [1]: “Mental Health Conditions.” NAMI. 2017.Web. 2017. <http://www.nami.org/Learn-More/Mental-Health-Conditions>. [2] “Substance Abuse.” WHO. 2017 Web. 2017.
<http://www.who.int/topics/substance_abuse/en/>. [3] Aspen Police Department. “Annual Summary of Activities and Actions.” 2016. Web. 2017.
<http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Portals/0/docs/City/Police/Annual%20Stats%20past%2010%20years%2006%20to%2016.pdf>. [4] Ibid. [5] Pitkin County Sheriff’s Department. “Substance Abuse and Mental Illness Calls.” June 2017.
[6] Ibid. [Photo] City of Aspen Police Department.
2014 2016
Mental Health 25 44
Substance Abuse 180 211
0
50
100
150
200
250
InstancesFigure 1. Percent of Total Aspen Police Cases Involving
Substance Abuse and Mental Illness (2014-2016)
1.4%
9.8%
2.3%
11.2%
2014 2016
Mental Health and Welfare
Checks 196 201
Substance Abuse 99 129
0
50
100
150
200
250
Sheriff CallsFigure 2. Pitkin Sheriff Calls Involving
Substance Abuse and Mental Illness (2014-2016)
Mental Illness &
Substance Abuse
is less than 1% of P201II.
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
Homelessness, Shelter Usage, and Service Hours
What is it? Why is it important?
The Agency for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines “homelessness” as persons residing in a place not for
human habitation or an emergency or homeless shelter. It also concerns those that have left residential or institutional
housing (lasting 30 days or more) with no subsequent residence.1 This measure aims to quantify the relative incidence of
homelessness for the Aspen area. It includes a Point in Time count of homelessness for the Roaring Fork Valley (RFV).
This gives a “snap shot” of homelessness in the Roaring Fork Valley. It also quantifies the usage of the Aspen Homeless
Shelter on an annual, winter, and rest of year basis. Usage is defined as each time a homeless person makes use of the
Day Center, stays overnight, and/or has a meal.2 In terms of social sustainability, the welfare and relative stability of
individuals living within a population is critical for a community. Homeless persons are often vulnerable and at-risk
populations. These circumstances impact personal and social welfare (health), security, safety, and sense of a place and
well-being.
“One measure of society is how
it cares for its most vulnerable
members. Our mission is to keep
people alive, safe and fed while
they are homeless; to help them
access resources to meet their
needs; and assist, with a hand-
up, in transition to stability and
self-reliance.”3
What does the data/trend say?
The homeless data represents the proximate homelessness for the Aspen area noting the transient nature of this population. Figure 1 represents a point in time survey
count of homelessness for the Roaring Fork Valley taken in January 2017. There was a total survey count of 129 persons (singles) which breaks down as follows: Veterans - 23
(18%); Disabled - 67 (52%); Youth - 10 (8%); Others - 29 (22%).4 Figure 2 represents the annual daily usage of the Aspen Homeless Shelter. In 2015 there was a total of 8,345
uses with an increase to 9,248 total uses in 2016. The average monthly winter use was 1,087 (2015) and 1,195 (2016). For the rest of the year (non-winter months) the
average monthly use was 500 (2015) and 558 (2016).5 Figure 3 shows that the Homeless shelter serviced 192 people in 2016; averaging 25 people per day. Assisting these
individuals required 126,140 service-hours in 2016.6
Figure 3. Aspen Homeless
Shelter Service Statistics (2016)7
Annual Homeless
Population Serviced
192
Average Population
Serviced per Day
25
Annual Service Hours 126,140
Targets
A target for this measure has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The homelessness data for the RFV is used as a relative proxy for the Aspen area considering the transient nature of homelessness.
Data was collected via surveyors (service providers and volunteers) from January 24th through the 26th and describes homelessness
on the 24th.8 Homeless shelter total use means daily counts for the Day Center, Overnight, & Meals. There is no Overnight Shelter
use from April-November such that the usage rates are much lower for that period of the year.9
Source: [1] “Change in the HUD Definition of ‘Homeless’.” National Alliance to End Homelessness. 2012. Web. 2017. <http://endhomelessness.org/resource/changes-in-the-hud-definition-of-homeless/>. [2] Savage, Vince. “Aspen
Homeless Shelter Use.” June 2017. [3] Aspen Homeless Shelter Website. July 2017. <http://aspensafetynet.org/>. [4] “2017 Point in Time Unofficial Count.” Jan. 2017. Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. [5] “Aspen Homeless
Shelter Use.” [6] Savage, Vince. “2016 Serviced Population/Hours/Uses.” Message to the author. 23 June 2017. E-Mail. [7] Ibid. [8] “2017 Point in Time Unofficial Count.” [9] “2016 Serviced Population/Hours/Uses.” [Photo] Aspen
Homeless Shelter. 2016.
23, 18%
67, 52%
10, 8%
29, 22%
Figure 1. 2017 Point in Time Count of
Roaring Fork Valley Homelessness (Single Persons)
Veterans Disabled Youth Other
TOTALS:
129 Single
Persons
25
Homeless
Families
Annual Total
Use
Winter
Average
Monthly Use
Rest of Year
Average
Monthly Use
2015 8345 1087 500
2016 9248 1195 558
0
5000
10000
Figure 2. Aspen Homeless Shelter Annual &
Average Monthly Use (2015-2016)P202II.
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
% of Acres Deemed as High Wildfire Risk (Interface/Intermix/Wildland Components)
What is it? Why is it important?
Fire has historically played a fundamental ecological role in many wildland areas. However, the rising number of homes in the wildland-urban
interface (WUI), associated impacts on lives and property from wildfire, and escalating costs of wildfire management have led to an urgent need
for communities to become “fire-adapted.”1 The measure of threat due to wildfire is described in 4 categories: Wildland Low, Moderate, High,
and Very High. The level of threat is important as it gives an estimate of how severe fire behavior would be in the event of ignition. Factored into
this estimate is the topography (slope, aspect, and elevation), the prevailing weather patterns in the area and the fuel type(s).2 This measure
quantifies the portion (percentage) of acres in the Aspen WUI that is deemed as high wildfire risk. Specifically, it shows and calculates the
Interface and Intermix high and very high areas. While the Wildland high/very high component is not depicted in Figure 1 the associated acreage
is represented in Figure 2. Understanding the highest risk areas within the WUI is critical to targeting mitigation efforts and community
preparedness, safety, and resiliency.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows the NoHARM Interface and Intermix components. Those color-coded in red are considered at “High” risk for wildfire.3 Figure 2 summarizes the total No HARM
acres 1 mile beyond the city boundary and the associated acreage deemed as high or very high risk. Roughly a half of the total acreage is considered “High” or “Very High”
most of which is within the Wildland component of 4,336 acres or 35%. The Intermix “High” and Interface “High” represent 14% of the total NoHARM acreage which is most
proximate to the city center.4 Figure 3 summarizes the total acres treated for wildfire within the Aspen NoHARM area.45
Figure 1. Aspen Area NoHARM – Interface & Intermix Components (Deemed High Wildfire Risk)
Figure 2. Proximate Acres Deemed High/Very
High Wildfire Risk (As of Q1 2017)
Component Acres %
Total NoHARM 12,274 100%
Interface 309 3%
Intermix 1,404 11%
Wildland 4,336 35%
Total 6,049 49%
Figure 3. Mitigation in Proximate High Risk
Areas (From 2012 – 2017)
Acres %
Total NoHARM 12,274 100%
Mitigation by Type
Hunter Creek
Prescribed Burn6
902 7%
Targets
A target for this measure has
not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 1 is the NoHARM maps that includes only the Interface and Intermix components. The Wildland component is not included as the
associated wildfire risk is considered more removed from the central city core. The Hunter Creek Prescribed Fire was the only WUI acres
treated with fire at 902 acres. This would be the only treatment of this kind ever in what is considered the Aspen WUI.6
Sources: [1] USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-299. [2] Anchor Point NoHARM Map/Guidance Documentation on Wildfire Risk Areas. June 2017. [3] City of Aspen/Community Development/Buildings No Harm Map. [4]
Ibid. [5] Ibid. [6] US Forest Service. Email from Jim Genung, Zone Fuels Specialist. May 18, 2017. [Photo] US Forest Service. P203II.
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
Qualitative Assessment of Comprehensive Emergency Preparedness
What is it? Why is it important?
Emergency preparedness helps ensure safety, protection, and resiliency when disasters occur. The cycle of emergency preparedness is
Mitigation, Preparedness, Response and Recovery which will ensure resiliency.1 A Qualitative Assessment of Comprehensive Emergency
Preparedness is a way to holistically evaluate the level of preparedness for emergencies regardless of whether natural or manmade. Since a
comprehensive rating does not exist at the local (community) level, a qualitative assessment of preparedness has been devised for gauging
emergency preparedness performance. FEMA’s National Preparedness System outlines an organized process for communities which involves 6
parts including: 1] Identifying and Assessing Risk; 2] Estimating Capability Requirements; 3] Building and Sustaining Capabilities; 4] Planning
to Deliver Capabilities; 5] Validating Capabilities; 6] Reviewing & Updating.2 While these are not the only elements to assess emergency
preparedness they are serving as the basis for appraising local performance as detailed below. Natural and man-made disasters in Aspen area
have been relatively rare.3 Even so planning and preparing for emergencies when they occur is critical for the community and its sustainability.
Elements of the FEMA 6-part framework (listed above) are provided for in the Pitkin County
Hazard Mitigation Plan4 and County Emergency Operations Plan. 5 These provide for:
➢ A hazards risk assessment listing potential hazards and emergencies. These are based
on the likelihood of occurrence and magnitude/severity of the event.
➢ Description of administrative and technical capabilities such as roles and
responsibilities, partnerships, and outreach. This includes:
o Multi-jurisdictional Incident Management Team and Emergency Support Function
Teams (15)
o Continual training based on scenarios; response and recovery
➢ Proposed projects/actions including an assessment of vulnerable assets and estimated
timeframes. Use of STAPLEE method for prioritizing actions for 15 emergency support
functions.
➢ Inter-jurisdictional coordination and communication including an open public process.
➢ Plan(s) updates every 5 years including proposed actions for improving capabilities and
performance
The chart to the right depicts the emergency response structure for Pitkin County (Aspen
Area). Emergency preparedness starts with local day to day response. It then escalates to
the Incident Management Team (IMT). When the IMT needs support, the Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) is activated. If the EOC can’t fill an IMT request it invokes state
and federal levels as needed.
Targets
A target for this measure has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Consideration
There is not a local rating system in place to holistically evaluate emergency preparedness. A qualitative assessment has been
devised for this measure to give an idea of how emergency preparedness in planned for and its operating structure/capabilities.
Source: [1] Pitkin County Emergency Services; Hazard Mitigation Workshop (June 2017) [2] “National Preparedness System.” FEMA. 2017. <https://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-system>. [3] Pitkin County Emergency
Management Hazard Mitigation Plan Workshop. June 2017. [4] Pitkin County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Pitkin County, 2012. Web. 24 April 2017. [5] Pitkin County Emergency Operations Plan. Pitkin County, 2016. Web. 25 April 2017.
<www.pitkincounty.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/86>.http://www.dlr.de/kn/DesktopDefault.aspx/tabid-4307/6939_read-41631/gallery-1/gallery_read-Image.27.25095/>. P204II.
PUBLIC SAFETY & PREPAREDNESS
Public Space Accessibility
What is it? Why is it important?
Accessibility of a place can be judged by its connections to its surroundings, both visual and physical. Public space
accessibility enables people with various need to move around within the community without any problems. This includes
caregivers/children, older persons and persons with disabilities. It also includes perceptions about safety, cleanliness, and
the availability of places to sit. Accessible spaces are convenient to public transit and a range of mobility options. When
public spaces are accessible by all they tend to feel a stronger sense of place or attachment to their community. This creates
a public setting that provides universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible spaces. It promotes social cohesion, ensures
mobility, and reduces environmental impacts. This contributes to social sustainability and specifically a quality of life and
sense of belonging and well-being.
What does the data/trend say?
Data has not yet been collected on this measure. A survey question(s) will be included in the upcoming 2017 Aspen Citizen
Survey.
% who agree that public spaces in Aspen
are accessible to those with mobility impairments
% of who agree that public spaces in Aspen
do not have major safety hazards.
PENDING SURVEY RESULTS PENDING SURVEY RESULTS
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Source: 2017 Aspen Citizen Survey (Forthcoming). [Photo] Giudice, Linda. 2017. P205II.
176
A socially sustainable community boasts an abundance of means to connect – culturally, spiritually,
intellectually, and civically. This means that not only are opportunities available, but they are diverse
and pique varied interests.
These range from the whimsical Mac and Cheese Festival on the street to the premier international
classical music festival concerts in Harris Hall. The well-linked transportation system allows mobility and
transport to the various offerings for a majority of Roaring Fork Valley residents.
Many groups, organizations, foundations, and
associations that make these opportunities available.
Whether the offering is a lecture on physics or a
Saturday Farmer’s Market, such gatherings help to
build cohesion and social capital within the
community.
Social capital refers to “the links, shared values and
understandings in society that enable individuals and
groups to trust each other and so work together.”1
Social capital can also include the networks that
facilitate co-operation among groups.1 Shared norms,
values, and understandings allow for a supportive,
engaged, and proud community.
Figure 1. 2016 Aspen Citizens Academy Class2
1 “What is Social Capital?” OECED Insights: Human Capital. P. 102. <https://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf>.
2 Holder, Michelle. 2016.
Community
Connections
KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
▪Voter participation levels
▪Neighborhood Connection Index
▪% of Aspen workers who commute more than 10 miles
▪Ratio of permanent residents to total housing units
▪% of households where English is not spoken at home
▪Access to engagement opportunities, by type
Desired Outcome: Residents have a variety of opportunities for nurturing relationships and
spirituality. Choices for community engagement through schools, non-profits, churches, businesses,
and local government are plentiful. Participation rates in key opportunities are high, across age
groups, income groups and ethnicities. Residents report having supportive relationships; actively
participating in activities of importance to them; enjoying their community; and taking pride in their
community.
P206
II.
177
Fostering a Sense of Place and Belonging
The Aspen community offers spaces, programs,
shared resources, events, offerings, and
opportunities to connect, including:
• Gathering spaces for special events and
public/private use
• Volunteer and engagement opportunities
including a multitude of non-profits
dedicated to helping others and supporting
important causes
• Locals’ events, clinics and specials
• Markets, fairs, and festivals
• Sharing economy commute options
• Local art and public displays
• Community-centered programs such as the
Citizens Academy
Such opportunities are instrumental in allowing
individuals to feel included and connected as
members of their community.
Aspen is also home to many cultures and languages.
Given the wide array of languages, the lack of English
language may be a barrier for some. This indicates
that the unique variety of people can gather and
connect around the English language.
The key performance measures that provides
perspective on this area include:
▪ Neighborhood Connection Index
▪ % of Aspen workers who commute more than 10 miles
▪ Ratio of permanent residents to total housing units
▪ % of households where English is not the primary language spoken at home
Participation & Engagement Opportunities
A more socially connected community is more apt to be aware and take interest and ownership in
community issues. Aspen’s level of community engagement is in part represented by voter turnout in
city and county elections. Turnout indicates community’s overall level of political participation, as well
as, citizen interest in influencing local decisions.
Engagement opportunities can also be represented by the sheer number of programs and events that
happen in the area. Those can be of different forms – social, cultural, educational, non-profit,
recreational, and spiritual.
The effect is an intelligent, caring, activated community working together to better the quality of life for
all. Such communities can stand to serve as models for others.
Understanding Social Capital
Socially sustainable communities are
equitable, diverse, connected and democratic
and provide a good quality of life.1 Social
capital – the links within a community –
mutually reinforces these desired traits.
In a socially sustainable place, residents can
better rely on one another and work together
in a syndicated whole. These strengthened
connections grow tolerance and respect for
those of different backgrounds and
viewpoints. Such connections can be built by
way of large events, organizations, or on a
grassroots level.
An individual can act to build social capital in
many ways. A few examples are listed below.
• Attend town meetings
• Volunteer special skills to an organization
• Mentor someone of a different ethnic or
religious group
• Register to vote and vote
For more ideas, visit:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/programs/sagu
aro/about-social-capital/what-you-can-do
P207
II.
178
The key performance measures that provides perspective on this area include:
▪ Voter participation levels
▪ Access to engagement opportunities, by type
The measures listed above are presented on the respective dashboards at the end of the section. Below
is a summary of current / proposed actions that help move us move toward the outcomes we want for
Community Connections.
Current/Proposed Actions & Recommendations
Below is a summary of programs, initiatives, and recommendations that support Community
Connections outcomes and associated key performance measures. Note the web links highlighted for
each organization for more detailed information.
Fostering a Sense of Place and Belonging
Various organizations and initiatives ranging from housing to transit help to foster a sense of place.
Current Actions
• The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) provides affordable workforce housing to
full-time or seasonal employees who could not otherwise afford to own or rent a home in Pitkin
County.
• The Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) is a non-profit organization dedicated to
supporting the business community and enhancing the visitor experience. ACRA supports many
large special events and gatherings in the community.
• The Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA) provides a variety of transit options for commuters in
the Roaring Fork Valley and beyond.
o The RFTA board determines direction for the transit authority.
o Free parking permits are available for commuters who carpool into town.
o The Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) is the first rural bus rapid transit system in the nation and
transports commuters from Aspen to Glenwood Springs.
o In 2016, the Burlingame bus route frequency was increased as part of a pilot program to
encourage more bus use on this route.
• The City of Aspen partners with RFTA to offer eight free shuttle routes throughout town for
easier transit to local destinations.
• Aspen and the Highway 82 corridor offer bus lanes to promote faster high occupancy travel.
• We-Cycle is a nonprofit dedicated to bringing bike sharing to Aspen, Basalt, and the Roaring Fork
Valley as part of a public/private partnership. We-Cycle expanded into Basalt in May 2016.
• RFTA is working with We-Cycle to develop a longer-term partnership; the RFTA Board approved
a multi-year commitment to supporting We-Cycle.
• The City of Aspen Downtowner offers free, on-demand door-to-door electric car service within
the core area boundaries.
• The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) is an interjurisdictional committee of
Pitkin County, City of Aspen, and Town of Snowmass Village elected officials to discuss long-
range transportation issues.
Proposed Actions
• RFTA aims to increase paved parking spaces at the Intercept Lot.
P208
II.
179
• RFTA and the EOTC are currently completing the Upper Valley Mobility Study to improve
mobility, reduce busses and congestion, enhance transit service, and support local governance
policies.
• The City of Aspen and APCHA are working to build new affordable housing developments in
town.
Participation & Engagement Opportunities
Opportunities to engage in Aspen, Pitkin County, and the Roaring Fork Valley generally, are ample.
Measures are taken to make voting more accessible. Events, programs, and organizations are available
to engage in community offerings and issues.
Current Actions
• The City of Aspen and Pitkin County use mail ballots to encourage voter participation; ballots are
mailed to all active registered voters and can be returned via mail or in person.
• The Next Generation Advisory Commission employs various efforts to increase voter
participation.
• Civic and social groups in the area connect people throughout the Valley and region, including
the Aspen Elks Lodge, the Fraternal Order of Eagles, and the Rotary Club, among others.
• Professional associations such as Aspen Young Professionals Association connect people around
a cause.
• The Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Historical Society, Aspen Santa Fe Ballet, Theatre Aspen, and
the Aspen Music Festival & School are a few examples of the many rich cultural opportunities
available for residents and visitors in Aspen. Nearby, the Summer in Snowmass Free Concert
Series offers entertainment for all ages from June-September.
• The Aspen Citizens Academy is a City-run course offering an in-depth understanding of
government functions and informing participants of opportunities to be civically involved.
• Our Community Listens is a free three-day communication skills course to raise awareness of
communication profiles and core behavioral tendencies of others. The course uses classroom
instruction, experiential activity, and group discussion to explore communication, verbal and
body language, listening, and confrontation.
• Roaring Fork Leadership is an annual leadership development program. The course brings 40
community members through 100+ hours of training and dialogue critical for personal,
professional, and community problem solving and effectiveness.
• The Aspen Institute is a nonpartisan forum for values-based leadership and the exchange of
ideas. The Aspen Institute produces the Ideas Festival, a public gathering place for leaders from
around the globe and across many disciplines to engage in deep and inquisitive discussion of the
ideas and issues that both shape our lives and challenge our times.
• Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) is a non-profit environmental science education
center with four sites in the Roaring Fork Valley. ACES provides programs in environmental
science and ecological literacy to build a community of knowledgeable, motivated and capable
environmental stewards.
• Over three hundred non-profit organizations exist in the Roaring Fork Valley. These
organizations offer invaluable services to causes of all kinds, including health, human services,
crime, environment, education, animals, and many others. They also offer an array of
volunteering opportunities. Donors and foundations such as the Aspen Community Foundation
support such organizations. Other groups such as Spring Board encourage volunteerism and
philanthropy in the community.
P209
II.
180
• The Aspen area is home to the four Aspen-Snowmass ski mountains and the Ashcroft Ski Touring
Center.
• The Aspen Golf Course offers golfing in the warmer months and the Aspen Cross-Country Ski
Center Nordic trails in the winter.
• Hundreds of parks, trails, and open spaces in Aspen and Pitkin County are available for
recreational use. The Aspen Recreation Center and Aspen Red Brick Recreation Center offer
dozens of sport and activity options.
• Many spiritual and faith-based communities are available in the Aspen area.
• The Pitkin County Senior Services Center facilitates quality of life and independence for
individuals over 60 by offering events, activities, wellness options, meals, transportation, and
resources.
• Aspen City of Wellbeing (ACW) is an initiative to connect community and build wellbeing in
Aspen and beyond. ACW uses data to measure wellness in the community and prioritize efforts
accordingly. ACW sponsors several workplace wellness programs.
Proposed Actions
• The Aspen Citizens Academy is working to offer class material in other mediums. This may
include an internal offering for employees.
P210
II.
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
Voter participation numbers
What is it? Why is it important?
Voter participation numbers represent the number of voters who cast a ballot in anelection. Because registered voter lists can include
persons who no longer live in the area, voter participation rates are not used. Active registered voter numbers are registered voters
who are eligible to receive a ballot in the mail. Voter turnout (participation) indicates that community members care about and want
to influence decisions that impact them. Ballot content, including those more popular or contested issues and races, can strongly
impact voter turnout. Voter participation also gives some insight into the political access, awareness, and engagement of the
community. Higher participation numbers may indicate more representation of and engagement in the community.
What does the data/trend say?
Voter participation numbers for the city and county are provided by the City Clerk’s Office and the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder respectively. Figure 1 shows that the % of
Aspen voters in each age group that voted in the 2015-2017 elections. The 18 to 24-year-old age group had the lowest overall participation and the 65+ age group had the
highest. In general, Pitkin County number of voters are more varied and higher than those of the City of Aspen elections. From 2015-2017, Aspen’s average voter participation
during regular and runoff elections were 39% and 30% respectively.1 From 2008-2016, the average Pitkin County voter participation is 7,221 (Figure 2).2 In Colorado (not
featured), the active voter general election participation rate in 2014, 2015, and 2016 was 69.7%, 74.4%, and 85.6%, respectively.3 Voter turnout is typically higher during
presidential elections.
Targets
A target for this
measure has not been
set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 1 data reflects information from the City Voter Participation system (not the ballot casting system). The number of voters may not equal
the total ballots cast for various reasons (signature not verified, provisional ballot not cured). Total Aspen registered voters may not equal the
election certificates total as registration changes were received from the County up to and including the day of the election. Note that the
municipal elections did not require runoff elections in 2009 and 2011 and in 2009 there was an instant runoff voting election. Since 2015, the city
and county have transferred to all mail ballot elections.
Sources: [1] City of Aspen Clerk’s Office. “Voter Participation by Age.” June 2017. [2] Vos, Janice. “Re: FW: Pitkin County Voter Participation Data.” Message to the author. 15 March 2017. E-mail. [3] Colorado Secretary of State
Elections Results Archive. <http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Results/Archives.html>. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2009.
2015 Regular
% Voted
2015 Runoff
% Voted
2017 Regular
% Voted
2017 Runoff
% Voted
18-24 19.6%19.7%15.8%9.8%
25-44 26.4%15.4%25.5%15.8%
45-54 45.6%33.9%39.9%28.8%
55-64 51.9%44.0%47.4%37.8%
65+61.9%57.4%56.6%52.1%
TOTAL Voted 2544 1997 2416 1847
0
1000
2000
3000
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 1. Aspen Voter Participation by Age (2015-2017)
9,976
3,665
7,487
4,202
10,145
4,865
7,865
5,997
10,790
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Figure 2. Pitkin County Election
Number of Voters (2008-2016)
No. Voter Count*
Active registered voters in 2016: 12,840
2017
Registered
Voters: 6,453
P211II.
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
Neighborhood Connection Index
What is it? Why is it important?
The neighborhood connection index refers to the sense of connection to place that Aspen residents feel. The index
aims to gauge involvement in local activities and opportunities, neighborhood connections, neighborhood/sense
of place comfort, and sense of personal purpose.
What does the data/trend say?
Data has not yet been collected on this measure. A survey question(s) will be included in the upcoming 2017
Aspen Citizen Survey.
% answering I am as involved as
I would like to be in community
activities and organizations.
% answering there are people I can
count on in my neighborhood.
% answering I plan to remain as a
resident of my neighborhood for a
number of years.
% answering I feel my life has a
purpose.
PENDING SURVEY DATA
PENDING SURVEY DATA
PENDING SURVEY DATA
PENDING SURVEY DATA
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Data is sourced from the City of Aspen Citizen Survey. See survey for precise
methodology.
Sources: [1] 2017 Aspen Citizen Survey (Forthcoming). [Graph] Report staff. 2017.
SENSE OF
PLACE
INVOLVEMENT
COMMUNITY
PURPOSE
P212II.
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
Ratio of Occupied Households to Total Residential Properties
What is it? Why is it important?
The ratio of occupied households to total residential properties compares the full-time population (households) to the total
available housing stock in Aspen. This includes all housing units regardless of type or time occupied. In small resort towns like
Aspen, there is a mix of permanent residents, second/third homeowners, and tourists. This measure aims to depict the
relative proportion of residential stock that is dedicated to full time and part-time residents. Given the community desire to
maintain Aspen’s character, natural beauty, and sense of community and place, it is important to strike a balance between
the historical zoning regulations which discourage density and the available households for Aspen workers and residents.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows that the numbers of housing units (housing stock), households (permanent residences), and ratio of
households to total housing units has remained relatively constant from 2011 to 2015. On average over the period, 53% of the
total residences are permanent residences and 47% are not primary homes and/or serve as temporary housing.1
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council.
The historical data (2010-2015) generates an average
ratio of households to total housing units at 53%.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The American Community Survey defines an occupied housing unit as a housing unit for which someone lives
in for more than 2 months per year.2 This is consistent with our definition of a permanent household.
Variation in housing units is in part due to survey methodology (sampling).
Sources: [1] U.S. Census Bureau. “Selected Housing Characteristics.” 2015. Web. < https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none>. [2] US Census Bureau. "American Community Survey and
Puerto Rico Community Survey Subject Definitions." 2014. Web. <https://www2.census.gov/programs surveys/acs/tech_docs/subject_definitions/2014_ACSSubjectDefinitions.pdf>. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2010.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Households (Occupied Housing Units)3293 3375 3244 3185 3149 3269
Housing Units 6052 6339 6179 6033 6039 5961
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
Figure 1. Ratio of Total Aspen Households to Total Housing Units (2010 -2015)P213II.
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
% of Aspen workers who commute more than 10 miles
What is it? Why is it important?
The percent of Aspen workers commuting more than 10 miles represents those working in but not residing within the city boundaries
(See Appendix 2 for a map of the City limits). The ability to live near work is an important indicator of connection between the
community and its workforce. By understanding how many employees live in proximate distance to their work is important as it
gives insight into access to employment, housing, and quality of life. Additionally, when the workforce lives closer to their place of
work, commuting impacts (costs, pollution) are reduced. Commute time to work is a factor in workforce sustainability and well-
being. This includes affordability, livability, and connection to community.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows that approximately 30% of the city’s workforce is a resident of Aspen and 70% of the workforce commutes from
outside Aspen.1 Roughly another third of Aspen workforce commuters reside in Basalt (12%), Carbondale (12%), and El Jebel
(10%). Figure 2 shows resident and non-resident workforce commute times and distance to Aspen. In 2014, residents commuted 5
miles and 14 minutes on average. Non-residents commuted 20 miles and 33 minutes on average.2
Figure 2. Commute Times & Distances,
by home location (2014)
Average
Commute Miles
Average
Commute Minutes
Aspen Resident
Workforce 5 14
Non-Aspen Resident
Workforce 20 33
Targets
A target for this measure has not been set by Council. The
historical data (2017 moving forward) will generate a basis
for a target to assess commute times and/or miles.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Figure 2 indicates average commute data to Aspen from all areas in the Roaring Fork Valley.
Sources: [1] RFTA. "2014 Regional Travel Patterns Study: Roaring Fork + Colorado River Valley." 2015. Web. May 2017. <https://www.rfta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2014-RFTA-Travel-Patterns-Report_2015-09-09.pdf>.
[2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.
30%
12%
12%
10%
34%
Figure 1. Home Location of the Aspen Workforce (2014)
Aspen
Basalt
Carbondale
El Jebel
Other areas
P214II.
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
% of Population Where English is Not the Primary Language Spoken At Home
What is it? Why is it important?
This measure indicates the relative diversity of the Aspen population in terms of language and ethnicity. While English is the primary
language used across the Aspen population, a portion of the population does not primarily speak it at home. Ethnicity, homes in which
English is not the primary language spoken, and the range of languages that are spoken in Aspen homes provide insight on the diversity
and possible connection in the community. Diversity is considered a desirable trait of communities as indicates acceptance of various
groups as well as a range of contributions in terms of thought and culture. From a social sustainability perspective, it is important to
understand what relative barriers may exist among community members to assure their full participation and engagement.
Accommodation and/or consideration for this is potentially indicates better community connections especially with immigrant and/or
minority populations. Embracing and accommodating diversity has many positive effects socially, economically, and civically.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows the range of ethnicities in Aspen in 2015. White is the predominant ethnicity at 5,727 people (85%). Hispanic is second
most prominent at 522 people (8%).1 Figure 2 indicates that the percentage of the population where English is not the primary language
spoken at home increased 7% over the period of 2009 to 2015.2 Figure 3 shows the variety of languages other than English spoken at
home in Aspen in 2015. Spanish represents the highest percentage at 379 homes (33%).3 These figures give an indication of ethnicity and
use of English and other languages as a primary language at home.
Targets
A target for this measure has
not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
Data is sourced from the American Community Survey (ACS) and includes the 5 years and older population. Language data includes all major
known languages captured in the ACS.
Sources: [1] US Census Bureau. “ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates.” 2015. <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_DP05&prodType=table>. [2] US Census Bureau.
“Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for Population 5 years and Over.” 2015. <https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_B16001&prodType=table>. [3]
Ibid. [Photo] Holder, Michelle. 2017.
5727,
85%
522, 8%
239, 4%
167, 3%
31, 0%30, 0%
24, 0%
Figure 1. Aspen Ethnicity (2015)
White
Hispanic
Asian
African
American
Two or more
Other
US Indian/AK
Native
10%
13%
17%17%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
2009 2011 2013 2015Population
Year
Figure 2. Aspen Homes In Which
English Not Primary Language Spoken
(2009-2015)
379= 33%
154=13%
104=9%76=7%
97=8%
90=8%
90=8%
166=14%
Figure 3. Other Primary Languages
Spoken in Aspen Homes (2015)
Spanish Portuguese
Tagolog French
Scandanavian languages Other Asian Languages
African Languages Other*P215II.
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
Access to Engagement Opportunities, by Type
What is it? Why is it important?
Engagement opportunities are defined as major Aspen-serving institutions, organizations, clubs, events, or facilities/amenities. Culture
is one of the elevating qualities of any community. It gives people a sense of enrichment and belonging through a diversity of
expressions. Aspen has a wide range of iconic cultural institutions and events such as the Wheeler Opera House, Aspen Institute, Aspen
Art Museum, Music Festival, Wine and Food, among many others. Recreational opportunities include facilities and specific event
offerings. Aspen and the surrounding area have an abundance of offerings and amenities that both residents and tourists have access to.
Volunteer engagement opportunities give people an avenue to participate in areas of social interest and concern. The Roaring Fork
Valley has wide range of non-profit organizations. The portfolio of opportunities allows people of all ages to contribute their time, talent
and treasure to valuable causes that improve the community and beyond.
What does the data/trend say?
Figure 1 shows that the Aspen/Pitkin County area offers multiple and varied opportunities for social and communal engagement. Distinct cultural offerings (16), educational
and community engagement opportunities (15), and non-profits and foundations (12) are ample. The recreational count aims to include the various recreational offerings –
from public outdoor opportunities and offerings to numerous indoor spaces, facilities, equipment, classes, and programming options.
Figure 1. Aspen and Pitkin County Engagement Opportunities (2017)
Activity Type Count Examples
Association & Social Club 6 Aspen Elks Lodge, Aspen Young Professionals Association, Rotary Club
Culture 16 Aspen Historical Society, Red Brick Center for the Arts, Wheeler Opera House
Education & Community Engagement 16 Aspen Center for Environmental Studies, Aspen Center for Physics, The Aspen Institute
Non-profit & Foundation1 12 Aspen Community Foundation, Aspen Youth Center, Response, Buddy Program
Recreation
Open Spaces & Preserves2 179 Marolt Ranch, Cozy Point, Annie Mitchell, Lazy Glen, Gold Butte Climbing Area
Parks3 15 Rio Grande Park, Wagner Park, John Denver Sanctuary, Koch Park, Triangle Park
Public Recreation Facilities 7 Aspen Recreation Center, Red Brick Recreation Center, Aspen Golf Course, Aspen Skate Park
Ski Areas 6 Aspen Mountain, Buttermilk Mountain, Snowmass Mountain, Ashcroft
Sports & Activities4 34 Fitness & Wellness, Climbing, Baseball, Soccer, Kayaking
Trails5 434 Ajax, Smuggler Mountain Road, Hunter Creek Valley, Government
Spiritual & Faith-Based 10
Targets
A target for this measure has
not been set by Council.
Data Sourcing & Considerations
The count is not a comprehensive listing but provides a sense for the larger institutions and opportunities. Non-profits represent a limited
number of the larger or more prominent organizations in the area for simplicity of data collection and maintenance. A total count is
estimated at over 300 non-profit organizations that serve the Aspen area. Trails and Parks data are sourced from Pitkin Outside and
includes all trails and parks within 50 miles of Aspen.6 Open Space & Preserves data can be public or private land and includes only open
spaces & preserves in within Pitkin County.7 Sports & Activities data includes offerings of the city facilities and other community offerings.8
Sources: [1] Pitkin County Library. “Local Organizations.” 2 May 2017. Web. 22 June 2017. <http://pitcolib.org/local-organizations>. [2] Pitkin County Open Space and Trails. “Open Space Discussion.” June 2017. [3] Pitkin County.
“Pitkin Outside Parks and Trails Map.” 2017. Web. June 2017. <http://www.pitkinoutside.org/map.html>. [4] Aspen Parks and Recreation. “Sports and Activities.” 2017. Web. 2017. <http://www.aspenrecreation.com/activities/>.
[5] “Pitkin Outside Parks and Trails Map.” [6] Ibid. [7] “Open Space Discussion.” [8] “Sports and Activities.” [Photos] Holder, Michelle. 2016.; Babbie, Sheila. 2016.; Babbie, Sheila. 2016. P216II.
APPENDIX 1 – KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES UNDER DEVELOPMENT
These measures are under consideration & development
Section Category Measure Issue
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER Acre feet of treated water produced Data under review
ENVIRONMENTAL WATER Water availability Data under review
ECONOMIC BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY Commercial vacancy rates No data
ECONOMIC BUSINESS DIVERSITY & SUSTAINABILITY Commercial rental rates No data P217II.
APPENDIX 2 – MAP OF THE ASPEN DOWNTOWN CORE
220
Source: City of Aspen GIS/Mapping. Retrieved July 2016. P218II.