Community Connections As a Key Social Sustainability Theme for the Community

KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES ▪ Voter participation levels

Community ▪ Neighborhood Connection Index ▪ % of Aspen workers who commute more than 10 miles Connections ▪ 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.

Learn more about Community Connections as a key social sustainability theme for the community.

Navigate to view each dashboard measure

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 an election. Because registered voter lists can include persons who no longer live in the area, 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 more popular or contested issues and races, can strongly impact turnout. Higher participation numbers give insight into political access and awareness, and may indicate more representation of and engagement in the community. What does the data/trend say? On average, there were 5944 registered voters each year from 2007-2017 (Figure 1).1 An average of 2299 Aspen voters have participated over the same year range. Figure 2 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 (not featured) are more varied and higher than those of the City of Aspen elections.2 From 2015-2017, Aspen’s average voter participation during regular and runoff elections were 39% and 30% respectively. 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. Figure 1. Total Registered & Participated Aspen Voters Figure 2. Aspen Voter Participation by Age (2015-2017) (2007-2017) 2017 Registered Voters: 6,453 100% 7000 80% 6000 60% 40% 5000 20% 0% 4000 2015 Regular 2017 Regular 3000 % Voted % Voted

# of # Voters 2000 18-24 19.6% 15.8% 1000 25-44 26.4% 25.5% 0 45-54 45.6% 39.9% 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 55-64 51.9% 47.4% Election Year 65+ 61.9% 56.6% # of Registered Voters # Participated TOTAL Voted 2544 2416

Targets & Alerts Data Sourcing & Considerations No target/alert is set for Voter participation numbers are provided by the City Clerk’s Office. Figure 1 data reflects information from the City Voter Participation system these measures. (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.

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

Neighborhood Connection Index What is it? Why is it important? The neighborhood connection index refers to the sense of connection to Aspen that residents feel. The index aims to SENSE OF PLACE COMMUNITY gauge involvement in local activities and opportunities, neighborhood connections, neighborhood/sense of place comfort, and sense of personal purpose. Engagement opportunities, feelings of neighbor reliability, and purpose give people a sense of enrichment and belonging. A desire to remain in a neighborhood may indicate comfort living in the area. What does the data/trend say? Responses from the four survey prompts show an average agreement of 92% (range: 89%-94%). There is slightly more INVOLVEMENT PURPOSE variation (disagreement) in responses for the “I am as involved as I want to be in community activities and organizations” and “I can count on people in my neighborhood” prompts, relative to the other prompts. On the prompt “I feel my life has purpose,” there were zero responses of “strongly disagree.” Figure 1. Aspen Neighborhood Connection Index (2017) 100%

75%

50%

% Responses % 25%

0% I am as involved as I want to I plan to remain in my be in community activities I can count on people in my neighborhood for at least I feel my life has purpose and organizations neighborhood five years Strongly Agree & Agree 90% 89% 93% 94% Strongly Disagree & Disagree 10% 11% 7% 6% Target - Strongly Agree/Agree 85% 85% 85% 85% Total Respondents 281 271 265 265

Targets & Alerts Data Sourcing & Considerations The City normally sets an 85% satisfaction level on surveys. If a rating falls below Data is sourced from the City of Aspen 2017 Annual Citizen Survey. The Citizen 85% it would signal an alert. In this measure, the target is that 85% of Survey was mailed out to 1,750 randomly selected registered voter households in respondents will “Strongly Agree” or “Agree” with the statement. The combined the City of Aspen in August 2017. See survey for precise methodology. survey data exceeds the target in each category and averages at 92%. Sources: [1] 2017 Aspen Citizen Survey (Forthcoming). [Graph] Report staff. 2017.

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. The ability to live near work is an important indicator of connection between the community and its workforce. The number of employees who live in proximate distance to their work gives insight into access to employment, housing, and quality of life. Additionally, commuting impacts (costs, pollution) are reduced when the workforce lives closer to their place of work. Commute time to work influences workforce sustainability and well-being (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 1. Home Location of the Aspen Workforce (2014) Figure 2. Commute Times & Distances, by home location (2014)

Average Average Aspen Commute Miles Commute Minutes Aspen Resident 34% 30% Basalt 5 14 Workforce Carbondale Non-Aspen Resident 20 33 Workforce El Jebel 12% 10% Other areas 12%

Targets & Alerts Data Sourcing & Considerations No target/alert is set for these measures. Figure 2 indicates average commute data to Aspen from all areas in the Roaring Fork Valley. This includes commute by all modes (not just bus commuters) as reported by employers and employees in winter and summer surveys.3 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] RFTA. "Executive Summary: Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys Regional Travel Patterns Study." 2014. Web. https://www.rfta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Executive-Summary-2014-Regional-Travel- Patterns.pdf. [Photo] Babbie, Sheila. 2016.

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS Ratio of occupied households to total residential properties What is it? Why is it important? This measure 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 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 may be 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 in Aspen has remained relatively constant from 2010 to 2016.1 On average over the period (including years not featured), 54% are permanent residences while 46% are not primary homes. In 2016, the ratio of occupied households to total housing units in Telluride, Vail, and Park City were 42%, 31%, and 35% respectively. Population data is included for reference.2 Figure 1. Aspen Total Households to Total Housing Units Figure 2. Total Households to Total Housing Units, Aspen & (2010-2016) Comparisons (2016) 100% 100% 100% 100% 12000 100% 9624 10000 80% 8000 7297 5855 60% 54.4% 52.5% 52.1% 54.6% 6000 3407 4000 3195

Totalnumber 2279 40% 2020 2000 848 20% 0 Aspen Telluride Vail Park City 0% Occupied Households 3195 848 2279 3407 2010 2012 2014 2016 Total Housing Units 5855 2020 7297 9624 Occupied Households Occupied Households Population 6788 1972 5363 8064

Targets & Alerts Data Sourcing & Considerations The historical data (2010-2016) generates an average ratio of The American Community Survey defines an occupied housing unit as a housing unit for which households to total housing units at 54%. Comparative data is someone lives in for more than 2 months per year.3 Variation in housing units is in part due to survey provided to demonstrate Aspen relative to other peers. methodology (sampling). Sources: [1] U.S. Census Bureau. “Selected Housing Characteristics.” 2018. Web. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. [2] U.S. Census Bureau. “Demographic & Housing Estimates.” 2018. Web. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. [3] 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.

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 language diversity of Aspen. While English is the primary language used among Aspen residents, a portion does not primarily speak it at home. Other primary languages spoken and the range of languages spoken give insight on the diversity of the community. Diversity indicates acceptance of various groups and community contributions of thought and culture. Language may also be a barrier among community members, which could prevent connection, participation, and engagement. Accommodation and consideration for cultures 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 indicates that the percentage of the population where English is not the primary language spoken at home increased 6% over the period of 2010 to 2016.1 Figure 2 shows the variety of languages other than English spoken at home in Aspen in 2015. Spanish represents the highest percentage at 379 homes (33%).2 These figures give an indication of ethnicity and use of English and other languages as a primary language at home. Figure 1. Aspen Homes In Which English Not Primary Figure 2. Other Primary Languages Spoken in Aspen Homes Language Spoken (2010-2016) (2015) 166=14% 25% 379= 33% 20% 18% 90=8% 16% 16% 15% 12% 90=8% 10%

Population 97=8% 154=13% 5% 76=7% 104=9% 0% Spanish Portuguese Tagolog 2010 2012 2014 2016 French Scandanavian languages Other Asian Languages Year African Languages Other*

Targets & Alerts Data Sourcing & Considerations No target/alert is set for these Data is sourced from the American Community Survey (ACS). Figure 1 includes the entire population and Figure 2 includes only the 5 years measures. and older population. Language data includes all major known languages captured in the ACS. Sources: [1] US Census Bureau. “Language Spoken at Home.” 2016. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF. [2] US Census Bureau. “Language Spoken at Home by Ability to Speak English for Population 5 years and Over.” 2016. https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_5YR_B16001&prodType=table. [Photo] Holder, Michelle. 2017.

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 for residents and tourists. Volunteer engagement opportunities give people an avenue to participate in areas of social interest and concern. The Roaring Fork Valley has a 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 and 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 outdoor opportunities to numerous indoor spaces, facilities, 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 Data Sourcing & Considerations No target/alert is set for this The count is not a comprehensive listing but provides a sense for the larger institutions and opportunities. Non-profits represent a limited measure. 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 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.