Aspen Snowmass Transient Lodging Inventory Study as of July 1, 2012

Similar documents
Stay Aspen Snowmass Transient Inventory Study May 2015

August 2016: Aspen Snowmass Real Estate Market Snapshot RELEASED 9/9/2016 ON OR NEAR THE 1ST MONDAY EACH MONTH

September 2017: Aspen Snowmass Real Estate Market Snapshot RELEASED 10/08/17 ON OR NEAR THE 1ST MONDAY EACH MONTH

Student Population Projections By Residence. School Year 2016/2017 Report Projections 2017/ /27. Prepared by:

Compression Study: City, State. City Convention & Visitors Bureau. Prepared for

Estin Report: Summer 2015 Market Snapshot Aspen Snowmass Real Estate

Prepared for: August 4 th, Presented by: Eric Callender Ecosign VP Adam Schroyen Resort Planner

MANITOBA'S ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY: A 2001 TO 2026 POPULATION & DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Three Typologies of Mountain Resort Revitalization

LIVERPOOL TRANSPORTATION MODELING TECHNICAL MEMO MAY 2009

TRIATHLON BUSINESS INTERNATIONAL (TBI)

2017 RULES AND REGULATIONS

TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY CRITERIA

Vail Town Council Vail Economic Advisory Council

Analysis of Highland Lakes Inflows Using Process Behavior Charts Dr. William McNeese, Ph.D. Revised: Sept. 4,

Analysis of the Article Entitled: Improved Cube Handling in Races: Insights with Isight

ANNUAL REVIEW OF INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE - FINAL REPORT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2016 COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ALBERTA AUTO INSURANCE RATE BOARD 29 SEPTEMBER 2017

REAL ESTATE MARKET REPORT

Housing Market Update Greater Moncton. Housing market intelligence you can count on

1997 WINTER INQUIRY STUDY: MONITORING MEDIA EFFECTIVENESS AND ASSESSING VERMONT=S SKI MARKET

RED DEER HOUSING MARKET OUTLOOK

Review of A Detailed Investigation of Crash Risk Reduction Resulting from Red Light Cameras in Small Urban Areas by M. Burkey and K.

Golfers in Colorado: The Role of Golf in Recreational and Tourism Lifestyles and Expenditures

APPENDIX 3: EAGLECREST MASTER PLAN PUBLIC OPINION SURVEYS

Bhagwant N. Persaud* Richard A. Retting Craig Lyon* Anne T. McCartt. May *Consultant to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

HAP e-help. Obtaining Consistent Results Using HAP and the ASHRAE 62MZ Ventilation Rate Procedure Spreadsheet. Introduction

Economic Analysis What s happening with U.S. potential GDP growth?

1999 On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey

REAL ESTATE MARKET REPORT

Briefing Paper #1. An Overview of Regional Demand and Mode Share

Domestic Energy Fact File (2006): Owner occupied, Local authority, Private rented and Registered social landlord homes

TRAFFIC STUDY GUIDELINES Clarksville Street Department

CHAPTER 10 TOTAL RECREATIONAL FISHING DAMAGES AND CONCLUSIONS

2012 Asia Cargo Theft Report

ANNUAL RELIABILITY AND POWER QUALITY REPORT for the year ended 30 June 2017

Application of pipeline risk assessment to proposed developments in the vicinity of high pressure Natural Gas pipelines

Economic Impact Study: NFL International Series London, 28 October 2012

save percentages? (Name) (University)

Rider Satisfaction Survey Total Market 2006

12. School travel Introduction. Part III Chapter 12. School travel

CSM Pre-Test. 3) Who is responsible for achieving a Sprint Goal? A) ScrumMaster B) Product Owner C) Project Manager D) Scrum Development Team

IGEM/TD/2 Edition 2 with amendments July 2015 Communication 1779 Assessing the risks from high pressure Natural Gas pipelines

Evaluating the Design Safety of Highway Structural Supports

ANNUAL EVALUATION OF 2015 WATER LEVEL MONITORING DATA FROM THE CITY OF LAS CRUCES WATER SUPPLY WELLS, NEW MEXICO

Expansion: does it add muscle or fat? by June 26, 1999

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES MEDICARE SUPPLEMENT WORK GROUP SUBTEAM REPORT ON LOSS RATIO CURVES FOR REDETERMINATION OF REFUND BENCHMARKS

TARANAKI VISITOR STATISTICS SEPTEMBER 2017

A Threatened Bay: Challenges to the Future of the Penobscot Bay Region and its Communities

REPORT ON RED-LIGHT MONITORING SYSTEMS

Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,

Volume 1 Overview and Summary. 3 Detailed Financial Information and Council Policies. 4 Growth Forecasts

MEMORANDUM. To: PRL Performance Standards Subgroup From: Donna Pratt Subject: Performance Method Recommendation Date: January 18, 2001

Reduced Price & New Flight Information. 4 Great Mountains one Low Price. February 9-16, 2019

The University of Georgia

Marin County. Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program. Bicycle and Pedestrian Counts Update

State of the City of Carpinteria

ALBERTA AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE RATE BOARD

Traffic Impact Study. Westlake Elementary School Westlake, Ohio. TMS Engineers, Inc. June 5, 2017

2010 TRAVEL TIME REPORT

Evaluating the Influence of R3 Treatments on Fishing License Sales in Pennsylvania

RIVER CROSSINGS: EAST OF SILVERTOWN CROSSINGS

STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER 110 STATE STREET ALBANY, NEW YORK September 2015

Relocating To the Ann Arbor area?

Modal Shift in the Boulder Valley 1990 to 2009

Agenda Item Summary BACKGROUND. Public Involvement ISSUE ANALYSIS. Attachment 1

2013 Asia Pacific Cargo Theft Report

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

ANNUAL CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP PACKAGE

Assessing Permeation of Gas through Polyethylene Pipe

Legendre et al Appendices and Supplements, p. 1

What is the D-ifference in D-value?

We started a whole new ball game.

95 Express Annual Operations Report: Fiscal Year

Percent of Brokerages by Size

Lab Report Outline the Bones of the Story

WIM #36 MN 36 MP 15.0 LAKE ELMO APRIL 2014 MONTHLY REPORT

High-Rise Fireground Field Experiments Results

Vail Town Council & Vail Economic Advisory Council Update

Date: 25 September Introduction

Wildlife Ad Awareness & Attitudes Survey 2015

Proportion (%) of Total UK Adult Population (16+)s. Participating in any Watersports Activity

Methodology for ISER Surveys of Alaska Halibut Fishermen

EUCLID AVENUE PARKING STUDY CITY OF SYRACUSE, ONONDAGA COUNTY, NEW YORK

Participation in Structured Swimming Lessons : 0-13 Years

Oakmont: Who are we?

2009 URBAN MOBILITY REPORT: Six Congestion Reduction Strategies and Their. Effects on Mobility

Livorno s Europa Platform Project. 26 th May Andrew Penfold / Steve Wray Ocean Shipping Consultants (part of Royal HaskoningDHV)

2019 Annual Recalculation and Reappraisal Setup Studies for All Residential Properties in Columbia County for Property Tax Assessment

SEAFISH ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Review of Fatal Collisions

WORLD. Geographic Trend Report for GMAT Examinees

THE BLUE SKY REPORT A KERRIGAN QUARTERLY. Third Quarter 2018 December 2018

2009 New Brunswick Gambling Prevalence Study

FAIRWAY PALMS II CONDOMINIUM PROPERTY

CENTRAL OTAGO DISTRICT COUNCIL

CITY OF OAKLAND RENTAL SURVEY

Is lung capacity affected by smoking, sport, height or gender. Table of contents

Clutch Hitters Revisited Pete Palmer and Dick Cramer National SABR Convention June 30, 2008

Halifax Regional Municipality 2016 Heads Up Halifax Post-Campaign Study Final Report

2015 PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY

Transcription:

INTRODUCTION A benchmark transient lodging inventory study was conducted by MTRiP on behalf of Aspen Skiing Company during the summer of 2008 for inventory in the City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village as of January 1, 2009 (see Attachment A). An abbreviated update to this study was conducted during June of 2009 for inventory as of July 1, 2009 to revise future development and construction projects affecting the lodging inventory in Aspen & Snowmass. In May/June of 2012 a complete update to this report was conducted by contacting each property and property management company to update their unit and pillow counts. The ensuing report includes the revised data and inventory with the following considerations: Inclusions: o Any newly constructed inventory that opened for business prior to July 1, 2012 is included in unit and pillow counts. o Renovation projects that are underway and the property is actively booking reservations for future months, but not currently open are included. o A comparison of inventory as of July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2012 is in included in each section of this report. o Fractional ownership units and pillows that offer units for transient short term rental are also included in the unit and pillows counts, have been analyzed separately and are included in the overall unit and pillow counts. Assumptions: o It is assumed that unit and pillows counts submitted by participating properties are accurate. In cases where large discrepancies between 2009 data to 2012 data were encountered, the data submitter was contacted for verification. Exclusions: o A comparison of historical data prior to July 1, 2009 to the current data has been omitted. o The MTRIP Occupancy Report Comparison has also been excluded in this iteration of the study. SUMMARY Aspen and Snowmass s short term transient bed base includes 4,115 units, which can accommodate up to 18,857 persons at their total theoretical capacity. A further breakdown by location is provided in the accompanying report. 49 unique participating property management companies and a variety of properties are represented, including 4 Bed & Breakfasts, 26 Hotel/Lodges, 120 Condominium Properties and 213 Private Homes (based on a subjective interpretation of the naming conventions used by the respondents). METHODOLOGY The following methodology, first applied during the initial data collection process for the benchmark study in 2008, was also employed for this report. Participation: Data was obtained by soliciting information from properties and property management companies who manage and rent units to transient guests for periods of time less then 30 consecutive 1

nights. A list of potential participants was provided by Stay Aspen Snowmass (SAS) and participants from the 2009 study were contacted. Data Collection: Properties and property management companies were sent the Aspen Snowmass Bed Base Data Collection Form (see Attachment A) via email and asked to include their property name, property type, location, quality rating, unit count, maximum occupancy and name and title of the submitter. Follow up calls were made as appropriate in order to accomplish full participation. When there was no response/data submission/participation from a property or property management company an estimate was included. Unit and pillows counts were estimated by obtaining individual unit information such as location, property type, rating and bedding from the property management company s website. A total of 197 units (4.7% of the overall sample) and 1,741 pillows (9.2% of the overall sample) were estimated. Locations: Respondents were given the choice of two geographic locations in which to define their properties/units: Aspen and Snowmass Village. Properties/units that are located outside the town limits of Aspen and Snowmass Village were not included in the study. Ratings: The property quality rating was obtained, based on the subjective opinion of the property manager and not based on a unit inspections or a standardized rating system. Respondents were asked to indicate how their property was rated: deluxe, moderate or economy. Transient Inventory: Data was collected on units that are available for rental in increments of less than 30 days. Units that are exclusively available for the duration of one season, winter or summer, were excluded. Fractional Ownership Inclusion/Exclusions: If a Fractional Ownership property offers units for short term rental, all of the units/pillows in their inventory were included, not just the units/pillows that are available for short term rental which will change from month to month. If a Fractional Ownership property does not offer any units for short term rental, the property was excluded from this study. Metrics and Definitions: Data on the number of short term units and their maximum occupancies in each property type category, location and quality rating was collected. The following terms are defined in the Glossary of Terms on the Aspen Snowmass Data Collection Form (see Attachment A) in order to ensure a reporting standard across respondent properties: Property Management Company, Property Name, Property Type, Rating, Ownership (wholly owned or fractional ownership) and Maximum Occupancy. Other terms were addressed and defined to accommodate all types of rental situations including Time-share/Fractional Ownership and Lock-offs. Prior to the commencement of the study, Property Types were categorized and defined into the following: Hotel/Lodge, Condominium Property, Private Home and Bed & Breakfast. Practical Capacity: Data was collected and reported based on a unit s theoretical capacity (or maximum occupancy, also known as total pillows ), but it is understood that theoretical capacity is never achieved. For those wishing to extrapolate a practical capacity we suggest: Peak Times including holidays and family based high season : 90%* of theoretical capacity 2

All other times: 80%* of theoretical capacity *Practical capacity figures are estimates based on educated but informal calculations, pending collection of substantiated data under a separate study not currently underway. Pillow Data Discrepancies: When comparing 2009 data to 2012 data, some increases in pillow counts may be artificially inflated. Several properties inaccurately counted and reported their pillows in 2009 by either omitting sofa sleepers or counting (for example) a queen or full size sofa sleeper as one pillow rather than two. When this was discovered, the property s data was reported correctly for the 2012 study, which resulted in an increase in pillows but not an increase in units in some cases. Confidentiality: Individual property data (Attachment B) is confidential and only available to the Aspen Skiing Company and Stay Aspen Snowmass and is not available for further distribution. Forthcoming Inventory: As reported by Stay Aspen Snowmass, there are currently no new lodging projects or developments in the pipeline or currently in the process of permit or construction phases. Therefore new inventory will not affect the Aspen/Snowmass transient bed base in the near future. RESULTS Study results are provided in brief narrative, with charts and tables. Supporting documents are provided in the Appendices. A. Units/Pillows by Location: There are a total of 4,115 units in Aspen and Snowmass Village combined, which can accommodate up to 18,857 persons at their theoretical capacity. Aspen offers 56% of the total transient rental units and 53% of transient pillows where Snowmass offers 44% of transient units and 47% of transient pillows. Overall the transient inventory in Aspen/Snowmass increased in available units by 4% (160) and in pillows by 7% (1,381) from 2009 to 2012. The increase in units took place in Snowmass, which caused a slight increase in the overall share of units available in Snowmass from 2009 (from 42% to 44%) and a decrease in the share of units available in Aspen (from 58% to 56%) units. There was a decrease in units (-0.5%) and an increase (7%) in pillows in Aspen and a 9% increase in units and an 8% increase in pillows in Snowmass during this time period. The increase in inventory can partly be attributed to the opening of the Viceroy Snowmass Resort. The following tables and graphs represent the total number of units and pillows in both Aspen and Snowmass, including the combined total of each and a comparison to the 2009 study. Unit/Pillows by Location Aspen Snowmass All Units 2293 1822 4115 Pillows 10085 8772 18857 3

4

Units By Location/Type-2012 Hotel/Lodge Condo Property Private Home B&B All Aspen 1158 932 131 72 2293 Snowmass 826 914 82 0 1822 Totals 1984 1846 213 72 4115 All - Units By Type Comparison Hotel/Lodge Condo Property Private Home B&B All 2009 1781 1942 164 68 3955 2012 1984 1846 213 72 4115 % change 11.40% -4.94% 29.88% 5.88% 4.05% 5

Aspen - Units By Type Comparison Hotel/Lodge Condo Property Private Home B&B All 2009 1160 976 100 68 2304 2012 1158 932 131 72 2293 % change -0.17% -4.51% 31.00% 5.88% -0.48% Snowmass - Units By Type Comparison Hotel/Lodge Condo Property Private Home B&B All 2009 621 966 64 0 1651 2012 826 914 82 0 1822 % change 24.82% -5.69% 21.95% 0.00% 9.39% C. Pillows by Property Type and Location: Condominium Properties account for 10,044 (53%) of all pillows and have the largest pillow count of all Property Type categories in both locations, a decline from 2009 where Condo pillows made up 60% of all Aspen/Snowmass pillows. Hotel/Lodge pillows account for 6,404 (34%) of total pillows, and increased from 2009 (30%). Aspen can accommodate 17% more guests in Hotel/Lodge pillows than Snowmass and is able to accommodate approximately 3.0 guests per Hotel/Lodge room, where Snowmass can accommodate 3.5 guests per Hotel/Lodge room (an increase from 2.9 in 2009). Aspen and Snowmass continue to offer approximately the same number of Condominium pillows. Snowmass s average pillow count per condo unit is 5.4 (a decrease from 5.7 in the 2009 study) while Aspen also averages 5.4 pillows per Condo unit (a decrease from 5.9 in 2009). Overall Aspen continues to offer more variety of pillow types where the majority of pillows in Snowmass are still housed in Condominium Properties (57%). However, with the addition of Hotel/Lodge pillows in Snowmass, the variety of available accommodations in Snowmass has also increased. The following tables and graphs represent the total number of pillows in each Property Type category in each location and their overall totals as well as a comparison to the benchmark study. Pillows By Location/Type - 2012 Hotel/Lodge Condo Property Private Home B&B All Aspen 3506 5077 1304 198 10085 Snowmass Village 2898 4967 907 0 8772 Totals 6404 10044 2211 198 18857 Includes Fractional Ownership units 6

All - Pillows By Type Comparison Hotel/Lodge Condo Property Private Home B&B All 2009 5162 10476 1637 175 17450 2012 6404 10044 2211 198 18857 % change 19.39% -4.30% 25.96% 11.62% 7.46% Aspen - Pillows By Type Comparison Hotel/Lodge Condo Property Private Home B&B All 2009 3308 4991 911 175 9385 2012 3506 5077 1304 198 10085 % change 5.99% 1.72% 43.14% 13.14% 7.46% 7

Snowmass - Pillows By Type Comparison Hotel/Lodge Condo Property Private Home B&B All 2009 1854 5485 726 0 8065 2012 2898 4967 907 0 8772 % change 36.02% -10.43% 19.96% 0.00% 8.06% D. Units/Pillows by Rating and Location: Overall, 60% of all rental units and 64% of rental pillows in the area are rated Deluxe. Both Aspen and Snowmass Village continue to have a similar distribution of Deluxe, Moderate and Economy units and pillows. Snowmass deluxe units and pillows increased by 11% due to the opening of the Viceroy Snowmass. Interestingly, Aspen and Snowmass units and pillows that are considered Moderate and Economy, show dramatic percentage changes from 2009 to 2012. In Aspen, both Moderate units and pillows have decreased (units: -37%, pillows: - 27%) and Economy units and pillows have increased (units: 59%, pillows: 117%). This is mainly due to properties that were previously rated Moderate in 2009, are now rated Economy in 2012. There were changes in quality ratings of four large properties, which caused the fluctuations in Moderate and Economy units and pillow counts in Snowmass. The Wildwood and Snowmass Mountain Chalet, representing a total of 217 units and 732 pillows, were rated Economy in 2009 and were rated as Moderate in 2012. Woodbridge and Lichenhearth, representing 62 units and 316 pillows, were rated Economy in 2009 and were rated Moderate in 2012. The following tables and graphs represent the units by location and property quality rating as well as a comparison to the benchmark study. Units by Location/Rating 2012 Deluxe Moderate Economy All Aspen 1423 654 216 2293 Snowmass Village 1064 607 151 1822 Totals 2487 1261 367 4115 8

All - Units by Rating Comparison Deluxe Moderate Economy All 2009 2277 1407 271 3955 2012 2487 1261 367 4115 % change 9.22% -10.38% 35.42% 4.05% Includes Fractional Ownership units Aspen - Units by Rating Deluxe Moderate Economy All Comparison 2009 1320 896 88 2304 2012 1423 654 216 2293 % change 7.24% -37.00% 59.26% -0.48% Includes Fractional Ownership units Snowmass - Units by Rating Deluxe Moderate Economy All Comparison 2009 957 511 183 1651 2012 1064 607 151 1822 % change 11.18% 18.79% -17.49% 10.36% Includes Fractional Ownership units The following tables and graphs represent the pillows by location and property quality rating as well as a comparison to the benchmark study. Pillows by Location/Rating Deluxe Moderate Economy All Aspen 6876 2407 802 10085 Snowmass Village 5275 2745 752 8772 Totals 12151 5152 1554 18857 Includes Fractional Ownership units 9

All - Pillows by Rating Comparison Deluxe Moderate Economy All 2009 10547 5901 1002 17450 2012 12151 5152 1554 18857 % change 15.21% -12.69% 55.09% 8.06% Aspen - Pillows by Rating Comparison Deluxe Moderate Economy All 2009 5804 3213 368 9385 2012 6876 2407 802 10085 % change 18.47% -25.09% 117.93% 7.46% Snowmass - Pillows by Rating Deluxe Moderate Economy All Comparison 2009 4743 2688 634 8065 2012 5275 2745 752 8772 % change 11.22% 2.12% 18.61% 8.77% E. Units/Pillows by Location, Rating and Property Type: The below tables provide a breakdown of each Property Type and Rating by Location. 10

Aspen Units by Type/Rating Deluxe Moderate Economy All Hotel/Lodge 579 389 190 1158 Condo Property 719 197 16 932 Private Home 124 7 0 131 B&B 1 61 10 72 Totals 1423 654 216 2293 Aspen Pillows by Type/Rating Deluxe Moderate Economy All Hotel/Lodge 1659 1160 687 3506 Condo Property 3954 1034 89 5077 Private Home 1243 61 0 1304 B&B 20 152 26 198 Totals 6876 2407 802 10085 Snowmass Units by Type/Rating Deluxe Moderate Economy All Hotel/Lodge 427 310 89 826 Condo Property 565 287 62 914 Private Home 72 10 0 82 B&B 0 0 0 0 Totals 1064 607 151 1822 Snowmass Pillows by Type/Rating Deluxe Moderate Economy All Hotel/Lodge 1442 1100 356 2898 Condo Property 3044 1527 396 4967 Private Home 789 118 0 907 B&B 0 0 0 0 Totals 5275 2745 752 8772 Above tables include Fractional Ownership units F. Fractional Ownership Units and Pillows: Overall in the Aspen Snowmass Village community, 340 units (8%) and 2,000 pillows (11%) are fractionally owned, while 3,775 units and 16,857 pillows are conventionally (wholly) owned. The number and percentages of fractionally owned units and pillows vs. wholly owned units and pillows only changed slightly from 2009 (-5% or 17 units) due to one property no longer selling their smaller lock-off units, resulting in the reduction of their unit count but no change in their pillow count. The following tables and graphs represent the total number fractional ownership units and pillows in comparison to wholly owned units. Units/Pillows - 2012 Units Pillows Fractional Ownership 340 2000 Wholly Owned 3775 16857 11

Fractional Ownership Unit Comparison Units Pillows 2009 357 2009 2012 340 2000 % change -4.76% -0.45% G. Fractional Ownership Units and Pillows by Location: 300 or 88% of all fractional ownership units and 1,688 or 88% of fractional ownership pillows are located in Aspen. In contrast, 40 or 12% of all fractional ownership units and 312 or 16% of all fractional ownership pillows are located in Snowmass. 13% of Aspen s units and 17% of its pillows are in the fractional ownership category, whereas fractional ownership units only make up 2% of Snowmass s units and 4% of its pillows. While the number count of fractional ownership inventory did not change, percentages shifted due to the changes in overall units and pillows available in Aspen & Snowmass. The following table and graphs represent the total number fractional ownership units and pillows by location and are compared to wholly owned units. Units by Ownership/Location Aspen Snowmass All Fractional Ownership 300 40 340 Wholly Owned 1993 1782 3775 Pillows by Ownership/Location Aspen Snowmass All Fractional Ownership 1688 312 2069 Wholly Owned 8397 8460 16857 12

13

III. APPENDIX Attachment A Aspen Snowmass Data Collection Form Attachment B Raw Data 14