Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study

Transcription

1 Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015 Prepared for: City of Aspen Prepared by: RRC Associates RRC Associates 4770 Baseline Rd, Suite 360 Boulder, CO / Contents

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction and Background... 1 Methodology... 2 Summary of Residential Employment Generation... 3 Employment Associated with Construction of Floor Area... 5 Estimates of Construction Employment... 5 Average Construction Value per Square Foot Single Family Units... 6 Average Construction Value per Square Foot Duplexes and Condos/Townhomes... 7 Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Valuation Ratios... 7 Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Labor Income Ratios... 9 Final Estimates of Construction Employment Interviews with Building Contractors Residential Operations and Maintenance Employment Utilization of Service Providers for Home Operations and Maintenance Conversion of Expenditures on Home Services to Jobs Relationship between Employment and Floor Area: by Unit Type Relationship between Employment and Home Size: by Unit Type and Occupancy Total Labor Associated with Home Operations/Upkeep (Including Owner Labor) Aspen Property Management Company Survey Employment Relationships Based on Multi-Community Data (Heated Square Feet) Total Residential Employment Generation Appendix A: Homeowner Survey Results by Unit Type Respondent Housing Characteristics Unit Usage Characteristics Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics Intended Future Use of Unit Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep Appendix B: Homeowner Survey Results by Occupancy. 64 Respondent Housing Characteristics Unit Usage Characteristics Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics Intended Future Use of Unit Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep RRC Associates Contents

3 Introduction and Background This report summarizes findings regarding the employee generation associated with free-market singlefamily/duplex and condominium/townhome floor area in Aspen. By way of background, the Aspen Land Use Code requires the provision of affordable housing for the development of free-market single family and duplex units ( ). One of the options for fulfilling the affordable housing requirement is paying an affordable housing impact fee pursuant to the APCHA Housing Guidelines (Guidelines Part VII, Section 12, 3 Payment in Lieu Fee). Per the Guidelines, the payment in lieu formula assumes that for every 3,000 square feet of new single-family or duplex floor area, the public will be required to provide housing for one moderate income employee. This requirement (of one employee per 3,000 square feet of floor area) was established per City of Aspen Ordinance 1 (Series of 1990). The primary purpose of this study is to update this aspect of the paymentin-lieu formula for free-market single-family and duplex units, based on an empirical analysis. Additionally, this study extends the employee generation analysis to free-market condominiums and townhomes as well, insofar as those units are also subject to an affordable housing payment-in-lieu structure. This study evaluates two types of residential employment impacts for each of these categories of housing units: 1. Employment impacts associated with the construction of new floor area; and 2. Employment impacts associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance of the home (and particularly services delivered to/provided at the home). Based on conversations with staff and Aspen City Council on April 22, 2014, it was determined that a third category of employment impacts, i.e. as associated with associated with public safety services delivered at residences (i.e. police and fire), would not be examined, primarily since public funding for those services is provided via a variety of other means. Note that other types of employment impacts associated with residential units, such as constructionsupporting architecture and engineering services, services related to purchasing and financing the home, and employment stemming from occupant purchases of retail goods and services at commercial establishments, are excluded from the residential employment calculation, since those employment impacts (and associated housing mitigation requirements) are assigned to the development of commercial floor area in Aspen. Additionally, construction employment associated with residential alterations and remodels which don t add floor area is also excluded from this analysis. Both of the categories of residential employment outlined above (construction and operations) have been evaluated through their own methodologies and data sources, as described in the following Methodology section. The two categories are then summed to derive total residential employment generation. In addition to providing Aspen-specific data, this report also provides comparative community data as a point of reference, to the extent identified and available. RRC Associates 1

4 Methodology As noted previously, this study evaluates two types of residential employment, which are then summed to estimate total employment: 1. Employment associated with the construction of new floor area; and 2. Employment associated with the ongoing operation and maintenance of the home (and particularly services delivered to/provided at the home). The study focuses particularly closely on the relationship between employment generation and residential floor area. For purposes of this study, floor area is defined pursuant to section D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations ( Measuring Floor Area ). As described in the regulations, floor area is generally defined as above-grade interior space, plus basement space proportionate to the share of basement wall area which is above grade. Additionally, floor area also encompasses space above certain size thresholds for certain structural elements in some circumstances (garage, porch, deck, etc.), and also encompasses other adjustments. The terms floor area and square footage are used interchangeably in this report unless noted otherwise. Following is a brief overview of the methodology used to evaluate each category of employment. Additional methodological details are contained in the respective sections of the report. 1. Calculation of employment associated with construction of floor area Two complementary efforts were undertaken to estimate employment generation associated with construction of floor area, as outlined below. a. Derivation of employment generation from data on local construction economics. This methodology involved the use of a variety of data on the economics of construction in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley, including construction volume and valuation, employment, labor income, and materials costs. The analysis attempted to account for complexities of the Aspen market, where many construction firms doing business in Aspen are located downvalley, and many construction workers are sole proprietors rather than working for employers (and are thus excluded from employer statistical series). A variety of governmental and private sector data sources were used to derive factors used in the analysis, such as construction valuation:employment ratios and labor income:employment ratios. Details are described in the associated section of the report. b. Interviews with contractors regarding employment patterns. RRC conducted interviews with a sample of Aspen contractors in order to gain a better understanding of the factors impacting local residential construction employment needs, as well as to examine employment requirements for a sample of homes built in Aspen. The data is primarily intended as a complement and reasonableness cross-check of the results gained through the analysis of secondary data described above. 2. Calculation of the employment associated with the operation and maintenance of homes RRC Associates 2

5 For purposes of estimating the employment associated with operating and maintaining homes in Aspen, RRC undertook two efforts, as follows: a. Aspen homeowner employment generation survey. RRC conducted a mailback survey of owners of free-market single-family, duplex, condominium and townhome units located in Aspen. The survey questionnaire collected a variety of information regarding the physical characteristics of the home, homeowner demographics, unit occupancy patterns, and the use of (and expenditures on) various service providers (homeowners associations, property managers, etc. including the homeowner s own time spent maintaining the home). The survey form was introduced by a letter outlining the purpose of the study that was signed by Chris Bendon, Director of the Aspen Community Development Department. The survey was fielded in late August/early September A total of 3,465 non-duplicated owners of free-market homes in Aspen, as identified through Pitkin County Assessor records, were mailed a survey, of which 56 were returned as undeliverable. A total of 849 usable survey responses were received, for a strong net response rate of 24.9 percent. Given the breadth of information collected on the survey, the results may be of interest for other policy, planning and research purposes in addition to employment generation. b. Property management company interviews/surveys. As a complement to the household survey, interviews and/or surveys were conducted with a sample of property management firms in Aspen. The research sought to better understand the employment dynamics of property management firms generally and for a sample of illustrative case study homes. The data has been used in this analysis as a reasonableness check on the homeowner survey results, as well as an additional source of insight on the employment generation associated with the provision of property management services to homes. Summary of Residential Employment Generation Total employment associated with free-market residential units had been calculated as the sum of construction employment associated with new floor area and operations and maintenance employment. The results using factors specific to Aspen are summarized in Table 1 to follow, for 500 square foot increments of floor area. As shown, total employment generation for a single family/duplex unit with 3,000 square feet of floor area is estimated to be an average of workers. Looking at each category of employment generation separately: Construction employment is estimated to increase with floor area at a linear rate of approximately employees per 1,000 square feet for single family/duplex units and employees per 1,000 square feet for condominiums/townhomes. Operations and maintenance employment is estimated to grow with floor area at an exponential rate for single family/duplex units, and at a linear rate for condominium/townhome units. As the sum of construction and operations/maintenance employment, total employment is estimated to grow quasi-exponentially for single family/duplex units, and linearly for condominium/townhome units. RRC Associates 3

6 Table 1 Estimated Employment Generation Associated with Free-Market Residential Units, by Unit Type INITIAL CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Floor Single family/ Condominium/ Single family/ Condominium/ Single family/ Condominium/ area duplex townhome duplex townhome duplex townhome , , , , , , , n/a n/a 4, n/a n/a 5, n/a n/a 5, n/a n/a 6, n/a n/a 6, n/a n/a 7, n/a n/a Notes: Operations and maintenance employment excludes owner FTE labor, i.e. labor contributed by the owner and household members to unit upkeep. Results exclude employment associated with personal service employees who travel with the household. The results do not deduct for other types of employees (such as caretakers) who may be housed by the owner. Operations and maintenance employment for single family/duplex units larger than 7,000 sqft may be assumed to grow by employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 sqft. Operations and maintenance employment for condominium/townhome units larger than 3,500 sqft may be assumed to grow additional employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 sqft. Construction employment is assumed to grow linearly beyond 7,000 sqft, at employees per 1,000 sqft for single family/duplex units, and employees per 1,000 sqft for condominiums/townhomes. The body of the report also includes estimates of operations and maintenance employment by unit type by occupant type (owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year vs. other occupancy types). The analysis found that for single family/duplex units, employment generation appears to be relatively similar for owner and non-owner-occupants across the home size spectrum evaluated (up to 5,500 sqft). For condominium/townhome units, non-owner-occupied units tend to generate somewhat more employment than owner-occupied units across the size spectrum evaluated (up to 2,500 sqft). While the preceding discussion has focused on the relationship between paid employment and unit size/type/occupancy characteristics, it is important to note that many homeowners spend a considerable amount of their own time on home operations and maintenance tasks. Based on results from the Aspen homeowner survey, it was found that owner-occupants tend to supply more labor for maintaining their home than non-owner-occupants in both absolute and relative terms. In particular, for single-family/duplex units, owner-occupants are estimated to supply an average of 49 percent of the total labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants supply an average 11 percent of RRC Associates 4

7 the labor needed for their units. Similarly, for condominiums/townhomes, owner-occupants are estimated to supply an average of 35 percent of the total labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants supply an average of 10 percent of the labor needed for their units. The body of the report also includes estimates of the operations and maintenance employment observed in a cross-section of mountain resort communities. The analysis suggests that operations and maintenance employment in Aspen is similar to the multi-community average for single family/duplex homes (up to approximately 6,000 sqft, after which Aspen homes appear to generate somewhat more employment). For condominiums/townhomes, Aspen operations and maintenance employment generation appears to be somewhat higher than the multi-community average, particular as units get larger. Insofar as the multi-community database has a larger sample size, including for very large units, it can be considered as an additional possible resource by the City when developing employment generation mitigation policies and formulas. In addition to the bottom-line conclusions summarized here, the data collected as part of this study, and particularly the homeowner survey results, provide additional insights that may be useful for a variety of informational and policy purposes as related to the free-market housing stock and potentially other topics. As such, the survey results, summarized in Appendices A and B, should be viewed as an informational resource for other possible uses as well, as the underlying survey results can also be segmented and analyzed in a variety of other ways. Employment Associated with Construction of Floor Area The objective of this element of the analysis is to estimate the average number of construction employee-years and permanent construction employees required to build 1,000 square foot of new free-market residential floor area in Aspen, with floor area defined consistent with section D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Included in the calculations are employees classified as being in the construction industry, including general contractors and specialty trades contractors. Excluded are employees classified as being in allied industries, such as architectural and engineering services, building materials wholesalers and retailers, utility providers, etc. (insofar as the associated employment impacts and housing mitigation requirements of those activities are assigned to the development of commercial floor area in Aspen.) Construction employment was primarily estimated via an analysis of a variety of secondary data on pertaining to construction economics. Additionally, for additional perspective and as a reasonableness check, construction employment was also evaluated on a case-study basis for a sample of single family units via interviews with contractors in Aspen. Estimates of Construction Employment Two primary approaches were used to estimate construction employment: 1) employment based on employment:construction valuation ratios, and 2) employment based on employment:labor income ratios. The results of the two approaches were then averaged to develop final employment estimates for the respective unit types. RRC Associates 5

8 Average Construction Value per Square Foot Single Family Units Both construction estimation techniques listed above first required the estimation of average construction valuation per square foot of floor area in Aspen. For purposes of single-family homes, four sources were consulted, with the Pitkin County Assessor data ultimately chosen as the most complete and reliable source, while the other three sources serve to provide reasonableness checks. 1. Pitkin County Assessor data: The Pitkin County Assessor database contains data on various categories of residential spatial area (e.g. basements, above-grade area, etc.), as well as the value of improvements. From this data, RRC derived a close equivalent to floor area defined by section D of the Aspen Land Use Regulations. 1 Based on these measures for a sample of 104 single family units constructed in with no accessory buildings, the average improvement value per square foot of floor area is $802 / sqft. 2 (The median improvement value across the units evaluated was $883/sqft.) 2. City of Aspen impact fee data: The Aspen Community Development Department maintains detailed data on projects that are required to pay impact fees as a result of adding floor area. Based on a sample of 26 new residential projects built in for which valuation and new floor area is available and construction valuation is at least $175/sqft (the minimum value threshold observed in the Assessor data), the average construction value per square foot of floor area from this source is $705 / sqft. 3. Construction valuation per Dodge Data and Analytics: This national firm estimates that a total of 881,500 square feet of space (i.e. square footage under the roof, but excluding basements) was built in new one-family houses in Pitkin County over the period, at a total construction value of $477 million, for an average of $571 in construction value per square foot. The average value per square foot varied by year from $441/sqft to $691/sqft ($476/sqft in 2014). While of interest, this data should be interpreted with caution insofar as garages are presumably under the roof, making this an imperfect measure of construction value per square foot of floor area as defined by Aspen land use regulations. Additionally, the data reflects all of Pitkin County, rather than Aspen only. 4. Aspen Building Division guidance: For additional perspective, a Memorandum of Policy dated 11/19/07 by Stephen Kanipe, Aspen Chief Building Official, provides the following figures as reasonable estimates to begin determining permit valuation : deed restricted - $250/sqft; good: $400 - $600/sqft; luxury: $600 - $1,000/sqft. Insofar as it has the largest sample size, while also roughly aligning in logical ways with other local data sources, the Pitkin County Assessor data is felt to provide a reasonable representation of average construction value for new single-family units in Aspen, at $802 per square foot of floor area. 1 Specifically, RRC calculated floor area as equivalent to above-grade heated area (excluding heated garages), plus an assumed 25 percent of garden-level basement area, plus pro-rated garage area above the size thresholds identified in D. No adjustments were made for decks, porches, balconies, sheds, storage areas, and other categories of space which can in some instances be counted as floor area, due to data limitations and the assumption that such adjustments would likely be minor. 2 Of note, the average improvement value per square foot of heated area (excluding heated garages and unfinished basements) is a much smaller $480. This reflects the fact that the ratio of estimated floor area to heated area for the subject properties is RRC Associates 6

9 Average Construction Value per Square Foot Duplexes and Condominiums/Townhomes Based on a review of Assessor data, duplexes (i.e. duplex condominiums, as classified by the Assessor) are assumed to have the same improvement valuation per square foot as single family residences, i.e. $802 / sqft. Duplex condominiums built in Aspen over the period have a ratio of floor area to heated area (excluding heated garages and unfinished basements) of 0.59, similar to the ratio for single family units (0.60). Additionally, duplex condominiums built over the period have an average total valuation (land plus improvement) per square foot of floor area ($1,537) which is similar to that observed for single-family residences ($1,568). 6 These design and valuation similarities suggest that construction valuations, on a per unit of floor area basis, are likely to be similar for new duplex condos and new single-family homes. Condominiums/townhomes (other than duplex condominiums) are assumed for purposes of this report to have a construction valuation per square foot of floor area which is approximately 13 percent less than that for single family/duplex units, or $697 / sqft. This is based on Assessor data showing that for Aspen units built in the period, average total (land plus improvement) valuation per square foot of floor area is 13 percent lower for condominiums/townhomes ($1,352) than for single family/duplex units ($1,561). For additional perspective, Dodge Analytics data also indicates that for Pitkin County units built over the period, attached units have a lower average valuation per square foot than single family units (specifically 37 percent lower, at $305/sqft vs. $480/sqft), although the Dodge figures would be expected include deed-restricted affordable units as well as Pitkin County units outside of Aspen, and thus may not be representative of free-market condominium/townhome units in Aspen. Also of note, Assessor data indicate that condominiums/townhomes built recently tend to have less basement space than single family/duplex homes, which (all else held equal) would tend reduce their construction cost when evaluated per unit of floor area (recall that floor area calculations exclude basement square footage in proportion to the share of basement wall area below grade). Conversely, condominiums/townhomes in some cases have common circulation areas, structured parking, and common amenities (partially or entirely excluded from floor area) which may increase their relative construction costs on per unit of floor area. Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Valuation Ratios As noted previously, one method used to derive construction employment was via the use of construction employment:valuation ratios, as shown in Table 2 to follow. As shown, the analysis involves dividing the average construction valuations per 1,000 sqft (i.e. $802,000 for single family/duplex units and $697,000 for condominiums/townhomes, as derived previously) by the average construction value per employee (estimated at $207,124 for residential construction in Pitkin County; assumed to be the same for both single family/duplex units and condominium/townhome units). For single family/duplex units, this results in an estimated construction employee years required to construct 1,000 square feet of floor area. Assuming an average construction employee career length of 40 years, this results in an estimate of permanent construction employees per 1,000 square feet built. For condominium/townhome units, the figures are about 13 percent lower, at employeeyears per 1,000 square feet, and permanent construction employees per 1,000 square feet. 6 The Assessor does not report estimated improvement valuation for duplex condos or other types of condominiums, but rather just total valuation. RRC Associates 7

10 Two of the factors involved in this calculation warrant additional explanation. The estimate of average construction valuation per construction worker is derived from economic modeling data produced by IMPLAN, an economic modeling system sold by the Minnesota IMPLAN Group. The valuation estimate reflects a one third/two-thirds blend of ratios for Pitkin County and the State of Colorado respectively. The State of Colorado was chosen as a proxy for construction establishments based in Eagle and Garfield Counties but doing work in Pitkin County, insofar as average wage rates for construction workers in Garfield County and Colorado are similar. The 33 percent/67 percent Pitkin/Colorado weighting was chosen to approximate the location of construction establishments doing business in Pitkin County (with most construction employment in Pitkin County estimated to be attributable to downvalley firms). This is based on a finding that in , among construction/agriculture/mining employees working in Pitkin County and living in the Roaring Fork Valley, 32 percent lived in Pitkin County and 68 percent lived in Eagle and Garfield counties. 8 Regarding employee career length, it is common to assume 35 or 40 years. Pitkin County currently assumes 40 years for purposes of its housing impact fee calculations, so 40 years is used here for consistency. Table 2 Derivation of Construction Employment from Employment:Valuation Ratios OPERATION SINGLE FAMILY/ DUPLEX CONDO/ TOWNHOME $802,000 $697,000 DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE Construction valuation per 1,000 sqft. (Source: RRC estimates, per previous section) $247,587 $247,587 $186,892 $186,892 / $207,124 $207,124 Construction valuation per employee-year: persons employed at construction establishments based in Pitkin County. (Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector 37 - new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures.) Construction valuation per employee-year: persons employed at construction establishments firms based in Colorado (as a proxy for Roaring Fork Valley construction firms based in Eagle and Garfield counties). (Source: Colorado IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector 37 - new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures.) Blend: Average construction valuation per construction job, 33%/67% Pitkin/Colorado weighting. = Average construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft of new residential construction /40 = Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career) 8 Census Transportation Planning Products (place of work by place of residence); RRC Associates. Also supporting an estimate of significant Aspen construction work done by downvalley firms are data indicating that Pitkin County accounted for 60 percent of the combined valuation of Pitkin County/Garfield County new residential and nonresidential building construction over the period (per Dodge Analytics), but Pitkin County construction establishments accounted for just 23 percent of employees in the two counties in the building construction and specialty trade contractor sectors over the period (per Colorado State Demographer). RRC Associates 8

11 Construction Employment Derived from Employment:Labor Income Ratios The second primary method utilized to derive construction employment was via the use of employment:labor income ratios, as shown in Table 3 and described to follow. The analysis first involved determining the share of construction valuation attributable to labor; this was inferred from City of Aspen use tax audit data, which (based on data from 48 reviewed residential projects) suggests that materials account for an average of approximately 44 percent of project valuation (with the remaining 56 percent attributable to labor), with roughly similar ratios observed for single-family and multi-family units. Thus, it was inferred that construction labor costs per 1,000 square feet of floor area averages $449,120 for single family/duplex units and $390,320 for condominium/townhome units. These labor values were then divided by average labor income per employee, estimated to be $90,812 for residential construction in Pitkin County (again based on a blend of factors for establishments located in Pitkin County and in Colorado-as a proxy for downvalley firms). This results in construction employee years per 1,000 square feet of single family/duplex floor area, and employee years per 1,000 square feet of condominium/townhome floor area. Assuming an average construction employee career length of 40 years, this results in an estimate of permanent construction employees per 1,000 sqft of single family/duplex floor area, and employees per 1,000 sqft of condominium/townhome floor area. Table 3 Derivation of Construction Employment from Employment:Labor Income Ratios OPERATION SINGLE FAMILY/ DUPLEX CONDO/ TOWNHOME DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE $802,000 $697,000 Construction valuation per 1,000 sqft. (Source: RRC estimates, per above) 44% 44% Percent of construction value attributable to materials. (Source: City of Aspen use tax audit data for 48 projects involving new single-family or multi-family floor area; RRC Associates.) $352,880 $306,680 Average materials value per 1,000 sqft (derived) x 56% 56% Percent of construction value attributable to labor (inferred). = $449,120 $390,320 Average labor value per 1,000 sqft (derived) $131,904 $131,904 Average labor income per employee, including employee compensation and proprietor income, for persons employed at construction establishments based in Pitkin County. (Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector 37 - new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures.) $70,266 $70,266 Average labor income per employee, including employee compensation and proprietor income, for persons employed at construction establishments based in Colorado (as a proxy for Roaring Fork Valley construction firms based in Eagle and Garfield counties). (Source: Pitkin County IMPLAN 2012, inflation-adjusted to 2014, for IMPLAN sector 37 - new residential permanent site single- and multi-family structures.) / $90,812 $90,812 Blend: average labor income per employee, 33%/67% Pitkin/Colorado weighting. = Average construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft of new residential construction /40 = Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career) RRC Associates 9

12 Final Estimates of Construction Employment Final estimates of construction employment were derived by taking an average of the two methods outlined previously. As illustrated in Table 4 to follow, for single family/duplex units, this results in an estimate of approximately construction worker-years per 1,000 square feet of floor area, or approximately permanent construction workers per 1,000 square feet (assuming a 40 year career). For condominiums/townhomes, the corresponding figures are construction worker years and permanent construction workers per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Employment demands are assumed to grow linearly, so that 2,000 square feet of floor area requires twice as many workers as 1,000 square, and so forth as unit size increases. Table 4 Final Estimates of Construction Employment SINGLE FAMILY/ DUPLEX CONDO/ TOWNHOME DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: method 1 (employment:valuation ratios) Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: method 2 (employment:labor income ratios) Construction worker-years per 1,000 sqft: Average of two methods Permanent construction workers per 1,000 sqft (assuming 40 year career) Interviews with Building Contractors With outreach assistance from the Aspen Community Development Department, RRC conducted interviews with three residential general contractors active in Aspen. 9 The contractors each provided information about a single-family unit they had recently constructed in Aspen. The contractors estimated employment associated with their project by estimating the average number of construction workers on site at a time throughout the duration of the project, and/or through job logs documenting workers on site each day of construction. From this information, along with data on construction duration and floor area, RRC was able to estimate the number of employee-years required to construct 1,000 square feet of floor area. Altogether, the three projects are estimated to have required an average of 4.6 employee-years per 1,000 square feet of floor area. The three projects had an average of approximately 3,300 square feet of floor area, and an average construction valuation (labor plus materials) of approximately $880 / square foot of floor area. The projects varied considerably in their employment generation, likely in part reflecting differences in the complexity of the projects and on-site staffing levels. The average employment generation rate indicated by these contractors is similar to the estimate derived in the prior section (approximately 4.4 employees per 1,000 sqft for single family units), providing a degree of corroboration, although it should be recognized that a sample of three projects is limited. For additional perspective from other communities, Rees Consulting and RRC Associates conducted similar interviews and surveys with builders of residential units in four resort counties (Gunnison, San 9 A fourth contractor was contacted but did not respond to invitations to participate. RRC Associates 10

13 Miguel, and Summit, CO; and Teton, WY) in 2000, as part of a multi-county residential employment generation study. Again, contractors were asked to estimate the average number of workers onsite throughout the duration of the project. Altogether, across 33 projects (including custom single-family, single family projects with multiple similar units built by a single contractor, and multifamily projects), there were an estimated 2.3 jobsite workers per year per 1,000 square feet of heated space. For custom single family home projects only, there were an average of 2.9 jobsite workers per year per 1,000 square feet of heated space (sample of 22 projects). Importantly, these figures are benchmarked to heated area, which is typically significantly larger than floor area defined pursuant to the Aspen Land Use regulations, if the employment generation rates derived in this research would be accordingly higher if it were possible to restate the figures in floor area terms. Notwithstanding this caution, as well as the fact that the data is dated and covers different geographic areas, the results (particularly allowing for upward adjustment to floor area terms) are in the same ballpark as the Aspen estimates. Residential Operations and Maintenance Employment This chapter summarizes findings regarding employment associated with home operations and maintenance. Utilization of Service Providers for Home Operations and Maintenance Following is a summary of findings pertaining to the types of service providers used by Aspen homeowners for home operations and maintenance, based on the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey. The analysis examines the use of employment-generating service providers (as well as owners own labor) by unit type, occupancy, and floor area. Results are for free-market units only. Subsequent analysis quantifies employment demand associated with use of these service providers. 11 Utilization of service providers by unit type: As shown in Figure 1 to follow, most single family home/duplex households hire contractors/employees/specialty services (87 percent) and/or perform household operations/maintenance tasks themselves (78 percent). Much smaller shares hire a property management company (27 percent), belong to a homeowners association (21 percent), or hire an on-site caretaker (8 percent). In addition, 27 percent obtain other services locally, such as chef/kitchen help/catering (18 percent), pet sitter (7 percent), and child care provider/nanny (6 percent). Condominium and townhome owners primarily take care of home maintenance via a homeowners association (98 percent), as well as doing the work themselves (64 percent). Progressively smaller shares hire a property management company (57 percent), contractors/employees/specialty services (55 percent), and/or an on-site caretaker (11 percent). Additionally, 15 percent obtain other services locally, such as a pet sitter (5 percent) and miscellaneous other services. Comparing the two unit types, single family/duplex owners are relatively more likely to hire contractors (87 percent vs. 55 percent), perform work themselves (78 percent vs. 64 percent), 11 Note as well that additional detailed Aspen Homeowner survey results by unit type are also contained in Appendix A, while additional survey results by occupancy type are contained in Appendix B. RRC Associates 11

14 and obtain miscellaneous personal services locally (27 percent vs. 15 percent). By contrast, condominium/townhome owners are more likely to belong to a homeowners association (98 percent vs. 21 percent) or hire a property management company (57 percent vs. 27 percent). Figure 1 Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home: by Unit Type (Free-Market Units Only) Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Hire contractors/employees/specialty services Work is performed by myself or family members Hire a property management company Use or belong to a homeowners association Hire an on-site caretaker Other 1% 1% 8% 11% 21% 27% 55% 57% 64% 78% 87% Which of the following do you use to maintain and operate your Aspen residence? 98% Total share obtaining other services locally (net) Chef/kitchen help/catering Pet sitter Child care provider/nanny Personal trainer Other Personal assistant Driver, pilot Concierge/butler 4% 7% 5% 6% 4% 6% 3% 1% 3% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 15% 18% 27% Single family / duplex Condominium / townhome What other services do you obtain in your home when in Aspen? (Percent obtaining services locally only; providers traveling with household excluded) Utilization of service providers by occupancy type: Use of service providers has been examined for two occupancy groups: 1) owner occupants (defined as owner occupancy at least 40 weeks per year), and 2) all other occupancies (i.e. owner-occupied less than 40 weeks per year, including households using their unit primarily as second homes, short-term rentals, long-term rentals, and/or other uses or combinations of uses). As illustrated in Figure 2 to follow, most owner-occupants report that operations and maintenance is performed by themselves or by family members (90 percent). Additionally, 74 RRC Associates 12

15 percent hire contractors/employees/specialty services, while 45 percent belong to a homeowners association and small shares hire a property management company (14 percent) or an on-site caretaker (4 percent). In addition, 20 percent obtain miscellaneous personal services locally, such as a pet sitter (7 percent), chef/kitchen help/catering (7 percent), and child care provider/nanny (5 percent). Non-owner-occupants mainly take care of work through homeowners associations (73 percent), contractors/employees/specialty services (67 percent), doing work themselves (62 percent), or hiring a property management company (59 percent). An additional 13 percent indicated that they hire an on-site caretaker. In addition, 20 percent obtain miscellaneous personal services locally, such as chef/kitchen help/catering (12 percent) and child care provider/nanny (5 percent). Comparing the two occupancy types, owner-occupants are relatively more likely to perform work themselves (90 percent vs. 62 percent) and are slightly more likely to hire contractors (74 percent vs. 67 percent). By contrast, non-owner-occupants are relatively more likely to belong to a homeowners association (73 percent vs. 45 percent), hire a property management company (59 percent vs. 14 percent), or hire an on-site caretaker (13 percent vs. 4 percent). Both groups are about equally likely to obtain other miscellaneous personal services (20 percent each). It should be recognized that results by occupancy type and unit type are interrelated. In the survey response, most owner-occupants lived in single family/duplex units (66 percent), with 31 percent living in condominiums/townhomes and 3 percent living in other unit types. By contrast, other occupancy groups were less likely to own a single family/duplex unit (32 percent), and more likely to own a condominium/townhouse unit (66 percent), with 2 percent owning other unit types. RRC Associates 13

16 Figure 2 Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home: by Occupancy Type (Free-Market Units Only) Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Work is performed by myself or family members Hire contractors/employees/specialty services Use or belong to a homeowners association Hire a property management company Hire an on-site caretaker Other 4% 0% 2% 14% 13% 45% 62% 74% 67% 59% 73% 90% Which of the following do you use to maintain and operate your Aspen residence? Total share obtaining other services locally (net) Chef/kitchen help/catering Pet sitter Child care provider/nanny Personal trainer Other Personal assistant Driver, pilot Concierge/butler 7% 12% 10% 4% 5% 5% 5% 4% 2% 3% 1% 2% 0% 2% 0% 1% 20% 20% Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year All other occupancies What other services do you obtain in your home when in Aspen? (Percent obtaining services locally only; providers traveling with household excluded) Utilization of service providers by floor area single family/duplex units: Generally speaking, for single family/duplex units, the use of paid service providers increases with floor area. As home sizes rise from under 2,000 square feet to 5,000+ square feet, use of the following service providers increases: contractors (73 percent to 90 percent), homeowners associations (16 percent 49 percent), property management companies (13 percent to 47 percent), caretakers (3 percent to 16 percent), and miscellaneous personal services (10 percent to 32 percent). These results would support an expectation that employment needs accordingly rise as home sizes increase, potentially at an increasing rate as homes get larger (insofar as more types of service providers are used, and as the space needing service increases). RRC Associates 14

17 Figure 3 Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home: Single Family/Duplex Units, by Floor Area (Free-Market Units Only) Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Work is performed by myself or family members Hire contractors/employees/specialty services Use or belong to a homeowners association Hire a property management company Hire an on-site caretaker Other 3% 1% 2% 1% 1% 0 2% 16% 10% 20% 27% 9% 13% 21% 26% 18% 16% 49% 42% 47% 64% 63% 74% 73% 92% 86% 92% 93% 89% 90% Which of the following do you use to maintain and operate your Aspen residence? Total share obtaining other services locally (net) Chef/kitchen help/catering Pet sitter Child care provider/nanny Personal trainer Other Personal assistant Driver, pilot Concierge/butler 5% 10% 3% 9% 5% 12% 5% 3% 8% 5% 7% 9% 0% 3% 6% 7% 0% 1% 1% 2% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 7% 7% 7% 14% 23% 23% 20% 14% 27% 27% 37% 32% 1,999 sqft or less 2,000-2,999 sqft 3,000-3,999 sqft 4,000-4,999 sqft 5,000+ sqft What other services do you obtain in your home when in Aspen? (Percent obtaining services locally only; providers traveling with household excluded) RRC Associates 15

18 Figure 4 Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep, and Use of Additional Services Obtained In the Home: Condominium/Townhome Units, by Floor Area (Free-Market Units Only) Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Use or belong to a homeowners association 99% 97% 91% Work is performed by myself or family members 65% 66% 66% Hire a property management company Hire contractors/employees/specialty services 55% 57% 57% 50% 57% 71% Hire an on-site caretaker 6% 14% 18% Which of the following do you use to maintain and operate your Aspen residence? Other 1% 0% 2% Total share obtaining other services locally (net) 10% 16% 33% Under 1,000 sqft 1,000-1,999 sqft Chef/kitchen help/catering 3% 4% 11% 2,000-2,999 sqft Pet sitter 4% 4% 13% Child care provider/nanny Personal trainer Other Personal assistant Driver, pilot Concierge/butler 3% 5% 4% 2% 3% 5% 2% 4% 9% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 4% 1% 1% 2% What other services do you obtain in your home when in Aspen? (Percent obtaining services locally only; providers traveling with household excluded) RRC Associates 16

19 Utilization of service providers by floor area condominium/townhome units: For condominium/townhome units, the use of paid service providers generally shows more moderate variation by floor area than for single family/duplex units, at least across the size groupings analyzed. As condominium/townhome floor area rises from under 1,000 sqft to 2,000+ sqft, there is increased use of contractors (50 percent to 71 percent), on-site caretakers (6 percent to 18 percent), and miscellaneous personal services (10 percent to 33 percent). By contrast, use of HOAs decreases slightly with size (99 percent to 91 percent), while use of property management companies holds relatively steady with size (55-57 percent), as does the incidence of self-performed work (65-66 percent). Conversion of Expenditures on Home Services to Jobs In addition to tracking the incidence of use of services, the Homeowner Survey also gathered data on annual expenditures made for each type of service provider. These results were converted into estimates of employment associated with home maintenance and upkeep, through the use of expenditures per employee ratios. This section outlines the methodology utilized to convert homeowner expenditures to employment. The employment findings themselves are analyzed later in this chapter. The Homeowner Survey collected data on five different types of home operations expenditures, as listed below: Expenditures on homeowner association (HOA) dues / assessments Expenditures on property management company (PMC) services Expenditures on contractors / employees / specialty services hired by the household Expenditures on on-site caretakers Expenditures on an array of other services obtained in the home (e.g. kitchen help/catering, childcare/nanny, personal assistant, etc.). For most types of home service providers, annual spending amounts were converted into employees 12 based on published economic data on average business revenue per employee for the applicable service, per the 2007 U.S. Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014 (on the basis of the Denver- Boulder-Greeley Consumer Price Index [CPI], or Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages [QCEW] wage rates). Where available, Pitkin County factors were used; if Pitkin County data was unavailable, Colorado (preferably) or U.S. nationwide data was used instead. For some expenditure categories, other or additional conversion approaches were used. The methodology is summarized by type of service provider below. Property management companies (PMCs): We assumed a conversion ratio of $93,974 in homeowner expenditures on PMC services per job. This is based on the 2007 Pitkin County ratio of revenue per job for NAICS 13 industry sector (residential property managers) per the US Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014 based on the change in average 12 Employees represent the number of workers that would typically be employed to complete the service, based on existing employment patterns in the respective industries, which generally includes a blended hybrid of fulltime and part-time employees. 13 North American Industry Classification System. RRC Associates 17

20 QCEW wage per employee for this sector in Pitkin County (resulting in a figure of $103,173 PMC expenditures per PMC job). The $103,173 figure was then divided by 1.1, to reflect a finding from an RRC survey of Pitkin County PMCs (discussed in a separate section later) that PMCs purchase an average of approximately 0.1 FTE in subcontracted labor for every 1.0 job they have on in-house staff (i.e., approximately 0.1 additional service jobs is directly associated with every 1.0 PMC job). Homeowners associations (HOAs): We assumed a conversion ratio of $99,059 in HOA expenditures per job. This reflects an 80 percent/20 percent weighted blend of expenditures:jobs ratios for PMCs (per above) and HOAs respectively. 14 For HOAs serving as employers, the expenditures:jobs ratio is based on 2007 U.S. revenue per job for NAICS sector (property owners associations), adjusted to 2014 based on the change in average wage per employee for the most similar comparable sector nationwide (NAICS sector other similar organizations, except business, professional, labor, and political organizations ), and the Denver CPI. This resulted in an estimate of $132,134 per HOA direct job. The PMC and HOA expenditures:jobs ratios were then blended on a weighted 80 percent/20 percent basis, and divided by 1.1 to account for subcontracted labor. Other contracted services: We assumed a conversion ratio of $109,882 in other contracted services expenditures per direct job. This is based on a 67 percent/33 percent blend of expenditures:employment ratios for NAICS sector 5617 (services to buildings and dwellings) and maintenance and repair construction (IMPLAN industries 39 and 40) respectively. Looking at each of these in turn, the expenditures:job ratio for NAICS sector 5617 is based on the 2007 Pitkin County ratio of revenue per job for that sector, adjusted to 2014 based on the change in average wage per employee for that sector in Pitkin County. The IMPLAN expenditures:employment ratio comes from the IMPLAN modeling system for Pitkin County in 2012 (based on the aggregate for residential and nonresidential structures), inflation-adjusted to Caretakers: We assumed a conversion ratio of $51,924 in expenditures on caretakers per direct job. This is based on a 75 percent / 25 percent weighted blend of wage rates for private household employees as reported by QCEW (industry 814 private households, in Pitkin County, in 2014), and as estimated by IMPLAN (IMPLAN sector 425 private household operations). The blended average wage was divided by 0.85, to reflect assumed total compensation costs of approximately 82% wages / 18% benefits. Other services obtained in the home: Expenditure:employment ratios were developed for other services obtained in the home on a case by case basis, depending on the service received. Generally, the ratios were either assumed to be similar to caretakers (and more generally, private household employees), or were derived from an averaging of business sales:employment ratios (from the 2007 US Economic Census data for Colorado, inflation- 14 While some Aspen HOAs directly hire their own in-house staff to manage the property (and thus the HOA functions as an employer), most appear to contract with property management companies to manage HOA business. 15 IMPLAN is a proprietary economic modeling system, along with associated location-specific economic data, sold by the Minnesota Implan Group. RRC Associates 18

21 adjusted based on CPI to 2014), and average occupational wages (as reported for Colorado in 2013 by the Occupational Employment Statistics & Wages Program). It should be noted that only locally-hired employees were included; employees who traveled with the household (as identified on the survey) were excluded from the employment estimates. o o o o o Chef/kitchen help/catering: We assumed a conversion ratio of $58,192 in expenditures on chef/kitchen help/catering per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the sales:employment ratio for NAICS catering businesses (in Colorado, per 2007 Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the 2013 Colorado average annual wage for chefs and head cooks (multiplied by 1.25 to reflect compensation in the form of benefits). Child care provider/nanny: We assumed a conversion ratio of $36,063 in expenditures on child care services per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the sales:employment ratio for NAICS 6244-child care businesses (in Colorado, per 2007 Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the 2013 average annual wage for childcare workers (multiplied by 1.25 to reflect compensation in the form of benefits). Personal trainer: We assumed a conversion ratio of $47,648 in expenditures on personal training services per direct job. This reflected a 50/50 weighted average of the sales:employment ratio for NAICS other fitness and recreational sports center businesses (in Colorado, per 2007 Economic Census, inflation-adjusted to 2014), and the 2013 average annual wage for fitness trainers and aerobics instructors (multiplied by 1.25 to reflect compensation in the form of benefits). Driver/pilot: We assumed a conversion ratio of $102,964 in expenditures on driver/pilot services per direct job. This reflected a combination of sales:employment ratios in Colorado for NAICS limousine services and NAICS other support activities for air transportation, as well as average occupational wages in Colorado for taxi drivers/chauffeurs and airline pilots, copilots and flight engineers. Concierge/butler, personal assistant, and other household employees: We assumed a conversion ratio of $51,924 in expenditures per direct job, equivalent to the average used for caretakers, and more generally for private household operations/employees (per above). Relationship between Employment and Floor Area: by Unit Type A total of 680 survey responses were available to evaluate the relationship between floor area and employment, by unit type. As shown in Table 5 to follow, most available survey responses were concentrated in the lower to middle home size categories, and were less numerous in the largest size categories, although it is notable that several larger units were included in the sample. For purposes of evaluating the relationship between home size and employment, homes were grouped into 500 square foot (sqft) increments, and the average floor area and the average employment were RRC Associates 19

22 calculated within each increment. The home size groups were then arrayed on a sqft:employment scatterplot, and trend lines were fitted to the data to model the sqft:employment relationships. 16 Table 5 Average Floor Area, Average Employment, and Number of Usable Survey Cases by Floor Area Size Category and Unit Type SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE/DUPLEX CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOME Floor area Average Average # of Average Average # of square footage floor area employment survey floor area employment survey category per unit per unit responses per unit per unit responses Under 500 sqft thru thru , , thru , , thru , , thru , , thru , , thru , n/a n/a n/a 4000 thru , , thru , , thru , n/a n/a n/a 5500 thru , , thru , n/a n/a n/a 6500 thru , n/a n/a n/a 7000 thru , n/a n/a n/a 7500 thru , n/a n/a n/a 8000 thru , n/a n/a n/a 8500 thru , n/a n/a n/a 9000 thru , n/a n/a n/a 9500 sqft or more 12, n/a n/a n/a Total 3, , The results of this analysis for single family/duplex homes and condominiums/townhomes are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 respectively to follow. For both unit types, floor area:employment relationships were only evaluated across home size ranges (in 500 sqft increments) up to 7,000 sqft for singlefamily/duplex residences, and up to 3,500 sqft for condominium/townhome residences (larger units were excluded due to small sample sizes) This approach to evaluating the relationship between home size and employment was chosen to give equal weight to homes in different size categories. Additionally, the approach also strips out the significant variation that exists between homes within a given size increment, and thus emphasizes an understanding of the average employment within a given size grouping. This approach was also found to yield a closer fit between modeled and average actual employment for most size groupings than other statistical approaches (particularly curves fitted to ungrouped data). 17 For single family/duplex units, the <500 sqft and sqft categories were consolidated for analysis purposes, as were the sqft and sqft categories, due to limited sample sizes in these ranges. RRC Associates 20

23 Employment Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015 For both unit types, there is a statistically significant relationship between home size and floor area. In the case of single family/duplex units, the relationship appears to be exponential, with an accelerating level of employment as floor area increases. For condominiums/townhomes, the relationship between employment and floor area appears to be more linear in nature across the size range evaluated Figure 5 Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area: Single Family/Duplex Units Average sqft & employment for homes in each sqft increment Expon. (Average sqft & employment for homes in each sqft increment) y = e x R² = ,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 Floor Area 18 For both unit types, the strength of the relationship between square footage and employment is suggested by the high R squared values (approximately 0.85 to 0.93 for each unit type, where 0 indicates no relationship and 1 indicates a perfect relationship). However, it should be cautioned that the R squared results are significantly inflated using grouped data, because the significant variation that exists among individual homes within a given size grouping is stripped out in the grouping process. As such, the R squared measures shown should not be interpreted as representing the strength of the relationship between square footage and employment at the individual unit level, but rather as a measure of the relationship at a grouped level. RRC Associates 21

24 Employment Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, Figure 6 Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area: Condominium/Townhome Units y = x R² = Average sqft & employment for homes in each sqft increment Linear (Average sqft & employment for homes in each sqft increment) ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 Floor Area Based on the statistical analyses above, the relationship between floor area and operations and maintenance employment for single family / duplex units and condominiums/townhomes respectively are described by the equations shown in Table 6 below. Table 6 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area: By Unit Type Unit Type Modeled Relationship between Floor Area and Operations and Maintenance Employment Floor Area Range Modeled Single family home/duplex y = e x 0 6,999 sqft Condominium/townhome y = x ,499 sqft Note: x=floor area, y=employment. Table 7 and Figure 7 to follow illustrate the modeled relationships between floor area and employment across the size ranges evaluated For single family/duplex homes in excess of 7,000 square feet, employment:square footage relationships might be modeled on the basis of the linear slope between 5,000 and 7,000 square feet, i.e. an additional employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 square feet (e.g employees at 7500 sqft, employees at 8000 sqft, etc.). Alternatively, multi-community data might be considered as well, given larger sample sizes for large units (discussed later in this chapter). For condominiums/townhomes in excess of 3,500 square feet, employment:square footage relationships might be assumed to be described by the same function as below 3,500 square feet, i.e. an additional employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 square feet. RRC Associates 22

25 Employment Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015 Table 7 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area: By Unit Type OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT Square footage Single family/duplex Condominium/townhome , , , , , , , n/a 4, n/a 5, n/a 5, n/a 6, n/a 6, n/a 7, n/a Figure 7 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area: By Unit Type Condominium/townhome Single family/duplex Floor Area RRC Associates 23

26 Relationship between Employment and Home Size: by Unit Type and Occupancy A similar statistical approach was used to model the relationship between employment and floor area, for different occupancy types. Specifically, employment:floor area relationships were examined for units which are owner-occupied at least 40 weeks per year, and units with all other occupancy patterns (e.g. vacation home, short-term rental, long-term rental, etc.). Table 8 below shows the statistical relationships between employment and floor area which were derived for each unit type / occupancy combination. Figure 8 and Figure 9 to follow provide a graphical illustration of these relationships for single-family/duplex units and condominiums/townhomes respectively. For single family/duplex units, employment generation (on average) is modeled to be highly similar for owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied units across the size ranges modeled. For condominiums/townhomes, employment generation (on average) is modeled to be somewhat lower for owner-occupied units than for other occupancies. Table 8 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area: By Unit Type and Occupancy Unit type Occupancy Modeled relationship between floor area and operations and maintenance employment Size range modeled Usable survey cases in size range Single family home/duplex Owner-occupied y= e x 0 5,499 sqft weeks/yr Single family home/duplex Other y= e x 0 6,999 sqft 129 occupancies Condominium/townhome Owner-occupied y= x ,499 sqft weeks/yr Condominium/townhome Other y= x ,499 sqft 304 occupancies Note: x= floor area (in square feet), y=employment. RRC Associates 24

27 Employment Employment Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015 Figure 8 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area: Single Family/Duplex Units, by Occupancy Type Single family/duplex, owneroccupied 40+ weeks/year Single family/duplex, other occupancies Floor Area Figure 9 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Floor Area: Condominiums/Townhomes, by Occupancy Type Condominium/townhome, other occupancies Condominium/townhome, owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year Square Footage RRC Associates 25

28 Total Labor Associated with Home Operations/Upkeep (Including Owner Labor) While the preceding analysis has focused on the relationship between paid employment and unit size/type/occupancy characteristics, it is important to note that many homeowners spend a considerable amount of their own time on home operations and maintenance tasks. To evaluate this owner contribution, the Aspen homeowner survey asked respondents to estimate how many hours per year they or other family members devote to home operations and upkeep. This hourly figure was divided by 2000 to derive an annualized measure of FTE labor contributed by the owner. This owner labor contribution was then added to the employee labor measure to provide an indicator of total labor associated with home operations and upkeep, as well as the share of total labor contributed by the owner s household. Summary statistics by unit type and occupancy are shown in Table 9 below. As might be expected, owner-occupants tend to supply more labor for maintaining their home than non-owner-occupants. On average, for single-family/duplex units, owner-occupants supply approximately 49 percent of the total labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants supply approximately 11 percent of the labor needed for their units. Similarly, for condominiums/townhomes, owner-occupants supply an average of 35 percent of the total labor required to maintain the home, while non-owner-occupants supply an average of 10 percent of the labor needed for their units. Unit Type Table 9 Average Total Labor Associated with Home Operations and Upkeep: Paid Labor and Owner FTE Labor By Unit Type and Occupancy Occupancy Paid Employees: FTE Owner labor: FTE Total FTE (paid & owner) Owner FTE as a share of Total FTE Survey cases Single family/duplex Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year % 106 Single family/duplex Other occupancies % 124 Single family/duplex Total % 233 Condo/townhome Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year % 61 Condo/townhome Other occupancies % 259 Condo/townhome Total % 324 Total Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year % 167 Total Other occupancies % 383 Total Total % 557 Note: Owner FTE labor is calculated as total annual hours spent on home operations/upkeep by the owner s household, divided by 2,000 hours. Note: Sample size is slightly larger by unit type alone, then by occupancy type within unit type, as reflected above. Taking the analysis a step further, using the same statistical approach as previously, total labor:floor area relationships were modeled by unit type and occupancy. As shown in Figure 10 to follow, for single family/duplex units, the total labor outlay associated with home maintenance and operations was found RRC Associates 26

29 Employment plus "Owner FTE Labor" Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015 to be higher for owner-occupied homes than other occupancies, after including the owner labor contribution. For condominiums/townhomes (Figure 11), owner-occupied and non-owner-occupied units were found to incur similar labor outlays. 20 This analysis helps to shed light on the impact of owner contribution to home operations and upkeep. To the extent owners (and especially owner-occupants) contribute to home operations and upkeep and house themselves they avert some of the employment and workforce housing demand that might otherwise stem from maintaining and operating the home. Figure 10 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment plus Owner FTE Labor vs. Floor Area: Single Family/Duplex Units, by Occupancy Type Single family/duplex, other occupancies Single family/duplex, owneroccupied 40+ weeks/year Floor Area 20 It should be noted that the employment:sqft relationships derived from this analysis are based on a smaller number of usable survey responses (n=550) than the previous analysis of employment by unit type by occupancy type (n=637). As such, the curves from these sets of analysis cannot be directly compared. RRC Associates 27

30 Employment plus "Owner FTE Labor" Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015 Figure 11 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment plus Owner FTE Labor vs. Floor Area: Condominiums/Townhomes, by Occupancy Type Condominium/townhome, other occupancies Condominium/townhome, owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year Floor Area Aspen Property Management Company Survey With outreach assistance from the Aspen Community Development Department, RRC conducted a survey of Aspen property management companies. The primary purpose of the survey was to gather information about the employment requirements associated with delivering property management services to homes in Aspen. A total of 13 Aspen property management companies were contacted and five provided data about their operations via surveys or interviews. The results provide an additional point of reference for understanding Aspen s residential employment picture, particularly employment associated with property management services. Selected notable findings from the research are summarized below. Each of the responding property management firms provides both services related to property upkeep (the physical asset) as well as concierge/personal services to the owner/occupants. Some of the responding firms also provide short-term rental management services, HOA management services, and/or commercial property management services. Firms specializing in property management services to individual residential owners only (not HOAs or commercial property) utilize an average of approximately 0.5 FTE in labor per residential unit served. For every in-house FTE, responding firms subcontract for an average of approximately 0.1 FTE in additional labor. RRC Associates 28

31 Each firm was asked to quantify the labor needs associated with a randomly selected unit in each of three categories of their inventory: one unit with high employment/service needs, one unit with average needs, and one unit with low needs. o o o o o In the high employment needs category, respondents each selected single family/duplex units, with a median of 8,000 square feet of living area. A median of 1,300 hours (0.65 FTE) of in-house and subcontracted labor was used to service the units annually, with a range of 700 to 2500 hours per unit. In the average employment needs category, respondents selected a mix of single family/duplex and condominium/townhome units, with a median of 5,500 square feet of living area. A median of 490 labor hours (0.245 FTE) were spent servicing these units annually. In the low employment needs category, respondents selected a mix of single family/duplex and condominium/townhome units, with a median of 3,200 square feet of living area. A median of 175 labor hours ( FTE) were spent servicing these units annually. It should be noted that the labor needs above only reflect labor provided by the property management firms or their subcontractors. To the extent that owners may have used additional service providers (e.g. HOAs, contractors, caretakers, etc.), those employment demands are excluded. Firms were also asked to comment on factors that caused the respective units to have either high or low service needs. The following factors were mentioned: Size. Generally, the larger the size of the unit and property, the greater the service needs; this is consistent with the square footage differences of the units selected in each needs category as summarized above. Amenities. Degree to which the owner is in town; greater time in Aspen often equates to higher service needs. Relatedly, firms tend to be busier at the times of year when owners are in town. Number of persons in owner travel party, including children and guests (higher needs with more people). Desire of the owner to do things themselves vs. have services provided. Employment Relationships Based on Multi-Community Data (Heated Square Feet) RRC has conducted similar homeowner employment generation surveys in a variety of mountain resort communities over the past 15 years. The data has been aggregated into a single database to permit analyses based on a larger sample of units, which is particularly useful for understanding employment patterns for especially large homes (for which data tends to be limited at the individual community level). Some communities have chosen to base affordable housing mitigation requirements on multicommunity patterns rather than data for their community alone. RRC Associates 29

32 Specifically, the merged database is based on homeowner surveys conducted in the following areas: Aspen (2004, 2008, 2014) Blaine County, ID (2002) Breckenridge/Upper Blue River Valley, CO (2000/01) Eagle County, CO (2001) Gunnison County, CO (1999/00) San Miguel County, CO (1999/00) Snowmass Village, CO (2008) Teton County, WY (1999/00, 2012) It should be noted that this database is benchmarked to heated square feet (excluding heated garages), rather than floor area as defined by the Aspen Land Use Regulations. Aspen s data has been incorporated into the merged database on a heated square footage basis. Comparisons between Aspen and multi-community data is also made on a heated square footage basis in this section, rather than a floor area basis. A total of 4,531 usable survey cases with heated square footage, employment, and unit type are available from the database. Similar statistical techniques to those employed above were used to derive employment:heated square footage relationships for different unit types and occupancies. In the multi-community database, an exponential relationship again appears to exist between employment and square footage for single family/duplex units, similar to Aspen s results, as illustrated in Figure 12 to follow. Also of note, when fitted across the 0 6,999 sqft range only, Aspen s modeled results and the multi-community modeled results are highly similar across most of the size spectrum (except units larger than approximately 6,000 sqft, where Aspen s employment generation becomes slightly higher), as shown in Figure The rough similarity of results provides a reasonableness check on the Aspen results, and it could also potentially be grounds for considering using the multicommunity average data for policy purposes (e.g. for very large units), although a conversion from heated square feet to floor area would be needed before doing so. 21 Note that square footage:employment models vary depending on the range of home sizes included in the modeling process, insofar as the models are designed to produce a single equation which best fits all of the available datapoints. As such, models for a given community/area are likely to differ to the extent they are derived from differing home size ranges. RRC Associates 30

33 Employment Employment Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, Figure 12 Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage: Average Single sqft Family/Duplex & employment Units for SF/duplex (Multi-Community homes in each Database) sqft increment Average sqft & employment for SF/duplex homes in each sqft increment Expon. (Average sqft & employment for SF/duplex homes in each sqft increment) y = e x R² = ,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Heated Square Footage Figure 13 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage, Single Family/Duplex Units: Aspen vs. Multi-Community Database (Models derived from homes up to 6,999 sqft only) 0.8 Chart Title Multi-community database: modeled based on homes thru 6999 sqft Aspen: modeled based on homes thru 6999 sqft Heated Square Footage For condominiums/townhomes, a linear relationship appears to exist between employment and heated square footage in the multi-community database (Figure 14), again similar to Aspen s pattern. However, Aspen s modeled employment generation is generally somewhat higher than the multi-community RRC Associates 31

34 Employment Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015 average, particularly as square footage increases, as shown in Figure 15 (data fitted across the 0 3,499 sqft range only in both areas for this comparison). 22 Figure 14 Association between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage: Condominium/Townhome Units (Multi-Community Database) Average sqft & employment for units in each sqft increment Average sqft & employment for units in each sqft increment Linear (Average sqft & employment for units in each sqft increment) y = x R² = ,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 Heated Square Footage 22 Note that heated square footage:employment models vary depending on the range of home sizes included in the modeling process, insofar as the models are designed to produce a single equation which best fits all of the available datapoints. As such, models for a given community/area are likely to differ if derived from differing home size ranges. RRC Associates 32

35 Employment Aspen Residential Employment Generation Study March 4, 2015 Figure 15 Modeled Relationship between Operations/Maintenance Employment and Heated Square Footage, Condominium/Townhome Units: Aspen vs. Multi-Community Database (Models derived from homes up to 3,499 sqft only) Multi-community database: modeled based on units thru 3499 sqft Aspen: modeled based on units thru 3499 sqft Chart Title Heated Square Footage Total Residential Employment Generation Total residential employment generation has been calculated from the sum of construction employment (new floor area only) and operations and maintenance employment. The results using factors specific to Aspen (instead of multi-community averages) are summarized in Table 10 to follow, for 500 square foot increments of floor area. As shown, average total employment generation for a single family/duplex unit with 3,000 square feet of floor area is estimated to be workers. Looking at the two categories of employment more specifically: Construction employment per square foot is projected to increase at a linear rate for both unit types, with an approximately 13 percent higher employment generation rate for single family/duplex units than for condominium/townhome units. Operations and maintenance employment is estimated to grow at an exponential rate for single family/duplex units, and at a linear rate for condominium/townhome units. As the sum of construction and operations/maintenance employment, total employment is estimated to grow quasi-exponentially for single family/duplex units, and linearly for condominium/townhome units. RRC Associates 33

36 Table 10 Estimated Total Employment by Unit Type and Floor Area INITIAL CONSTRUCTION EMPLOYMENT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYMENT TOTAL EMPLOYMENT Floor Single family/ Condominium/ Single family/ Condominium/ Single family/ Condominium/ area duplex townhome duplex townhome duplex townhome , , , , , , , n/a n/a 4, n/a n/a 5, n/a n/a 5, n/a n/a 6, n/a n/a 6, n/a n/a 7, n/a n/a Notes: Operations and maintenance employment excludes owner FTE labor, i.e. labor contributed by the owner and household members to unit upkeep. Results exclude employment associated with personal service employees who travel with the household. The results do not deduct for other types of employees (such as caretakers) who may be housed by the owner. Operations and maintenance employment for single family/duplex units larger than 7,000 sqft may be assumed to grow by employees for every 500 square feet in excess of 7,000 sqft. Operations and maintenance employment for condominium/townhome units larger than 3,500 sqft may be assumed to grow additional employees for each 500 square foot increment in excess of 3,500 sqft. Construction employment is assumed to grow linearly beyond 7,000 sqft, at employees per 1,000 sqft for single family/duplex units and employees per 1,000 sqft for condominiums/townhomes. RRC Associates 34

37 Appendix A: Homeowner Survey Results by Unit Type Results of the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey are summarized in this section of the report, as segmented by unit type (single family/duplex vs. condominium/townhome). Results are limited to freemarket units only. Respondent Housing Characteristics Following is a summary of key characteristics of Aspen housing units owned by respondents, particularly physical characteristics of the units. Results are also illustrated in Figure 16 to Figure 25 to follow. Unit type: A little over half of units represented in the survey response were condominiums/ townhomes (53 percent), followed by single-family houses (33 percent), duplexes (11 percent), and mobile/modular homes (2 percent). For purposes of the remainder of the analysis, results for single family and duplex units have been combined, and mobile/modular units have been excluded. Restricted vs. free-market housing: Fully 98 percent of respondents overall said their unit was unrestricted free-market housing, while 2 percent said their unit was restricted housing. In the remainder of this section, only free-market units are included in the analysis. Property location: The most common locations for single-family/duplex residences were the West End (29 percent), Cemetery Lane (24 percent), and East of Aspen (22 percent). The top location for respondents in condominiums/townhomes was downtown (53 percent), followed distantly by the West End (14 percent) and East of Aspen (11 percent). Number of bedrooms: Single family or duplex homes had an average of 3.3 bedrooms. Most homes had three bedrooms (28 percent), four bedrooms (34 percent), or five bedrooms (21 percent). More modest shares of units had 0 2 bedrooms (9 percent) or six or more bedrooms (9 percent). Respondents in condominiums/townhomes on average had 2.1 bedrooms. A majority of these respondents reported having one bedroom (21 percent), two bedrooms (38 percent), or three bedrooms (29 percent), while smaller shares had no bedrooms (5 percent) or four or more bedrooms (7 percent). Presence and use of accessory units/homes located on property: Fifteen percent of single family/duplex homeowners and 2 percent of condominium/townhome owners said that there was one or more separate, accessory units located on their property. Among respondents reporting the presence of accessory units, most single family/duplex homeowners reported that there was one (73 percent) or two (24 percent) accessory units, with an average of 1.4 units. Fifty percent of condominium/townhome owners with accessory units reported the presence of one, 17 percent reported two, and 33 percent reported 3 or more, with a 2.2 unit average (results for condominiums/townhomes should be interpreted with caution due to a modest response size). RRC Associates 35

38 Among single-family/duplex owners reporting the presence of accessory units, the largest share reported that the units were rented long-term to local residents (39 percent). Smaller shares used the units for visiting guests of the owner/household (27 percent) or for household/family member use (24 percent). Condominium/townhome respondents with accessory units indicated the greatest use as a caretaker residence (56 percent), followed by renting long-term to local residents (33 percent) and use by visiting guests of owner/household (33 percent). A modest 4 percent of single-family/duplex homeowners and 0 percent of condominium/townhome visitors indicated that their accessory units are left vacant/not used. Finished, unfinished, and total living space (including accessory residences, if applicable): Singlefamily house and duplex homeowners reported that their unit had an average of 3,631 square feet of finished space and a median of 3,300 square feet, as well as an average of 68 unfinished square feet. Condominium/duplex owners reported an average of 1,269 finished square feet (median 1,027 square feet) and an average of 5 unfinished square feet. These figures include space in the primary residence plus any accessory residences on the property, if applicable. As would likely be expected, single family homes/duplexes were significantly larger in total space (average 3,676 square feet, median 3,300 square feet) than condominiums/townhomes (average 1,280 square feet, median 1,045 square feet). Garage space: Seventy-seven percent of single family/duplex homes and 24 percent of condominiums/townhomes have a garage or access to a common garage. Among single family/duplex homeowners with garages, respondents most frequently reported having one (23 percent) or two (69 percent) parking stalls (average 1.8 stalls). Condominium/townhome owners generally had slightly less garage space, with 55 percent indicating they had one stall and 40 percent indicating there had two (average 1.6 stalls). Basement space: Basements were less common than garages 32 percent of single family house/duplex homeowners indicated that they have a basement, either finished or unfinished, and 8 percent of condominium/townhome owners did as well. Among single family/duplex homes with a basement, the average basement size was 1,063 square feet with a median of 1,000 square feet. Condominium/townhome owners with a basement reported an average basement size of 556 square feet (median 500 square feet). Lot size (single family/duplex units): Among single family house/duplex owners, 43 percent reported that their property was a small residential lot (up to 6,000 square feet); 35 percent had a medium residential lot (6,000 15,000 square feet); and 18 percent had a large lot (more than 15,000 square feet). Year residence was built: Single family home and duplex owners reported a broad range of dates that their home was built, ranging from before 1900 up through the present with the largest share of respondents indicating that the unit was built between 2000 and 2009 (21 percent). The average year that single family homes/duplexes were built was 1973 (median 1979). Condominium and townhome owners were most likely to report that their home was built during the 1960s (31 percent) or 1970s (46 percent). Similar to single family homes, the average year of building for condominiums/ townhomes was 1973 (albeit with an earlier median of 1970). RRC Associates 36

39 Year residence was purchased: The distribution of purchase dates is similar between single family/duplex respondents and condominium/townhome respondents, with 93 percent and 96 percent respectively purchasing their house between 1970 and today. The largest shares of owners for both unit types bought their residences in the decade of (33 percent of single family/duplex respondents, 32 percent of condominium/townhome). The average year of purchase by single family house/duplex homeowners was 1998 (median 2000), and the average year of purchase by condominium/ townhome owners was 1996 (median 1999). Value of residence: Single family home and duplex homeowners reported a wide range of value levels for their homes, with an average value of $4,385,077 and a median of $3,700,000. As would be expected, condominium and townhome owners reported lesser home values, with average value of $1,409,699, with a median of $1,100,000. Most condominium/townhome owners (70 percent) valued their home at between $500,000 and $2,000,000. Recent remodels/renovations: Twenty-six percent of single family/duplex respondents and forty-one percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that they have remodeled recently. Of single family house and duplex owners who have recently renovated, 54 percent reported having renovated between 2010 and The average remodel cost of single family homes and duplexes was reported to be $588,629, with a median of $300,000. Among condominium and townhome owners who have recently renovated, 57 percent indicated that their remodels occurred between 2010 and 2014, with an average remodel cost of $163,634 and a median of $100,000. Planned future remodels/renovations: Eight percent of single family home/duplex owners and 10 percent of condominium/townhome owners expressed an intent to remodel soon. Approximately 78 percent of single family home and duplex owners with plans to renovate intended to do so in 2014 or 2015, while 22 percent expected their plans to be completed in 2016 or later. Single family and duplex homeowners expected to spend an average of $487,632 on their remodel (median $200,000). Most condominium and townhome owners also expected to remodel in 2014 or 2015 (76 percent), while the other 24 percent plan to complete renovations later. The planned cost of remodeling for condominiums and townhomes on average was $112,105 (median $45,000). RRC Associates 37

40 Figure 16 Residence Location Figure 17 Number of Bedrooms Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 38

41 Figure 18 Accessory Units Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 39

42 HEATED, FINISHED SQUARE FEET Figure 19 Finished and Unfinished Heated Space (in square feet) sqft sqft Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 7% 2% Single family / duplex Condominium or townhome 37% sqft 6% 31% sqft sqft 7% 10% 11% 23% SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 3631 sqft; Median: 3300 sqft CONDO/TOWNHOME Average: 1269 sqft; Median: sqft sqft 2% 27% sqft sqft 2% 1% 15% 21% HEATED, UNFINISHED SQUARE FEET 0 sqft 91% 98% Under 499 sqft 500+ sqft 4% 2% 6% 0% SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 68 sqft; Median: 0 sqft CONDO/TOWNHOME Average: 5 sqft; Median: 0 sqft Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 40

43 Figure 20 Total Heated Space (in square feet) Percent of Respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% sqft 0% 7% Single family / duplex Condominium or townhome sqft 2% 36% sqft 5% 32% sqft 7% 10% sqft 11% 23% sqft sqft 2% 2% 15% 27% SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 3676 sqft; Median: 3300 sqft CONDO/TOWNHOME Average: 1280 sqft; Median: 1045 sqft sqft 1% 22% Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 41

44 DOES YOUR RESIDENCE HAVE: A garage A finished or unfinished basement None of the above (If have garage) NUMBER OF PARKING STALLS or more Figure 21 Garage/Basement Size Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 6% 3% 1% 3% 8% 16% 24% 23% 32% 40% 55% 70% 69% Single family / duplex 77% Condominium or townhome (If have basement) BASEMENT SQUARE FOOTAGE sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft sqft 0% 6% 4% 4% 8% 7% 12% 15% 13% 22% 22% 20% 26% 41% SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 1063 sqft; Median: 1000 sqft CONDO/TOWNHOME Average: 556 sqft; Median: 500 sqft Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 42

45 Figure 22 Lot Size and Year Built/Purchased Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 43

46 Figure 23 Value of Residence Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 44

47 Figure 24 Remodeling Plans, and Details of Recent Past Remodel Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 45

48 Figure 25 Future Remodeling Plans Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates Unit Usage Characteristics Table 11 to follow illustrates the average number of weeks homes are used for a variety of purposes across a 52-week year, both overall and segmented by unit type. It should be understood that the data on average weeks of use reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single use type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of RRC Associates 46

49 occupancy across all respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all. With this understanding in mind, key findings include the following: Overall - all respondents: Across the entire set of responses, the leading use of homes is as a primary residence for the owner (average 20.0 weeks, or 39 percent of time available for occupancy in a year). To a lesser extent, homes are used as a vacation rental (14 percent, including time occupied and unoccupied), as a vacation home occupied by the owner or guests of owner (10 percent), and rented long-term to local residents (8 percent of available time). Additionally, units are vacant (and not available for vacation rental) an aggregate of 29 percent of the time. Single family/duplex residences: Among respondents owning a single family house or a duplex, homes are occupied as the primary residence of the owner an average of 54 percent of the year (28.1 weeks) and are vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 28 percent of the time (14.6 weeks). Other uses include as a vacation home for the owner/guests (9 percent), a vacation rental (4 percent, including time vacant but available for rent), or a long-term rental to a local resident (4 percent). Condominium/townhome residences: Among respondents owning a condominium or a townhome, on average the residence is occupied as the primary residence of the owner 24 percent of the time (12.2 weeks) and is vacant 31 percent of the year (16.2 weeks). Respondents reported that their condo/townhome is also commonly used (or available for use) as a vacation rental (23 percent of the year), rented long-term to a local resident (11 percent), or used as a vacation home for themselves or for their guests (10 percent). Table 11 Average Annual Weeks of Use of Home 23 OVERALL - ALL RESPONDENTS Single family / duplex UNIT TYPE Condominium / townhome Type of Use # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks Primary residence for owner % % % Vacation home for owner or guests of owner % 4.9 9% % Vacation rental - weeks actually occupied by visitors 3.9 7% 1.0 2% % Vacation rental - weeks avail. for rent, but not occupied 3.4 7% 1.1 2% % Rented long term to local resident 4.1 8% 2.0 4% % Business/corporate function 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Other use 0.3 1% 0.3 1% 0.3 1% Vacant - not occupied (and not avail. for vacation rental) % % % TOTAL WEEKS % % % Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. 23 To clarify, the data on average weeks of use reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single use type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of occupancy across all respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all. RRC Associates 47

50 Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics Following is a summary of selected demographic characteristics of the households of respondents to the survey. Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence? Most respondents said they themselves (95 percent of single family/duplex respondents, 89 percent of condominium/ townhome respondents) and/or their spouse/partner (77 percent single family/duplex, 62 percent condominium/townhome) occupy their unit while they are in residence. Smaller shares of single family home/duplex owners and condominium/townhome owners said their unit is typically occupied by children (56 percent and 42 percent), friends (34 percent and 33 percent), or relatives/other family members (32 percent and 26 percent). Very small proportions share their unit with business associates (4 percent each) or rent a room to housemate(s) (2 percent and 1 percent). Nine percent of condominium/townhome respondents and 1 percent of single family/duplex respondents said they don t use their home for personal use. Total persons who live/stay in your home while you are in residence: Respondents said an average of 3.4 persons (including themselves) stay in their single family home/duplex while they are in residence and an average of 3.0 persons stay in their condominium/townhome while they are in residence. Total persons under age 18 in the home: Forty-four percent of single family/duplex owners and 37 percent of condominium/townhome owners indicated that children under age 18 typically live or stay in their home. On average, owners of both unit types have 1.0 children under 18 in their homes. Total persons who are retired: Half of single family/duplex respondents (50 percent) and 45 percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that one or more retirees reside in their household. Single family house/duplex owners reported an average of 0.8 retirees, while condominium/townhome owners reported an average of 1.0 retirees. Total persons who work in Aspen: Thirty-one percent of single family/duplex owners indicated that one or more Aspen workers reside in their household (average 0.5 persons). Condominium/townhome owners were less likely to report the presence of residents employed in Aspen, with an 18 percent incidence and an average of 0.2 persons. Total persons who work in the Roaring Fork Valley: Thirty-nine percent of single family/duplex respondents and 22 percent of condominium/townhome respondents indicated that one or more residents of their household work within the Roaring Fork Valley (average 0.7 persons in single family homes/duplexes and 0.3 persons in condominiums/townhomes). Total persons who work outside the Roaring Fork Valley: Twenty-five percent of single family house/duplex owners and 32 percent of condominium/townhome owners reported the presence of one or more persons who are employed outside the Roaring Fork Valley living in their household, with an average of 0.8 persons per household for each unit type. RRC Associates 48

51 Number of hours worked by residents employed in Roaring Fork Valley: Respondents who own single family homes/duplexes reported an average of 1,171 hours worked per year by members of their household in the Roaring Fork Valley (data includes households with no one employed in the valley). Condominium/townhome owners reported an average of 658 hours worked per year by members of their household in the Roaring Fork Valley. Among households with at least one Roaring Fork Valley worker, the average aggregate number of hours worked in the Roaring Fork Valley per year was similar among single family/duplex households (average 2,842 hours) and condominium/townhome households (average 2,727 hours). Figure 26 Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence? Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 49

52 Figure 27 Number of Persons in Household Total and by Age Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 50

53 Figure 28 Number of Persons in Household by Employment Characteristics TOTAL PERSONS WHO WORK FOR AN EMPLOYER OR OWN A BUSINESS LOCATED IN CITY OF ASPEN 2% 0% 3% 1% 1% 1% Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates or more TOTAL PERSONS EMPLOYED IN ROARING FORK VALLEY or more TOTAL PERSONS EMPLOYED OUTSIDE ROARING FORK VALLEY or more Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 5% 7% 9% 9% 13% 13% 6% 11% 2% 6% 7% 3% 15% 18% 15% 19% 61% 69% 75% 68% 82% Single family / duplex Condominium or townhome SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 0.5 person; Median: 0 persons CONDO/TOWNHOME Average: 0.2 person; Median: 0 persons 78% SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 0.7 person; Median: 0 persons CONDO/TOWNHOME Average: 0.3 person; Median: 0 persons SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 0.8 person; Median: 0 persons CONDO/TOWNHOME Average: 0.8 person; Median: 0 persons RRC Associates 51

54 Figure 29 Aggregate Number of Hours Worked by Household Members in Roaring Fork Valley Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0 hr hours hours hours hours hours hours hours 9% 7% 3% 2% 6% 4% 7% 3% 10% 5% 2% 1% 4% 2% 59% Single family / duplex 76% Condominium or townhome SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 1171 hours; Median: 0 hours CONDO/TOWNHOME Average: 658 hours; Median: 0 hours Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 52

55 Intended Future Use of Unit How do you expect to be using your Aspen home five years from now? Overall, most single family house and duplex owners (55 percent) expect to use their unit as a primary residence in five years time. Smaller shares expect to use their home as a vacation home for the owner/guests (36 percent), to use the unit as a retirement residence (10 percent), to use the unit as a vacation rental to visitors (8 percent), to sell it (6 percent), or to rent long-term to a local resident (4 percent). About half of condominium and townhome owners said that they planned to use their unit as a vacation home for the owner/guests (53 percent). More modest shares plan to use the unit as the primary residence for the owner (25 percent) or as a vacation rental to visitors (22 percent), or plan to sell the unit (9 percent), retire in their Aspen residence (8 percent), or rent it out longterm to a local resident (8 percent). Changes in personal/friend/family use over the next five years: A majority of single family home/duplex owners (61 percent) expected their use of the unit to stay the same over the next five years. Respondents were more likely to indicate that their use of the unit would increase (27 percent) than decrease (5 percent). Somewhat similarly, about half of condominium/townhome owners (53 percent) anticipated that their usage of the unit would stay the same over the next five years, while 31 percent felt it would increase and 4 percent indicated that it would decrease. RRC Associates 53

56 Figure 30 Intended Future Use of Unit Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 54

57 Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep Following is a summary of data pertaining to selected aspects of home operations and upkeep, including the types of service providers used by respondents and the services and homeowner expenditures associated with each type of provider. Providers used for home operations and upkeep: Most single family home or duplex owners hire contractors/employees/specialty services (87 percent) or perform work themselves (78 percent). Roughly a quarter hire a property management company (27 percent) or belong to a homeowners association (21 percent), while 8 percent hire an on-site caretaker. Condominium and townhome owners primarily take care of home maintenance via a homeowners association (98 percent), as well as doing the work themselves (64 percent). Progressively smaller shares hire a property management company (57 percent), contractors/employees/specialty services (55 percent), or an on-site caretaker (11 percent). Figure 31 Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 55

58 Services delivered by respective providers: Figure 32 and Figure 33 to follow illustrate the services delivered by home service providers (in instances when the respondent uses the provider), for single family homes/duplexes and condominiums/townhomes respectively. Among single family house and duplex owners, contractors/employees/specialty services hired by the household are identified as providing the most types of services (average 4.6 services provided, among those using these services), followed by on-site caretakers (average 4.2 services), property management companies (average 4.1 services), and HOAs (2.3 services). As illustrated, different types of service providers tend to deliver different mixes of services. For example, HOAs are especially likely to provide single family home and duplex owners with operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies are comparatively likely to provide building maintenance and housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees are especially likely to be hired for trash removal, lawn/landscape maintenance, systems/appliances repair, and security services. Among condominium and townhome owners, HOAs are reported by respondents to provide the most types of services (average 5.5 services provided, among those using HOAs), followed by property management companies (average 4.9 services), on-site caretakers (average 2.9 services), and contractors/employees/specialty services (average 2.5 services). Similar to single family homes, the services provided vary by provider type. HOAs are comparatively likely to provide snow removal, trash removal, building maintenance, lawn/landscape maintenance, and operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies are comparatively likely to provide security service, rental management, and housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees/specialty services are comparatively likely to be hired for systems/appliances repair. RRC Associates 56

59 Figure 32 Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers Single Family/Duplex (Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider) Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 57

60 Figure 33 Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers Condominium/Townhome (Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider) Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 58

61 Annual expenditures on home service providers: Respondents were asked to estimate how much they spend annually on each of respective home service providers that they use. As illustrated in Table 12 below, annual HOA costs are considerably higher for condominium/ townhome owners (average $9,545 / median $6,800) than single-family homeowners (average $4,785 / median $2,100). For single family house and duplex homeowners, among those using property management companies, the average annual expenditure is $13,384 (median $10,000). The average annual expenditure for on-site caretakers is $29,722 (median $7,500), and the average annual expenditure for other contractors/employees is $11,994 (median $5,000). For condominium and townhome owners, the average annual expenditure for property management companies is $9,909 (median $5,250), the average annual expenditure for on-site caretakers is $4,555 (median $1,500) and the average annual expenditure for other contractors/employees is $3,173 (median $2,000). On average, among those using the respective service providers, condominium/townhouse owners spend more than single family/duplex owners on HOAs, while single family/duplex owners have higher expenses for property management companies, caretakers, and other contractors/employees. Table 12 Annual Expenditures on Home Service Providers (If Use Provider) Single family / duplex Condominium / townhome Annual Expenditures on Provider (If Use Provider) Mean Median Mean Median Amount spent on HOA $4,785 $2,100 $9,545 $6,800 Amount spent on property management company $13,384 $10,000 $9,909 $5,250 Amount spent on on-site caretaker $29,722 $7,500 $4,555 $1,500 Amount spent on other contractors/employees $11,994 $5,000 $3,173 $2,000 Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. Caretaker housing: Among single family house and duplex owners with on-site caretakers, 33 percent provide free housing as part of their compensation, 42 percent offer discounted housing, and 25 percent do not provide housing assistance as part of compensation. Among condominium/townhouse owners, 27 percent provide free housing, 64 percent provide discounted housing and 9 percent don t provide housing assistance. Home maintenance and upkeep services delivered by self/household members: Single family house and duplex homeowners indicated that they provide their own service for an average of 3.7 services to their household. Condominium and townhome owners reported that they typically provide their own service an average of 2.0 services. Top self-provided services for single family houses/duplexes include building maintenance (64 percent), housekeeping/ cleaning (61 percent), lawn/landscape maintenance (57 percent), and snow removal (51 percent). Condominium/townhome owners reported as their top self-provided services RRC Associates 59

62 housekeeping/cleaning (72 percent) and systems/appliances repair (45 percent). Single family house and duplex owners estimated they spend an average of 221 hours a year on housework (median 150 hours), while condominium and townhome owners reported an average of 100 hours (median 50 hours), each inclusive of households not providing any self-service. Figure 34 Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Self/Household Members (Base: Respondents/Household Members Who Engage in Home Maintenance/Upkeep) Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 60

63 Additional services obtained in your home: Respondents were asked to further identify any other services they obtain in the home, and specify whether the associated service providers are obtained locally or travel with their household. Single family/duplex owners are much more likely to obtain such services locally (27 percent in aggregate) than to have providers travel with their household (5 percent in aggregate). The most prevalent type of locally obtained service is chef/kitchen help/catering (used by 18 percent of respondents), followed by pet sitter (7 percent), child care provider/nanny (6 percent), and personal trainer (6 percent). The most prevalent type of service delivered by persons traveling with the household is childcare/nanny (3 percent), followed by chef (1 percent) and driver/pilot (1 percent). As shown in in Figure 36 on the following page, 15 percent of condominium/townhome owners obtain personal services locally and 1 percent have providers who travel with their household. The most common locally-obtained services are pet sitter (5 percent), child care provider/nanny (4 percent), and chef/kitchen help/catering (4 percent). Among those using the respective services, the annual amount spent on the respective services is summarized in Table 13 to follow. Among those procuring the respective services, the highest average amount spent is for drivers/pilots. Figure 35 Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained Single Family/Duplex Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% None of these Chef/kitchen help/catering Child care provider/nanny Pet sitter Personal trainer 1% 6% 3% 7% 0% 6% 18% 73% Obtained locally 95% Personal assistant 2% Travels with my household Driver, pilot Other 1% 1% 1% Concierge/butler 1% 0% Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 61

64 Figure 36 Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained Condominium/Townhome Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% None of these Pet sitter 5% 85% 99% Child care provider/nanny Chef/kitchen help/catering 4% 1% 4% Other Personal trainer 3% 3% Obtained locally Travels with my household Driver, pilot Concierge/butler 1% 1% 1% Personal assistant 1% 0% Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. Table 13 Annual Expenditures on Other Services Obtained in the Home (If Obtain Service) Single family / duplex Condominium / townhome Annual Expenditures on Services (If Obtained) Mean Median Mean Median Chef / kitchen help / catering $4,982 $2,000 $10,323 $2,000 Child care provider / nanny $9,772 $2,000 $5,238 $1,000 Concierge / butler $5,000 $5,000 $4,500 $4,500 Personal assistant $16,375 $7,700 $20,367 $1,000 Personal trainer $6,544 $5,000 $13,171 $3,000 Driver, pilot $49,100 $55,000 $41,733 $5,000 Pet sitter $1,695 $1,000 $869 $800 Other $3,708 $2,250 $6,600 $2,000 Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. Housing for employees: Six percent of single family house/duplex owners and 4 percent of condominium/townhome owners indicated that they provide living quarters for locally hired employees. Single family/duplex respondents provided housing for an average of 1.5 employees (median 1.0 employee), while condominium/townhome respondents housed an average of 3.8 employees (median 2.0 employees). RRC Associates 62

65 Housing for employees traveling with the household were slightly less prevalent at 4 percent of single family/duplex respondents and 3 percent of condominium/townhome respondents. The average number of employees housed was 1.1 employees for single family/duplex owners (median 1.0) and 1.2 employees for condominium/townhome owners (median 1.0). DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING QUARTERS FOR EMPLOYEES HIRED LOCALLY? (If provide housing) HOW MANY DO YOU PROVIDE HOUSING FOR? Figure 37 Housing Provided for Employees Yes No or more Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 6% 4% 6% 31% 27% 36% 36% 63% SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 1.5 employees CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOME Average: 3.8 employees 94% 96% DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING QUARTERS FOR EMPLOYEES BROUGHT WITH YOU? Yes No 4% 3% Single family / duplex Condominium or townhome 96% 97% (If provide housing) HOW MANY DO YOU PROVIDE HOUSING FOR? % 20% SINGLE FAMILY/DUPLEX Average: 1.1 employees CONDOMINIUM/TOWNHOME Average: 1.2 employees 80% 90% Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 63

66 Appendix B: Homeowner Survey Results by Occupancy This section of the report summarizes the results of the 2014 Aspen Homeowner Survey by occupancy status, i.e. units occupied by the owner at least 40 weeks per year vs. all other occupancies (i.e. owner occupancy less than 40 weeks per year, e.g. second homes, short- and long-term rentals, etc.). Results are limited to free-market units only. Respondent Housing Characteristics Following is a summary of key characteristics of Aspen housing units owned by respondents, particularly the physical characteristics of the units. Results are also illustrated in Figure 38 through Figure 48 to follow. Unit type: Most owner-occupant respondents live in single family/duplex units (66 percent), with 31 percent living in condominiums/townhomes and 3 percent living in other unit types. By contrast, other occupancy groups are less likely to own a single family/duplex unit (32 percent), and more likely to own a condominium/townhouse unit (66 percent), with 2 percent owning other unit types. Property location: The top location for owner-occupied units was the West End (26 percent), followed by East of Aspen (21 percent) and Cemetery Lane (21 percent). The leading location for non-local respondents was downtown (43 percent), followed by the West End (18 percent) and East of Aspen (14 percent). Number of bedrooms: Owner-occupied residences had an average of 3.1 bedrooms. Most of these respondents reported having three bedrooms (29 percent) or four bedrooms (25 percent), while 15 percent have 0 1 bedrooms, 17 percent have two bedrooms, and 14 percent have five or more bedrooms. Respondents reporting other occupancies had an average of 2.9 bedrooms. The largest share have two bedrooms (28 percent) or three bedrooms (29 percent). Smaller shares reported having 0 1 bedrooms (15 percent), 4 bedrooms (15 percent), or five or more bedrooms (14 percent). Presence and use of accessory units/homes located on property: Twelve percent of owneroccupants and 6 percent of other homeowners said that there was one or more separate, accessory units located on their property. Among owner-occupied units with accessory units, most reported the presence of one (73 percent) or two (23 percent) accessory units (average 1.4 units). Similarly, 65 percent of respondents in other occupancy groups with accessory units reported having one accessory unit, while 23 percent have two units and 12 percent have three or more, with an average of 1.7 accessory units. The most common uses of accessory units for owner-occupied homes include renting long-term to local residents (40 percent) and use by household/family members (30 percent). More modest shares reported use by visiting guests of the owner/household (20 percent), caretaker residence (7 percent), renting short-term to visitors (7 percent), and unit left vacant/unused (7 RRC Associates 64

67 percent). Among respondents reporting all other occupancies, the largest shares indicated that the units were rented to long-term local residents (39 percent) or used by visiting guests of the owner/household (35 percent). Less common uses include caretaker residence (26 percent), household/family member use (19 percent), and short-term rentals to visitors (10 percent). Finished, unfinished, and total living space (including accessory residences, if applicable): Inhabitants of owner-occupied residences reported an average of 2,439 finished square feet in their home (median 2,250 square feet) and an average of 27 unfinished square feet. Respondents living in units with all other occupancy types reported an average of 2,222 finished square feet (median 1,400 square feet) and an average of 36 unfinished square feet. These figures include square footage in the primary residence plus any accessory residences on the property, if applicable. In aggregate, owner-occupants tend to have more total space (average 2,468 square feet, median 2,200 square feet) than units with other occupancies (average 2,244 square feet, median 1,425 square feet). In particular, owner-occupants were more likely to have residences of sqft than other occupancy groups (51 percent vs. 29 percent). Conversely, non-owner-occupants were more likely than owner occupants to have small units under 1,500 sqft (51 percent vs. 34 percent, consistent with their greater ownership of condominium/townhome units), as well as large units in excess of 5,000 sqft (11 percent vs. 6 percent). Garage space: Fifty-two percent of owner-occupied units and 44 percent of units with other occupancies have a garage or access to a common garage. Among owner-occupied units with garages, units had on average 1.7 stalls, with a majority of respondents reporting the presence of one (32 percent) or two (64 percent) parking stalls. Most units with other occupancies similarly had one (31 percent) or two (61 percent) parking stalls, with an average of 1.8 stalls. Basement space: Basements were less common than garages 25 percent of owner-occupied units have a basement, either finished or unfinished, and 16 percent of other occupancy units do as well. Owner-occupants with basements reported an average basement size of 820 square feet with a median of 625 square feet. Among units with other types of occupancies, the average basement size was 1,051 square feet (median 950 square feet). Lot size: Among local owners, 35 percent identified their property as a small residential lot (up to 6,000 square feet); 23 percent identified it as medium (6,000 15,000 square feet); and 11 percent identified it as large (more than 15,000 square feet), while 30 percent had a condo/townhome (lot size not asked/often not applicable). Approximately 17 percent of respondents in other occupancy households reported having a small lot, while 13 percent have a medium lot and 6 percent have a large lot, and 64 percent own a condo/townhome. Year residence was built: Respondents reported a wide range of years that their home was built. The largest shares of respondents indicated that their residence was built during the 1960s (24 percent owner-occupied, 24 percent other occupancies) or 1970s (34 percent owneroccupied, 31 percent other occupancies). Consistent with the high shares of respondents reporting their house was built during these decades, the average year of building for owneroccupied residences was 1968 and the average year for other occupancy residences was RRC Associates 65

68 Year residence was purchased: Units with other occupancies were generally purchased somewhat more recently than owner-occupied units, with 53 percent and 42 percent respectively buying their residence between 2000 and today. Conversely, owner-occupants were somewhat more likely to have bought their unit in the 1970s, 80s or 90s (54 percent vs. 42 percent of non-owner-occupants). The largest shares of owners for both occupancy types bought their residence in the decade (29 percent of owner-occupied units, 34 percent of other occupancy units). The average year of purchase for owner-occupied residences was 1997 (median 1997) and the average year of purchase for residences with other occupancy styles was 1996 (albeit a slightly more recent median of 2001). Value of residence: Respondents who are owner-occupants reported an average residence value of $2,682,432 and a median of $2,000,000, with more than half valuing their homes at $2,000,000 or more (57 percent). Respondents who do not live in their homes full-time reported a generally similar average value of $2,631,210 and a lower median of $1,505,000. Among these respondents, 45 percent valued their home at $2,000,000 or more. Recent remodels/renovations: Thirty percent of owner-occupied residences and 36 percent of units with other occupancies have been remodeled recently. Among owner-occupants who have renovated recently, about half (47 percent) renovated in , and 50 percent renovated in The average remodeling expenses for owner-occupied units was $364,367, with a median of $100,000. Among owners of residences with other occupancies, 61 percent reported that their renovations occurred between 2010 and 2014, with an average cost of $271,036 and a median of $125,000. Planned future remodels/renovations: Eight percent of owner-occupants and 10 percent of other owners expressed an intent to remodel soon. Among owner-occupants planning to remodel, all anticipated doing so in , and the average anticipated cost was $207,222 (median $40,000). Among other occupancy groups, 96 percent intended to remodel in , with an average anticipated cost of $251,154 (median $100,000). RRC Associates 66

69 Figure 38 Unit Type Percent of Respondents 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Single-family house Condominium of townhome (21 or more units in complex) Condominium or townhome (20 or fewer units in complex) Duplex Mobile/modular home Other Triplex Timeshare/fractional unit 2% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. 9% 13% 15% 18% 24% 30% 36% 51% Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year All other occupancies Figure 39 Residence Location Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 67

70 Figure 40 Number of Bedrooms Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 68

71 Figure 41 Accessory Units Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 69

72 HEATED, FINISHED SQUARE FEET Figure 42 Finished and Unfinished Heated Space (in square feet) sqft Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2% 4% Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year All other occupancies sqft sqft 16% 23% 15% 23% sqft sqft 9% 9% 13% 23% OWNER-OCCUPIED Average: 2,439 sqft; Median: 2,250 sqft OTHER OCCUPANCIES Average: 2,222 sqft; Median: 1,400 sqft sqft sqft sqft 9% 9% 6% 6% 11% 19% HEATED, UNFINISHED SQUARE FEET 0 sqft 94% 94% Under 500 sqft 500+ sqft 3% 3% 2% 3% OWNER-OCCUPIED Average: 27 sqft; Median: 0 sqft OTHER OCCUPANCIES Average: 36 sqft; Median: 0 sqft Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 70

73 Figure 43 Total Heated Space (in square feet) Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 71

74 Figure 44 Garage/Basement Size Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 72

75 Figure 45 Lot Size and Year Built/Purchased Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 73

76 Figure 46 Value of Residence Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 74

77 Figure 47 Remodeling Plans, and Details of Recent Past Remodel Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates RRC Associates 75

78 Figure 48 Future Remodeling Plans Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates Unit Usage Characteristics Table 14 to follow illustrates the average number of weeks homes are used for a variety of purposes across a 52-week year, both overall and segmented by occupancy type. It should be understood that the data on average weeks of use reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single use type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of occupancy across all respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all. With this understanding in mind, key findings by occupancy type include the following: RRC Associates 76

79 Owner-occupied residences: Among respondents in owner-occupied residences, homes are occupied as the primary residence of the owner an average of 98 percent of the year (51.0 weeks), and are vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 2 percent of the time (0.9 week), with an additional average of 0.1 week of use as a vacation rental. Other occupancies: Among respondents in residences with other occupancy types, on average the residence is occupied as the primary residence of the owner 7 percent of the time (3.7 weeks) and is vacant (and unavailable for vacation rental) 44 percent of the year (22.7 weeks). Respondents reported that their units are also commonly used (or available for use) as a vacation rental (21 percent of the year), used as a vacation home for themselves or for their guests (15 percent), or rented long-term to a local resident (12 percent). Table 14 Average Annual Weeks of Use of Home 24 OVERALL - ALL RESPONDENTS OCCUPANCY TYPE Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year Other occupancies Type of Use # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks # weeks % weeks Primary residence for owner % % 3.7 7% Vacation home for owner or guests of owner % 0.0 0% % Vacation rental - weeks actually occupied by visitors 3.9 7% 0.1 0% % Vacation rental - weeks avail. for rent, but not occupied 3.4 7% 0.0 0% % Rented long term to local resident 4.1 8% 0.0 0% % Business/corporate function 0.0 0% 0.0 0% 0.0 0% Other use 0.3 1% 0.0 0% 0.5 1% Vacant - not occupied (and not avail. for vacation rental) % 0.9 2% % TOTAL WEEKS % % % Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. 24 To clarify, the data on average weeks of use reflect net total weeks of use across a range of use types, not for a single use type. For example, long-term rentals to local residents account for a net annual average of 4.1 weeks of occupancy across all respondent homes, including homes that are not used for long-term rentals at all. RRC Associates 77

80 Respondent Household/Demographic Characteristics Following is a summary of selected demographic characteristics of the households of respondents to the survey. Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence? Almost all respondents in owner-occupied households indicated that they themselves (99 percent) occupy their unit while they are in residence, while 88 percent of respondents in other occupancy units reported this as well. Other common occupants in owner-occupied units include a spouse/partner (60 percent) and children (33 percent), followed by relatives/other family (11 percent), and friends (10 percent). Respondents in non-owner-occupied units also said their occupants frequently include a spouse/partner (72 percent), as well as children (54 percent), friends (45 percent), and relatives/other family (38 percent). Marginal shares of both occupancy types said they share their unit with housemates who rent rooms (3 percent of respondents in owner-occupied units and 1 percent of respondents in other occupancy units) or business associates (2 percent and 5 percent). Eight percent of other occupancy homes are not used for personal purposes. Total persons who live/stay in your home while you are in residence: Owner-occupants said an average of 2.3 persons (including themselves) typically stay in their home when they are there. Other occupancy groups report a larger average of 3.8 persons in their unit while they are in residence. Total persons under age 18 in the home: Twenty-nine percent of respondents living in owneroccupied units and 45 percent of respondents living in units with other occupancies indicated that children under age 18 typically live/stay in their home. Respondents in owner-occupied residences reported an average of 0.6 children under 18 in their homes, while respondents in other units reported an average of 1.2 children. Total persons who are retired: Forty-two percent of respondents in owner-occupied residences and 58 percent of respondents in other occupancy residences reported that one or more retirees reside in their home. An average of 0.6 retirees live in owner-occupied units and an average of 1.1 retirees live in other units. Total persons who work in Aspen: Over half (55 percent) of respondents in owner-occupied residences indicated that one or more Aspen workers live in their household (average 0.9 persons). Only 7 percent of owners who do not primarily occupy their homes reported the presence of Aspen employees in their unit (average 0.1 persons). Total persons who work in the Roaring Fork Valley: Sixty-nine percent of owner-occupied units and 9 percent of units with other occupancies house one or more residents who work within the Roaring Fork Valley (average 1.1 persons in owner-occupied units and 0.1 persons in other units). Total persons who work outside the Roaring Fork Valley: Eleven percent of residents in owneroccupied homes and 39 percent of residents in homes with other occupancy types indicated RRC Associates 78

81 that one or more people in their household is employed outside the Roaring Fork Valley, with an average of 0.2 persons in owner-occupied units and 1.2 persons in other units. Number of hours worked by residents employed in Roaring Fork Valley: Owners who primarily occupy their residence reported an average of 1,903 hours worked per year by members of their household who are employed in the Roaring Fork Valley (data includes households with no one employed in the valley). Owners who do not primarily occupy their residence reported an average of 349 hours worked per year by household members employed in the Roaring Fork Valley (including households with no employees in the valley). Among households with at least one Roaring Fork Valley worker, the average aggregate number of hours worked in the Roaring Fork Valley per year by household members was somewhat higher among owner-occupied households (average 2,997 hours) than households with other occupancies (average 2,282 hours). Figure 49 Who typically occupies your Aspen home when you are in residence? Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 79

82 Figure 50 Number of Persons in Household Total and by Age Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 80

83 Figure 51 Number of Persons in Household by Employment Characteristics Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 81

84 Figure 52 Aggregate Number of Hours Worked by Household Members in Roaring Fork Valley Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 82

85 Intended Future Use of Unit How do you expect to be using your Aspen home five years from now? A large majority of owners who are the primary occupants of their units (85 percent) expect to continue to use their unit as their primary residence in five years time. Significantly smaller shares expect to use their home as a retirement residence (10 percent), sell it (8 percent), use it as a vacation rental for visitors (4 percent), rent it long-term to a local resident (3 percent), or use it as a vacation home for the owners/guests (2 percent). Non-owner-occupants most commonly expressed plans to use the unit as a vacation home for themselves/guests (67 percent). Other expected uses for the unit in five years time include using it as a vacation rental to visitors (22 percent), using it as a primary residence for the owner (16 percent), using it as a retirement residence (9 percent), selling it (8 percent), or renting it long term to a local resident (7 percent). Changes in personal/friend/family use over the next five years: A majority of respondents in owner-occupied residences (79 percent) expected their use of the unit to stay the same over the next five years. Six percent indicated that their use would increase, while 7 percent expect it to decrease. Respondents in units with other occupancies were considerably more likely to anticipate that their usage of the home would increase (41 percent), while an additional 45 percent believed their use would stay the same. Only 3 percent felt their use would decrease. RRC Associates 83

86 Figure 53 Intended Future Use of Unit Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 84

87 Characteristics of and Expenditures on Home Operations and Upkeep Following is a summary of data pertaining to selected aspects of home operations and upkeep, including the types of service providers used by respondents and the services and homeowner expenditures associated with each type of provider. Providers used for home operations and upkeep: Almost all respondents in owner-occupied households report that housework is taken care of by themselves or by family members (90 percent). Additionally, roughly three-quarters hire contractors/employees/specialty services (74 percent), while 45 percent belong to a homeowners association, and small shares hire a property management company (14 percent) or an on-site caretaker (4 percent). Owners in units with other occupancy types mainly take care of work through homeowners associations (73 percent), contractors/employees/specialty services (67 percent), doing it themselves (62 percent), or hiring a property management company (59 percent). An additional 13 percent indicated that they hire an on-site caretaker. Figure 54 Providers Used for Home Operations and Upkeep Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 85

88 Services delivered by respective providers: Figure 55 and Figure 56 to follow illustrate the services delivered by home service providers (in instances when the respondent uses the provider), for owner-occupied and other occupancy residences respectively. Among inhabitants of owner-occupied units, property management companies hired by the household are identified as providing the most types of services (average 4.1 services, among those using these companies), followed by contractors/employees/specialty services (average 4.0 services), HOAs (average 3.8 services), and on-site caretakers (average 3.8 services). As is illustrated in the graph, different types of service providers tend to deliver different mixes of services. For example, HOAs are particularly likely to provide owner-occupied unit owners with trash removal; property management companies are comparatively likely to provide building maintenance and private swimming pool/hot tub maintenance; on-site caretakers are comparatively likely to provide snow removal, lawn/landscape maintenance, and housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees are especially likely to be hired for systems/appliance repair and security services. Among owners with other residence occupancies, HOAs are reported to provide the most types of services (average 5.5 services provided, among those using HOAs), followed by property management companies (average 4.7 services), contractors/employees/specialty services (average 3.7 services), and on-site caretakers (average 3.2 services). Similar to owner-occupied homes, the services provided vary by provider type. HOAs are comparatively likely to provide snow removal, trash removal, lawn/landscape maintenance, building maintenance, and operation/maintenance of community amenities; property management companies most often provide rental management and housekeeping/cleaning; and contractors/employees/specialty services are comparatively likely to be hired for systems/appliances repair. RRC Associates 86

89 Figure 55 Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers Owner-Occupied (Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider) Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 87

90 Figure 56 Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Providers Other Occupancies (Base: Respondents Who Use Each Respective Provider) Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 88

91 Annual expenditures on home service providers: Respondents were asked to estimate how much they spend annually on each of respective home service providers that they use. As illustrated in Table 15 below, average annual provider costs are higher for residences with nonowner occupancies than those mainly occupied by owners. For owner-occupied residences, among those using HOAs, the average annual expenditure is $4,662 (median $4,000). The average annual expenditure for property management companies is $4,702 (median $3,044), the average annual expenditure for on-site caretakers is $8,800 (median $2,000), and the average annual expenditure for other contractors/employees is $7,941 (median $4,000). For owners with other occupancy situations, the average annual expenditure for HOAs is $10,191 (median $8,000), the average annual expenditure for property management companies is $11,397 (median $6,350), the average annual expenditure for on-site caretakers is $22,464 (median $5,000), and the average annual expenditure for other contractors/employees is $9,298 (median $3,000). Table 15 Annual Expenditures on Home Service Providers (If Use Provider) Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year Other occupancies Annual Expenditures on Provider (If Use Provider) Mean Median Mean Median Amount spent on HOA $4,662 $4,000 $10,191 $8,000 Amount spent on property management company $4,702 $3,044 $11,397 $6,350 Amount spent on on-site caretaker $8,800 $2,000 $22,464 $5,000 Amount spent on other contractors/employees $7,941 $4,000 $9,298 $3,000 Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. Caretaker housing: Among owner-occupied residences with on-site caretakers, 33 percent provide free housing as part of their compensation, 67 percent offer discounted housing, and 0 percent do not provide housing assistance as part of compensation. Among residences with other occupancies, 30 percent provide free housing to on-site caretakers, 50 percent provide discounted housing and 20 percent don t provide housing assistance. Home maintenance and upkeep services delivered by self/household members: Owners who primarily occupy their residences indicated that they provide their own service for an average of 3.5 types of tasks. Owners who are not the primary occupants reported that they provide their own service for an average of 2.4 tasks. Top self-provided services for owner-occupied units include housekeeping/cleaning (72 percent), building maintenance (56 percent), lawn/landscape maintenance (49 percent), and systems/appliance repair (45 percent). Respondents in units with other occupancies identified housekeeping/cleaning (63 percent) as their top self-provided service. Local owners estimated they spend an average of 230 hours on average per year on home tasks (median 178 hours), while other owners reported an average of 47 hours (median 10 hours), each inclusive of owners not providing any self-service. RRC Associates 89

92 Figure 57 Home Maintenance and Upkeep Services Delivered by Self/Household Members (Base: Respondents/Household Members Who Engage in Home Maintenance/Upkeep) SERVICES PROVIDED BY SELF/HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS (if provide at least 1 service) Housekeeping/cleaning Building maintenance (interior and/or exterior) Lawn/landscape maintenance Systems/appliances repair (e.g., heating, plumbing, appliances) Snow removal Security service Rental management Trash removal Private swimming pool/jacuzzi/hot tub maintenance Operation and maintenance of community amenities Other ANNUAL HOURS SPENT ON HOME TASKS (all 0 hr respondents) 1-49 hr hr hr hr hr hr 500+ hr Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 72% 63% 56% 29% 49% 15% 45% 35% 38% 14% 27% 29% 24% 34% 18% 13% 9% 4% 8% Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year 1% All other occupancies 3% 1% 14% 9% 23% 7% 9% 21% 13% 21% 5% 7% 2% 10% 1% 11% 0% 47% OWNER-OCCUPIED Average: 230 hr; Median: 178 hr OTHER OCCUPANCIES Average: 47 hr; Median: 10 hr Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 90

93 Additional services obtained in your home: Respondents were asked to further identify any other services they obtain in the home, and specify whether the associated service providers are obtained locally or travel with their household. The most prevalent of these services used by respondents in owner-occupied residences is a pet sitter (used by 10 percent of respondents), followed by chef/kitchen help/catering (7 percent), personal trainer (5 percent), and child care provider/nanny (5 percent). Respondents in owner-occupied households are significantly more likely to obtain these services locally (20 percent in aggregate) than to have providers travel with their household (0 percent in aggregate). Depicted in Figure 59 to follow, respondents in units with other occupancy types most frequently utilize a chef/kitchen help/catering (12 percent), child care provider/nanny (7 percent), pet sitter (4 percent), and personal trainer (4 percent). Like owner-occupants, other owners are more likely to obtain services locally (20 percent in aggregate) than to have the providers travel with their household (4 percent in aggregate). Among those using the respective services, the annual amount spent on the respective services is summarized in Table 16 to follow. Figure 58 Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained Owner-Occupied Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% None of these Pet sitter Chef/kitchen help/catering 0% 10% 7% 80% 100% Personal trainer 5% Child care provider/nanny Other 5% 2% Obtained locally Travels with my household Personal assistant 1% Driver, pilot 0% Concierge/butler 0% Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 91

94 Figure 59 Additional Services Obtained In the Home, by Where Service Is Obtained Other Occupancies Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% None of these Chef/kitchen help/catering Child care provider/nanny Pet sitter 1% 5% 2% 4% 12% 80% 96% Personal trainer Other Driver, pilot Personal assistant Concierge/butler 4% 3% 2% 1% 2% 0% 1% 0% Obtained locally Travels with my household Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. Table 16 Annual Expenditures on Other Services Obtained in the Home (If Obtain Service) Owner-occupied 40+ weeks/year Other occupancies Annual Expenditures on Services (If Obtained) Mean Median Mean Median Chef / kitchen help / catering $1,893 $2,000 $7,257 $3,000 Child care provider / nanny $9,208 $2,550 $6,237 $1,000 Concierge / butler n/a n/a $4,750 $4,750 Personal assistant $7,700 $7,700 $22,240 $1,000 Personal trainer $9,450 $8,000 $7,700 $2,500 Driver, pilot n/a n/a $46,338 $32,500 Pet sitter $1,387 $1,000 $1,209 $400 Other $11,860 $2,400 $3,097 $2,000 Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. Housing for employees: Four percent of respondents in owner-occupied households and five percent of respondents in households with other occupancies reported that they provide housing for locally hired employees. Among those providing employee housing, owneroccupied residences provided housing for an average of 1.6 employees, while other owners housed an average of 2.6 employees. RRC Associates 92

95 None of the owner-occupied households reported housing employees that travel with the household. For respondents in residences with other occupancies, 5 percent provided housing traveling employees, with an average of 1.1 employees housed. Figure 60 Housing Provided for Employees DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING QUARTERS FOR EMPLOYEES HIRED LOCALLY? (If provide housing) HOW MANY DO YOU PROVIDE HOUSING FOR? Yes No or more Percent of Respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 4% 5% 13% 13% 19% Owner-occupied at least 40 weeks/year All other occupancies 33% 48% 75% OWNER-OCCUPIED Average: 1.6 employees OTHER OCCUPANCIES Average: 2.6 employees 96% 95% DO YOU PROVIDE LIVING QUARTERS FOR EMPLOYEES BROUGHT WITH YOU? Yes No 0% 5% 100% 95% (If provide housing) HOW MANY DO YOU PROVIDE HOUSING FOR? 1 0% 88% 2 0% 13% OTHER OCCUPANCIES Average: 1.1 employees Source: 2014 Homeowner Survey; RRC Associates. RRC Associates 93