Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20190107Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 1 EXECUTIVE SESSION ............................................................................................................................... 2 RESOLUTION #2, SERIES OF 2019 – Ballot language for Gorsuch and Lift One Lodge project ............ 2 ORDINANCE #38 SERIES OF 2018 – Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment and ..................................... 2 ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2016 – Gorsuch Haus – Planned Development ........................................ 2 Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 2 At 5:00 p.m. Mayor Skadron called the special meeting to order with Councilmembers Myrin, Mullins, Frisch and Hauenstein present. EXECUTIVE SESSION Jim True, city attorney, stated staff recommends pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 (4)(f) that Council go in to executive session to discuss personnel matters related to the review of the city manager and city attorney. At 5:10 p.m. Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session; seconded by Councilman Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. At 5:45 p.m. Councilman Hauenstein moved to come out of executive session; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Mayor Skadron made a statement once the special meeting resumed. As everyone may know, Council has direct oversight over two employees, the city manager and city attorney. The executive session was to consider the review process of these employees. HR has directed the standard review process for the city attorney. Regarding the city manager, the majority of Council has requested the resignation of the city manager. He has agreed to do so. A final separation agreement will be entered at a later date following the approval of Council. RESOLUTION #2, SERIES OF 2019 – Ballot language for Gorsuch and Lift One Lodge project ORDINANCE #38 SERIES OF 2018 – Lift One Lodge – Major Amendment and ORDINANCE #39, SERIES OF 2016 – Gorsuch Haus – Planned Development Jessica Garrow, community development, reviewed the community benefits of the project including direct skier access from Dean Street, return skiing to Dean, improved skier facilities, revitalized portal to Aspen mountain, year round parks amenity, restoration of historic resources, ski history museum, safety and multi modal improvements, 50 public parking spaces and 185 new lodge keys. At the end of the last meeting there was majority agreement on lot configuration and rezoning, site planning, mass, scale and programming, skiers chalet lodge ski museum and skier services, Dean Street design and parking configuration, affordable housing mitigation, cost sharing with a 4.3 million dollar contribution from the city, council action with referral of the ordinances to the voters, not approval. Issues of discussion in the final ordinance language include South Aspen Street maintenance including snow melt. Included in both ordinances is a study over a few years. Safety and user patterns as well as traffic then discussion if snow melt should happen. Each pay for one third of the cost related to installation if it is needed. There is not a discussion of a taxing district. Cost sharing – TABOR language. The commitment would now be in an escrow account. Third is the relationship of the ordinances to the election. Council would approve a resolution that refers both ordinances. Fourth is Lot 2 has specific restrictions. Free market residential is not permitted without a vote. Finally, is changes to engineering changes to the Lift One Lodge ordinances. One piece related to temporary and permanent right of way easements. Lifting from an existing master easement where Lift One Lodge has specific language added in for safe utility clearances for soil nailing. There is also some discussion as to how the fees are to be paid. This is an area where some discussion still needs to happen. There has been some additional language added to both ordinances that provides the best assurance of getting a lift at the lower location. A future lower lift terminal will be delivered as quickly as Ski Co can, followed completion of the garage, subgrade structures and foundation of Gorsuch and Lift One Lodge. If one project does not move forward there is no default the lift gets completed. Councilwoman Mullins asked for more explanation on the new cost sharing proposal. Mr. True said the last meeting there was discussion about the 4.36 million offered for public benefit. As we looked at this, in order to make it a commitment and comply with TABOR which require multi year obligations to be Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 3 approved in a TABOR election or put aside in an irrevocable fund. We looked at this as the best choice. It would be required to meet the obligations of TABOR. Councilwoman Mullins asked is there another option to appropriate the funds annually. Mr. True replied to commit and not be subject to future appropriation it would have to be this way. A future council could choose not to appropriate it. That has not been acceptable to the applicants. It would have to be a committed irrevocable agreement, or put it in a separate TABOR election. There is a third option to commit to the funds then allow a future council to agree to it. Councilman Hauenstein said as far as funding I think it should be this council that makes this decision. We should fund the irrevocable fund this year to allow us to have one ballot issue to approve the whole project without an additional TABOR ballot issue. He would like to see this sitting council approve and commit through the project. If we were to fund this before the election it prevents a lame duck council from making a decision. I don’t think it is right that we put off a funding decision. Councilman Myrin said if the question had a TABOR question and the voters approved both it solves everything without the escrow. Mr. True replied yes, if we meet the TABOR requirements. Councilman Myrin said that would satisfy the requirements. It seems much cleaner and transparent to have two questions. Mr. True said the resolution #2 would have to be conditioned that the TABOR issue is also approved. Councilman Frisch said Bert is just asking the community to call their bluff. I’m not sure if the applicants would allow it to still go on. One scenario is the project passes and the finance doesn’t. Mayor Skadron said Ward is proposing one question. Bert is proposing a question about the development and one about the funding. Councilman Frisch said going back to December 10, Ward and Ann were supportive of the money going to the applicant without any strings attached. Bert and the Mayor didn’t want any money going. I asked about the money not going until the lift was spinning. It has always been the hope that there would be one question. Ms. Garrow said what we were not anticipating was the TABOR issue. The other option is to go back to what we originally proposed and waive development fees. Councilman Frisch said the technical aspect of the escrow is a rounding error. If they fulfill their obligation they get the money. As long as there is clarity about what the voters are voting on, I’ll support it. Councilwoman Mullins said I’ve supported partnering financially. I do not support the irrevocable escrow account. I see us making decisions for a future council. It will be a great project two years from now. I don’t want the money in an account. There is the option for the TABOR vote or development fees. I will continue to support the project and would like to find ways to support the project other than an escrow account. Councilman Frisch said why now are you concerned about a mechanism where this council finds 4.36 million and puts it in a bank account. Councilwoman Mullins said it says here the funds need to be set aside. Councilman Frisch replied I’m confused why you are concerned about setting up a holding account. Councilwoman Mullins stated they are still asking us to partner. Whether it is not collecting development fees or cash. It is frozen in an account until the project is done. I’m not for pulling the funding. I think this is the incorrect way to do it. Councilman Hauenstein asked would you support Bert’s proposal of two separate questions. Mr. True said it would be a vote of the public to commit to some funds at a future date. Stan Clauson, representing Lift One Lodge, said we understand your hesitation to make a commitment in this amount. A separate TABOR vote would be inappropriate. We are all about transparency. One vote because it is one project. Our clients fully need assurances if they go forward that some subsequent council can’t change the deal. Ward is in the right direction that it provides assurances. If we do what we are supposed to do the city will honor its commitment. Mr. True said the TABOR election would be relatively simple. The voters would approve an ongoing debt until it is paid for. It could be done and be voted on. The only way to get an obligation without a specific TABOR election is through irrevocable funding. Mayor Skadron said he thinks any city with a long standing history and a strong ethic of growth management, I’m quite disturbed that city council is appropriating millions of dollars in an irrevocable Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 4 account to the developer. Councilman Hauenstein said the money would not be payable until the lift is ready to be turned on. Ultimately the future of this whole project if we decide it is in the voters hands, they will be making a decision on the future of ski racing in Aspen and the western portal of the mountain that will last at least 30 years. In defense of being a partner of a public private partnership the benefits that the community get are bringing the lift down to Dean street. Lift One Lodge could have been built with their existing development rights and there would have been no possibility of the community benefiting from a lift coming down to Dean Street. The applicants negotiated in good faith to come up with a solution that benefits the whole town and the future of Aspen. I think that justifies the city putting some skin in the game. Councilman Frisch said Bert and the Mayor last time were against any type of money. It was a minority view at the time. Bert’s suggestion is the next best case scenario is to have a separation. One could go down then it would put the onus back on the developer to figure out if the money really is the go no go decision for them. I’m still a bit confused about why some people that are happy to allow the money without conditions don’t like the irrevocable holding account. Ms. Garrow said she does not believe that either applicant team will support or want to move forward with two separate ballot questions. Mayor Skadron said right now it is a two two split. Bert and I concur. He asked Ann for some clarity. Councilwoman Mullins said she can’t support an irrevocable account which a future council has to honor. The next best thing seems to be a TABOR vote unless we can find some other way to provide assurance. Ms. Garrow said given where the applicants are and not having two ballot questions there are really two options. One is the language that is proposed which has the irrevocable account or we go back to what the applicant proposed as opposed to the city holding the money there is a reduction of the building permit fees that would be due at the time the project moves forward. The impact to the city budget is different in terms that we are not tying up money for up to 10 years. Mayor Skadron said at this point there is not support for a consolidated ballot statement. Councilwoman Mullins said reducing the fees makes more sense rather than pulling the money out of the 2019 budget in an escrow account for an undetermined amount of time. Mr. Barwick said I think you are suggesting this as a means of not impacting current budgets. The first threshold question is, is it a legal obligation for you to do so or is it something that is subject to annual appropriation in the future. Even a fee reduction in the future may be something that would need to be accounted for now. TABOR states that you must account for and set aside dollars to fund any multi year financial obligation what so ever. It is very broad language. I’m not sure that really gets us around the notion of not accounting for this expenditure right now. Mr. True said he agrees that TABOR is very broad. Councilman Frisch said this council burdens and locks in future councils every day that we sit up here. On the whole, most people get it right. That’s what we do. I’m confused about that. The second thing is I thought Ann and Ward were the most understanding of this community partnership and just allowing the 4.36 million not to be collected and it was worth it to the community. I’m still confused as to why a fairly simple technical solution gets worked. If we go the other way, staff did not assume there would be 4.3 less million dollars coming in and that has some ramifications as well. There is a higher level of community benefit for that money to be paid. People are going to be voting on do you support giving the development team 4.36 million dollars. I think the vast majority of people are going to say no. Mayor Skadron asked why then are you supportive of the community contributing the money if you are fearful of the voters saying no. Why sit here as a councilmember and support it. Mr. Brown said as far as we were concerned at the last hearing this was settled. This issue was supported by this council. The semantics of how it gets funded is nothing but semantics. To turn it in to a potential separate issue is unfair. We said we would look at other options for the development of the project if you would not commit to that money. It is only fair to figure out how the money gets appropriated based on the last meeting rather than make it some ballot issue. Councilwoman Mullins said it is rare that we do stuff that is irrevocable. Part of the agreement with partnering with the 4.36 million was it wouldn’t be paid until the end of the project. What we are doing now is taking it out of the 2019 money and setting it aside for an undetermined number of years. I’m not pulling support for the project but I’m looking for a different mechanism than this irrevocable account. Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 5 Bart Johnson, attorney for Lift One Lodge said though it is termed irrevocable the way the ordinance is drafted it dies if the development order expires, which under the code has a life limit of 10 years. There is a 10 year window that is set by the code. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the two questions were on the ballot and the TABOR failed and the land use prevailed then wouldn’t the applicant come back looking for funding. Mr. True said they could come back and look for funding but it would be subject to some future council decision. I don’t know how this council or a newly seated council would look at that request having just taken a vote to the public on a specific issue that was turned down. Councilman Hauenstein said one of the reasons he did not support paying for this through reduced fees is the precedent it sets for negotiations for any future development. It is a simpler solution to have the money go to the developers and transfer after the lift is in a point where they can be turned on. By having one question that clearly states the city will be contributing the money. Councilman Frisch said if this was ending at the council table he wouldn’t be supporting it. It will all be part of the package to what people vote. I’m willing to go to the voters and let them know about all the different variables and let them make the decision. Mr. True said to do it in one question is not a TABOR election so the only way to comply with TABOR is the irrevocable fund. Ms. Garrow added it is no more than 10 years and paid upon the delivery of the lift. Ms. Garrow said specific to the resolution and the actions in front of council we are requesting referral to the ballot and not approval. Mayor Skadron asked why this recommendation. Mr. True said the attorneys involved in this have discussed this and feel it is appropriate to simply refer a matter to the electorate. If you approve it with a condition to refer then there is an approval that is subject to review by courts as rule 106 to determine if the decision of the council was not arbitrary and capricious or exceeded jurisdiction or was not compliant with the law. That is just a legal step that comes with the fact that council approves a land use ordinance. If it is referred directly to the voters, we believe that likelihood is lessened. It does not mean it is not subject to collateral attack. Councilman Hauenstein said this has to go to the voters because it transfers property. Mr. True said there are aspects that clearly have to go to the voters. For instance, ordinance 39 has a specific rezoning that doesn’t have to go to the voters but is subject to referendum but use of city property does. You can approve it conditioned on voter approval or refer it directly. Mr. Johnson replied that is accurate. Our main concern is at the time the voters are asked to vote on it, it is under judicial review in a lawsuit. The whole point is to make it as democratic as we can get it. You could have a lawsuit that reverses everything the voters approved. Councilwoman Mullins said if it goes as a referral and passes it is the same as if we passed the ordinance. I would support that. It has to go to the voters anyways. Mr. Clauson said apart from the rule 106, council has expressed concern about this project but I think all of you might feel comfortable saying let’s let the voters decide what is good and beneficial about this project rather than make that decision yourself. Councilman Myrin said I would support the referral to the voters but oppose the criteria in the land use issue. My preference is the way it is traditionally done with the land use approval then the referral to the voters. It seems like there are multiple attempts to get around the system whether it is the money or the 106. Councilman Hauenstein said I think we are skirting our responsibility if we don’t send it to the voters right away. We open it up to a referendum and inflated construction costs. I firmly believe the cleanest way to approach this is one ballot issue that includes the funding. Mayor Skadron said an up or down vote by council embodies the vote Bert referred to. Mr. True replied yes, some are subject to referendum. It is ultimately a land use approval. Mayor Skadron said that is the purpose of the council approval. Mr. True replied no, what we are suggesting and what you have the authority to do is not vote on the specific ordinances. Mayor Skadron said if we chose to vote on the approval it would have all the elements. Mr. True said there are quasi judicial approvals that are subject to 106. Councilman Frisch said if people are thinking of activating 106 then someone will. That’s where we should start this discussion. I think Ward is right from a clarity standpoint. Now I’m lost on the 106 Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 6 conversation. If we are thinking about passing an ordinance and letting fate take its course. Mr. True said we are suggesting you pass resolution #2 which refers both ordinances and various other decisions directly to the voters. The charter authorizes that. You don’t have to have a yes no vote on the ordinances. You still have a right to direct us on the language in the ordinances. Councilwoman Mullins said the resolution itself says a fixed amount. Ms. Garrow stated the ballot question just references the ordinances which contain a lot of detail. Councilwoman Mullins said having read the question which specifically says 4.36 and knowing the account is revocable after 10 years, I will support the ballot question and the ordinances. Councilman Frisch asked about the distinction between voting on and referring. Mr. True said the charter allows council to refer an ordinance directly to the voters. You are not approving the ordinance that would potentially be considered be a determination by council on a quasi judicial matter that is subject to review by the court by a 106. You are making decisions based on the majority of you on what you are referring. We are doing our best to get consensus as to what the ordinance says before it is referred to the voters. Councilman Frisch said I thought there was going to be a vote if we are going to send this to the voters. Mr. True replied we are, that’s what resolution #2 says. Mayor Skadron said I believe it is the responsibility of elected officials to vote on land use approvals. Mr. True said we are not advocating one way or another. We are suggesting there could be interesting dynamics if there is a vote that someone in 28 days files a 106 action. Ms. Garrow said it sounds like there is consensus on voting to refer to the ballot and on how the cost sharing is written. Mr. True said on the cost sharing there was one suggestion that was originally written and taken out and it is when is the fund funded. Ward has suggested before the election. It would be helpful to know that. Councilman Frisch said the voters should know where the money is coming from. The cash flow is fairly irrelevant. The bigger question is should we let the voters know what part of the city coffers the money coming from. Mr. Barwick said we haven’t had that discussion yet. Councilman Hauenstein said my option was to borrow it with interest from the Wheeler. Councilwoman Mullins said why would you create the fund before it was voted on. Mr. True replied to let the voters know where it is coming from. It would be conditioned on the election. Councilman Frisch said he is not worried about the timing of when the money moves but there is transparency of where the money is coming from. That is a valid request. Mr. Barwick said there are three major areas it could come from. The simplest and easiest would be an internal borrowing from the Wheeler of a 10 year loan. It is not a major impact unless you are planning on using that to construct a facility. You could do an external loan or reduce other projects. Councilwoman Mullins asked how soon would we need that specific information. Mr. Barwick replied legally by the end of next year. Councilman Frisch said if the community is being asked for a 4.3 million dollar commitment they may want to know where it is coming from and the impact of it. Councilman Myrin said shouldn’t council have some idea of where the money is coming from. Councilman Frisch said we never have before. Councilman Myrin said it is on us to figure out too, we approve the budget. Ms. Garrow said there is direction on cost sharing. There needs to be discussion on how it is specifically funded and when. Mayor Skadron said to Bert he is not comfortable leaving this meeting without some identification as to where those funds come from. Councilman Myrin said ideally we would put it as a separate question on the ballot. If the voters directed us to figure it out we would. Councilman Hauenstein suggested having a discussion with Pete next week. Mr. True asked if there is consensus about having it funded prior to the election. Councilwoman Mullins said it sounds like the Wheeler is the best option. Councilman Frisch said it is an option. He does not want to turn the Wheeler fund into the bank of the Wheeler. The bigger question is how much clarity do we want to have about where is the money going to come from. Mayor Skadron said he needs specific direction from the council members who want to support this. The longer we sit here the more he finds himself frustrated by this discussion. He is not persuaded that a 350 million dollar private development will be derailed by any degree because it lacks a few million dollars of public cost sharing. This cost sharing is an ask for the city to pay for what the developer promised to pay for and they should deliver what they promised. I feel this partnership between the city and the developers is becoming one where the developers take exactly what they want and we so easily dismiss the burden that falls on the taxpayers. We are talking about real money that comes out of taxpayers pockets and the coffers of the city. This is a huge gift and council is bending over backwards to give away more. I don’t understand the direction of this council. Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 7 Ms. Garrow said she believes there is a consensus on council to have cost sharing as written in the ordinances. There is likely a conversation that needs to happen about when and how it is funded. Councilman Frisch asked if staff can come back on the 14th with funding options. Mr. Barwick replied yes. Councilman Hauenstein said there is a precedent of the city being partners in public private partnerships. Adam made the statement that we make decisions that do lock in future councils every day. We are duty bound by the ordinances that are in place. I don’t like the idea that we gave away 11 million dollars in work force housing but there is an ordinance in place that provides those concession. We are getting 185 keys. A previous council said deliver the rooms and we will give you these concessions. Mayor Skadron said he is very sensitive to the comments Jim made at a previous meeting about a delicate tapestry. I hope something gets done here but I hope it does with appropriate council scrutiny. Ms. Garrow said we are moving forward with cost sharing and how it is being referred. We can continue to work between now and the 14th as to the financing but that is not a prerequisite of the referral. Mayor Skadron said the reason I believe council should vote on the approval is all those things are in the developers best interest. The message can be controlled here where they are accountable or in front of city market where they can make up anything they want. I think this project is the best we’ve seen, and we can facilitate the conversation if the same level of scrutiny is held. Councilman Hauenstein said we are giving it to the voters to decide. If we approve it then give it to the voters we are giving it to City Market to be referred. We’ve spent a lot of time discussing it. I don’t feel we haven’t given it due consideration. Councilman Hauenstein said I think it has a better chance of going forward as a land use without the pay for. If the funding doesn’t move forward, then the developer will figure out how to move forward. Councilman Hauenstein said for me it is like buying a pick up truck without an engine. Councilman Frisch said getting back to the specifics, I would like to know more about services and capital projects that would get held up. Councilman Hauenstein said on page 88, Section 10 for Gorsuch 50% of the on site unit below grade. He does not support. For snowmelt, it only includes S Aspen. He would like it to include Dean in front of the ski museum. Ms. Garrow said she only thought there was consensus for S Aspen not Dean. Mr. Barwick said depending on the selection the operating costs would dwarf the capital costs and both should be included in the agreement. Councilman Myrin said he agrees with that and would support Ward’s suggestion to include Dean Street in the analysis. Mayor Skadron said he does not want the city burdened with the cost to design, build or maintain snowmelt. Ms. Garrow said it is a decision by council at the time should snowmelt be implemented. There is no obligation within this ordinance that says there will or will not be snowmelt. There is a lot of additional study that needs to be explored and understood. Councilwoman Mullins asked who is paying for the study. Ms. Garrow replied some of it is the applicant and some the city. Councilman Myrin said the installation would be dwarfed by the ongoing operation costs and the ordinance should address the ongoing operation costs. The Mayor said he doesn’t want the city burdened by the ongoing operation costs. It should be split as well. Councilwoman Mullins agreed with Bert. Ms. Garrow posed the question to the applicants about those changes. Mr. Clauson said that is an easy discussion to have down the line. Councilman Myrin said you said the operators would be on board because it would help the product but to discuss it down the line. Why not just include it. Councilman Hauenstein said I see it only benefiting Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch. Conceptually I agree with Bert. Richard Shaw, representing Gorsuch, said we don’t know enough now as to what the safety issue is. Mr. True said Section H paragraph 33 of Lift One Lodge and 30 of Gorsuch has an obligation of one third for installation. What you are talking about is adding operation and maintenance. That change could be done here. It is up to you. I’m not sure where the applicants are on that. Since there are other users of S Aspen Street the city could be picking up their part. Councilman Frisch said it would be nice to have that. Mr. True said what you do obligate them to do is contribute to it. I’m not too sure the applicants are supportive of it. Councilwoman Mullins said my point is not just look at the cost of installation but the cost of ongoing maintained. Aaron Brown, Lift One Lodge, said we are inclined to accept it on principle. Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 8 Ms. Garrow said we wanted to memorialize an existing easement. We have some slightly different reading of what it says. It is for safe utility easements and waiver of encroachment fees related to soil nailing. We can continue to work on the language. As is, there is now a payment of fees that are due when you encroach in the right of way with soil nailing. Because the city did not collect payment at the time, we waived those fees. We have a slightly different read on that. We tried to carve out a fair path forward where the fees are waived for 8 months. Councilwoman Mullins said are they asking for more money. Ms. Garrow replied not really. Mr. Barwick said when soil nails are put in and left in they interfere with future construction. We instilled a pretty high fee for that. They are planning on taking them out in this case. The purpose behind this fee was when they leave the nails in. Councilman Myrin said this isn’t money the city is giving up or a cost to the city. It is a fee we had to do the right thing. The incentive to do the right is what. Ms. Garrow said 8 months to do the construction and use this system. Trish Aragon, city engineer, said I believe they will be leaving them in. We require them to be removed to the 7 foot depth. Beyond that they will be kept. Ms. Garrow said beyond that they have done the proper construction and the building will be braced. Councilman Myrin said if the first 7 feet don’t come out what happens. Ms. Aragon replied after 8 months if they are still excavating and in a temporary condition then the fee kicks in. Councilman Myrin said he does not see the downside to this. Mayor Skadron said we have no objection to soil nails. Ms. Garrow said the only other outstanding item is the Gorsuch Lot 2 restriction. Mike Kraemer, community development, said Lot 1 is the Gorsuch development and Lot 2 is the remainder. We have come up with some language for some development restrictions while acknowledging the uses. Staff concerns with a carte blanch general recreation statement is we didn’t want to see zip lines and roller coasters as an allowed use on the parcel. There is specific language about non-mechanized recreation. To Ward’s concern about the public vote and free market use. For it to be amended it would have to be done through a public vote. Councilman Myrin asked if there is anything that would prohibit world cup staging. Mr. Kraemer said we specifically called out special events. Ms. Garrow said we need to change the name of the tramway board in the ordinance. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Mr. True asked about Ward’s comment on the housing below subgrade for Gorsuch. Mr. Kraemer said the project contains one on site housing unit. It is located more than 50% below grade and that requires a special review. The unit is located on the western side of the lodge and that is where the skier return and stairway is. The unit has direct access to the stairway. While it is below grade it does have direct access to the outside. That is why staff is comfortable with the recommendation of approval. Councilman Hauenstein moved to adopt Resolution #2, Series of 2019; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Mr. Clauson said there are a few typos and minor corrections that need to be made to the ordinances. They also want to make some improvements to the sequencing issue where it is discussed about construction staging and how the lift will occur. Ms. Garrow said not knowing what those minor corrections are at this point they would have to be very minor and more scriveners errors or we can continue to ensure all the parties are agreeing on those changes. Delivery of the lift is something that is ultimately up to the Aspen Ski Company and they would also need to ensure approval. Mr. True said we can recognize scriveners error but if there is something that is more substantive, and it is possible, we would need to continue this consideration of the resolution until next week. Council took a dinner break so the applicants could discuss further. 8:55p.m. back from dinner Special Meeting Aspen City Council January 7, 2019 9 Mr. Clauson said they are aware there needs to be agreements made of all sorts related to easements. We are prepared to agree to the language as written. They request one simple change related to a setback, a five foot setback of the easterly side yard setback. Ms. Garrow said we’ve discussed other specific changes like the tramway board change. She said we received an email from Kelly Murphy specific to operation of the skier chalet lodge giving the city first right of refusal. Councilman Myrin said he will not support this. He supports something going to the ballot. He wanted to vote no on the land use and yes on something going to the ballot. He does not support the discretionary employee reductions and he is concerned about where the money is coming from as outlined in the memo by the city manager. This is not ready and is irresponsible for council to hand this to the voters in its current form. Councilwoman Mullins said we’ve worked on this for a really long time and this is the best project possible. We’ve scrutinized it and accepted the code we may have found hard to accept. It is the most complete beneficial project for the city. She is hoping the voters approve it. Councilman Hauenstein said he is comfortable sending it to the voters. Councilman Frisch said there was discussion earlier about getting information back about financial tradeoffs. Will that still be worked on. This shows the difference about approvals that gets decided at the table and the ballot box. He will stick to his belief that we need to send this to the voters and they need to do a lot of homework. He hopes we get to see a project happen as soon as possible. I will support this. Mayor Skadron said he will not support this because of the referral without council approval and the city contribution. It is above and beyond our responsibility. Councilman Myrin said the difference between council and ballot box approval. Why can’t we get this where we are comfortable. Councilman Frisch said it is two different processes. The process would have been a lot different and they would be reacting about different things if there was a need to accumulate three votes. Councilman Myrin said we can require a majority of council to approve the land use then refer it to the voters. We have that opportunity. There is another ballot in a month. There is no need to get this out immediately. We should make it the best it can be before it goes to the ballot. Councilman Frisch said I think as Ann and Ward said after all this time when you look at a multi component thing looking at the conglomeration, while I wish there was less money on the table from the community, the totality will be a benefit to the community. Based on the totality I still remain supportive of going to the voters in March. Roll call vote. Councilmembers Hauenstein, yes; Mullins, yes; Myrin, no; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, no. Motion carried. At 9:05 p.m.; Councilman Hauenstein moved to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk