Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Entrance Polling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews Entrance-to-Aspen poll instrument; pollster to add visuals and tighten wording
Summary
The council reviewed a proposed bilingual, mixed-mode survey (phone/online) for Aspen voters to inform a potential March ballot and EIS scoping. Members asked for diagrams, clarified target populations (Aspen voters vs. Roaring Fork Valley), and pushed staff to rework length, some questions and a cost scenario.
City staff and an outside pollster presented a draft survey and methodology to the Aspen City Council on Nov. 11 as part of scoping for the Entrance to Aspen environmental review and potential ballot measures.
Jen Newton of the city manager'9s office introduced the team and explained that the survey is intended to inform the purpose-and-need statement for a possible Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. Adam Prabalski of Prabalski Research described a mixed-mode approach (email/text/online followed by phone) targeting Aspen voters in a voter file of roughly 5,000 people and said the field goal is about 300 completes (1,000 would be better). "Our job is to reach your voters in the format that they're comfortable speaking," Prabalski said.
Council members raised a number of issues during a detailed question-by-question review. Concerns included the 15-minute phone-survey length and the difficulty of getting high response rates by telephone for unscheduled calls; potential for gaming the online instrument; whether party affiliation questions are appropriate for nonpartisan local measures; and the need for labeled diagrams so online respondents can see what each "alignment" means. Several councilors urged the pollster to reframe some items from solution-focused wording to goal-and-values wording (for example, asking whether respondents prioritize congestion reduction, transit prioritization, or other goals) and to clarify cost items (including a suggested revision to how a hypothetical $150 million taxpayer-funded cost question is asked).
On geographic scope, the pollster said the default target is registered Aspen voters but the instrument can ask about broader Roaring Fork Valley inclusion and cross-tabulate the two groups if council wants both views. Several council members said they want ballots about open-space use to reflect Aspen voters' preferences while still getting contextual views from Down Valley residents.
The pollster and staff agreed to work on revisions: reduce or reframe questions to shorten the instrument, remove or rephrase leading language, include diagrams and captions for alignment options (especially the "modified split shot" and the preferred alternative), clarify demographic items used only for sampling, and adjust the timeline to balance accuracy against the January ballot-certification deadlines.
