HomeMy WebLinkAboutcoa.lu.an.Northside#2
-,.,r''.'.,,'",'----..
...."'
..~""..',.:..j
1""'\
,~
7;?,)'~, '
......
. ."
No. 23832
,
CITY OF ASPEN, a )
municipal corporation, )
)
Plaintiff in Error, )
. )
v. )
)
SAMUEL W. HO'ilELL, ' )
)
Defendant in Error. )
FILED IN THE
f'"..'.:'Uil""'-,--",- ,_
"-' I.......I'.,. /';.. .'r'lll"""'!-
r . '......I'.~... '..J;,.....;.,.; {, I
Or ThE STAT t: 0;' C0i.O'~1\80 .
SJ:"D') (\ }'(:<'''',
0-.. ~;J ;"'...I~
to /;1 "~ ./
J-.::......;~/b<C,..~ ~~:'/....
. ....... '.---.; --...~
Error to the District Coo rt
of
Pitkin County
Hon. Carl W. Fulghum, Judge
EN BANC
JUDGMENT REVERSED
. Kohn & Howe,
Charles B. Howe,
Attorneys for Plaintiff in Error,
Nelson, Hoskin & Groves,
John W, Groves,
Attorneys for Defendant in Error.
MR. JUSTICl~ PRINGLE delivered the opinion of the Court'
I'"'"
,~
, .
This is an actio'n to review the validity of an
annexation conducted under the provisions of the
Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, 1965 Perm. Supp.,
C.R.S. 1963, 139-21 [hereinafter cited as Annexation
Act]. By a small majority, the voters in the territory
to be annexed expressed their preference for annexation
by the City of Aspen. On the petition of Samuel Howell,
the defendant in error here, the district court ruled
that the election was invalid. The City of Aspen contends
,", '
here that the court erred in ruling (a) that certain errors
of procedure were committed; and (b) that absentee ballots
should not have been permitted. Howell ~ssigns cross-
error to a portion of the judgment which held that non-
resident landowners could'vote. We agree with the
contentions made by Aspen, and therefore reverse the
judgment of the trial court holding that the'election was
void.
1.
The terms of the Annexation Act, Sections 1 to 6,
'.
authorize ~o methods of annexation. Section 6(1) provides
that, under stated conditions, certain landowners of
eligible property may petition for annexation without an
election. Section 6(2) authorizes certain qualified
electors residing within eligible territory, again under
stated conditions, to petition for an annexation election.
- 2 -
,-.,
/"""".
" \:
Section 6(3) provides further that the foregoing procedures
are alternative to each other, "except that a petition for
annexation election filed pursuant to S?ction 6(2) shall
take precedence over an annexation petition involving the
same territory ,and filed pursuant to Section 6(1). . . ."
.
From stipulated facts, the trial court found that
the annexation petition was filed on July 17, 1967.
Pursuant to the Annexation Act, Section 7, the city council
found on the same day that the petition met the statutory
requirements and set August 21 for a hearing. Notice was
published. On August 10, the election petition was filed.
Without starting over again under Section 6(2) to determine
whether the election petition met the statutory requirements,
and to set another hearing date, the city council held a
public hearing on August 21, the date originally scheduled.
.., After the hearing, the city council passed its resolution
finding that the election petition met the statutory require-
ments, and directed election procedures to be initiated.
Howell relies on the provision that a "petition for
.
annexation election . . . shall take precedence over an
annexation petition" to support his contention that, when
the election petition was filed, all actions under the
annexation petition should have been abandoned, and a new
procedure should have been initiated under Section 6(2).
See Annexation Act, Section 6(3). We disagree.
- 3 -
--_.-.~_._. --..._~.~-_.~_....-
1""',
,~
The purpose of the Annexation Act, as Stated by the
legislature, is to provide for the "orderly growth of
urban communities" in this sto.te. See Annexation Act,
Section 2(1)(a). The legislz.t\lre has further directed that
the Act shall be construed liberally to implement certain
stated purposes, among them, "to extend municipal govern-
ment services and facilities to eligible areas which form a
.
part of the whole, community."
Annexation Act, Section 2(1)
,
(d) and (h). The rule which Howell would have us ~dopt
would require. us to set aside an election in which :;the majority
i.
;
of the electors voted for annexa"cion. In view of Cl'ur legis-
"
lative mandate to construe the statute liberally so as to
I'
expedite the extension of governmental services to ~ligible
\
territories, we will not narrowly construe the stat\te to
require a city council to make essentially the same:determina-
\
tion which it had made a (e~~ days earlier, and to set a
second date for hearing.
Except for differences regarding the qualifications
of the petitioners, the procedure under both Sections 6 (1)
and 6(2) is substantially the same. Similarly, the matters
inquired into by the city council, and the findings which it
is required to make, are substantially the same, except for
a determination whether an election itself is required. See
Annexation Act, Sections 7 and 9. Once the city council
determines that an election is required, then the procedures
to be followed are set forth in accordance with the
Annexation Act, Section 11.
In this case, both petitions concerned the same
territory, and the election was held as requested by those
"
- 4 -
r
'.1
i
~;ss!fi:"-':'~~"Gi:. ',.Vi :;"",., ,
t"'"
;"'"
who signed the election petition. Notice of the election
was published in each of four consecutive weeks. It is
true that the procedure followed involved the loss of
several ii>zeeks between the filing of the election petition
and the election during which those opposed to the annexation
may have had'time to polarize even greater opposition.
But the expressed policy of the Annexation Act is "[tJO
encourage natural and well-ordered development of munici-
palities, II not to discourage it by setting aside an
election already held in a manner which affords the free
and fair expression of the popular will. See Felzien v.
School District RE-3 Frenchman, 152 Colo. 92, 380 P.2d 572.
Laws merely regulating an election are usually regarded as
directory, and hence a departure from the mode prescribed
will not ordinarily vitiate the election. ,E. McQuillin,
Municipal Corporations & 12.10 (3d ed. rev.).
II.
,The parties have stipulated that the results of the
annexation election were as follows:
.
For Annexation
Absentee Ballots
Resident Ba+lots
Totals
37
..2L
99
Against Annexation
18
...2L.
85
In its judgment, the trial court concluded, however,
that since the Annexation Act ~~kes no specific provision
- 5 -
1""",
'.-..
for absentee balloting in annexation elections, the absentee
ballots reflected supra should not have been counted. The
Colorado Municipal Election Code of 1965, 1965 Perm. Supp.,
C. R.S. 1963, 49-25-1, et see. [hereinafter cited as Municipa~
Election Code], which expressly provides for absentee
voting at 49'-25-92, ~~., was held inapplicable to this
election. We disagree.
The former municipal election law, C.R.S. 1963,
49-22-1, ~ ~., had been made inapplicable to the former
annexation statute, C.R.S. 1963, 139-19-1, ~ ~., by the
terms of C.R.S. 1963, 49~22-l60(4). Apparently because
the former annexation statute contained insufficient detail
to guide an annexation election, the legislature in 1965
expressly made the provis~ons of the newly-enacted Municipal
Election Code applicable to annexation ele~tions by
amendment of the annexation statute. Colo, Sess. Laws, ch.
303, 5 29 (d) (1965) . The amendment was obviously intended
as a stopgap measure, for it became effective on August 1,
1965, and was repealed by the Municipal Annexation Act of
1965 when the latter act took effecf on January 1, 1966.
Unlike the stopgap measure, the new Annexation Act
did not expressly provide that annexation elections should be
governed by the provisions of the Municipal Election Code.
Rowell contends here that the legislature's omission reflects
its intent that the provisions of the Municipal Code should
not apply to annexation elections under the new Annexation
Act. We disagree.
- 6 -
. .'
("'\,
,..."
In view of certain changes, in the Municipal Election
Code, no express reference was necessary. The former
municipal election law contained extensive detail to
specify which of numerous elections should or should not
be governed by its provisions. See C.R.S. 1963, 49-22-160.
.
All such references and limitations, however, were deleted
from the new Municipal Election Code, which has general
applicability to "regular' and special municipal elections."
Municipal E~ection Code, 49-25-181. Thus the legislature's
deletion of a specific provision that annexation elections
should be governed by a designated election law must be
read in context with its contemporaneous action in providing
that the Municipal Election Code shall apply generally to
municipal elections. Under these circumstances and since
the legislature has pointed out that the purpose of the
Annexation Act is to extend municipal government to eligible
areas, we deem it the legislative intent that the term
"special municipal elections" as contained in the Municipal
Election Code, extends to annexation elections.
We hold, therefore, that the Municipal Election Code
applies to elections under the Annexation Act to the extent
that its terms are not inconsistent with the specific
provisions of the Annexation Act. Cf. City of Mil1-Jaukee v.
Sewerage Commission, 268 Wis. 342, 67 N.W.2d 624; Powers v.
Monahan, 85 R.I. 398, 132 A.2d 97. In so construing the
statutes, we adhere to the principle that laws enacted
'- 7 -
~
/-"
.
during the same
session of the legislature should be
harmonized if possible, particularly where they deal
with inter-related subjects, as in the present case.
See Rowland v. Theor~ld, 159 Colo. 1, 409 P.2d 272.
We have not overlooked the general rule that
.
absentee voter statutes should be strictly construed, and
that the voter who wishes i:o cast an absentee ballot must
comply with ali the statutory requirements. See Bullington
v. Grabow, 88 Colo. 561, 298 P. 1059. There is no contention
in the present case, however, that the absentee ballots were
improper under the Municipal Election Code. Instead, Howell
contends that the Annexation Act makes nO provision for
absentee voting. With that contention we cannot disagree.
As we have held, the legiSlature intended to make the
Municipal Election Code, which expressly provides for
absentee ballots, applicable generally to municipal elections.
And since the Municipal Election Code provides that the
Municipal Election Code should be construed liberally so
that all legally qualified electors may be permitted to vote,
we hold that the Municipal Election Code by its terms
authorized the absentee ballots in question here.
To require that the legislature must specifically provide
for absentee ballots within a given statute, in addition to
provisions that the Municipal Election Code shall be appli-
cable, would in effect require the legislature to rewrite
many of the statutes which presently provide only that the
- 8 -
. ^
~^
,
^
."
Municipal Election Code shall apply. In a similar case,
even though an absentee voting statute made ho direct
mention of absehtee voting in city elections, one court
has, nevertheless, permitted absentee ballots on the
basis of a general section providing that the provisions
of the statu"te shall apply to city elections. Hood v.
State ex rel. Lee, 133 Tex. 110, 126 S.W.2d 4, 121 A.L.R. 931.
III.
Howell has assigned cross-error to the trial court's
ruling that nonresident landowners of the territory to be
annexed are entitled to vote in annexation elections. The
terms of the Annexation Act, Section 11(1) (c) provide that an
election shall be called to determine whether a majority of
the "qualified electors residing within the territory"
approve such annexation. But Section 11(2) provides that
any ~'landowner owning land", in the territory may vote,
"irrespective of whether he is a qualified elector" (emphasis
added). "Landowner" means the owner in fee' of any undivided
interest in a given parcel of land. Annexation Act,
139-21-21(8). "Qualified elector," on the other hand, means a
"resident landowner" (emphasis added). Annexation Act,
Section 21(10). Another pertinent section provides that
the corrmissioners shall forthwith call an election of "all
the qualified electors, or qualified electors and land-
owners. . . ." Annexation Act, Section 11(5).
- 9 -
'.'",
I"""'"
.1"')
In view of the specific provision in Section 11(2)
that a landowner may vote irrespective of whether he is
a qualified elector, which entails residency, and the
further recognition in Section 11(5) that qualified
electors and landowners maybe two separate groups, both
entitled to vote, we conclude that the legislature
intended to permit a nonresident landowner to vote in an
annexation election. A contrary construction could render
the entire statute void for lack of equal protection, for
it expressly provides in Section 11(2) that "any c6rporate
II
:.
landlowner" may by resolution designate one of its'lofficers
I
i
to cast its votes. In accord with familiar rules If
statutory construction. the specific provisions must be
held to prevail over the general provisions. To the extent
that this construction conflicts with the residency require-
ments of the Municipal Election Code. those provisions are held
to be superseded by the provisions of the Annexation Act.
The trial court did not err in its ruling that a
nonresident landowner could vote. although it did err in its
judgment setting aside the election.
The judgment is reversed.
MR. JUSTICE LEE dissents,. _"__
MR. JUSTICE GROVES not participating.
- 10 -
^
~
/)....v
vI'
Thursday, f'Jarch 6, 1969
IN THE SUPREr.!2; COURT OF THE f~TAT~ OF GO:"Q:.,'~J8
TI.3 CITY OF AS PEN,
Colorado Municipal
Corporation,
)
)
Plaint.iff, )
)
v,;. )
)
a )
)
)
)
Defendant. )
ORIGINAL PROC;::;EDING
SAT!fU::~L ~:j.
l'OT1f"-LT,
.. ,...~ ->>
, 2/.01~9
Upon consideration of the motion of the potitioner
to consolidate the within cause with n~~ber 23832, City
of Aspen v. Samuel W. Howell, it appearing to the court
that the within cause having been dismissed by the court
and rendering the matter moot;
It is this day ordered that said motion to consolidate
oe, and hereby is, dismissed.
BY THE COURT. r'Jarch 6, 1969.
:1
,
,
~, .,
. ,.<" ',' ., ",,,.; .'':c':;-':'/'' ',-?~"'f1V;\l':"Y~'1;:'Yl?:;'\;'~ro,:'~'~'\':i~VC).;'''~?'':':,<:':'i;;.':,",~'~,t '." \"'~~""~ '1" .::,t~!:,~,:,:(,~,~::::,,",~I"f\'?:!":~7::;/,1'!t'":;',n,~,',?'~~:::s':',"~~~~,~:'';,'~_~,:~,"'''i~\:(~~' "7,'-",(" <I, ""~,,,,,,,,;,,. f-- " ","
f"""",
~
,
,
I,:n,' I' TY'" ','", 'tr'\,"'.'j"\ i~'>'S', P E'N
l..;' ,.. II , ' .:~ l\,
, ~...~ ::j :.: If-'.,
r" ,';i ..' L" t;\..
..:'_.bi _~
~""speJllo"l> c~l: firr.,""e,er" t1"ld1' @'j]~-i<i' bo""" V
'. II "', V'.ll CiU\UJ g~\Yllll. ~
-.. , "'" ~ .. .. ~
October 1, 1968
,
"':"
MEMORANDUM
TO: ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS
FROM: LEON A. WURL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: NORTH SIDE ANNEXATION DECISION
Please do not make any changes in your normal
operation as relates to the court decision on the
North Side Annexation until a notice from me.
~ /).u/~
Leon A. Wurl
LAW:mw
ARNOL.D M. KOHN
CHARL.ES B. HOWE
.'
o
.
^
Nr.. Alb'3~t K'crn
Citcy Attorney
Box v
Aspen, Colorado
Re:
Des.::: 2\lbie:
rJ
KOH N & HOWE
ATTORNEYS AT L.AVV
ST. PAUL. eUIL.DING . SUITE 140
2040 14TH STREET
BOULDER. COL.ORADO 80302
Hay 16, 1969
8~IC~I'
...0..:........
Eowell v.. City of Aspen
S~preme Court of Colorado
Appeal
#23832
This is just to let you knc\\l' that the date f.or
oral argumen.t in the above case has been set for
June 10, 1969, at 9:00 a.m.
()
,,{Ji ']
'!;ZV
;\
I ' ,
v.'..",',./
TELEPHONE" 4.245.. .','
(AREA 303)
Fll.E No.
I hope to got to see you while I mn in Aspen
next week.
CBH/emb
Cordially,
Charles B. HOvlO
,-.,
~
Oc'cober 8, 1968
M:EIViORF.l,NDUM
)'
:=:\): ALL DEPARTYlENT HEADS"
FROM: LEON A. WJRL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SJBJECT: NORTH SIDE ANNEXA~ION DECISION
Effective irrllTleci,atelv all of the area included
~,' ,the North Side Annex2.tior, is outside the city limi'cs.
Please cease city services to that area.
;
t,t/. l
. V"""^
Leon A. Wurl
-. ";v:mw
?~ S. Segl, Adkins and West Aspen Company annexations'
a::e still in the city and will receive city services.
^
~
eFG)
",
KOHN &HoWE
~. ,
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ST. PAuLeUILDING .'SUITE, 140
2040 '1'4TH, STREET
TELEPHONE 444,:"2456
BOULDER, COLORADO 80302 (AREA_303) .
AI~NOLb M. KOHN
CHARLES 8, HOWE
rFU
;.1
"
U
!;
l1:v
~n'
[, ,!
,I ,
ii III
p
l1dJ
fQ)
U!!
I
'\ !!
\v;
1.
u
FILE NO;-
Narch'13, ",,1969~~ '
'SJ~'//iJ
1.'11:. A,lbert' Kern
City Attorncy'
Box V
l\spen",: Colorado
Re; Quo Warranto Proceeding
No. 24049
Dear .J\loie:
.. . "
, , ,
'1'h8 (~nGloscd DismIssalOrdiilX' oft.he Supreme C:ourt on
the Quo vlarrantoCompl,:'!int and Motion to Consolidate should
be of interest"Cln,d perhaps reliofto/theCity.It appear:>
that our treal:.ment",o.ftl1.1s matter,wasapproprip.l:.eaft<?rall.
"-", ,.
'The issue pfsubscgUent ',taxa tion, of the ?linexedproperty
\,'ill still bo ,covcr,ed,at theoraLargumont, of the ,Annexation
Appeal. ~Jince' it ,was 'raised.. i"n ,tho Hot1ellBrief, and replied
to by us (Fourth Argument) ,...rt .' remains/to be seen ' \1hether,
the Court tdll ,feel the ncqessi tyqf deal.ing with' itil1tl1e
appellate opinion., ' '
Our feeling is that it \~ill prove to be a moot point if
tho annexation is sustained: and I doubt, if thi5Court~iill
tr0at it if t1carcunsuceess.ful, although wC<yi:i.l not,opPOso
resolving the issue in ,the' appeal as requested bYYQu,
Nill advise you When
J. look for Howell to move
,,/11ieh we will not oppOse
trary.
oral argumont.
.'th~:"doc;!-(~~ ~
'the con-
the cas,e is set for
to advance the
inqtruct.
CBli/emb
Enclosure
cc: Hr., Leon .,1url
".....,
-/"'"
(' ,
~,
KOHN & HOWE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ST. PAUL BUILDING. SUITE 140
2040 14TH STREET
BOUL.DER. COLORADO 80302
ARNOLD M.KOHN
CHARLES B. HOWE
o
August 20, 1969
lo1r. Albert, Kern
City Attorney
Box 389
Aspen, Colorado
Re: City of Aspen v. Howell
Dear Albie:
..
,
In regard to our pending appeal in the' above matter,
I contacted Chief Justice Robert McWilliams. He advised
me that the case had been assigned and that an opinion
was in the mill and said it would be improper for him to
go any farther than this. I explained the problem re-
lating to the City's forthcoming election and the dilemma
faced by potential candidates, the Chief Justice assured
that he would make inquiry about the case and pass this
information on to the justice who 'has the file.
I recognize the difficult problems that you face re-
garding the election ,and particularly with respect to
any home rule plans which the Administration had in mind
for the general election. In view of our present uncer-
tainty, I,would suggest that the City continue to treat
the North Side area as part of the municipal limi ts of
Aspen. This means that potential'candidates from that
area should be allowed to file, and that the County Court
proceed to establish precincts in the newly-annexed area.
Please be assured that I will continue to do whatever
can be done to expedite the decision without jeopardizing
the City's future relations, with the Color~do Supreme Court.
Cordially,
Charles B. HOlte
CBli/ekb
CCI Z,1r. Leon Wurl
Mr. David Stapleton
ARNOL.D M. KOHN
CHARLa 8. HOW&
"
/;~
t~ "
.
'1.
'J
.'
I'" '
~
KOHN & HOWE
ATTORNEYS.AT LAW
sr. PAUL BUILDING. SUITI t40
2040 '14TH. aTREIE't
BOULDER. CO~RADO .oaoa
"'1
.'7?:l~
/r;0"?
""""'HOHC <444-2.48.
c_.o.,
'.La No.
7l..J? ~'
THE DENVER POST
Monday! September 29, 1969
Nonresident. Abse'~~ee ,I
AL'U:1.exflii'i@D1 Voth'il9 U~,he~d
, ' ' w
Nonresident land owners may are legal in annexation el<ic-
vote and absentee ballots are tions. (It was the absentee bal-
legal in municipal annexation lots which carried the election.
elections, the Colorado'Supreme iIi favor of annexation,) .
Court ruled in a 5-1 decision -Whether nonresident' land-
Monday. ' lords are eligible to vote in an-
The case involved a 1967 an. nexation elections.,
nexation in Aspen, Colo. The -Whether a city council must
, m~iority of the, voters approved schedule, a separate public hear-
the annexation which was then ing on an annexation' election
appealed to Dist. Judge Carl W, petition if it already has set one
Fulghum of Pitkin County, who for a previously filed annexation
ruled the election was invalid, petition involving the same
His decision was appealed to area.
the Supreme Court where, in an The high court ruled' that ab-
",pinion delivered by Justice Ed- sentee balloting and nonresident
ward E. Pringle" FUlghum' was voting are all right and that no
reversed and, the . annexation separate public, hearing ,Is' re-
was once again allowed. . ,quired.
Three issues were Involved: Justice
-,
,.......
~-_",;.""',.,."""'M"'.".~_"',.~""'~-,."",.~.
~~.,'-
!'c_
'-
ARNOl..,D M. KOHN
CHARLES B. HOWS:
r
lWJ
in
l,lJ
I!
fP)
II
u
~1
~ 1
U
h C) ,-..
e~.
"l
KOHN & HOWE
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ST. PAUL 8UILDING . SUITE: 140
2040 14TH STREET
80UL.DER, COLORADO 60302
#
V TEI.EPHONE 444-2456
J~'
(AREA 303)
FII.E No.
Hr. Albert Kern
Ci ty i\tt:orney
Post Office Box 389
Callum Building
Aspen, Colorado
January 10, 1969 ~
~')r>
~
7fJ. I V7juJ
Ro: Howell v. City of Aspen, Appeal -
Supreme Court of Colorado #23832
Dear Albic: .
This is to advise that r have nearly co!;lplet,ed
research on the above matter and plan to file the
brief on or before January 27, 1969. I believe I
have all of the necessary documents and information.
From a legal standpoint, I believe we are in
~nuch bet.ter shape on the issue of authorizir.FJ ab$entee
voting in the annexation elec-t.ion than on the neces~
sity of procedural hearings on the petition for '
anne};ation election. By general conclusion is that
it is an appeal \vell worth prosecuting and ,'Ie have at
least a fair chance of reversal in the Colorado 6upreme
Court. I will for the most part rely on the arguments
and law presented in the lo,'ler Court hearings, .axcept
for the method of presentation.
I have not yet received and now recruest from you
the letter from the City Council authorizing me to
represent the City on appeal.
In this connection, X wish to outline the antici-
patedc:::osts of my services and proposed method of pay-
me~t. The fee for my lagal servicos in handling ti~e
appeal will be $l,SOO, plus printing and other costs
which I estimate \vill be approximately $250. In
appellate matters, it is the policy of our firm to re-
quest payment of one half of the total fee upon filing
the appellant's brief and the remaining half at the time
"
I-i
''?''''''\
, .'.~
CITY
, jtS1
aspen. ,COrl
~,\ ~',""
L! i '....~
\"1 Ii II
"'-"?'
ii~S P E'N
'", "':1f'A': 0>tl m..,n"", v
(;)) /.j~ 'Will U"",,,
October 24, 1968
MEMORANDUM
TO:
ALL DEPARTMENT HEADS ,
,
FROM:
LEON A. WURL, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: NORTH SIDE ANNEXATION DECISION
In a telephone conversation on October 22
with Charles Stewart, attorney representing the City
of Aspen on the North Side Annexation suit, he informed
me that after reviewing the Statutes he has now reversed
his original opinion and'concluded that the North Side
Annexation will stay in the city limits until the Supreme
Court has reviewed the decision. His opinion is based
on the following section out of the Colorado Revised
Statutes.
Section 16. (4) "The execution of any final judg-
ment by the district court in any judicial review of an
annexation proceeding shall automatically be stayed upon
the filing of the record on error or the filing of a
praecipe for a writ of error in the Colorado Supreme
Court and no application for supersedeas shall be neces-
sary. Such stay shall continue in full force and effect
pending final disposition of the proceedings in error'
by the Colorado Supreme Court."
Mr. Stewart's latest opinion has been substantiated
by Albert Kern, City Attorney and Charles Howe, attorney
for the Colorado Municipal League.
Effective immediately all area included in the North
Side Annexation is inside the City and we will resume
services to that area. , d /.IJ t!
~ ,fU'1M/
-"'
Leon A. Wurl
LAW:mw
"<, .:> ""...
t'*':
~
-
.,
. " -.~
....:......
,:\l;:-,s:ct: :{c:::n.
3::1": :.lL:;'~:'~~.7
PEi.'J"e ",;.
1~>S9
b,:~j.::
B.d'72.l-:.ce
Gc::>~;e 0:::
.r~ ~'"
.._ '.:):;;.~O"""
0::':
.,,;,,,,,
C3.S,;8, ;.....\...:-:;,;;
~ .,. .
o.CCKC'C ..
'i-'iilI. bG
Accozxlins<i_y J' I '\'.ou:i<J~ a..::
o~ally &rgued 2nd decided
'CiS t;,h..:::: t:. "cn;::.: -case
, . ,
sort;;;:;.-'C.1.r::,0 :..n. e.J.2~
Spri:::g' "
r.r:;::ust:
.'., ~e", .,:,:,
....."'.....
'::e.:.::~r::~
. .
,,-;,':~:::C;:l.:-:
are ;.3t't';::.isrD.ctor:1 'co YClU., J..J.~~{)n: t1:.2:
I hL:::~10 c:lrce.c:i eJ:J:t(::l.~2,1 r:...y 2LlJI,:;,,~';a:;:'i~:~lC8
":1:" of -:':::8
Ci t:y in t:1.8 CoJ..o:r:;.d.o CCH..i.:ct:... _ sc:nc '1,"','""
cop:;_c:s 02 thebJ:.ief as I;:';OOYl 2.8 .:...:.::. ',::o'[,plc.tcd;. ~"c:::
,\'0 ".~ - ~-'-'I'" \-- ,'"" ~ '""- c '), tl:.e 'tr:;1."::;.3 c:..::1:.li:-:,.cd :l'8:::'~ 2J:ci
io~~rE.~d.l..~;~ :;:1;~;~; o~: ~2-iS let:tr..;;X" f:z:;'o:-[t :ctlc City C()"..::.:~cil
a:ut.horizing ~';.:y ,;cepr~sent.at:ion C:1. ,appo:::l in. t:h(~ Colorado
Su.preme Court..
Cordially:
Char 1;;;. s .D. HOvle
CBH/errb
CC: Mr. Leon ~irl
City Manager
City Hall
Aspen, Colorado
L~
...'"
""
I""
"-,,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF PITKIN AND S~A~E OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 3864
SAMUEL W. HOWELL, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. )
)
CITY OF ASPEN, A Colorado)
)
municipal corporation, )
)
Defendant. )
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY BRIEF
I
A HEARING HELD PURSUN,T TO SECTION 9
OF THE MUNICIPAL ANNEXATION ACT OF 1965
IS NOT LIMITED TO A CONSIDERATION OF
THE REQUIREVffiNTS OF SECTIONS 3 and 4 OF
THE ACT BUT ALSO INCLUDES A CONSIDERATION
OF SECTION 6 (2) AND, THEREFORE, NOTICE
OF A HEARING CONCERNING A PETITION FOR
ANNEXATION IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO NOTICE
OF A HEARING ON A PETITION FOR AN ANNEXA-
TION ELECTION.
The Defendant misinterprets Plaintiff's contention
concerning the necessity of a new Notice of Hearing on a
Petition for an Annexation Election insofar as it assumes
that the only reason for holding such a hearing is to consider
the availability of the Territory for Annexation under Sections,
3 and 4 of the Act. On page 6 of Plaintiff's Opening Brief,
it was noted that one of the purposes of the Hearing on a
Petition for an Annexation Election is to determine com -
pliance has been made with Se,ction 6 (2) of the Act. Section
9 (1) states as follows:
Upon the completion of the Hearing, the
City Council of the Annexing Municipality
shall, by resolution, set forth its finding
of fact and its conclusions based thereon
with reference to the following matters:
*' * *
ARNOLD M. KOHN
CHARLES B. HOWE
o
""...,
,~
KOHN & HOWE
:y,~.? C fv
TELEPHONE 444-2456
(AREA 303)
FILE NO.
~.s.f<
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ST. PAUL BUILDING. SUITE 140
2040 14TH STREET
BOUL.DER. COL.ORADO 80302
June Il, 1969
Hr. Albert Kern
Box 389
~S?0n, Colorado alGll
ne: City of Aspen v. Howell
Dear Albie:
The Ho""7e11 case was orally argued to the Suprene
Court yesterday (Tuesday, June 10). There is no way
of accurately predicting when a decision will be
reached on the case. I would only guess that we
could expect an opinion around the middle of July.
A short report might be in order. "ihile hesi-
tating to predict the outcome, I am cautiously op-
timistic. We were successful in getting the Court
to understand our issues on appeal and the rather
tenuous position which Howell and other opponents
occupied throughout this proceeding. I feel confi-
dent -- based on the questions asked -- the Court
will uphold the absentee balloting procedure employed
in the annexation election. Our, only major hurdle
is with the manner in which the Caunsil treated the
pGtition for annexation election. and I feel we will
win on this issue if the Court recognizes that the
second petition waS-nothing more than a request for
an election in an effort to thwart the annexation.
\1ill inform you as soon as we hear anything;
we can only wait now.
Cordially,
Charles B. Howe
CBH/ekb
CC: Mr. Leon Wurl
P.S. Congratulations on your marriage.
,
".....,
r--.,
(b) Whe~her or not an election is required
under Section 139-21-6 (2).
Clearly notice of a Hearing on a Petition for
Annexation would not be notice of a Hearing on Section 6 (2)
of the Act, since that Section is limited to Petitions for
Annexation Elections. A person reading the notice or coming
to the Hearing would not know that matters concerning an
Annexation Election were to be considered, and would not
have an opportunity to inquire concerning the following:
1. Whether the signers of the Petition for
an Annexation Election were residents qualified electors
and land owners of the territory.
2. Whether the Petition was properly filed.
3. Whether the proper form of request was made.
4. Whether the essential allegations were made
&
in the Petition.
5. Whether the requisite number of petitioners
had signed.
All these matters are unique to petitions for Knnexation
Eiections and have nothing to do with Petitions for Annexa-
tion. To say that a new notice concerning these matters is
not necessary is to say that the requirement of notice and'
hearing is itself unneCessary. And, as was pointed out in
our Opening Brief, the Holly Development, Inc. v.Board of
County Commissioners case stated at 140 Colo. 102, 103:
It has been the rule in this state since
territorial days that statutes relating
to publication of notice and legal
proceedings must be strictly complied
with. (Emphasis supplied)
On page 2 of its Brief, Defendant states "It is
submitted that under the circumstances to set a new date and
-2-
I"""-.
,'-'"
again publish notice would serve no useful purpose.
This, perhaps, would be true if the ," sole purpose" of
"
Notice and Hearing were to consider Sections 3 and 4 of the
Act, however, this is not the llsole purposell and even if it
were, Colorado law is settled that Notice and Hearing are
jurisdictional in nature and Courts are not to inquire into
the "usefulness" of published notice.
Under Section 9 (1) (a) the City Council is to make
"findings" based on the Hearing as to whether the require-
ments of Section 6 (2) have been met. The plain simple
undisputed fact is that notice was not given that the
requirements of Section 6 (2) would be under consideratior.
at the Hearing held on August 21, 1967.
II
THE REQUIREMEN'rS OF NOTICE, HEARING k.\1D
RESOLUTION BASED UPON FINDINGS MADE IN
CONNECTION WITH A HEARING ARE JURISDIC-
TIONAL MATTERS, AND ARE NOT, AS PEFENDA.\1T
CLAIMS, MERELY "MINISTERIAL".
The Defendant cites Englewood vs. Daily, 158 Colo.
356, 407 P.2d 325 (1965). The Englewood case distinguishes
between IIMinisterial Findingsll and lIJudicial or Quasi;""Judicialll
Findings. At, 158 Colo. 361 this distinction is explained as
follows:
Courts have mentioned several methods by
which a distinction is drawn between a
ministerial or legislative act on the one
hand, and a quasi-judicial act on the other.
The most common test is to determine
Whether the function under consideration
lnvolves the exercise of discretion and
requires notice and hearing. If these
elements are present the 11 findingl\ is
generally a quasi-judicial act; if any of
them are absent it is generally an adminis-
trative act. State Board of Land Commi~oners
v. carpenter, 16 Colo. App. 436, 66. Pac. 165;
-3-
I'"
/"",,\,
Ci ty of Albany vs _ Mc~1orran 34 Mise. 2d
316, 230 N.Y.S. 2d 434; Mayor of Unio~
Point v. Jones, 88 Ga. App. 848 78 S.E.
2d 348; Whitta~er v. Vi~lage of Venice,
150 Ill. 195, 37 N.E. 240; and State v.
City Council, 167 Hinn. 307, 209 N.W. 3.
The statute u~der consideration makes no
provision for notice or hearing before
the lIfinding" of the legislative body.
There is nothi.r-.g about the If findingU by
which any property owner ,or other person
aggrieved could possibly be bound. There
is nothing in the act which directly or
by implication disqualifies the members
of the City Council, or other officers
of the city, from circulating petitions
for annexation of land to the city_
Under the Englewood Test,;, the "findings" required by the
Municipal Annexation Act Section 9 clearly fall within
the definition of ~judicial or quasi-judicial" findings
since Notice and Hearing are expressly provided for. In
the Englewood case C.R.S. 139-10-3 (2) (1963) was under
consideration. This statute is clearly distinguishable
from the statute in the present case for, as the Court said
in Englewood at 361:
The requirement that if the legis~ative
body "shall find" upon examination of the
petition ,that it lImeets the requirement"
of the statute other procedures should
follow, does not involve a hearing upon
notice in an adversary proceeding, in
which a judicial or quasi-judicial
"finding" is called for.
In our case, however, notice and hearing are called for
specifically by Section 9 of the Act, and these "findings"
fall directly within the Englewood definition of "guasi-
judicial" findings.
III
DEFENDl~T SHOULD NOT BE HEARD TO COMPLAIN
THAT THE: PLAINTIFF HAS NOT MADE TIMELY
OBJECTION TO 7'7 "'<"~;:DUR!'.L DEFICIENCIES
OF THE PROCED,.."... ,,:,;;;n:;C'rrON WITH THE
ELECTION.
-4-
t""'-I
t""'-I
Defendant cites:r'n~ Fr~esp~., case for ~, ",
- '- -..... - -- ...ne pr.l.nc:.p~e
that a person objecting to an annexation should not be allowed
to "sit idly by while all the arrangements for the election
have been made." Whatever may have been the statutory proce-
dure at the time of the Friesen case, the provisions of
Section 15 (4) of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965
clearly state as follows:
k~y Annexation accomplished in accordance
with the provisions of this act shall not
be directly or collaterally questioned in
any suit, action or proceeding except as
expressly authorized in this Section.
Further, Section 15 (1) (a) states:
In no event shall such a proceeding (Annexation
Contest) be instituted prior to the effective
date of the Annexing Ordinance by the
Annexing Municipality.
Thus, under the expra,;:; provinion'l 01: t,h" 1'.,,1;;,
Plaintiff could not have made a more timely objection because
the statute expressly forbids him to do so. "Prompt review"
was impossible.
IV
INSOFAR AS k,Y MEANING CAN BE DRAWN FROM
THE ACT WITH RESPECT TO THAT CLASS OF
PERSONS INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE
TO BE THE ELECTORS, RESIDENCY SHOULD BE
CONSTRUED AS A QUALIFICATION.
The Defendant urges that any landowner should be
allowed to vote in an-Annexation Election. In support of
this contention, he cites various cases dealing with elections
in special improvement districts and states that, wherever
possible, cour$ should construe statutes so as to broaden
the elective franchise. There are two reasons why the
improvement district cases are distinguishable here. First,
a special improvement district is exclusively concerned with
the improvements of real property and the resulting real
-5-
f"""\
~
pr9perty tax.
i
A municipality, however, is much broader in
its concern and, in fact, bases its elective franchise not
upon the ownership of real property but upon (1) age, (2)
citizenship of the United States, (3) residence in the state,
county, municipality and election precinct, (4) and mental
competency. See C.R.S. 49-25-13 (1) (1963), as a.'nended .
In addition, the provisions of former annexation statutes,
which Defendant earnestly asks the court to incorporate
in connection with absentee voting, quite explicitly restrict
the qualification of electors in municipal annexation elec-
tions to "qualified landowners". See C.R.S. 139-10-4 (5) (a)
(1963), as amended. Secondly, the District cases are not
fairly comparable to the situation in the present case because
there the elective franchise was not based upon a statutory
scheme but involved the constitutional right of
landowners to vote in district elections. See Friesen v
People 118 Colo. 1, 9, 192 P.2d 430 (1948). In the present,
case, however, it would make little sense to say that all
landowners may vote concerning annexation, but once annexa-
tion is accomplished, only those landowners who are residents
and satisfY,the other requirements of electors may vote.
Defendant correctly cites the Fellin case for the
proposition that statutes should be construed as a whole
rather than from isolated parts thereof. Defendant refers
the court to the rule of construction cited in the Fellin
case to the effect that in case of ~'nbiguity, the later
paragraph or sentence should prevail over the earlier.
Plaintiff, however, relies on the constitutional requirement
that ambiguious ,statut.es shall not be enforced. The Fellin
I
-6-
t""',
t""',
rule of construction was certainly not designed to deal with
a statute, such as the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965, which
on the 'subjectof electoral qualifications contradicts
itself, not once, but no less than six times, (see Plaintiff1s
Opening Brief page 10). Can a reasonable interpretation
be derived from an Act or is the Act hopelessly ambiguous
and therefore incapable of enforcement? The arguments in
both briefs urging quite different interpretations of the
same wording offer witness to the ambiguous character of
the Act.
v
ABSENTEE VOTING
In a rather curious manner of statutory interpre-
tation; Aspen reasons that the legislature by repealinq
139-10-4 (5) (d) (1963), as amended, manifested an intention
to incorporate its terms. What clearer indication of an
intent to abolish the provisions of a statute could there
possibly be than by explicitly stating that a statute
"is hereby repealed." See Municipal Annexation Act of 1965
Section 23. If the mode of Statutory Construction suggested
by the Defendant were adopted, the legislature, in attempting
to repeal statutes, would have to put in a repealing clause
to the effect "such-and-such statute is hereby repealed,
and we really mean it."
The legislature did not incorporate the terms of
the Municipal Election Code of 1965, in the Annexation Act,
but rather undertook to set forth a comprehensive procedural
plan to be followed. See page 4 of "Plaintiff's Pre-Trial
-7-
'-',
t""'\
Memorandumtl fo~ an out.line of 17 specific procedures set forth
in the Act with respect to the conduct of elections. The
legislature, having set forth a detailed and comprehensive
procedural plan to be followed, obviously did not intend
to II incorporate by inference II parts of the I:-1unicipal Election
Code of 1965. To the contrary it must have intended all
procedure with respect to Annexation Elections to be set
forth therein. This view follows one of the most well
established principles of law relating to statutory con-
struction: Exoressio UniosEst Exclusio Ulterious.
The Defendant suggests that the Municipal Election
Code of 1965 was incorporated by Section 22 of the Municipal
Annexation Act of 1965. Section 22 states: "The powers
conferred and limitations imposed by this article shall be
in addition and supplemental to, not in substitution for,
powers confe,rred by any other law." This cannot possibly
apply the election provisions of the Municipal Annexations
Act of 1965 to the Act hereunder construction since no
powers relating to the annexations were conferred by the
Municipal Election Code.
The Defendant, at pages 9 and 10 .of its Brief
cites cases which, in general terms, say that Courts should
liberally construe statutes relating to elections so
as to broaden the election franchise. Defendant, however,
offers no explanation for the case of Bollington vs. Garbow
88 Colo. 561, 298 P. 1059 (1931), cited on pages 8 and 9 of
Plaintiff's Opening Brief, which clearly states that absentee
.
voting statutes are in deregation of the common law, should
be rigidly adhered to and strictly construed in order to
-8-
~
,
~
"safeguard the exercise of the elective franchise." Nor
does Defendant attempt to explain away the cases; cited from
foreign jurisdictions on pages 8 and 9 of Plaintiff's
Opening Brief, which state that Absentee voting is considered
a privilege rather than ~ right and the exercise thereof
should be strictly construed.
.
CONCLUSION
The Defendant, City of Aspen, takes the position
that this court should acquiesce in its disregard for
Statutory Procedure and approve of its actions because of
the expense and inconvenience incident to an invalidation
of the Northside Annexation. It is Plaintiff's position
that the General Assembly of the State of Colorado is the
creator not only of Aspen's power to annex additional
territory, but of Aspen itself. It was not the legislature's
intent to establish procedures, and then allow towns and
cities of Colorado to disregard its mandate with impunity.
If the invalidation of the Northside Annexation is expensive,
then it is a price which was, or should have been, antici-
pated by the City of Aspen when it chose to cut corners
and establish its own procedures for annexation.
The Plaintiff, and those members of the class he
represents, contend that they, if nothing else, are entitled
to be annexed to the City of Aspen only after an election
conducted in accordance with the law, and not in accordance
with the whim and caprice of those who exercise administra-
tive power in the City of Aspen.
-9-
"IF
II County :;~~.~~:.~:':i.~~,:.~.:."..'n'.'nJss,
il
Ii
II
I
II
II
I,
II
II
I'
II
I,
Ii
I
I
I,
II
II
I,
i
,
i
I,
'I
Ii
I
I
,
,
I
I
,
i
II
II
II
II
'I
I!
II
I
i
I
I,
II
I,
I'
II
II
II
II
!
!
i
'I
II
II
I,
II
'I
II
'I
I'
Ii
Ii
II
if
"
j:
,[
I,
I'
II
II
II
i!
_---.JJ
--if
,
.f
.J j( ~,'lP-'
~-::,'/,~
Ii
..
" . , ,..L.
fj ,...,.",.. ,.", r'""\
'umn:uf \ ....~hl. ...\.;"""J.;i,"~.4"<: ",. 1', H(;r;(.,.~" ,,;.,ankt:looo;:.$. jA~ao.' .:JCilVC~, L:uil}.
11
:i.ij;(;-iftrn~1.ld
vs.
;1
"
i!
f!
11
H
i!
'1
CIVIL ACTION NO..m..J..n.<?f.n,nm"'hmmhn ! i
,.
ii,
~eCCf"," i i
OF A$..;<:D IN 0 I'
~'Etv "fII1:t_ I
bi!re" ''::> fry" ci _II
~...... G/,~ '" EIit'11
G,? II
~';:1F--
L
'i
, Ii
;]
Ii
Ii
!i
II
,[
II
II
I'
U
,.
iI
!!
IN THEn.'..n"'hn.nn. ,mD,rSTIUCT ...nnnn.mnnCOURT.
DIV... n h n nm n.. hi..m..n.. n.. n.
'h~~~~:h'm'nhnnmhn..n.'mnmmm'nmn'
x
...u......,.~._......,........_....;................_.n.....n..~.uuUh...__.....nn.........u.u.n...n..
......_.............,.....................h................................_...............................
PLAINTIFF......
. h. );~ !'!E;.n'g.J;.'I,'.~m9f. h'\fi.I?J:'::N..t...mm. hn.hn....h n..'. ..mm
a Colorado Municipal Corporation,
SUMMONS
..........................................................."......"............;......;.......................
...................................................h.........................'...............................
.................n.......................,......................._._........._._................._...........
II
Ii
!I
,.
"
~ ~
i!
,I
Ii
II
II
II
I'
II
iI
"
il
I'
.1
I
Ii
II
.'
I
I
I
Ii
,I
ii
i'
"
iI
'I
!i
II
I'
Ii
'I
I,
'I
I'
Ii
Ii
1)
Ii
II
II
"
H
II
"
I,
ii
.1
II
I:
I:
II
If
Ii
Ii
;1
;i
"
Ii
"
.,
:!
DEFENDANT..,..,
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO,
TO THE DEFENDANT.,......ABOVE NAMED-GREETING:
You are hereby summoned and required to file with the Clerk an answer to the complaint within 20
days after service of this summons upon you, If you fail so to do, judgment by default will be taken against
you for the relief demanded in the complaint,
If service upon you is made outside the State of Colorado, or by publication, or if a copy of the com-
plaint be not served upon you with this summons, you are required to file your answer to the complaint
within 30 days after service of this summons upon you, '
This is an action' to obtain relief pursuant to Colo. Rev. Stat.
Ann. 139-21-15 (l963), as amended, and to obtain such other relief
as is more fully set forth in the ~ttached Complaint.
GROVES & NELSON
Dated,...,....,.F.~.Q.+:>!.g;:y.".?/ll...,....."....., 19...9..$".,. .'f!::\:J J!
........_~.....~i:~~~ ..~y........... .............'hA:;;~.;:;~:;:;FF:....
..' CY;,iii, COLO. 500 F st National Bank Bldg.
By........................,......................?~:::::.;:::..J:.........!!~,l!.s:,..~HERIF~.~,gDg....;r.1J.M,tiQn.,....C,o.l.o:r:ado..................
,f0'P,'I-',' ,F!~iY~:~fIfl fE '~,o]' ADDRESS OF ATTORNEY.
" ,..~~ G iJ V Ib Telephone No. 242-4903
i'jU/\ .,
.....;1
. ,)
(SEAL OF COURT)
A,' N,OT,E,-, T" h,iS,s,um" m, QnS~iS issued pursuant to Rule 4, Colorado Rules Civil
7 Q.(.:t:ro~e~)l~e", ~ c J'Ml~1
l"-':v':h'i~; ;L;,.: -'~'0''/.L4ut6z
-~~,-_.__.____________"_.________.---'__=__".:!:.._:..:::...._1==--::=---=:::::.-===.:=:::---
;!
"
.--"------'-'-1';---~
. .
-If the summons is puhlitlhcd (If I:ll~rVlld without l.l.~eopy of the compluint, n.ftnr th~ word un-ct.ion" tltfl.tc the relif:fdemb.lu1ed..
It ~ exfXlution is ~ug}~~ tho MUfIlUlUllK U\Uflt fltl4LO IIfoundcd upon t.ort,"
.'
,
I
.~ .. . I'"
...."".
"
.
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF PITKIN )
~
CERTIFICATE
I, Lorraine Graves, City Clerk of Aspen, Colorado,
do hereby certify that the above and foregoing ordinance was
introducted, read in full, and passed on
first
~eading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Aspen on
December 18
,19& , and pub1ish-
ed in the Ispen Times a weekly newspaper of general circu1-
, ation, published in the City of Aspen, Colorado, in its
issue of December 21 ,196.1-, and was finally adopted
and approved at a il~i~~ meeting of the City Council on
January 8
,196~, and ordered published as
, Series 196-1-, of said City, as
Ordinance No.
30
provided by law.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
the seal of said City of Aspen, Colorado, this 8th
,day of
January
, 196 8 .
"J.~~
~~.~
~s, City Clerk
. -, ~ '7'
.~
.
------~---_.-
'"
.
r~",~ ,l.,.
,..~,. ,"
. "
I'"
.~
ORDINANCE NO. cqo
(Series of 1967)
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO OF THAT CERTAIN TERRITORY OR REAL ESTATE PARTICULARY
DESCRIBED IN THIS ORDINANCE, LYING OUTSIDE OF BUT ADJACENT TO THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
WHEREAS, a petition for annexation was filed with the City
Clerk of the City of Aspen on July 17, 1967, requesting the
annexation of the territory hereinafter described, which petition
meets all the requirements of Section 6 of the "Colorado Municipal
Annexation Act of 1965", and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen passed and
adopted a Resolution on July 17, 1967 accepting said petition for
annexation, and ordering the same filed with the City Clerk of the
City of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, Notice of public hearing was published four (4)
consecutive times in the Aspen Times, pursuant to said Act, and
WHEREAS, a petition for an annexation election was filed
with the City clerk of the City of Aspen on the 10th day of August
1967, said petition complying with all the provisions of said Act,
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held before the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 21st day of August, 1967, at which hearing
the City Council passed and adopted a Resolution approving said
petition for an annexation election and resolving that the City of
Aspen petition the District Court in Aspen, Colorado for an annexation
election pursuant to said Act, and
WHEREAS, the annexation election was held on the 5th day of
December, 1967 with Notice of said election having been published
in accordance with said Act, and
WHEREAS, a judge of the District Court, in and for the
County of pitkin, State of Colorado on the 15th day of December, 1967,
ordered, adjudged and decreed that the territory hereinafter described
may be annexed to the City of Aspen by the City Council of the City
of Aspen, and
WHEREAS, all requirements of the Municipal Annexation Act
of 1965 have been fully complied with in connection with; the annexation
of said territory,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN:
Section l: That the fOllowing described tract of land more
particularly described on Exhibit ~which is attached hereto and
made a part hereof, said tract of land being situated in" the County
of Pitkin, State of Colorado, and adjoining and touching the
boundary line of the City of Aspen and situated that not less than
one-sixth of the aggregate externaf boundaries of said tract of land
coincide with existing boundaries of the City'of Aspen, hereby added
to, annexed, taken into and made a part of the City of Aspen, Colorado.
Section 2. That the annexation map and certified copies of
the original annexing ordinance be filed with the office of the
Clerk of the City of Aspen, and with the office of the Secretary of
State and with the Clerk and Recorder of pitkin County, pursuant to'
the requirements set forth under Section 12 of said Act.
. ... .-
. .,.,.. ~
~" ... ,
...... .
!"""'\
by
at
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED published as
the City council of Aspen, Colorado at its
the City of Aspen on the ~J? day of 02~~-
ATTEST:
"i":~ . ~
' ITY',~
~.
... ~INALLypaSsed.
C/~_d./ ~ ,
_L ,,_____.___
~
provided by law
r~r meeting held
. , 1967.
~~
adopted and approved on the
196'i.
e day of
ATTEST:
~.,,;~
, TY CLERK
.. ~
~~-
.-_.__:_.-.,'_....,_.",.-.__.----'--_.._.,.,./._-"_..._-,._~-
,-
,
,~
'....,.... "';c'","",,,
" '
.
.'
" .,'
'.'
.:
,~,
r-.
EXHIBIT A
Th~ following is a legal de~cription of the
boundaries of the area to be annexed:
,
"
. , .~
Beginning at Aspen Townsite Corner No. 6
thence South 070.53'.1611 West 989.2 feet ...........
along the present City Limits to NAl; thence ;.,;"; ',.
North 750.09'.11" West 627.1 feet along
the north side of Colorado Highway 82
Right of Way line to NA3; thence North 130
.34' West 1807.3 feet along the west boundary,
,of Castle Creek Subdivision to NA 4; thence , ..
North 360.36' West 1540.9 feet along the west ',':::"":: '
boundary of Snowbunny Subdivision to NA 5; ,,'.:;.
thence North 260.29' East 168.1 feet along
the West boundary of Snowbunny Subdivision
to NA 6: thence North 140.00' East 357.0
feet along the west boundary of West Meadow
Subdivision to NA 7; thence North 000.04' '
" 'West 103.2 feet along the west boundary of .
Red Butte Subdivision to NA 8; thence North
090.54' West 195.3 feet along the west
,,' boundary of Red Butte Subdivision to NA 9:
" thence North 160.22' East 99.0 feet along the '
west boundary of Red Butte Subdivision to
NA 10; thence North 170.56'.30" East 149.05
feet along the west boundary of Red Butte
Subdivision to NA 11: thence North 020.39' .
West 60.57 feet along the west boundary of
'Red Butte subdivision to NA~,12: thence North',
500.59' West 269.8 feet al:ong the west
boundary of Red Butte Subdivision to NA 13;'
, ,thence North 270.11' West +36.8 feet along
the west boundary of Red B'utte Subdivision
to NA 14: thence'North '000.34' East 306.6 .
feet along the west boundary of Red Butte
Subdivision to NA IS: thence North 070.20'
West 297.3 feet along the west boundary of
Red Butte Subdivision to NA 16: thence North
040.07'.30" West 303.0 feet along the West
'boundary of Red Butte Subdivision to NA 17;
thence North 010.34'.30" West 60.1 feet
along the west boundary of Red Butte Sub.
,division to NA 18: thence North 140M37' East
'20.2 feet along the west boundary of Red Bueco.
subdivision to NA 19; thence North 34".33' "
East 69.1 feet along the westboundary'of
" , ' Red Butte Subdivision to NA 20; thence S-outh
61~ East 330 feel: along the North
. .
I.>
'.
: .....
,
.
"
.,.....
\ :>
",;"
. ~
~,
....,
, I
I
"
". . ".
.. \.
..~
~. . .,,-
"
I
,
/'
~..
~
(""\
Boundary of Red Butte Subdivision NA 21'
thence South 45G.52' East 144.9 feet a1~ng
the North Boundary of Red Butte Subdivision
to NA 22; thence South 31G.12' East 97.0
feet along the North Boundary of Red Butte
Subdivision to Na 23; thence South 130.12'
East 107.0 feet alongthe North Boundary of
Red Butte Subdivision to NA 24: thence
South 040.52' East 148.33 feet along the
North Boundary of Red Butte Subdivision to
NA 25: thence South 110.23' East 160.2
feet along the North Boundary of Red'Butte
Subdivision to NA 26; thence South 320.20'
East 285.40 feet along the North Boundary
of Red Butte Subdivision to NA 27; thence
South 470.30' East 296.14 feet along the
North Boundary of Red Butte Subdivision to
NA 28; thence South 640.52' East 165.84
feet along the North Boundary of Red Butte
Subdivision to NA 29; thence South 820.031
East 203.77 feet along the center line of
the Roaring Fork River to NA 30; thence
South 710.35' East 145.48 feet along the
centerline of the Roaring Fork River to
NA 31; thence South 620.23' East 411.49
feet along the centerline of the Roaring
Fork River to NA 32; thence South 510.00'
East 76.1 feet along the centerline of the
Roaring Fork River to NA 33; thence
South 450.41' East 79.88 feet along the
centerline of the Roaring Fork River to
'NA 34; thence South 370.28' East 66.23 feet
along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River
NA 35; thence South 080.37' East 150.33 feet
along the centerline of the Roaring Fork River
to NA 36; thence South 070.27'. West 268.81
feet along the centerline of the Roaring Fork
River to NA 37; thence South 500.38' East 166.1
feet along the centerline of the Roaring
Fork River to NA 38; thence South 630.34' East
355.2 feet along the centerline of theRoaring
Fork River to NA 39; thence South 750.08'
East 293.5 feet along the centerline of the
Roaring Fork River to NA 40; thence South
,
l40~06' East 276.4 feet along the centerline
of the Roaring Fork River to NA 41; thence
South 190.05' West 369.0 feet alnngthe Center.
line of the Roaring Fork River to NA 42; thence
South 500.44' East 193.3 feet along the
centerline of the Roaring Fork River to NA 43;
thence South 880.28' East 450.0 feet along
the centerline of the Roaring Fork River to
NA 44: thence South 600.56' East 440.5 feet
along the centerline of the Roaring Fork
River to NA 45; thence South 410.43' East
390.6 feet along the centerline of the Roaring
Fork River to NA 46; thence South 840.18' East
180.5 feet along the North boundary of the
Second Aspen Company Subdivision to NA 47;
.
'j
thence North 820_17' East 532,0 fcet alon~
, b
the North boundary of the Second Aspen Company
Subdivision to NA 48; thence South 730_38'
East 147.5 feet along the North boundary of
the Second Aspen Company Subdivision to NA 49'
thence South 450_26' East 320,8 feet along ,
the North boundary of the Second Aspen Company
Subdivision to NA 50; thence North 490.52'.40"
East 70.23 feet to NA 51; thence South 580.51'
East 28.11 feet to NA 52; thence South 230_00'
East 65.00 feet to NA 53; thence South 050_45'
East 215.0 feet to NA 54; thence South 050.10'
West 179.87 feet to NA 55; thence North 650.53'_20"
West 200.00 feet to NA 56; thence South 340_49'
West 122.18 feet to NA 57; thence South 470_501
West 64.13 feet to NA 58; thence South 410.01'
East 92.03 feet to NA 59; thence South 620.48'
West 45.5 feet to NA 60; thence South 800_28'
West 152.0 feet to NA 61; thence South 500.04'
West 44.6 feet to NA 62; thence South 030_45'
East 101.63 feet to NA 63; thence South 070.45'
East 121.86 feet to NA 64; thence North 890.52'
West 49.3 feet to NA 65; thence South 290.07'
East 114.16 feet to NA 66; thence South 370_06'
East 81.60 feet to NA 67; thence South 070.00'
East 40.3 feet to NA 68; thence South 190_08'
West 63,S feet to NA 69; thence South 300_42'
West 116.3 feet to NA 70; thence due South
128.51 feet to NA 71; thence South 800.10' West
44.5 fee tto NA 72; thence South 340.08'.30"
East 294.8 feet to NA 73; thence North 580_58'
East 75.1 feet to NA 74; thence South 560_35'
East 59.1 feet to NA 75; thence South 230_37'
, East 323.1 feet to NA 76; thence South 750 -09' .11"
East 470.3 feet to NA 77; thence,North 20.00'
East 369.9 feet along the North boundary of the,
Lakeview Addi_ion to NA 78; thence North 730.02'
East 366.2 feet along the North boundary of
Lakeview Addition to NA, 79; which corner is
also Corner No. 5 of the D. & R.G.W. Right of
'Way; thence due East 255.6 feet to NA 80;
thence South 580.05' East 412.5 feet along the
centerline of the Roaring Fork River to NA 81;
thence South r30_05' East 295.2 feet along the
centerline of the Roaring Fork River to NA 82;
thence South 860 25' East 95.8 feet along South
Avenue to NA 83; thence.South 680.24' East
102.3 feet along South Avenue to NA 84; thence,
South 560_'24' East 114.1 feet along South Avenue to
NA 85; thence South 450.39' East 197.3 feet along "
South Avenue to NA 86; thence South 750.09' East 102.7 .
feet along South Avenue to NA 87; thence South 790.00'
East 194.5 feet along South Avenue to NA 88; thence
South 600.57' East 297.9 feet along South Avenue to
NA 89'; thence South 480.49 I East 185.0 feet along
South Avenue to'NA 90; thence South 240.39' East
91.2 feet along Gibson Avenue to NA 91; thence
South 180.31' East 89.3 feet along Gibson Avenue
toNA 92; thence South 100.41' East 104.3 feet along
GiLbson Avenue to NA93; thence South 120.21'
.. .
" .
~.-. ~f, ~
".....,
.~
'.
.
.. :
'V
.
'1
.
I
-1
. .
I
i
i
I
. l
, I
,
I
,
i
.
.
."',j
"I
-'f
I
.
I
", ~
.'~ . ''''" '
..~ t....... 1.4 ,
. " ~
1"'.
,,,.....,,
..... "
.'
, "
East 47.t, feet along Gibson Avenue to NA 94;
thence South 340 _34' East 51.5 feet along Gibson
Avenue to NA 95; thence South 420_59' East 136.9
feet along Gibson Avenue to NA 96; thence South
330_36' East 73.2 feet along Gibson Avenue to
NA 97; thence South 220.0' East 54.7 feet along
Gibson Avenue to NA 98; thence South 230.42'
West 253.8 feet along Neale Avenue to NA 99;
Thence South 260_02' West 125.9 feet along
Neale Avenue to NA 100; thence South 400.06'Y]est
81.4 feet along Neale Avenue to NA 101; thence
South 440.12' West 108.6 feet along Neale Avenue
to NA 102; thence South470.36' West 188.2 feet
along Neale Avenue to N A 103; thence South 580_081
West 44.3 feet along Neale Avenue to NA 104; thence
South 690.51' East 190.1 feet to NA 105; thence
, South 890.20 '.20" West '599.0 feet to East Aspen
, Townsite Corner No.8; thence ~orth 430 _13 '_20" 'wes;:
2650.l feet to Aspen Townsite Corner No.5; thence
North 650.27'.2211 West 3175.1 feet to, Aspen ,
Tcwnsite Corner No.6 the place of beginning..~.
Conta:Ln:Lng 325.97 acres more or less.' .
"
. .
,..',.,"
. :'
..... ";. ,>'. .;:.
, ,
'j'
. ,.'.'.'
'.
"
.
.'
"
'.
-',",
" .~ ., .
. ;
'''1
"
.:.-'
.'
,
,
,
"
-;:" "
"
1""\
....,;,
!""'\
....""'<
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN h~D FOR
THE CO(WTY OF, PITKIN
STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. ",808
,THE CITY OF ASPEN, )
)
A Municipal Corporation,)
)
Peti tioner. )
ORDER
THIS MATTER being brought to the attention of the
. Court upon the Report of the A11nexation Election Commissioners,
and the Court having examined the file herein and now being
fully advised in the premises,
DOES FIND that an Annexation Election was held on the
5'th day of December, 1967 at the Messiah Lutheran Church, West
Meadows Subdivision, in the vicinity of Aspen, pitkin County,
COlorado, pursuant to the petition filed herein, and that the
Report of the Annexation Election Commissioners was filed with
the Clerk of this court on the 8th day of December, 1967,
pursuant to the Colorado Annexation Act of 1965, which Report,
appears to be in proper! order, and from said Report it appears
to the Court that the majority of the votes cast in the election
were for Annexation;
WHEREFORE IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the
territories specified in said Petition maybe annexed to the
City of Aspen, Colorado, upon the terms, and conditions, if any,
set forth by the City Council of the City of Aspen and that the
City Council of the City of Aspen may, by Ordinance, annex said
territory and impose the terms and conditions, if any, as
EXHIBIT G - Page 1
....;
,. '"',
/i ...,
/"""',
, . <'"':\
V
.".....,
J
approved by the qualified electors or. landowners.
DONE IN CHAMBERS this
in Aspen, Colorado.
.
/;--
I .....;.,:(
/.1;/ "- day of December, 1967
.
,
BY 'l'HE COURT:
.....__/i',_'';?:.
">""'>.;' ~".
1. ,,>..~'~, ( .
EXHIBIT G - Page 2
Judge
..,,;
, ,1,
,
-"
~,,,
.'
. ,
/
":'i-
'1""'. '
,-,
,..,'
IN THE DISTRICT, COURT IN AND FOR THE
COUNTY OF PITKIN AND STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. .3 ff&,'f
SAMUEL W. HOWELL,
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
COMPLAINT
)
THE CITY OF ASPEN,
a Colorado Municipal Corporation, )
Defendant. )
The plaintiff alleges as follows:
FIRST CLAIM
l. That plaintiff owns land in an area adjacent to the
Town of Aspen, Colorado, which area will hereafter be referred to as
the "North Side Annexation," which area will hereafter be referred to as
the "TERRITORY": the legal description of the TERRITORY is attached here-
to as Exhibit A and herein incorporated by reference.
2. That plaintiff is the owner of land in the TERRITORY, such
land being described as:
Lots 5 and 6, in Block 19, East Aspen Additional Townsite'
Entry, according to the Plat thereof recorded as Document No.
108353, in Ditch Book 2A at Page 252 of the records for Pitkin
County: together with a strip of land lying Northerly thereof
and bounded on the West by the West line of Lot 5 projected
Northerly to the South line of the road as now constructed
and in use, hounded on the East by the Easterly line of Lot 6
projected Northerly to the South Line of said road: bounded on
the North by the South line of said rQad as now constructed and
in use, bounded on the South by the North line of said Lots 5
and 6;. ~~xw1'!i:lllhx:i:sxl!l~blx:a::.:eXb<:~~x.x~~xtdll:ks:
~~~~p~~ueax~~JB{~~
that plaintiff is a qualified elector and at all times material hereto wa
a qualified elector eligible to vote in general elections in the State of
Colorado as evidenced by the rolls of registered voters of Pitkin County,
, Colorado.
SI-lE:":,Y::"F'S G:~F:CE
r; I't;-, ~ ,~:'(',: : :.'-- .,' '><,:J
CAf,,;.:hQun4a:,;:i:~~RIW
rr:."'~~\
I: 1.1
j t.___, ,
Un
uu..,.
'" (,the
,3.
Tha,tthe TERRITORY IS .entirely situated within t~e
Pitkin County, Colorado.
~: ~ ~ll). That on August 10, 1967, there was filed
City WJAspen a petition for an AnnexationEle ction
with the Clerk of
concerning the
AM, TERRITORy'!,':!1
:'1 a88 '~:,j, i0:~'kO~~}~'~ 1:;\:': L ;.:::; <:, [t>1 (;?4
5. That on August 2l, 1967, the City council of ASpen
..
-.
. r-"
~
conducted a pUblic hearing and following such hearing found that the
petition for an Annexa.ion Bllection met the statutory r,equirements
. and that an annexation election was required under the laws
of the State of Colorado.
6. That the City Council.of Aspen on ~ugust 21, 1967,
by Res6lutibn No. l8 (1967) directed the City to petition the,
District Court of Pitkin County for an annexation election according
to the'MunicipaJ. Annexation Law of 1965 (C.R.S. 1390""21-1 to 23, 0-963),
as amended); 'a copy of said Resolution is attached hereto as
Exhibit B and herein incorporated by reference.
7. That on August 23, 1967, the City of Aspen petitioned
the District Court of Pitkin County for ,an annexation election
pursuant to the Municipal Annexation Aqt of 1965; a copy of said
petition is attached hereto as Exhibit C and herein incorporated by
reference.
8. That on August 24, 1967, the District Court of Pitkin
County issued an order appointing three Election Commissioners and
directing them to call and hold an election according to the
Municipal Annexation Act of 1965; a copy of said order is attached
hereto as Exhibit D and herein incorporated by reference.
9. That notice was published on four consecutive weeks
from November 2, 1967, to November 23, 1967, in the Aspen Times,
a newspaper located. in pitkin County, Colorado; a copy of the proof
of such published notice is attached hereto as Exhibit E and herein
incorporated by reference.
10. That on December 5, 1967, an election was held at the
Messiah Lutheran Church, in l'lest Meadows Subdivision in the TERRITORY,
and on December 8, 1967, the Election Commissioners reported the
results of said election to the District Court; a copy of the
Commissioners' Report is attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated
herein by reference.
11. That on December l5, 1967, the District Court approved
the Commissioners' Report and allowed annexation'of the TERRITORY
by the City of Aspen; a copy of said Court Order is attached hereto
-, 2 -
'-"".'< 'n'
~
. ,,,.....,.
~
as Exhibit G and herein incorporated by reference.
12. That at a special meeting held on January 8, 1968,
- ...,='::::':';;''''~'''..'"
the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, adopted Ordinance No. 30
(1967), which purported to annex the TERRITORY; a copy of said
Ordinance is attached hereto marked Exhibit H and herein incorporated
by reference; the eff~date of Ordinance No. 30 (1967) was
January 1'6, 1968. ~~
l3. That the City Council of Aspen, Colorado, exceeded
its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by purporting to annex
the TERRITORY for the reason that substantial defects existed in
the election procedures; such defects being:
a. The Election ~ommissioners allowed absentee voting;
The Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 makes no provision for absentee
voting; Without the absentee votes the majority of the ballots cast
were against annexation.
'(b) The hearing date set by the City Council for a public
\....._-'
hearing on the Petition for said Annexation Election was not set
~/
by an official act of the City Council of Aspen, nor was public
notice given that a Petition for an Annexation Election had been
filed and that a hearing would be held on said Petition on August
21, 1967.
c. Numerous persons not qualified to vote under the
Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 were allowed to cast ballots in
the Annexation Election.
d. The City of Aspen, rather than the Election Commissioners
made most of the arrangements for'the A?nexation Election and at the
same time conducted a propaganda campaign in favor of annexation;
copies of material disseminated by the City of Aspen in an attempt
to influence the annexation election are attached hereto marked
Exhibit I and incorporated herein by reference.
14. That the foregoing election ir~egularities had a
- 3 -
. (""'\,
1"'\
substantial influence upon the election and had they not occurred
the results of said election would have been against annexation.
15. That in view of the failure to comply with the
statutory procedures prescribed by the Municipal Annexation Act
of 1965 the annexation of the TERRITORY was not in accordance with
the provisions of that statute.
16. That the plaintiff believes himself to be a person
aggrieved by the annexation; that there is no plain, speedy or
efficient alternative remedy available for the plaintiff to con-
test the results of said election.
SECOND CLAIM
For his SECOND CLAIM the plai~tiff incorporates by
reference Paragraphs 1 through 12, and Paragraph 16 of the fore-
going FIRST CLAIM, and further alleges:
l7. That due to the vague and indefinite provisions of
the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 it is impossible to determine
the class of persons intended by the legislature to act as electors
at the Annexation Election; that by reason of its vagueness and
indefiniteness the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 deprives plain-
" tiff of due process of law as guaranteed by the Colorado constitution
~ and the constitution of the United States and, therefore, it is
invalid and unenforceable.
18. That the City Council of the City of Aspen exceeded
its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by purporting to annex
the TERRITORY pursuant to authority granted by an unconstitutional
statute.
THIRD CLAIM
19. That insofar as ~ 15 of the Municipal Annexation Act
of 1965 prohibits review of any of th~ matters set forth herein or
denies review of judicial actions taken in regard to the purported
annexation of the TERRITORY, said Act denies plaintiff due process
of law as guaranteed by the Colorado ~onstitution and the Constitution
,. 4 -
.
''''',,..",,,m.,.__"..
.~.
...-.,
of the United States, and further unconstitutionally limit~ the
scope of judicial :reviewas provided in Art. VI @ 2(2) Colo. Const.
FOURTH CLAIM
20. That the plaintiff brings this action on his own
behalf and on behalf of all other landowners similarly situated
in the TERRITORY; that it is impractical to bring all the land-
owners or persons adversely affected by the annexation before the
Court; that there are questions of law or fact presented herein
which are common to all landowners of the TERRITORY; that the claims
presented herein and the relief demanded by plaintiff herein are
typical of the claims of the aforementioned class;and that the
plaintiffs will thoroughly and adequately protect the interests of
the said class.
21. That insofar as ~ 16 of the Municipal Annexation Act
of 1965 purports to deny relief from acts taken in connection with
the annexation, including but not necessarily limited to the
imposition of taxes, license fees, or charges collected or imposed
by the annexing municipality prior to a final judgment voiding the
annexation, said statute deprives the plaintiff and landowners
similarly situated of due process of law as guaranteed by the
Colorado Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays judgment as follows:
1. For an order declaring the Annexation Election held
on December 5, 1967, defective and the purported annexation of the
City Council of the City of Aspen to be void and of no force or
effect in law; or in the alternative, for an order either directing
that an Annexation Election be held in compliance with the Municipal
Annexation Act of 1965, together with a judicial direction concerning
the proceduresmbe employed in conducting such Anne&ation Election,
or for ap order declaring the results of the election held on December
5, 1967, to be against anne&ation.
- 5 -
.,-.., ." ~.~'T~"'I-~"'" '~'''V''''"'''-''-'',.,.,
. f"""",
,~
2. For an order declaring the Municipal Annexation
Act of 1965 to be unconstitutionally vague and indefinite in
defining that class of persons eligible to vote in an annexation
election, and declaring the annexation accomplished pursuant to
the terms of the Municipal Annexation Act of 1965 to be null and
void; or, in the alternative, for an order invalidating the
annexation of the TERRITORY for the reason that election officials
failed to conduct the election according to the Municipal Annexation
Act of 1965, and for a judicial definition of the proper electors
qualified to vote in future annexation elections pursuant to said
statute.
3. If the Court determines ,that the Municipal Annexation
Act of 1965 denies judicial review of the matters set forth in the
plaintiff's Complaint, for an order declaring the Municipal Annex-
ation Act of 1965 unconstitutional and the annexation of the
TERRITORY pursuant to the terms of said statute to be null and
void, or, in the alternative, for a judicial review of ,the annex-
ation of the TERRITORY and the granting of relief as the Court
may deem proper despite those sections of the Municipal Annexation
Act of 1965 which prohibit review.
,4. For an order directing the City of Aspen to rescind
the leyy and collection of all taxes, license fees or charges
collected or imposed as a result of the annexation of the TERRITORY
by the City of Aspen prior to final judgment herein.
5. For an order directing the issuance of a citation to
the City Council of the, City of Aspen, Colorado, directing the City
,
of Aspen to show cause why the foregoing relief should not be allowed.'
6. For such other and further relief as to the Court may
seem proper.
Plaintiff's address:
GFJ~ & N~LSON I
~~ ~\~~
By
Attorneys tor pJ.a~n ~ t
500 First National Bank Bldg.
Grand Junction, Colorado .
Telephone No. 242-4903
Box ~,~.
Aspen, Colorado
- 6 -
.~.
~l
,
1'"
o
STATE'OF COLORADO
SS.
COUNTY OF PITKIN
I, SAMUEL W. HOWELL, being first duly sworn, upon oath
depose and state that I have read the foregoing Complaint, know the
contents thereof, and that the same is true.
~4ft~~
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 29th day of February,
1968, by Samuel W. Howell.
My conunission expires:
tJ)t?~~ @.. S'~.&~
Notary Public , " .
.~1~dk~~.
,
.
)
\
.~
~.
^
,I
~
..Ji!-.... ~g__~~,~ H
i:j'
x
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Leaves
~'''''Ol'' ~. r.....<lU,d\ ~.. II \, t".
- -:::==:::':';'~'-:;:::::;;"--::::'~;;--"'::":;::'';'::;:~,,:::;;;::~=':,"c::_- '"".:;;:...;:.;.;;::;'::.:.-::::.:.;,;;;::.:.;::'.-..------....;:=::;:"=.:;.~~;.,::.:::.:~'O~;"c;:.:.:~--=~,.,:;;,~:~~"~::,, ".. ..,.
E.ESO!=-.!LTI.()~,
NO' 18 Serips 1967
WHEREAS, the City Council of the CLty of Aspen hils accepted
a petition for annex,ation vlJ:1ieh was filed with the City Clerk on
July 17, 1967, and;
WHEREAS, a pub lie hearing was eondue ted on the 2ls t day 0 f
August, 1967 regarding s8i.d annexCltion;
AND WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen makes the
following findings of fact regarding said annexation;
1. There is at least one-sixth contiguity between the
present City of Aspen and the area seeking annexation.
2. A community of interests exists between the territory to
be annexed and the City, as evidenced by the following facts:
A. More than 50 per cent of the adult residents
of the area to be annexed use part or all of the recreational,
civic, social, religious, industrial or conunercial
facilities of the City of Aspen, and more than 25 per
cent of the adult residents are employed in the City of Aspen.
B. Less than one..half of the land to be annexed is
/ agricultural.
C. It is physically practical to extend normal urban
services to the area to be annexed, on the same terms and
.
conditions as such services are available to ,residents
of the Ci.ty of Aspen.
AND WHEREAS, on August 10, 1967, there was filed with the
City of Aspen ,a petition for an annexation election, and the number'
o~ signatures Blld'thc qualifications or the signers of said peclt,lon
meet the statutory requirements, and therefore, an ele~tion reg..n:d,\
said annexation is required UndCl" ~hc' la\vs of the State of Color,ldo;
NQ
1;:XHInrr n
~
... Pnqa 1,
.
-'-I c
{~
,
,-,
r-,
'..,I
RECOHD OF PROCEEDINGS
100 Loa yes
::::::.~.:~:~"., ,,',. .....'I'~rl~. n . I "I,
_-~~~~.7:"::'~=;~'::~';:'~';::'::~::=:::=::;::,;;""''':,.:';'';:'=:'~:'=-;;-C':;',.:'::::;,;;;:;''';'.';:;;':.:';;''-:-- :'--;,.,.. -- ..--:-.--.-----"..
,a_ "."._"'''_'''' ,_,'0',.."_""._"""" ,".'_""."""__
-" ----_.~. ~,._.-..._--,--_._.~>'..".. '.
and no additional terms or conditions to tlw petition [or: annexation
have been imposed by. the Council;
\,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOlVED that the City Council of the
City of Aspen hereby directs that the City shall forthwith
petition the District Court of Pitkin County to hold an annexation
election according to law.
/1" ,-:I'v7
, -,' (/ r;;./) \
:!Cd:-c:., ~(/ ,-'(;;V \~.
Mayor,
\it
I, Lorraine Graves, duly elected,City Clerk of the City of,
Aspen, Colorado, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a, ,true
and correct copy of the Resolution adopted by the Asper City Council
at a regular meeting held
August 21
" 1967.
..' __ ~,' . ,.-efl ,
.____/">j r -' ;,l >r -" yL~ ~; 1<:/1,' <.('<,,/
,--- City ,Clerk ~
r'
r
,
.
1"
'I,
"!\(! ~
1"~'\"'~'1"""~-::.r'(n):1 ~).,,('70. ')
I"',
~
.
.." .t.~.
\.....,1
'I
"1.
(< ,,,., A.~ i.,f . j !
frjj~,iN C'ijUin ....
ASfT.N. CGi..O:~ArJO
IN THE DISTRIC1' COUR1' IN AND
AUG 2,,3 5F:::JI}/)
/'\/ vi. /-;P--r-'-v1
FOR THE0,i,~~ ::l
~.. . ._v:l..:IS~""
COLORADO .~i .ire.,' 6V. DlSlffilC'ii COvcr/a
COUNTY OF PITKIN AND STATE OF
Ci vil Action No. !} ,\(O f/
'.
THE CITY OF ASPEN,
A Municipal Corporation,
)
)
)
Petitioner.)
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
ELECTION
COMES NOW the City of Aspen, by its attorney, and petitions
the Court to hold an annexation election, pursuant to the provi-
sions of Section ll, Chapter 306, 1965 Session Laws of Colorado,
and as grounds therefor shows the Court as follows:
1. ,On July 17, 1967, a Petition for Annexation of Terri tory
to the City of Aspen was filed with the City Clerk of Aspen.
2. On August 10, 1967, a Petition for Annexation Election
was filed with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen, which petition
requested that the City of Aspen cornmence proceedings for the
')
holding of an annexation'in the area proposed to be annexed, a
copy of which petition is attached horeto marked Exhibit "A".
3. On August 2l, 1967, the City Council of the City of Aspen
deter~mined that an election regarding said annexation was required,
and passed a ~esolution directing that this Court be petitioned
to hold such election; and said counci.l further nominated Mr. Joel
Hartmeister, a resident of the a~ea included in the proposed annexa-
tion, as one of the Commissioners for said election. (Exhibit liB II
attached hereto.)'
WHEREFORE, Petitioner~quests that the Court order that an
, . annexation election be held, to determine whether the property
described in said Petition shall b,e annexed to the City of Aspen;
and' that the Court appoint three Commissioners to hold said election,
according to the provisions
of the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
/7 'I . /c/ /' '
C~/ t/4L(A' !~ // /~~I:""'" I\..,
/' Janet K. ' Gaylord y
'--'Attorney for Petitioner
Box 605, Aspen, Colorado
925-3529
EXHIBIT C
, '.,
1""\
".....,
"""
IN ~HE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE
COUN~Y OF PITKIN AND STATE OF C;:OLOMDP
Civil ;'\.ction No. '-:::":?02 .
~,~.~.-
THE CITY OF ASPEN, )
, A i1unicipal Corporation, )
,
I
Petitioner.)
o R D E R
,/
THIS MATTEI< having come before the Court on the Petition
of the City of Aspen for an Annexation Election, and the
Court having examined said Petition, and now being sufficiently
advised in the premises;
-:i/o' ~! II..AD71,,4~f c.T~R/.
IT IS HEREEY ORDERED that V",...." v,- rrr'lv I'l}-' .:::;, i""" /
1-0 [// SI? /1: P'!iR.~_, an-;:P;-r2J-I-t/GH 5~o-rr;-1I1
are appointed commissioners to hold an ~lection, regarding the
proposed annexation to the City of Aspen of certain territo;l:'Y;
AND FURTHER that said ComlllL;sion(~rs shall proceed forthvlith
to call and hold an election in accordance with the provisions
of the Colorado Revised
statutes, 1963, as amended.
J.-I- -rl..!
COURT THE;l ; 'DAY OF AUGUST"
tJ~ ..
, , " ., P District Judge
1967.
'\
..~~
DONE IN CHAMBERS BY THE
,
.
EXHIBIT D
^
^
.
..,
,
" ."<?<, T.t
<11;' /ti..:U'"
" ). '. ' ' il..'l ". ,'''''~''!
rrn:1N COt.:.\j!.. ..
S-r.Ct\' rf"ll.o'{fvU:r.ry
A ji.'J:.J.....~..... ,
C E R T I FIe A T ION
---'.----------
rJ """f"*lJ
D~C ,~~OJ
.r-.. - a '-vi ,/
I' \'/ , . 1._.f()-.~."f.-#"'1-"..
,,:::::;;/IL.,t.>'I,-'!'~"" .I ..
. ' -:-~'::':::;~:-;.;~':.~(' .
~ """,,~. ~~~I;,":.(-P"'\.rJ> Cf........ ,,",.
p",r;,.~r;. "~~. l\ ;..,;. ,~.~'"
I, Lorraine Graves duly elected City Clerk of: the
City of Aspen, Colorado, cilused to be published in the Aspen Ti,mcs
a LEGAL NOTICE OF NORTH SIDE Al\'NEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN,
COLORADO on November 2,9,16,23 A.D., 1967 as provided by law.
,
I, Lorraine Graves duly el~cted City Clerk of the City
of Aspen, Colorado, personally posted the Messiah Lutheran Church,
Mountain View Drive, Wright Sub Division, polling place with Election
Notice on November 4, 1967, Saturday as provided by law.
WITNESS my hand and official seal
Colorado this " C.-d day of" 'D ,R-C.,p"""vt!-vU
of the City of Aspen,
. 1967.
(_._--~~ ~
Lorraine Graves
City Clerk
SEAL
.
EXHIBIT E - Page 1
,I""'.,
~
'--,...(....,~,~r""'; {.~
,
'~~'ilj
',-;i"'i."'.
.~'C'i
A e'jA,~~~
"'iIl~"M >Jv,J,
..."
!(t;'l:.:;1'~
'1!\f;"'A""O~
ir~J...1.,,~J.y~
Box E
Aspen, Colorado
-1P
3Y,31
PROOF OF PUf3gJCft~liO~J
STATE OF' COLORADO )
) ss.
Counly of Pitkin )
COP)
I,
William R.
Dllnl:Way
.' de solemnly swear that
J om the __:_ILl:lJ?l ish er of "H1'; ASPl,N TIMES;
(hill the Sl:lmc is a weekly neWspHpej" \ll:,intl>d, ill whoj(> or ,In part,
and publislwd in the Count~r 01' I'Hkill, StilU' of Cl)lnr'~jdo; .and has
a ~('ncrl]l drrulation therein; th:.ll 5<lid l1ewsp.lpct !:i,i" heen pub~
Jished continuot.!sly and uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin,
for a period of more than {j(ly-I.\\o 1~(ln1;t'(:uU\"(~ w('{'j,s n(~xt prior
to the first puhlication or the ;IlHw~ed legal notice or H(lvcrtisc~
ment; that said n.ewspaper has been addmitted to the United States
mails as second.class matter undt.1' the provisions of the Ad of
M;lrch 3, 1879, or any amendnH~nl~ UH!f('of, Hod lhat s.~id news.
paper is a weekly newspaper duly qUlliificd f(lf publishing: legal
notices and advertisements with the nwanin~ of the laws of the
Slalc of Colorado.
That the pnnexed legal nntke or advertisement was published
in the regular and entire issue of every number of said weekly
newspaper for the period of
that the lirst publication .?f
4
and
said
consecutive. insertions;
IlnUce was in the issue of
said
newspaper dated
the last publication
,November 2
67
A.D., 19 ~ ,and that
the issue of said news.
of' said notice was in
paper dated
November 23
A,D" 19 fil.
}i/t{a:;n /!t:t4/lflttM~
Subscribed and sworn to before me,. a notary p~blic
I j
. day o~
~{y commission expires
.
EXHIBIT E
Page 5
"~'/ "',
1il.LfllJ
prn.;.n'1 CouNr:t
/\Spa..', C"J!.OUOO'
A/ DEe
'\::::;,7,;, ".r<-.tQ~
'7
a
~~.5t7 '
h.II....;
~p...r,..(~{....
iCZ.;Z.f~;:;: c; DiSrucr c{)!~,;ii:r:
U:GAlL ~SCI~~'TC,E
:~();'-i'H s;m.:
T);;': err',' (\('
LF:G,\L xunu:: l:n,
..\:\\'l':X\Tl():\ Tn
ASPEX.COLOll.\DO,
:\oti(',,' j~ h~,..\:hj' ~'~i\",'n th;1l pursuanl.
to (hl~ .\l\ll1;eil\.d \r,nt':-.;:d;ol\ \d ,<'
HJr;:'! l,r U,(' ~:~Lll',' 'ii Cu)"r<ii'!(', :1;'
.\l1rl1:.'\;'li(.n 1':kCij"ii :.h:,ll b.' it'.~ld in
l'illdn COllllir Uil dw .'i(l. li;.n'\lrl)f:,~':'rn~
b(~r. l~,j;i f':r {ll<.' l';,':lo\~ing <l('.s(T~b('d
t,'r)'ihH"yIO tlt..' ,lnl1cu:d (0 thl'Cit.).
of I\spen, ('o!tll'ar.!n;
~"~lo"l"~ M ^'pro r"'''','H. Cor".. 110. ~
,bon<. :;ou.." OJ'. ~J ',l~H II.., vi!?! !<<t
.l",,~ ",. l''''<on<. ",,~ 1,."".. \0 ~,.,;; \1,.,,<_
lIonh 7~' .01' ,U" ~o" 1,1/,1 i,,, ~\,"'~
'II~ Ml'tll .ld" ol (.ol"n\<I,,'IlI~I<~oy Al
R[~hl o( w,'y \I". '" UA); \h""c~ u"rlh 4)'
..14' \I..~ laM.] (e<' 01,.",,, ,,-. ....... b",,,,,,.,ry
01 c.,ul~ c.... 5"hdivl.;,'" '0 ~^ "; tl,^~<~
1I""ol6'.),,' w.., 1!,I.n.1 {,or"~ ~l",". \I.....H
~~~';:~~'~,,~; h .~::;;~~'~'.'J' f,::~~'J ; ~i, ~ t~..~;' ~~ ".;,~
1100 ....". \,,,"~d...v .'1 ~,,,,,I",,'''''' "",,,I\,'i.,,,,,
,." NA (0, """,c" I.." ,I> 1/," "J';' ,,,,!. ~\ ~,O
fN.t ,i~"" to'., ""... 1"",0'''''1 ,.r \Jr;' "".,j"",
S.,!,,,,...t. ,,,,, ',,, ~,'. ;; . I".,.,'" .",,, "10 (,,..' .ClI,.
\Je.. ~ 01) . 1 ~ <,.. C. ., 1 ,,"" '. h~ '" _, ,. i""""I.,'y ~(
",.<1 ~"u,. ~"l',,,",,,,.',, " ~^ "; ,".0,,," N"..."
M'.~I,' \J,." IO~.J r..." .'1.,,..,: ,'I" ~..,
b"""~"'r or a,',ll"HU .~;""~,d.l",, ,"!M ~;
th.",.. ~"'th H',n' ~"" ~"o r"..t .l,",~ <10.
"..., "o'm<i"<:<, ,,( i\..~ l.".... ~"',,11Vl.'o" "0
~,\ 10, (1I"~<e ~"nl\ 1,',',O',j,," ,:"" ll.9.0~
'.., .,"'.~ 'II" w," !,",.",1.'1 "~I R,,' ""tt~
S"b<llV..'''.' ~"HA \1: ...''''','< Non" OZ._H'
,,< M.~) ""." .~,""; U,. ~'^" )'o,,,,,I.,.y 01
,,,'d 11.,',t.. ;;"h,;;,,;,l,.~ (0 M12; ,.",0'" lIo<th
~Q'.->~' w...~ l~9.n f.<t' .l,,"~ 'h~ ~."
bou~,!MY 01 ~,',II',,(.('. %b,ll"j..t~n 'h ~'^ I)~'.l
th..~<~ ';0"'1. n".);' w"" l.lf,.~ I"e< "Ionr.
tho ...." bo"",IHY <,{ ~...I I"ut< ~"h,livhi""
"0 I;^ II,; 'he"," I"".,~ .00',;14.' Fo.,. )00.&
1",.<"1"",1"""""<<''',,",,,\",",,1"",1",,,.>..
~"h~,,.lt.lo~ t<' ~,\ ; ',: ,'h,.",." :'t>l..h O',..,Q'
;;;, ' n:, ~ ;'; 1 ~,;.:~ L: ~;':',~ . i;;" ~~.; ~ ; ":::~:;::~ ~ N~;~h
~4'.Q1'..10" \I,'", )nJ.Q'.I..,.,. 01""" ..h" <.r.,t
b",,~,'...y M.~",L llut..o ~"',,Ilv!.!"" <0 M 11;
tb,'"c< ~~nl' iH'.3','.)O" ~",., (,('.1 f.et
41001\ U" ....." h.,,'n."'" ~( ~,,,, """. ~,,~.
dhhlo,,'~" ~^ 1<1; <h.",.~ N~nh 1,,'.)7' Rut
~O.l ,~"c 41,0"~"~o "",t ho,,~d,,"~ of no" ~"t..
S"o<l,.l.l"" ~" M 19; '''on<. N,,"h ;>/,'.)1'
~"H .9.1 lo.~ "('''''' ~h" ""0' 1,0"nol."1 o(
R~~'II""~ ~"h,llvht(.~ t" ~A 20; r"rnc~ ,,,,,<.11
61'.011' &u~ no (_.. .,OO\~ u,~ No<'h
R""n,l.ry <>f M" ~"""~ul"'ivtq,... l'^ ll;
'ho"c~ :;~~", 1,~',~2' ~.,>t 14/,.9 ["0< ~lo~~
""'..N".'l< n,,,,~""'y o( ke<l ~"""o $..".1,"1. ion
to IIA 22; th"~c~ 5",,'" )1' ,l~' J:.., ~I,O
I~ec _I''''R '110 No.", ~o~nd.tr 0( R"" Ih'tlA
S"b<llvlnl~n lo ~o ,1; ,,,..,,,,,. 5.."\,, 1)',1,'
~."' 107.0 h'c.' .l,,,,...h,, N",',h n"""dn,y ol
ROd nun. ~"hollvl'!M t" M ""; th_"c"
South 0'" .~t' ~..~ l"~.)) r.., 01"..;. ,h.
1I0r,h I!o"~do<r ~f R.., ~""" S,,",lIvl.lon to
IIA 2~: Iho"e~ S",,'h U".n"!'..", 11,0..
i..t ol.""R tho NMth """ndory of ~.tl ~"t<.
S"h<llvl.l.on 10 NA 26: t~"l\CO S''''lh )2'.20'
!ut 20~..O f<O< .lo"R tho No<<h lto""<lMY
oi R~<I ~...,t~ S\lb,lIvl.lon to llA :l7; 'hone.
So".I, .7'_lO' ~... 296.14 (... donR ,"~
lI~t.h n""nd.,y M 11.0". Butt.. S"h"lvl,lo~ to
.IM 2.8; thoMC S"".h b4'~~.' ~..t 16~.UI.
r... 01",,1\ tht North lI""odo.y or !l.~,1 II"ct~
.' 5ubdJ.VJ..''''' lO NA 291 t~~~<o SO"tl< 02'.0~'
'.;, ,~'H 203.71 roct 010>l~ tl,. .,,"<ot l["" ot
!,~"-th.'R""tlhR Fo.k Ki"'" co M 10: thoneo
'., South n~_n' ~ao~ 11o~."8 roo' 01",,& 'hO
<, ~on,~,H~o o! tho Ko"'l."R Fork Rl.vo< co
'1 IIA n; th.",,~ South 62'~2l" ~n', 411.49
"', fut dOh~ thO t.nl.~lln. 01 tho Roorln~
., rork Rlvor to NA 32: ,ho"<~ SO\lth ~l'_OO'
JI ~~:;l?:'~O~~~~I~~~ot::: );~I~:~~~: or elwl
'SOIIth "~'.41' tu~ '79.08 r..~ a1o,,& tho
\( 0....to,1I,,0 oJ tho Ro~rlnr. Vork RlvH 10
llA l4; tho"<~ South )7".20' ~..e 66.2J (oo~
4.....g tho <ont.tH". of ~h. Ro"rl.ng l'".k Rlvor
"i.II^'J~; thone. Sou~h 00'..37' 1:.,. BO.]) !o..
, alens tho untotll... o[ <h. Ronrl.ngl'o'kR1vo.
\1:,1: ~:o:" ai~~ t~hol\C:.~:;~I~:0~~1 ;h~.~;~~~~~O;l>l'k
li.1vu tollA 3ll .ho"". South ~O'.3&' h.t l66,l.
I" fo.t olong tho .0~tor.IJ.no De cho R""rl.ng
0""" rork.Uvot to 11.1 38; th,,"c" Sou~h 63'.34' t....
JS~,2 r.ot h10ng .tho ~.ntorlll\o ot th,.R.....d'"
1'0<kRi"ot to.IIA:l9;;tho"<.SO"'h 75'.00'
!ut 293.5 !U~ donS' th~ o.nlot11o. o! th.
~:~:~~~ ,~::~m~~ ~~o~A a1~~R t~~:<~.~~~;~~lI<I
or' 'h. Rooting I'o<k g~vcr ", 1110 41: thon"" '
So,,~h 19'.O}' Woot 3<>9.0 fut .'''n,<; tho Cont...
Uno ol,thollp"ri,,<\J'<><klll.V<lt toIlA/,21 .hone.
South ~O'.44' ~ut.193.] tcot dJ>l111 tho
..nto,H... ot,tho ROA<lngl'orkllivor <0 NAIo:lj
.hon"o South &8' ,26' 'Eo., 4~O,O (o.t oll>ttli
th.,uncorll.n_ortholl<l.ti"gVotklll.vor to
NA 44, ~honco.SOllth 6~0"~6' ~<l.t 440.~ !.at
4.""S tho (:antotU"o.ol tho lIoH1ng Fotk
1l.1vu to IIA 45, ~h~n40 South 4\0.43' Eoot
390.6 f.ot d.DIIg.tho ..n.to~l.lno,of 0.... R..t1"i
Fo<1r. ~l.v.< t",NA'46: ~~~nc. South (j/o..la' ea.c:
180,~ tOI~ al.o"" tll. lIonh IooUlld.ty of ~n.
..~~ ~llNll ~~,~1llNI1V'.1o,! ~ lIA 47;:
I
(',
..
.
"
.
~~~n~.Il~rth A,o.I1' t..t ~n.o r"~t ~IMr.
tt>" Il~nh ~.,,"d..y "C 1I", S"~~"~ ,\'~,e" ~""~.ny
f,~hdl"l"'m I.!I^ 48; ~II",,<" r.,"l\k n".:u'
. to" V.,.~ f..t .I",.~ tho II.~'I, ~",n<l4r' .,r
tho 5.'<,,,,~. M'I'"" ('''P"''Y S"h.llv',t.'lO 1'" IIA ,,~.
".."<,, ~"",h 1.~'.1I,' C...<t. )10.', ,",., 0""'" '
.".. liNt" bo"nd."~ .r tho So,,"," ^',r"n r'''"r'''''
5uMlvl.."" to 1M ~o; oil""". 1I,,<\h .?'.~1'.40"
F.^" '~.:J c,-,-, ." w. ~I;.t'...".. ~''''tl )~".H'
f:... n.ll {,'n, ,,, Il^ H; 11".,,<". ~.".h 2J'.O~'
. ~"~, 1,\.00 r,.n to IIA ~l: tl\<',,<. $,'''Ih ~~"."~'
(."," 11 \. (I In"t t. 110 ~I,; th."" ~""th O~. .10'
lI.ot l/9.8/ ,:~..t t. 110 5~i 11,.-,,," ~oHIi 1,~',,51'~24"
""". '''0.00 r"rt t<> ~^ 5b; tl""u ~;"",h 1/,' ....'
W...t In,l8 font tn Il^ ;1; ,h"n". :.",.", i,l'.~O'
"'""' 1,1.,1.1 (,.,., '0 WA ~O: th,',,<" ~,""h 1.1'_''1'
.:... ~~.Ol '~H '0 WA ~?; ,h."". 5"'''1> I.,',{,~'
\/".t 4), Sf.., '0 NA 40; ,I""w. 5""", ~O'.l~'
,'"t 1;1.0 r"'loIlAI,I; .h."co S,,"'h$,,'.M'
\/"" /d..4 fo"e U 1M ~2; ,I,~",.. ~.,,"~ O)'.,,~'
con IOL~) f"., t<> M 4J; tlw..,.~ ~"."th 01',f.)'
Y..l.t 171.86 I'" '<lNA 64; ,h..,u 1I".",h R<I'.I"
\I~<l. l,?:l (..~, '0 IIA 6~: th."". ~,"" h 2~' .01'
rut Il~ .16 f~..t '" 1M (,6; ,h.,,"e ~,,.,~h )I' .O~'
I:".t Nl.~O (..t to IIA 61: Ih."o. SQ"'~ 01' _,,0'
r,.., f.O,~ r,.o< t" 114 68; th'n,.' S""tl1 l~' .O~.
If.., 4~.' f.ot t<, NA ~9: 'h.n'" S""tb ,\0" .4l'
\0/." Hf,..) root '0 NA ?OJ l"""co du~ 5","h
"~.H (e~t to NA 11: 'ho"o~ ~"u'h 'W'.:O' If..'
",..j l.u to 11,\ 11; '...."0.. South .\f,'.OR'.JO"
~..t l?f,.B r.ot to IIA 13: tkon". N"nl. ~!".~e'
r,," 1;, I '.ot .<> N^ 14: thonoo S~~tk ~6',,)~'
F.." ~?,' I.~t ... N^ 1~: tll""to S"u,h 7)'.)1'
hot 'V.l f."" UNA ;h; tl"n.. ~fl"t" 7\'.09'.1\"
~oot (,J{\.) f"H .,,'WA 11: tho".O North 2'_00'
h., J69.9 hot 01""3 ,h" North b"'m~H~ n( U..
.1._1...v(.~ ^d<lltL"" to N,I 10: '''onu lIonh 1~'.02'
r...t J1>6.2 !o~t 'ol""g tho Notth ),,,""010"1 0/
l.o'ovl.", Add1tlo" .<1 itA 19,"'\>10110""""" i.
nl,",oCo,...tNo.'oltMD.6.R,G,II.RIS;h.o'
IfAY; th..n.o duo En. 2~\.6 'tot '0 NA 80;
'h."c',' ~~uth ~3' .0)' t." 1,12.) .'ot ol",,~ tho
c~"t"'U". <>f th. Roul.nR Fork 1Il"e. to It^ Hj
,11<noo S6uth 0)'.05' hot 2?~.2 r..t .lon~ ti,.
.ontHH". "C th. Ih,.,l"r,Fo.1t Rl".. to1tAR2;
,loono. Sauth36' a' J;u, 9).8 foot ol",,;'S""<h
^"""''' '" NA 0), tMno. So~th 6R'.24' Eut
1,0l.) lOO. olo"R South Avon... to itA M.; thnn'.
South}6'.14'r...t114.l(0.' ol""RS<>u,hllvon""eo
IIA B~I theno. South 4".H' f...t 191..1 (o.t .1""R
s"".hAvonu. 'oNA06: th"no. S<lutlon'..O?' r...t le'.?
,..'olO"RS<lUthA""n"eUllII01;th"n.oS6utn,19'.OO'
t..t 191,.~ C... oltmp. South Avo"... to itA ~"; thon..
Sou.h 60'.H' t..< 2?1.? te.tol""RSOu'hAv<"". ""
IIA U?: th.n.,. South 40'.4?' tOOt 10).0 h~~ .1",,&
Sou'h Avonuo eo ~A 90l thono. South 24'.J9' l:ooe
?l.~ r"H 01""1: (;1\>."" "'vo""" '0 II'" 91: t....no~
Sou,h lR".Jl' l:u~ B9.l r~.t .Innr, Gl\>."" .w......
t..NA92;...."..S""th10..41..E..tl04.lf....l"'"
(;L\>.... Av...... ,..lV,'?~1 .u.... S.....th U'_H'
EMt f,' ." r".. .l",,~. r.:""~" "",,,,'"" t" :." ,,',:
<I"',,co 5..".1. )4'.').;' ,1.,"< ,I.~ ."" ~l,,",; l,::",,"
Avenuo <0 N.I 9~: tho",'" S"", i, 42' _ ~.,' I,:..,,,t ~';.~.',
(oot .Ionr, <;ll.."" ~vt."u. U ~A <,('1 "",,,.,. s,~,t~
lJ._J6' I;.", n,: r..t .l",,~. (;11>,,,,, ~v<nuo '.0
lIiI 91: th~"c. So."th 22'.0' ~.,' )4.1 roo" .\.....
1:1\>."" A.o"uo '0 ~^ 9~, ,hOMO S",,'h 1\".41'
IICH 2~J.0 leH .lo"s ~..Io IIvo""" .<>"" ?~l
TtIo"u SmH" 2';'.02' \I<..~ ,2).9 (o.t 'lo"~
1I..1...."onuotoIlAJOO:"..."c.S""'h40..(,6'\I..t
OJ..~ foot .J",,~ No.lo Avv"u, to ~A 101: 'honoo
s",,~h I,f,' .12' Ifo,c 108, h ("0 t .Io',r, ~v.lo .Ivo"u.
,n 1I~ 102; tho"co S"",h4I._l~' If... lRa.l r.H
.lo"INUloAv.nu.'01lA,OJ,tho"c.S""'h.5R'.Oa'
Ifo.. 44.3 ...t .'''''R ~ul. IIv."u. to ~A 10~'; .h.,....
s"",h 69'.~1' t..t 190.\ root '0 lIA 10'; tM..C.
6ou,h 0?',20'.20" Ifen )91.0 r~.. '0 tOOt A''''''
T"",,"lte COn\n ~<>. 0: tlwnc. ~otth 43'.lJ".20" .'oU
26)0.1 fut toA'poni<WnUtI Co."H"O. S; thon<<
llonh6)'.27'.22"1f1O. 31n.1 f..tto^,p'n
it><nILt. Corner II... G tho )ll... 01 b"lnn~nl.
C....cdnlnl )1).9J..u.. ""'A 01 ~..,
i .,I~
^
U'
Date: Tucsda), December :l, JUB7
Poll.~ Op<:n 7:00 :\.;\1. to 7;00 P,M.
rolling Place: M('s~iah Lutheran
Church
~lollntaln View Drive
Wright Sub DiVision
:,\1_Jrth Side Annexation Election C(lm~
missioners: Joel llartmcistcr, Yvan
. Tache, Louise Berg.
I~~xamplc o!Ballot: For Annexation
/\g,'inst Annexation
Qualifications of E1C'ctors:
21 Y'~,ll'S of Age. Propert.y Owner
in 1-'1.'0 Simplt. in thc abuvc described
tp.rritory.
Plat of the above described h:rritory
on file with the Clerh' of the District
Court of Pitkin County, Colorado
In witness whereof, I have J'ct my"
hand and affixed the Seal of the Citj'
o~ ,'spen, Colorado, Uris 31st D3.j' of
'October, 1967., '. '
Lorraine Graves, CIty Clerk
Published' in the' Aspen Times ~ov..
emtcr 2, 9, 16,~3 A;D., 1967
.
.~
/\
:):'
'i',';.:'!;')
EXHIBIT E
Page 6
. } ::/:,' ~'.Z>
~/'
',',~
e.'.\', i <: ;,~ ';1
" '
.~.. .~
t*',
".....,
\,.,;
ic"^<X"i:"':'tl/ .t:(/Ji':;~":J..:
,J\.0l"EI'<. COWR/t....C>O
IN 'I'HE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR
STATE OF COLORADO
O E:'. 8 ''"''''''7
~ ~\j:u
, /"01 . a '7)#-~
'c:7'tVhW'~ /-J' .
CU::;;-..:C 0-; DISTRlCT como"
THE COUNTY OF PITKIN
civil Action No. 3808
THE CI1.'Y OF ASPEN, ]
]
A Municipal Corporation, ] ~BPO~.QE_,~!'lEXATION ELECTION COMMISSIONERS
J
Petitioner, ]
Fer~uant to Section 11 (7) of the Colorado Municipal
Annexation Act of 1965 the Commissioners and the Clerks who
conducted the Annexntion election on t,he 5th day of December 1967
at the Messiah Lutheran Chruch, West Meadows Subdivision, in the
vicinity of Aspen, pitkin county, Colorado herewith file the
results of the vol'ing at said election.
Promptly at 7:00 a.m. Joel T. Hartmeister administered
the oath to the three J\Jd(Jes and two Clerks. This is attested
,to in the four copies of the Poll Books.
1. Preamh1e.
The balloting started promptly at 7:00 a.m. and
the fifth person to vote was one John Macintyre. He signed the
voters oath and was given his ballot by one of the Judges, after
the one identifying serial number was removed from the ballot,
by one of the Judges. Mr. Macintyre then entered the voters booth
to mark his ballot, on emerging from the booth he did not return
the ballot to one of the Judges for the removal of the second serial
number, but placed his ballot directly in the ballot box. As this
was a ballot 'clearly distinguishable from the others in the ballot
box, ~he Judges unanimouGly voted to permit Mr. Joel Hartmeister
to open said ballot box and remove this ballot from the box and
return it to the voter so that he in turn could properly hand,the
ballot to a Judge for the removal of the identifying number and
then fold the ballot and pJ.'ace a rubber hand around the folded
b'allot, and retUJ:n the ballot to the voter for his casting of the
ballot in the ballot box. This was done in the presence of the
voter, the three Judges, "nd the two Clerks.
1?yrT"f'lyrm ):<" ,"-" ~~,trA 1
,
t'*""i
o
.-,
~.
,..
'---J
\.."'
-2-
The reason that motivated the Judges for this action was that
this ballot would have had to be counted as a spoiled ballot and
it was the intent of the Judges to give everyone the right to vote
a proper ballot; and of the 129 ballots, there were no spoiled
ones cast.
2. Total Number of Votes Cast.
The total number of votes cast in said election
was One Hundred and Eighty Six (186). Of these, 99 votes were for
the annexation and 85 against the annexation, and 2 ballots were
voided as being improperly cast. of the resident votes, 67 voted
against the annexation and 62 voted for the annexation. Of the
absentee voters 37 voted for the annexation and l8 against the
annexation, in this were the two (2) voided votes.
3. Nu~er of Ballots Delivered to Voters.
The total number of ballots delivered to resident
voters was l29.' There were 131 undelivered ballots, which ballots
'were returned to the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
The .total number of ballots delivered to absentee
voters w;ls'75 and of this total 57 were returned by 5:00 p.m. on
, December' 5th to the City Clerk of the City of Aspen.
. 4. Spoiled and Unused Ballots.
The Judges voted unanimously to void two ballots
which were voted as absentee ballots in said election for the
reason that they contained only one identification number upon
inspection by ~aidJudges. Said voided or spoiled ballots were
returned in their envelopes to the City Cle,rk of the City of Aspen.
5. One Unusual Ballot.
.
One of the ballots answered the question "for
annexation" .with a "yes" answer, instead of the marked X. The
Judges voted to accept this ballot and include it in their count
."
,
for the ~eason that the intent of the voter was obvious and clear '
to. them.
ffiXHIHIT , - Page a
'.
f"""\
,~
u
..' ~
... .' ..
,
/
-3-
6. Abstract of Vote.
The Judges had, an abstract of said vote posted
at the Messiah I,utheran Church, West Meadows SUbdivision. in the
r' . "
vicini ty of Aspen, Pitkin County I Colorado, and anotherab,stract
. .' i' 'i: '
was posted on the front door of the City Hall of the City of
Aspen, Colorado.
:r
7. Delivery of Election Returns, Ballot Boxes and,
ot1i.er Election Papers. " . .
All ele'ctionreturns,' ballbtboxesa'nd' dther'
election papers have been deli veredt6' t,h:~ City" Cle'rk of lithe
City of Aspen ,ColoradO, for 'safe keepingin'th'evaultof her
offi,ce therein.
! .~j
'i:! ~
r i
..
I
JUDGES OF THE ELECTION:
CERTIFIED BY US:;', I ii Il..-j
'/..rvr ,';, (14/#/1 tv~
i,..>....... jJ q:rrr:::;JS'
tV ~a:: i:.~. ~
Louise, M. )3erg
'i' ' ,
:'
ATTEST:
~A~~v jL~'
Wilma Hust:ed " ;
CLERKS OF THE ELECTION:
.
EXHXBIT r - Page 3
~
~
tx,
)
, \,Il
\
,Lv
o)m
".~
~~- ~
2~~=\"11
(J)g E--<~
"F ~
.9<:;)1'
... -T:::)!1
)> ,
~=~>
"'lJ q'-\l
ll)p \I
. 'P.;.j rn
'11-L~Z
o-z
~~1
z
'0
,.,
-t
.0 :t"
,>> ,.,
l >0
.~ Z'V
: ~~
~ )( lit
~ ~O
~ -t
6
z
^
f"""
_.. /-,;,
~ ~~>
.~. .'
I~-! THE DIS':rRIC'r COUR'r I:'; ]..:ND FOR
'l~llE COUNr.ry OF PITl(IN
STA1'E OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 3308
,,'...: CITY OF ASPEN, )
)
A ,:':~nicipal Corpora'cion,)
)
Peti t.ioner. )
o }( D
:2.
'EllIS IvlA'?TBH.. being broug-h.t to the at.ter.J.t.ion of t~'"'~,;)
Co';;,rt.upon. the Report of the Al1ne;caJcion Elcc-'cioi'l. Co::unis'sioners,
;:L:~ tue Court 11aving examined the file herein and nmv l.lcing
~ul:y advised in the premisesv
DOES FIND that an Annexation Election ~:las held u;~~ the
5th day of Dccer;ber, 1967 at: the !',Iles3ia>~ Lut.hdran Cl'lurch, I'IJe:st
.::,.C,.j\vS Subdivisionl 'in the vicinity of Aspe:1, Pitkin CO':.J.ntYr
Cvlcrado, pursuant to the petition filed heroin, and thi:.t the
L03;.')ort: of the A.rl11cxation Elec-'cion Com:caissioncrs \>1.J.8 fi10d with
.
ti.:e: Clerk of this court on t.hc 8th day of Dccc;r00r, 1967;,
2urs,.:ant to tile Colorado l,unexation Act of 1963, \vhicll Report,
~~dcars to~e in proper order~ and from said Report it appears
~o tl~e Court ti.at the majority of the votes cast in the election
~;',.'2rc for Annexationi
~hlEH.SFOI{i~ IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AL\fD D:~CRl~ED 't.h.at t...~e
rri'tories specified in said Petition may be a:-.;:lcxoc1 to the
:_"ty of l>.zpen, Colorado, upon the terms and conditions, if any,
~ ;;ort.ll by~:lO City Council of the City of l,spen and t:lat the
:;l.ty CO,,"acil of the City of Aspen may, ,by Ordinance, annex said
~:":.::;::i~ory and impose the terms and conditions, if any, as
..;
1......
"",t"":
.
-- '"
^
~
approved by the qualified electors or landowners.
DONE IN Cl1Ai'lB.ERS t:'1is 15th day of December, 1967
in Aspen, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
Carl W. Fulghum/55
Judge
)
.
"
,
,
,
"
,
'.
"
"
'~ ,;
,,;
it
~~
,
~
~'
,~
C, 'llvTIl ~Y:,,(,{;(,:i\~,.'. /1:;~c~,_ii',\^~, ",'.'P\ '1R'N'\"
' ., ::} li~::'-~:~A ~,~,~,,:1!Ltd '
aspen ,cblconradov ,S3~€Si1 box v
. \c'v~c\~,,"2(';i':z;~/)~",
'..T.v-....~~""
NOVembe~ 27,1967
Dear Property Owner:
I want to take this opportuu;ity to extend to you
my personal invitation to attend the meeting that has been
called at 8:00 p. m., Wednesday, November 29, 1967 in the
large sem,inar room at the Aspen Institute to discuss the
North Side Annexation with City officials.
I wo~ld also like to solicit your support on ~his
vital issue. I think you will agree that it is extremely
important to the entire Aspen area that the City progress
and gro~1 in all of its serving areas. ,The City neeels
the support of the people located in the North Side 'Annex-
ation to do this. '
I feel that the City can offer additional services
to the area that will be of mutual benefit.
The election is to be held December 5, 1967, 7 a.m.
to 7 p. m. Absentee votes must be in no later than 5 p.m.
November 30, 1967. Local voters may vote at the f1essiah
Lutheran Church at the east end of Mountain View Drive in
\llest Meadow,.,
,
,
"
:'.;
Singereiy,i "
;aX. 7'J~~!lA')/;,~___ ~{,
Dr. Robert Barnard
Mayor
RB/w
EXHIBI~ I - Page 5
')',
1
~'
~
'i,'}
~.C'>,> ,;1)?:"
__"J"" :";(C:'){j:=,;~(,:,;;>,
(',:f':~/ '"'j i,<!j!:(:,)Ci~,,\
,,~/,~Jir',' d ' ~~ 'SP N
C" .1' T' V,'"'."",u,-P'0,i, ) j?) f!~.lt.\,i, ", i,'E' ,
',; ." J1~:'!:.<~2i, r~
<!:Hllni,olll'l> n.:nfil """,,,,,=-10'" b', .n,y
fJA~rr-'~iiU. ,~~.,~.'~ll. Ci,[J.j" u__ V
,'\( ,', '.. ':,~::(>, ,))(, ':, ;i ';{
'-., """ '~c "\ i'. ( " .
..........,:;., ,'...,' .,.,', '7;.
""W'''"'''~':'~~-:~''' ,',"'J",'"", "
.,' .j
\;(~' I! I
~!ovember 2l, 1967
Dear Property Owner:
\oJe want again to remind you of the December 5th,
election relating to your property.
I would also like to remind you of
both individually and of a general nature
from the area being annexed to the City,
BENEFITS OF ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
the benefits
that would result
, j'"
50% reduction in water rates ,
50% reduction in water tap fees
Lower fire insurance rates
street lighting
City police protection
Reduction in trash removal charges
Dog warden
Possibility of petitioning for street improvements
(Must be approved by over 50% of the front footage
of a given street)
Tree planting program, ~ City, ~ Citizen
Future sidewalk improvements
Future alley improvements
The benefits that individual property owners realize
from a strong and well enforced zoning code.
CITY FACILITIES WHICH ARE UTILIZED BY AREA RESIDENTS
BUT ARE SUPPORTED BY CITY REVENUES
Golf Course
Park System
Recreation Program
City Streets
"
I
EXHIBIT I ~ Page 3
'i,
1
.
.., "
. f"",,'
~
Property Owners
November 21; 1967
Page 2
BENEFITS BOTH TO THE INDIVIDUAL AND OF
GENERAL INTEREST TO THE COMMUNITY
1. The right to vote in municipal elections.
2. Annexed area would provide more people to select
from to serve on various City Boards and ,Commissions.
3. The annexed area would increase our population
so that a Home Rule Charter could be adopted by the
City.
4. The area to be annexed is a logical addition
to the City as part of the area is being served by
City utilities.
5. It is very important that the City have the sup-
port of all the area citizens in the improvement of
Aspen.
., J .,
Please be sure and vote December 5. Absentee ballots
should be mailed to the North Side Annexation Commission,
ch City Clerk, P. O. Box V, Aspen, Colorado 81611.
Local residents will vote at the Messiah Lutheran
Church located at the east end of Mountain View Drive in
~lest Meadow.
Sincerely yours,
~71 I!jjaL~
Leon A. vlurl
City Administrator
LAW:mw
P. S. There will be a public meeting to discuss the North
Side Annexation on November 29, 1967, at 8:00 p. m. in the
large seminar room at the tspen Institute.
EXHIBI1 1 - Page 4
\
1
"
....'".?'''c,''
~Jl^N'Y
r
vANET J>:, GAYLORD
ATTORNEY AT LAW',;~t~
/<"
;:'_OSTOr,F;'CEtlOXeo.s '
ASPEN, C'OLOJlA.DO"~eU-'
1Y
TELEPHONE: 925' 3"'e3
cl'une 5, 1967
;1r. Leon wurl
City Aclministrator
City of, Aspen
Aspen, Colorado
Ljear ~,r. !'7ur 1
YOllha.ve asked me for all opinion to be given to the Red Butte
Cemetery AssQc;iation regarding whether or not its Board of
Directors has the power tc consent to the annexation Lv the
City of all of the lanel ludedin the Cemetery, especially
that lan.,] to which deeds ,1i'1ve been given by the l'$sociation
to various parties for burial lots.
Althc'llqht:le deeds qiven to '::le indivi.dual lots in the Cemeterv
areen,tit,~~d,,\'Ja!:,ranty ce-::;(.:s, it is nevertheless my opipion .c
that theCemeterv Association mav sion in the annexation for
all oft,he land 1nol uded in the Cemetery.'
Ordil1.<lt'ily, although a ce!;\eter-y deed is absolute in form and
9ontainswords of inheritance, it is neverthe,less reqarded as
transferring only a privilege, easement or license to make'
interments in the .lot ourchased, exclusively of others, SO
long,asthe lot remain;' aC6Metery, and the' actual title remains
int'le s;ranto:r:(the Cemetel:y ?,ssociation) subject to the grantee's
right to. the exclusive use of the lot ror burial purposes.
1dso determinative of t1e riC;'.ts of the parties are the contra9t
hetlveen the Cemetery Cor?oration ",nd the purchaser of the lots,
and theArticle~ of Incorporation ~nd By-Laws 0:-, the Corporation.
Insu?,'TIcry,i,t is my opir~io'r: tHat the Cemet.ery J\ssociaticn. is
the only legal entity 'dhic;, coule: legally sign theannexatiol1
petition.
Si?Ce-l:'ely, ~I /
iI, ;/ C-,/ ,', . . _
./,/r!/i ~ '
J/a'~,ef'> K.Gaylord .
Attorney at Law
,-'.r""
..., !.\'.,J
P. S. I am enclosing . a copy of my opinion sinc,e you stated that
the Cemetery AssociatJ.on wished to have a coPY, and that
t:,ey do not wish to be insulted like last ti'me, presumably
because of their inclusion in the law suit.
there was an all~ga tion, never_ 'proved" they
to sign.
.r
,/
".
"......
J
NORTH ANNEXATION
June 5. 1967
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Total number of petitioned individuals
Total Acreage in proposed Annexation
Number of petitions added last week
Acreage added last week
Total number of petitions signed
Total acreage signed
Percentage of Individuals signed
Percentage of acreage signed
Acreage Required for 51%
Petitioners Required for 51%
r"'\,
o 7#~
~/~l
145
303.3 Acres
7
.54 Acres
40
165.11 Acres
27.58 %
54.43 %
154.68 Acres
(73.95)
74
. ., ',:' .~.~. .
,~ . ."
"""
. ,,,\lip'... . . ~ 'I ~'.:::..~, ','
.~5.i~~{.,:,"~..~. :~.\
"W"'~~'~~'''':J.
,:'.~,,:,' ,~br"~~ ~~'!..
.~~ "'...\I\.;.,.....,I..v.;-;:_.
. ,i, '~':.~.. '.: ".- .
.:~:~t~<i~t::"
1"*'. '.'
.,
'., ..,'.
:"'N '
O~
'H
'::,-:: :1:~;.
~.,1.'~:"
.'
'/.'"
"'l::':'f~~:,.
:".~",'.
'., ".~.
?'::tf
. ,,..
,~.~l' ~.
ftN
~:
.\...
t
.-..- 1S'* .---
~
I
. 10
N
. ..
,.:...
,
~,.
,,.,........._R..__
",.,,, ."" ~
_...t...&-,.__....~ .""',:,1C:....i:..
$8J.-.-
,;~"
':h~~
, "'," ....~:,~t4.,
. ~''''',,'~'
.' ...
,':"', ....'
"'"=,'1'
,,:.'~
. ,.' ~i: .
," '.liro,,~
7~;.::
","
~ '"
'~j:
",
~
:,'
, " ~
,.'.1:';1" ..
':,~::::~t4,'.:~~;, . ::
.~:,:;'''~i''';:'\~.::'
;:';;'!''If'i';'::'"
,{~p~'::' ','
, :,fi',:fji;fi;'~;'
'~ ..~'.~:~,~...
.;~lE"'ts-;,!<"
:;~~t.'
....
~:, .
\~. ".;'.
"
) .:~.~:~
..,'.
..:t.,:
.o'
.,.:"
,. ?~....... '~
d.
.;i:.i::;!.,+~~~~~7.
'.j' ~~..,.::'oi, .I'~.t~',\,,\ ,~-:,
~~W:-.~.'::.~ .:.,"".'
,,'If,..W'ifj!,,,o;;...... ,..,,,,~,,
. ,,',,"...:.. .~ ~:n.:
'/till..:.'.......' .,' " ~'''I.~
" ~:~:~~~: '~i:.:L . :....:..
"1I'.,,,.q~l ....'
:1;:' ::~.~,.;':.',~~,l:<.,.
".n .."~,..\',,..~..~ i~i'., -..'
.~.:..~~..:,~;~..:>. ,
."'.
1""\
...-___C
,~
P. O. BOX V'
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
TELEPHONE: 925-7315
April 18, 1967
James & Dixie Fox
Box 880
Aspen, Colorado
, Dear Property Owner:
In a few days someone will be around to request your
signature on an annexation petition. This person will have
maps indicating the area proposed for annexation. Previous
to this the City would like to take this opportunity to ex-
plain to you some of, the benefits associated with annexation
to the City. FOllowing are some cost comparisons of living
in and outside of the City Limits.
ANNEXATION FACT SHEET
Average Costs
City
County
WATER
Tap Fee 3/4"
Monthly Bill
$300.00
6.50
$600.00
13.30
ELECTRICITY
Monthly Bill 12.30
INSURANCE
Fire Only 51.00
3 yr. Home Owner
Coverage 193.00
TAXES
Property is assessed at
about 30% of,the real
value. E. g., a $20,000
home woUld be valUed for ad
valorem tax purposes at
approximately $6,000\. There-
fore $6,000 . 6 mills
12.00
108.00
246.00
EXllIBIT I - Page 1
1
Dollar Differences
City
County
$300.00x
6.80
.30
57.00xx*
53.00xx
$36.00
1"""1
,""'"
Property,.Owners
April 14, 1967
Page 2
City
County
$5.00
City
County
TRASH PICKUP
$4.00
$1.00
*
x
xx
Depending on approved water system
One time tap fee
3 year period
This would be a savings of $7.56 per month t~ reside
inside the City Limits, or $90.66 a yeat or $271.98 for three
years. This would be plus the original tap fee which in itself
is a saving of $300.00.
Thete are other benefits that are not as obvious as these
dollar figures, however, are very important to Aspen and the
Aspen area. If this annexation should be completed this would
provide the City with sufficient population to allow them to
be able to adopt, with the approval of, the people, -1!. home rule
!ype .of K~~~n~ich basically means that the Ci~wOIT1or
;then .operate under a "h"rtAr ~r1opt"c1 ~YJ.he people of, Aspen: ,jn
,lieu .of operating under the State Statutes. Another important
feature 1.S that all .of the peeple inside the prepesed annexed,
area would then have a real hand in the city gevernment. They,
of course, would be tax payers but they \~ould alse by virtue of
the annexatien become electors in the City and could if they
choose, run for city government pests and be able to vote in all
municipal elections.
You would also, once you were annexed, be entitled to City
Police protection, City street repairs and Cleaning. You would
also be able to utilize the facilities of the City dog control
program and many of the City's new recreation facilities will
be made available for your use.
Sin~~relY youkJ~
~~ 1/
Leon A. Wurl
City Administrator
LAW:mw
EXHIBIT I - Page 2
,.,...,....",......"....-,",.0
1
.~
~JIf>
LAW . OFFICES
FRANK DELANEY
CITIZENS NATIONAt..;...BANK BUIL.,oIN:G
Gt..ENWOODSPRIN~S. 'CO'LORADO'
Aup.t 4, 1966
Colorado
Ill. re: ._l1..t a1. . v. tbe City Gf Aepen
Pitkin CCHmty .0. 3.13
Deal' Judp tiller;
In ace$l'dllm.ce with yod re..uest. I have oaf'.cl .Del .. herewith
U41..~q tIleod81na1 of tile pllopoeed draft of 'tDeli,qe of 'act.
Co1ao1ariou .1 Law ai:l.d J~t.U you deaire any ohan.el ill.
t.., laq-. of tliia a.C1J1;lUlt, plea.. f.el at.: Uberty to(,l'all ..
col1eet and advi.e me of ,tile cha.p. you ldp1i: claire.
1 .. _t11aa a e.P1 .f tile p:r:opo~ f:i.suti,naIJ to Janet &. Ga:yl.rcl.
oppel.. co..e1. and .. eusae-.tl.. to M1: that if ahe bas allY
objlllOtiona 01:' .~.ted cha.... to c_"",tcate witb yGli:l eiJ:utly.
I .. al.. enclo.i.. a Ill." ., lay letter to Ita. Saylord.
1 a.... you will_il the 'lnGlna8 of. ,a<Ut. ete. to lIaJ:taa S.
'.t:boIap.... $l.J:k of t-he m..tdCltCOul't .at A.,.. if tile)' aeet witb
YO'" appjova1. Xl 10U ,..... . hoWlaVer. ~_,. _11 tlWa haCk
to .. _1 _U. .. tbat the, are fUe4:i.st pid .fUce.
YOdS truly.
hank hlaney
n/1aik
Bacl: 2 .'
ccU Janet &. Gaylo~ /
'/
~e HonOrable J. )t., N1U.
Ju.o.f ttae llijtt:rlct: ~
Co\.tr't Sowse
Ji'oit't crollin$, Colorado
R.e~
!I.well., etal", vs..
~~,5t_g~.",
In the Distn,ct Court'
of pitkin County
Civil Actio>> BO~ 3U3
Dear Judge Miller:
I have recetv:ed a copy of the J!"iudinga of Pact. Con-:-
1iJJ.l1eiOlUl of Law and Ju4g1Ulmt prepareC! for your sfgna-
t:l1re by Mr. Oeluey. I have 110 c:tbject:l.ODlI ctQ itb$
l&A~.ge used e:lte:~ fer Para~rapb. D., ~. <:ciM11.t::"
sions of Law. I do not >>elieve that l'o,ur ~r ~t:"rj!lC!
any restrain1ng order en~oinin9'.tne City 1ir~' coI"~t,fi~
tues. '.IIherefore, I do not believe this. sh_ld N In';',
eluded in the l'Zoncludons of La~ &Ad in tba .t~t.
Sincerely,
OrIginal SlllPed bY
JANET K.Gl\VlQRD
Janet, K. Gaylord
C.i.ty AttoViey
c1ty of Aspen
J1{Gi: a:c
cc: ME. FrGk ,Oel&Aey, Glenwood Sjprings
",,"-,'.
;-,
(! -~
L-AW OFFICES
FRANK DELANEY
SHAMROCK BUlL-DING
CORNER STI-t AND GRANO
GL-ENWOOO SPRINGS, eOL-ORAOO
S1601
ROBE.~T C. CUTTE.R
ASSOC!ATE:
August 4, 1966
Mrs. Janet K. Gaylord
Attorney at Law
Aspen, Colorado
In re: Howell, et al., v. The City of Aspen
No. 3613
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
I am enclosing herewith the following:
1. Copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment
I have drafted in the above entitled case.
2. A copy of my letter to J. Robert Miller which is self-
explanatory.
I suggest that if you have any objections or suggestions as to
the change in the language in said instrument, you should
communicate directly with Judge Miller. It is my understanding
that he will be departing for his: vacation in the very near
future and I am sure neither one of us' wants to interfere with
that vacation.
Yours truly,
. '~
Frank Delaney
FD/mih
Encl: 2
cc: Judge J. Robert Miller
~
~,
.---'
.. *.. te_ A.WlPrl
<:'1'&7 Iftbilltntw
A1iIfU:t 3, U"
"2
t ~ .-Uti_ b..U
W-a.liI .~Ce , "1$..~__
otl..... oWl _I: ",tile'...., laM. wi. MJ'
<<et''''\IIIllI ot~,t MMI i::t 1. l.,olll.l.b1e '-
_t~unlti.. ~ ~. an .. tile' ~ of
'aM tI'~~ aft., Ul4 1'- fUt-... lAOl... lad.
a1~JI' .a~ to ... d.~1 of. A.~.
"boa tm.o de~ipU" ~ ~ pttit:.L\m,
..a ~ br * 1IlW't..... of wt,,~1f>fM. 01
~tft ~~, u.. lamlt ~~ 1ft 1$.
~U~~ .... ~ QUllly the II'fMltd_'t:iIl
01 l"J.lit..S. 13'-18-.2 (0), ~ ~t ~
UlIN\ _ ...~. wt~ .... ~ .f. the
~'- GU.~ ., As,-.
"tt. ~ ~X'$ that ~ ~ty
.f ~ ~, 8S ti*ri4d hr th. 4e..i~
ill Ce piI:tt'tj_. u4' tl1mt _ ....t. tor ~1s
Uvla1fia .. ~ '- tlh ~~.
"wu ~ wiU 4..l.... tile .......~_
ml11 _4 V.14 aftllw:Ul so ~."
~en11,
OrIginal SIgned br
JANET K. GAYlORO
"'w>>t .. _1."
ehy -'-D6f'
e1~ ., .bpea
~ttW
OI'fr
~ J",eu' ....
~i'_ ~..~I'
.nl;;1N'~ .... ___.
COUM:ihHm willi_ ...'*11_
COuneil.m4n DiIlv14,I~tili~
~
~...-Y!;.
July 28, 1966
ifr. R()q~r Malmke
Ci,ty E.n9ineer
City HaU
Aspen, CQlo';'ado 81611
Dear Roger:
For the annexat.ion law suit on Allgust. 2nd, I need
to know t.het.ot.a~,acreage included in the NQrt.ib
Annexation arell,t.he t.otal acreage in publiQly
owne(1 roads in the, annexed area. theacr,eaqe in-
cluded in t.he p~operty owned by each signer of the
petition, and the acres unsigned for.
Sincerely,
Janet K. Gaylord
city Attornef
City of Aspen
JKG; ac
--
~'.
July 27, 1966
Re:
aOtt.U~et al. ,v.
The d '~,' Qf.A~
Mr. Frank Delaney
Attorney at Law
Shamrock Building
Corner 8th and Grand
Glenwood Spri.nqs, Colorado
S16Dl
Dear Frank:
bc.losEJd istbeoriginal .and liligned copy of the
Stipull;ttion.
I will' be happy. tel ,4isoussthe C.,;rrasc.o Ylih~rdsh
and$n31:der case when you a.ret1;erenektweek.
Sincerely,
Janet K. Gaylord
Ci ty Atto,rney
City of Aspen
JKG:ac
Encl; Or;j.gj,nal and Copy of stipulation
!""'\
,1""'\
L.AW OFFICES
FRANK DELANEY
SHAMROCK BUll-DING
CORNER 6TH ANP GRANt)
Gl..ENWOOC SPRINGS, COLORADO
B1E10f
ROSERT C_ CUTTER
ASSOCIATE:
July 26, 1966
Mrs. Janet K. Gaylord
Attorney at Law
Aspen, Colorado
In re: Howell, et al., v. The City of Aspen
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
I have never received a copy of the Stipulation in the
above entitled case. I believe you said 'it was
agreeable to you and we so represented to Judge Darrow
and with that understanding, he signed the Pre-Trial
Order.
Would you please send me a copy of the signed
Stipulation?
Yours truly, ~" ,>c-",;J ,
1-~'~~~7
Frank Delaney
FD/mih
;-..
,,,,",
L-AW OFFICES
F'RANK DELANEY
SHAMROCK eUIL--OING
CORNER 8TH AND GRAND
GL.ENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO
a1601
ROBERT c. CUTTER
ASSOeJATE;
July 28, 1966
MIS Janet K. Gaylord
Attorney at Law
Aspen, Colorado
In re: Howell, et al., v. The City of Aspen
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
I have just been advised that one of the witnesses named by the
plaintiffs, Peggy Coble, is in New York and may not be available
for the trial. I was depending on Mrs. Coble to produce
records from the Recorder's office.
This will make it incumbent upon me to request the Judge to
authorize Jean Woodley, the Deputy County Clerk and Recorder,
to be called in lieu of Peggy Coble if the lady is not back by
the time of the trial.
Yours ,trULY, >==~_ /J
P2~~
Frank Delaney {II
FD/mih
~
,-;
'-.AW OFFICES
FRANK DELANEY
SHAMROCK BUILDING
CORNER aT'" AND GRAND
GLE:NWOOO SPRINGS, COLORADO
Bl601
ROBERT C. CUTTER
ASSOCIATE:
July 21, 1966
Mrs. Janet K. Gaylord
Attorney at Law
Aspen, Colorado
In re: Howell, et a1., v. The City of Aspen
No. 3613
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
I enclose a copy of the pre-trial order which Judge
Darrow signed today.
You will note that the Judge made some corrections in
the Order as it was written and these are on the copy
which I enclose.
You, "Ule a:Ik
Robert C. Cutter
Associate
RCC/mih
Enc1 : 1
r-.~
,..;I;!j
"'
,,'
_. M~~.~
.. ~11i11let.:IJ.J'Ii$Ir, Hu:tU.
~hen a4 S-'e..n
3u1y I', Ut6
Pq$l
, 3. A pon,um sf ~ftl~ a1Hacly in_Idea wi.~1n tU
tU,,!, sf ....pen.. Ulcl~ w:l.~ia the .__tptd.ea of the t~!'IoQ'
.. be: ......, lrIut I ~Ue,r this te " i~t:i.al.
.. - ,,&fa p1Aillll'tU'fa have lUss q\I'Itst\i~" the &~ of
UfNltaHa em 1iIho _~'ft;iea peU1Iit<m. .pe_U1Al1y, "bey hlwe
at-'" ... aUpw,1i1ty Of tU .~.Utat\. Ulil. ~. blI att11e e..-
1tey __"uti_ as .t~s .1 ~e pedti., u the liiluis lI_tt tU
~:::.:; :~<l af::~=.a~ il.=:U"= :: =\I'~U~:::'~
S. .".. ~aey of the 01.1oia1 lImM'ftt.ion !IIIlp8 has
.us ...' at.tukW, with RlM n&8<m, _.e t1lee wue .. 4:i:f~t:
NpS ....; ~ .t 'wid.. ... 10.11.. as the official ap sf tM
n.~u1du, limd .... of wiI.i.a __.a'ely ~ the 'tft't~ de-
l'JCQI'i1M4 La \he ~U:iIm_
- adcItuea, ~ .f 'the aps wtIZ'. fUe4 wi. u.
e1ult. a ~ ft S...e.a::r sf ,..,.'e, as Jr~d 1rIr suh:1te,
lIdU X 414 .., a~ 4:l-lfl,'lOvedag 'lbb ~.t<m, maar mcmtlla d_r
the ......u_ P"'~_
IUftnl,. ,
Slillec1 W
Otiginal G"~
JANEt ~
J_t: ~., _,1011:4
tit, M~
ct., &f Aqi_
","UUI
<<KU _. I4ea A. W_l, ett\y ~t:m:. ~
.
~
"
~ JANET K. GAYLORD
Attorney at Law
P. O. BOle 605 .
Aspen, Colorado SUill
ft1r I', un
'Ch .,. 1fII~ -,Md
~'_!l/ .,.. ~
. ...J.l1ltl.n ...... .....
~,-. .11U..~
~t]_. ~ ._~
~$
fte ~ MQ;n..t.l. ".t $1 ..1... HGn~J..... '8M~
!!:l!!-.... _.. .. tit,v of ~, bas ~,..t. ior utAl 011
Ala~it"2Dd per 3rli. In .,f.w of the 1l'OV-U ill wblch t..'ds
anneaUo&:l _s al;lClOll!pUshed, it H 11I1 ' _~ ......
...... .. #tWI U'ldp~..... If tIN
111...... .. .. ._ Hi" ... -f IN --m
"".11... -.th .. .fuN" _I:.l '. ... ""~
))i._if iPe1ft1.WIlW: .. ~ U 1ft ~.
~ !R .. feU..;
l. . ~.. lIIf&la___ 1. at__ at .. '",.. 01 ~
-'111111'41\'- ,...JAw ~ D 4e......k/f iMIi""'._ ..uJtb1e
-~lII:..- Mr4 utat4IDhf ... __III"!" 1111 rill M"t.
"'. ".l~ .._1 :t.:- -... ... 1Iba1l .,~..
'* ~ ~ wi ~ wntM __Ifill.," 01 1dae .......
aM .. ..... =~t -=1.~.~~:tl:L .Jlll1t .. 8!Q.'..r
..!Nt .. QIII.ueU.tl!ll4 ~ ~ ...' .. IrIf
tl_ . 11., ~ .. ....' u .. ..,.IIl!4IUIl .,
W.. ,." I lid __bit ja tM _..u, .. ~ 'to
... w. .._ '.- ~ .1lil_il
'~'..r:. ."t. _*~1:ie '."~'#
~P.i . ~ .w.: _ .t. J. ..__. 1; ---
sf_ .. IN .. IIiIoIIHI. MI.'$eu 4d..... ia ...., .
.:$~ _ ~'I1rIllI.U'1f l\IeOlU'Cl ..ill .. ~ ___
~ l~....",q ~!9~. ~itM7.
I.. all"" 1. . .ull....., U5 ~ _"Will..
.. .f. tM o~ '.-th !a the le~al aescrfptioa .t.-
..... .. .- , ... _ {jis'tance for the same ~
..... .. - ' .' . .
. '.-::-~ _ ..).....1IIta.. ..iaUllt, .1>>....
~ 1*". . ','. . a klundu fu hllIOVfild
.b_"~~ ~'.. ..-., . _., .. iJul'\tUY U.ne
Wltch ~nU' 'ltM1.f u_. . .. dascd~ t.Hi:. tau.
~~;n:-:l: ~o:.=~. '.:_~:!
....
-,
-
JANET K. ~YLORO
Aitorn~ af Law
P. O. Box 605
Aspen, Colorado &1611
~'J, 1166
... ,... A.. _1
(fl_ ~..l"'_
~,. -:1:'.11:
~, -~ 11611
~ _, Wul:'11
~ to.uow.... i8 .. ......~~'lll -ft 01 ~
bei__ la .. ~ 18i1Ulat1oil. ...,
",II. , ~ ,eJ.t.Zi
"lit 1.." tH 11*."''''''' of to
~- - ~ \te ~.u.t_ 01
- '~ID IIlI.d_ ~t; it. 18 t.he 4., IItf ...
~_~l.I~..~_.
.., It-;,-.4.
..... ... .. ,....~ .' _I14ttl)'
.t,:'.9\l~at 110 .. 4'-.lIIff_" w~ _1 ..
~ ." t:h;e ftt~.
..~ U'f' JlM___I_ "'lIt..rI~, it t.
p;we1y ~tlu~t U4 tU ft_... ... ..
feU... 1. ~ _ ~ auk .....tl....
valU.
"Ja ~ "..Ut: OM, tke ~ flAM
flhIit. _ pUiat.W. 1a il.lli-. ~_ an at''''
.p:S.... ~ 1fltiWl ~. t..... ~ ~
--.-.
.... e.m ~ flu. fftiI\ '" _t...
taM.. .....1f.~..MJurt of e .a.s . UtI, ,Ut-
I"'! ~.....'1dtd Ili'lft'll ~ It,....t. of
- ....t4tllld had 'IIIliIlMP ... lit.. the pro
"~ Wu ....' .l~, ,aU 1l.ile ~ ,
.ow'Ii:lW ... .... __ pot.t.ioti.,.. DOt.
. , '_.f .'-.p Mcpt_
. _,". 1...._ M .
-
.-,
.-'-
~
.. '.,. t.. A.. ..i
Cl'q'~?'nta".....
___ 3, 19"
..... a
"... .. uttg,: cdJQt...,.'hrUttcm. J.taeU
was I.,,:u..:r a f:he 4"~. Q.e JAU tII> ..
__04 u4 4$.4 rK>t .'~M IfUb i..f. .t$. __
4ep-_ Gf' ~, eel 1_ U t.lIlI'irnlble ..
<iiewnh\$ ~ lMi. He .. 1I.lW ~~ ..,
~ a~~ .area, and it ~ 5:_1.... 14a4s
al:ndY ._~ _ the ettlr .1 ~.
, ~ t.he 41111i1*;C~ 1a tl;le JlIit1t.lu,
as ~... fdse .vi.... .f _u.-... of
~ ~!ea.. the laN1 ~Ulii4 ill the
paUt.:.on ~ ACt. HUsI, ~ ~.ts
o'f C~~.S. U'-1'-2 (o). pp-yi4iiG9 ~t Ua
ana 1m ~i~ wit.h i:M ~ of t.'Iua
PPlhlftt Cit.y of Aa~.
"It. f~.lI: ~s tU.t. tU ~y
of .eu ~. was llUllI'Ue4 hy the aGn:c1.pUon
iJl ithe ~i~. l'iI.I'I4 that .. ~t: to.... this
a.tvi$ion __ showa to tD ~.
..~ ~ will fleel... _ ....ti..
.11 M4 void iUl.d will so ~_."
S!n~.ly,
Original Signed by
JANET K. GAYLORD
Juet 1(, lh.ylori
C.U.y At"t~$Y
~.U:r of Aspen
.mau.<<
ocu
* r~t~N
eO~!lJ1hllU Cl"" e1~
~l.. ,~
'~oi~ ~hl'Wn
___ll~ &~~
" ,';'"
'~
,-,....,
'".
i JANET K. GAYLOR~
! ' Attcrnfij' at UW
: P. O. Box 605
jAspen, Colorado 81611
~t: J, U"
_.. ~ A.. -"1:
ett.r :>>...~~#
a_ of l*tr :
1';. 0,,". , .
--, ~ $U11
-",- I
0...... *. ~11
'1M !olJ._~ ia .. ftII..iJia ""'1" ., ~ ~,.tl\l 1_.1
<<wi..oa a t1uiI ~ _~_.'b'" da.. ~l w. .~~
_. '.fll.e <:;4"'1 ' ,
,,'-'11.~
tin ia _t: tMt ~t4ft o-t tM
~ .. ~.... _ ...t_tu__ of
afllill1l_U. ~ ,it. :i$ t\b.tt ~r o-f ~
Cc:1lUt. tct ~<<~ U to ftllt!.u_ u.
toU~.
...... ,t. . ,....,tt_ .f vaJ,UU:;y
att.M~ '- .. .....u.. _.lob "1 _
....~.br tlle wi..... .
i
"8i u;r .~Jt_"ti.a ~uil~. .1't t.
E*M17 _t.llt:uy. .I'd tlle na_.. .." !to-
f.UOWIlII4 ta ~ b:I- llllllle $lllllh ..,..t.ln
ft1..14.
"~Ji 11:" ~t. ca... tM ~ f!wi.
tht: ~ phUUfb 1a ~1e "t:toIl ua ......
9d"'d' :....... .itlU.a the lat..at: at the
S-.ta.i '
"~ ~ ,...... f~. ':I.... tiM evi~
..... -''tJj,Q'n.t... .f C.LI. IN.I. .t;a"-
::;J.=:,.:-:'::: :: ::.r=-:'~f
=::.. U. J:~1~;..:t.:. W:~~
~=~~~.d: ~-:'=-ag,
<:tUI olluIII. '
"....",
,~
LAW OFF"lCES
FRANK DELANEY
SHAMFtOCK BUILDING
CORNER 8TH AND GRAND
GLENWOOD SF>RINGS. COL..ORAOO
Bl601
ROBERT C. CUTTER
ASSOCIAT~
July 19, 1966
Mrs. Janet K. Gaylord
Attorney at Law
Aspen, Colorado
In. re: Howell, et al., v. The City of Aspen
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
This is in answer ~o your letter of July 15, 1966. It came at
a rather :lh:>pportune time' or I would have answered before.
As I now understand it, your amended answer has been filed and
there is no question about the regularity of the proceedings in
that respect. My amendment to the complaint has been filed and
you have denied it in the amended answer and there is no
question of the regularity there.
Since you have no objection to the Stipulation, I am enclosing
the original and two signed copies. Please sign these and
return the original and one copy so that I can present the
original to Judge Darrow along with the pr!,!-trial'.order.
SiI1~cerely
~
Frank Delaney
FD/mih
Encl : 2
PS: This is to advise you that we will call as a witness
Lorraine Graves, City Clerk of Aspen.
?
/!I..~
"..
/. ;;,
July 15, 1966
Mr. !'rank Delaney
Attorney at LAW
21.4 ,- i'l;if ,Street.
elan-wood 'Spxi1ng,s, Colorado 81601
R.e: sumd W. llowell and
Stanford Baelmear VB.
The clt~ of AlIp:en
civil Action No. 3613
Distriot Court, Pitkin
county
Dear !!'rank:
"1!he 1?J:e"'1;r!.al Orc1er is sa:tiafaatory" exce~t, th.at I
utu:ler.t~ that: ~y amended enlllweJ:'was to' bef,t:ted
15 dllysafter your illllendlnent t:othe' o().plii1~t. How-
ever, , if you do not: object to.y fil1n!Jit now, I will
have no Objection to thewordinq int:he Pre~Triill Order.
Enclosed i$ a copy of lilY ltlll$nded anSWEIr.
I see no ob!:leotl-lil'nto t.he stipalation,a.lthougb I do
not baveth'$.>()ri:,-i:nal oopy to s.tqn, but we can take
oareof tfl1t:t Jlat:er. '
Sincer$ly;
Janet K. Gaylord
City At.torney
011:>y of Aspen
.:ntG : eo
Enol: COpy of Atnended Answer
".....,
~r
L.AW OFFICES
FRANK DEL.ANEY
SHAMROCK: BUIl.,..DING
CORNER 8TH AND GRANO
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COL..ORADO
6160'
ROElERT C. CUTTER
ASSOCIATE:
July 14, 1966
Mrs. Janet K. Gaylord
Attorney at Law
Aspen, Colorado
In re: Howell, et a1., v. The City of Aspen
No. 3613
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
Unless we make more progress in working out the pre-
trial order, it may be possible that the above
entitled cause cannot be tried on the merits of the
case on the 2nd of August. To avoid any possibility
of a delay, I am enclosing a Notice to the affect that
I will apply to the Court for a preliminary injunction
at the time mentioned if the Court is unable to try
the case on its merits.
Yours truly, <==, _, _,. /)
(P2A:L~/-jt...J/'?L---7
Frank Delaney
FD/mih
Enc1 : 1
cc: Samuel W. Howell
I.......
,~
L.AW OFFICES
FRANK DELANEY
SHAMROCK BUIL.OING
CORNER 8TH AND GRANO
GLEN WOOD SF'RINGS, COL..ORAOO
81601
ROBERT C, CUTTER
ASSOCIATE
June 29, 1966
Mrs. Janet K. Gaylord
Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 605
Aspen, Colorado
In re: Howell, et al., v. The City of Aspen
No. 3613
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
In order to try to make some progress in the above entitled cause,
I am enclosing the following:
1. Copy of the amendment to the complaint. The original has
been forwarded to the Clerk of the District Court at Aspen
to be filed.
2. Copy of stipulation with respect to exhibits. Since we cannot
agree upon the location of the boundary of the area sought
to be annexed in relation to the boundary shown on either map,
it appears to me that we will not be able to make much progress
in simplifying the issues. It is going to take a trial of the
case to explain the facts to the Court.
3. Copy of proposed Pre-Trial Order. I shall advise the Judge
that copies of these instruments have been forwarded to you
and will defe1t\presentation of the originals until I have
your comments and suggestions. I will consider any changes
you wish to suggest to the order or the stipulation.
4. Your office copies of the letters marked at the pre-trial
conference as Exhibit Q and Exhibit R.
Yours truly, J
~7!-/Z,-c:L~jJ!A;:i--'<,-~
Frank Delaney
FD/1;Ilih
Enc!:s
....<
June ao. 19'6
. HrS. Lorraine Grave.
, C1\~f ,Clerk. City of! Aspen
Ci1l:y Ball
ASpen. Colora4o 81611
near Lorraine:
1 nave been r.equeeted 11:0 prOliluce a cer-e1fied oGp'Y
of the, mi1\1il:t.. of City CQ\U\cil pert~n1ntJ 11:0 {;.he
Nortb,ADMQ.'1d.on prooM41ntJt and a.lso a eer1l:tfled
copy of t.he "v."1eed Bodee. .
1'3.1 nM4 ~&e by tbe en6 of 1::be week.
IU.ncerely t
Jaaet. ~. Gaylord
city Att.orney .
C1t.y of ASpen.
3U:ac
.- ~'
,_:',
,':
~"
"
,
,"'
JUDe 2.0, 1966
M1:' ~ Ro9f;U' J4t,nh1tit
, 'cl1:\y hqueer ' ,
City Hall
A8-pen, CoJ.orado ~U.:u
;c;,,,'>:J,-,
~;"f',~' :"(:~
:;., :'; i:,,:::"':r:,f::H;~l[;
'",",/"".
",<,\":,,ij:
""::"';',::J;'
,f,,>'"
1)o-r ,Roqer : \/
.' " ,~",,;.,
X.'ll nti'led 1:.h. lIlapeofthe Nort:h ,Annexation .as S()()D as~"::
ible. I alii pa~do1tt~if:ly !at.erested in the pr&pe:rty~.' ,.",:.',:,:.,
wbose 'pr<>JilflJ.'ty wassp-l1t by the ",ert1Hl line ~a the rl1f1!it., , :
,slde of: 'the-:"ma-p'<;>. . '<' ::.<#
\fl!,en, 10Uget. around 1;'0 it., I need a l~al ~e.Qr*pd:o:t.\ f~, .
ute PII1'k:, a:.rroa Park:, and also it might. bea qoed id~a"i'f.
I reded~'teGl()ry H$le wit.h a food descdption ins...<< of
the one I usedf1:!i>>n tbe railroad deed. . ' :
" , '" " -' .'.::
X",:::)W~.:
,::,-",,,.-..,
;:~;~;;!'}:,,6
',;}~;:'{'::l
:<,:" ",''-' : ,'~'" ':' ,:-: >~
U you happen to. COlIle across. a lIlap on the tlurant Mine ._t.~;'.:>,;
:LaNd a map to be ,f:Ued' wi'th the State bg!:nlle:r. I ,do 'm!I.'t:';'/:
know if <:ine :wase,er,prepared. ", '. ,::"/:
. .i"",'"
:'>;'!,,:..'
. Sincerely, ,
";:';".,
, ~,i
.',"
. "::>':-, ,::~i::
/,",_:';-;''',
-',' ,,;,
" JaBetK. 6aylor4
C.ity Att::ornay .
eit.y.of'Aapen
"':';:"",':,'
'<<;-',--,'-
'::'::',:/-:~{~:
",' "
'.~' 't~_'
. ;, ,<
,JKG:ae
".;-:,:;:,,,;
" '::;";
, ;..' _,-;,~i
I'~('{~~.
,,--";
"''-;''.',,'.
. .":,::,,:':'>
--.~---_. -1'
.'~~~--'~..
",,,J#I"II#~
June 27, 1966
County Assessi!lr
Pitkin County Court House
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Sir:
In reference to my recent letter to you, that
you assess taxes against the property included in
the North Annexation as shown on the ordinance and
map which I furnished you, please substitute for
the map furnished you the original annexation map
which you may find recorded as Document 124593 in
Book 3, Page 97 of the records of the Clerk and
Recorder of Pitkin County.
Very truly yours,
Leon A. \1url
City Administrator
LAW:mw
eo[PY
Oft'J' f;K-, :<-
)i
..
I
.'
,
Sam Howell File (North Annexation)
NOTE: 6-17-66
"'-
r""
The first"map was recorded as Document No. l2439l, in Book 3, Page 95.
on May 27, 1966 at 1:48 P.M.
The superseding map was recorded as Document
in Book ~, Page 91 , on (r;}:J. -c"h
No. 1;'1593
, 1966, at /#:/0 /J,M.
3\\1\e 2~' 15>66
1)iCt.a.~l J:\lne:l.1, 1.",
sec.,e~"rY 01: sta\;e
1.'11 SUU ca-pitO);. \\1.49'
pen'<te1l" eotot:a4o 60'103
-.-'
t:~l) J,nt\$sa:t.iot\ \1.0 ",~e
~ ::.;.~~,-:.::. :,...,.. 7:~:::~
\',.\ ~~. "*"" .".. ....~ ..... - ~'"
"" '...~ 1'!"'-............ ,.. ~ ·
.. ~U"" .-, ",.." "'., ..,. ~ ....... l"'"
.... 'I'" ""-. ,!". ~~'......' -" · .,... """"
.....- """""....... ....-.. -
':: .,.,. '" "'*~. . .~.~ """" ..- ...
"'. ...f _ .. .... ~:.. J.,. -,........... -
.... .. ... ___u~' ,1'........... of -
.... - ... ....... ... oS
anne1l6ti.O\\.
si:nce:t.l:~ ·
Janet. \to _t101:C
eit.y p.t.to,,_Y
ci:ty 01: M~\\
:t\tQlf.O
....' ..,. ......... .~ ......-.
i 3:/3
7J- Q
(1fcfl
.-----...-----------------
-#3.6/5'
P/~ A1..,
'J~~
Y.
~.
"
~'iJj~
'.".V: 'i" ;-.'
:,1
~ 26, 19e/6;
'~i\'
'-'-:"'"
.,.-.,.'"
Ser:nl~ of State
127~~'I! Caj!litoll3lr(!g.
....r, COlOrado 80203
Dear, Sir.
.' , '" '., ,
~ ",-".... of 1l!<I-. ~>, ... ~ '" 19$,;, -Ilol
-"'"'~..., "'- ~,..... ""' of -. ,__.
Md a coRY ol.the ~ion ~, lIlit;i~ed lflorth ~atJontll "iOb
1iI11P1lM~!i_e at'!i th4b1aittedto )'O~.tor, filmg ~ to t_
Provl$i~sll1t c.lt.S. lJ9..w..:3 (2). " '
',..c.::....:"._,_
SJMeft:l;y,
Janet; -K, G.etrlord
CitJ('Attomei
C!tyotAQlen
J!tG-,ac
Enel$f (1.) Ot'4!_ee No. 16, Seri...! 1965
'(2) ~t!on!ifap, JlJl~,.l__lon"
t"'\
~
Samuel Howell and Stanford Bealmear vs. The City of Aspen
KIUK NOTES: re conversation with Tam Scott:
Tam says that the problems in this case involve
(1) ~ the circulator, Capt. McAlister, actually get property
owners comprised of more than 50 percent of the total area whih was
to be annexed?
(2) did the signers on the petition constitute the majority of
the landowners?
ux
Red Butte has 40 acres. McAlister said that he stopped at 65
percent. McAlister based this on the total acreage figures. Roger Mamhke
worked for Holder, he's now free-lancing.
"...."
/'\
"'~
'.
LAW OFFICES
FRANK DEL.ANEV
SHAMRocK BUIL-Dll\lG
CORNER 8TH AND GRANO
GLENWOOO SPRINGS. COLORADO
81-601
ROBERT C. CUTTER
ASSOCIATE
May 26, 1966
Mrs. Janet K. Gaylord
City Attorney
Post Office Box 605
Aspen, Colorado
In re: Howell v. City of Aspen
No. 3613
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Order entered by Judge
Darrow yesterday. As I indicated in my conversation with you,
he did set the Pre-Trial Conference for June 27, 1966, at 10:00
o'clock A. M.
/'
If there is any information in the possession of my clients in
which you would be interested, please advise me and I will try
to cooperate in having all the facts and documents that may be
material available at the pre-trial hearing. I will endeavor
to talk to you about other phases of the case within the next
two weeks.
Aside from the map which was given to the Assessor with a request
to extend the taxes in the area that is the subject matter of
our litigation, I do believe that there was a smaller map used
in connection with the annexation proceedings. I saw such a
map in the City Clerk's office while Mrs. Hoaglund was in the
office and I believe my inspection was a few days before we
commenced this action.
I expect that we should produce the minutes of the City Council
pertaining to this annexation proceeding and also a copy of the
advertised notice. I shall be glad to pay the cost of preparing
such instruments if it is agreeable with you to have the City
Clerk prepare the same. I assume we should have certified copies.
I appreciate your cooperation up to date.
FD/mih
~~~~;;7
Frank Delaney
-
/"""-
~
~
D. Rl>9IF ~k.
~'.Pl...1At J:fe~t
ettyHaU
~,Col.rado 81611
J:2er,' ....,r.
i:'~' aPPnci_tt11 t ~.cylllUCh 1f Youoobld\1raw _~Une
01 tJIt.. nofth .....tion on an ,!SCO..,. AI.. trillm you haVe tl_.
I ,..Id like ~ fII' over the legal delfllriptlw OIl the ~tlon
p.titlen_ _ the oouat......,.UU.on. ..'... 01 the 'land, espeolaUy
Oft toM CCNI\tU-pettt.lon;: Is OlI;tstd. the ~ ana.
S~17.
Janet I.. Gq1G1'lt
c.~ 4~
etv 01 ASJMIIl
JIli.u
-
,,-
February, '1.
Mr. LesU. A.. Grols
Attol"1lq .t Law '
290 Fi 11.A SUe.t.
Denver,CGIOftdo 80206
Dear Lellt1iet
I ll1II en.loling herewith, Cheek 110. 36, signed by' Elvin Dul'tnielts in the
_to of$l~O.OO, pa,yable t.o Helbwl., He11ll1aD1 .. Thorn and endoned by'
them to me and j'OU. I have endorsed the ** over to you, and I wiSh
you to Ataln the p:T>fleedlh I will vai t. at leat ten de.Y8 before I tol.'llVd
lIlY fUe to lb-. 1'hon), in order to give the chnk. time to clear.
The Sher!tf hili found Roy Bng1'on.
On The line Tree ClUb _tter, I have been asked to work with a CaUfon)ia
lawyer u local counael, so I lIIlll Just IlL front 1IIlln.
. I .
I _ ene-losing a copy of, the Co1llPlail1t and lIlY AalMlr ill the a:anexation ,case
which 'rank Delaney brought against. ~ City. Coullt you look thh over on
a consulting bash and llee it any grievou e~J.'s in lIlY approach are mdent..
Fl'OlIl lIlY inveatigaUon, it dou not. appear t.hatthere were really any lINl>o-
stantial defects in the llIU1e)CQtion procedure. The cemetery does nct cOl1lltit.ut.e
a large enough portion of the a:anexed area so that. the allegations u to the
ownership, theno! wOuld hli cNCial. The AsPm Institut.e pays taxe. under .
protest., I underst.and, so tillite the. definition ota landowner as one who beCOlllU
liable tor-prepert.y text. m!:ght be a cont.rowrsial point..
The count.u-pet.lti~ is pJ'!i'bably I...Ud, and I 4oft't think I'll have too
1lI\lCh trou1:Ile 'on that score. There Wi'll some mint.. enon In the legal
descriptien 01 the temtory to be lI1UleJCed, and there was an erro.. in the
dQtlrl;p\lon 1fht,ch prevented the description trom ctosin!h but thi. was only
OM veq ...11 al'M uiifeo-.,pared to the tota1 U'e1l annexed. The 1IIllP \tiled
was quite elaborate, except that it cUd not sJ\oV the separate ownership
tracts wtthin the 1>>wadades of the area ~d, lll1t. this was not. required
under the St.atute.
In other word., then are a lot of 1Illnor detect., wt I can see nothing
impof.'tld1t. eJ)OUgh to jultify giving up on t.he 1W liNit, and 1 thought the
wrden o.t',pt'O'Il'tnll the lnwUdU.y ot the petition and thewUdity of the
c:louate1'-petiUon would wat 01\ the plaint-U'l, and that theretore, the *t
detense .. to deny ever;ything and let thecpJ.lli~U't: tq toPl'Ove his Clue.
-.
"'"
,:,:"...:;.'
".,(''-
"',""'<+</,.::J
"""',' ,.....
, ...., ...
>:'\'.""".>"::'..., ',.,,'
"':':m"",',.;;.;'..'.,
Toi l...H-e A. Gross, iaq.
;:~,:,~',>::/,"""
, ,
'"",..,,"..,
"i:':,':,';'::'::':
'/""':;;;:f}'!,>;
Page a
Febrwat'y 7, 1966
I ~.. ;yOU would .. a oontilct. ~",
In tih cu. ter the City, iNt. 1 thlJ:ik;"
, Oft geIilft'a1 .~, and I clon't. ... .,
to ~ autltme OJ!. a collsu1t.Sng hut...
thtak. ' " " ,
,'.~ tIS t~.. ~
I could Wle aome'.lce
., ... lfWld b8' any obJ"tlon
f$1a:ac lllit. IlI8 know _t. you
" ~ ,', , ,". .. .' ',. '. . , .
~ ,A .
Thlt.t. 'JIIw.tt.erot, the appolnt.l\lent. of City ~~..y I. OJ!. t.M as..... for
the COact1 meeting tor t.o~, liIondq, liO'i;leibp$ 'lilt po.lt-lam '''111 be
1tlO%'e detlnlte. '
Sincerely,
Janet )t. ~lo:l'l!
JMuc
Ench (1) Check Bo. 38, dated Fe~ 1, 1966
""""'
'.\.;,:.:.:.:.....::i(.:...:.:,
'r(f; ,,;F,';:::'i:j;',;i,:::;::)'.,
'''-''<..,.t,,''::<::,L,,:
;,i,'::.',:,',
~/::>.
::"':":.'.',C\:'
:"<:/:::!Ai;\
Fe!:lrua~ 4,
'.',: ~:; .. .:,
".',,'('
1*,(,:,
(::';,:"':;:\:<,:.,,~;;':'
Ft'8I'lki)elll'ley, ,Esq.
Box $$6
<.illUMed Sprinp, Colorado 81601
Re. Howell and BeallUv va.
~flt:~t AlI_
e .01'1 1'0.3613
in the District ,Court
tor Pitkin County
Dear Mr. Delaney:
Enclosed is my lUUlWl!r in t.he abovee'nttt.ledl!l.Ction.
J: _""red ate very lIIUch your court.l!sy In.Uoving me tilU t.o reselU'eh
this _tter.
Sincerely,
JlI'let K. ~l,ord
CityA.ttOmey
Oi;y ot Aspen
JKGJac
Enel: (l.) Answer
,-.
~,
,
DELANEY & BALCOME
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OF"F"ICE BOX 149
ROE;lERT DELANEY
K,ENNETH BALCOMB
GLEN1VOOD SPEUNGS,COLOBADO m601
PHONE 94$-6546
AREA CODE 303
ASSOCIATES:
FITZHUGH SCOTT DI
.JOHN A. THULSON
January 18, 1966
Mrs. Janet Gaylord
Attorney at ,Law
Aspen, Colorado
Re: Civil Action No. 3613
Dear Mrs. Gaylord:
I herewith enclose a copy of the Notice of
Withdrawal in the above case, and a copy of the letter
to the City Clerk notifying her of my withdrawal.
Very truly yours,
KBIb
enc.
DELANEY & BALCOMB
By' ~^A^.<n! ~N iJ, ."..J,
'~
~
,.. .,
P.O, Box 5482
E. H. WARING
CHIEFENGINUIt
DENVER, COLORADO 80217
Feb. 9, 1966
311.2
801 Aspen
Information Copy for
Mr. L.eon Wurl
11,2-~i
Janet K. Gaylord,
~ .At'torney-afLaw----~---
p. O. Box 605
Aspen, Colo. 81611
Dear Madam:
Wish to acknowledge receipt of your
letter of January 19, 1966 concerning
annexation of Railroad's station ground
at Aspen.
This to advise the land described in
my letter of December 1, 1965 contains
6.72 acres, more or less.
Should you desir,e further information
please feel free to contact us.
Yours very truly,
'?#tJa,u;'1
By: C. W. Colborg,
Engineer of Contracts
and Right of Way
THE DIRECT ~ENl)~L TRANSGONTINtHTAl ROUTE
,.....,
~/
"7
DELANEY & BALCOMB
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
~OST OFFICE: BOX 149
FlOBE:~T OE:LANEY
l"ENNETI-l SALCOMB
GLEN'WOOD SPRINGS, COLO:aAD081GOl
PHONE: ~4S-6S46
ARE:A CODe: 303
ASSOCIATES:
FITZHUGH SCOTT !II
.JOHN A. TI-lUL.SON
January l7, 1966
Mrs. Lorraine Graves
city Clerk
Aspen, Colorado
Dear Mrs. Graves:
The'purpose of this letter is to notify
you as City Clerk for the City of Aspen, Colorado, that
in view of the appointment of a new City Attorney for
Aspen, I am withdrawing my appearance as counsel of
record for the City of Aspen in all Court litigation
currently pending.
Very truly yours,
DELANEY & BALCOMB
/ ,")
/ "", 1-
By' K""J,nKQ 04,t.Ji'i"" ....
- \
KBIb
"
-"
t'-..
January 17,1966
Mr. Fitzhugh Scott, III
Attorney at l.aw
829 Grand Avenue
Glenwod Springs, Colorado
Dear T8.1Il1
If you have a copy of the Motion to Strike in the S8.1IlUel Howell and
stan1'ord Elea1uar vs. The City ot ASpen C1iSe, I would a.pprec'late
your sending it to 1IIe.
Also, if you know the wherea1x>uts of thelltj;.OrneY ~eral's opinion
in the Golden Horn Resta.urant 1lIatter" 3;'egarding the holding Qf a liquor
Uc~e by an alien, I 'WOULd apprec$$.te your sending that to 1IIe.
Sincerely,
Janet K. GaylQl'd
JKG:ac
~c,
f""'\
r"'1
ROBERT W, RANK
City Manager
CARL A. BELL
President City Council
JAMES M, FRENCH
Vice President City Council
June 1, 1965
Mr. John E. Kerrigan
City Administrator
City of Aspen
Aspen, Colorado-81611
Dear John:
Attached is a copy of the Ordinance you requested
on our annexation policy.
See you in Estes in a couple of weeks.
Sincerely,
~~
ROBERT W. RANK,
City Manager
RWR: la
Attachment
City Comlnissioners
JOHN W, HUNT
B. T. GRIFFITH
L. WAYNE LEE
,
,
GENElAL lULlS AND REGULATIONS: ..fat. ~ or_ of ~nd~:.:;.~'
wIthin 1M ClIy UMlh thDll be IlUbdlvlcl.d Of rnubdr...ld.d and' I'< :
,
_for. 0t'I7 ktnd or. ouhlde of the Clty.hall "......."ed to IOld CIty tM follow'", ~
pr--.ltlt.lhall be _11
..
'9.2-)
SECTION;
9--2.h
9-2-1:
.....~r.= ..
....
,.
~,
ioi~
,
i:': -
b
...
,'j", -<i" "
;.,. "~.' .
-,.1.
CHAPTER 2
STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN SUIDlVISI()t..lS
c...-alllule. and t,...lotlOOt
-
- ..--'-.......
(A) All "'-b wlrilln HI. area _ to _ built Gnd COPIIlruct. to wldril and .-
.-c1flClCltIonl Q~ . ted by w.. City ond IIOUIt conlamlln wad. ond all.....nt
to fI, _Ntlln tn. od/Geenf or_. All d'r......... be of Il"CIWiI of not I...
"- ,I. II'lcll (6~ I d.ph of uuahed lI"oval ..c1flcotl.... 01 ~t up by th. City. .~:O;~
o.pth of beaM 10 be ".",1,. by eondllloro of 1011 and droll'lOlJ" In tpe<:rf1c _:..,::""
_.. (Ord. No. 936 5-15-1958) ','
;.-.
(I) S1__11u Gnd curb. InUIt be Inltall.d In 01'_ acc.ord1ne to 'PKlncotlo.. IJfo
~ out by ,h. City; grada. all~ ood chlnoge pattwn 10 _ MtclIblllhed "
"
ond wi by 0 ~ltf..ed 1tnQ1_ Of regllt.red _....,..:wand a drcrwlng or "lap \3
*w1", .~Jl , alllll"~lo." ond 11__lk and c....b lpMlflcoll"",1IlUIt be flI.d-:,t-
at ttt. City ....11. Wldthofllr...andllr..t~trlKtlonlftUlt IIIK1kfll"..~ '...
If _ I. IIt"atM wt... Itoml _ ,,"lIlnage II _.-y. IUCh eh1nc:V- mUtt"_
bot ImtollM CKc:ordlng to 'P"elfl<<rll~ III Mt out by th Clty.(Ord. 906; 7-9-.57)
Jil"t
"
tC) All waNl' IrltIOlleltlclN, _11_, fI(II p1ug1 ond c.lIftflIIetiolll to N illltoll. PfJi'p-,i'
..-4yand occordl"O to ..elfleotlorw of tt. City. Welt., _h'llt"-" Mn'. ony..,<:2",'
_... No of II .11. dRla_t'" by th. CltYl eoIt Iron, d_ 150, .1th.r~'b.Ili~(,'w
..1pIgot Of -~.I-_I....J !oInt pi,.. FIAl plug. 10 " MoAII.r No. A24015,.-~~,.
or....., with flv.'" 0." fo..rth Indl (5-1/...., 'NI,.. ..,I",~!wo t2l'twOu;.J_
... 01"16 ,*f Inch (2.1/'2") '- I'IOUI.. and _ (I) '-r CIlICl_......f..lndl t.'.
(4-1/2") __ ncral. (Ourwooo thrnd), _ and _-IlCIlf (l.I,t.Z1 pent... ~,~,
II"' 'Pi .A'''' nub, .., I.,. four f.. .1..lne'- (4'6") bury with Ihe Inth -::\<;f:;. '
(6") hub _ _e'lon. AU watw and..- com.ctlON CIlOIt N 1r",OK'. ....' -0- .';'
-'. .d 011 by Erogl"", or City 1"'P"Clcw "for. IMlng bcx:knIlM. fAlDC=h;<n"".;l;:
-r IlGt b. boekfJll. with any I"OC"Jq ov... .laM lnc:h-e (8") In dl~... afid"-j::
........... rly r, tM. Ypcllallonloptlo!h.WGt.r_I"'_tOM :~.. ~
....,th.ChyW.....O'po.rtMNcnI.......of ;,p' pI,.lIlIIlnl_of.~....f;:f' \
...... fcJrthlll'leh.l (3/4") In dlo.HI-el oncI QUac:hH 10 Q flI'lIPM' ~ .top to" ~:i'i::~,~':':
b.1Iladt of tM eUfb 11,. or .II"-..olk II,., No gGIvanllM pi,. may 1M ~;':j'ftt~:;'
..... _po..Aion to e..n:.ItOpJ, A COIIIpI".1IlCIfI of th. ........... eorporotiin"" ;.'it~'::"~i.~'
....1.\ . ,,"-"'.
tap, curillklpJ, t_ and ~ pr.-_ by ell r-alttltNd ...I_...d/fl!, ' ,,;.~~,
(1-- ...;l....
'J--:" ,,",v
,. ~ .-,,'" .,.;;. .
',"
. "
',' .)
. ""'ri"'-
) ."'._-'.
~. ."",.,..,
T r;..',<,-
- . ,""" . ~ .,. ~if1I1"
,'-,.~~.:.,:-:;:~'...1~~ "
,'::.,.". _ ,~,,,,,o;-,~'..
'I-';<<":'J-:ilr.."
"'. .'i'p,n..--':'
-':',",'0'.
, ,
,
,
,'iY-,"__
-'~'-~-'"
..
III,H'Ve)'Ol' lIIUIt b. fvmi.Md It.. City 10 foc:ilj~. 110\)' fur""!I Tllpulnand, ..~.;~~.
.1oN. AII~.. ,.j.[\l_' b.lwrl~ 01 a ",ii'll",,,. of four ,_ lillll~h:-t_1 ,>
(.'6'::)"be!owl~,~..iei)ii'~ ~'... buf~jrilo cgomrpn trench with~; .-
'0I'.ew. '11nft. (Ofd;"'99SjdG-17-'61l -~~
:.-
. ,3
(Q) "'11_ .llt.rlIlcn, _I... f__ 11_ or'oil (ll.Itfall11,.,.~1 be I~JI~:~~:."'.-
, ", 1 I)' and ClCCOI'dl", to '!..IpKJflc:otlora of tll. City anit>ttt. 5~ 01 .';'
Co"" ""* the direct ...."blon of a r.lst..."...._ 1M'rd/0I ff(
-- .....,.......
__ ...).. All .....ll~'" IIMI"'" be of ...1"- tll. and 0 "'1"~jlll'l..., ~.
of..ght Inc.... (8") o:anknnlng to Federal SpecificatioN ss-,-361 ~iCI~" ~..
_. "'-nh to _, cbt_ ...... 1935, .11 and lIplp pan..n. s.... I!~j~
RIll _ ICGITled to "*'" andallgrwgntipedflQCIt!OftI 0....'""" t.crv.,l!! ,,~_
__... etf wwtenrfM....,.-".(O:.....).I1Il' ~;lneh.l(8.).U'-'-P*- _',.
__ be IIlItaUed .'Intw..k of !lIlPl_ of r1w..~"... f11ty~~~t ~
(35O')_atOl'l)l' point..... _ 11... -'<..on angl. In ol""_.1~'~
In acc:ordmnc. with IIflKlflcotlor. of ,... City. Manhel.. to be ofr&fc:k'
cone,'" with ClllIt I""" IIICInI-.6l. rim onod CIIV_, 0-._ f'att_n, tN.e .-~-" .
....." fifty......." L~')' L~. apfWO(. ) ,,~_~y~ tt.._~~~y.. 111 Il'.~, bm'~':.-.,g,'
..1..... _ltIC". - ....orrvco; .....,10 .....\':"!'_~"
thobott_ofln-tr8nc:h. A fill of1:l.lnl_o'twolvo Inca. (12-) if' ~
rock fr..IIIOI.101 to be pkaced llver.._ tile o:n:l no fIlGt.lol wilh ~I('>>
_ eight Inm.. (r) ttar~ Ih Ior~ dl_...1on to,bo ~ hit ~~J,t~.
.11 ...l~ sr'" '* T r ~Ied by fllCldtl,.,. I'OIIIplng Of puddl"". All "C~ :~E;:
__ be .__.eeI ~ _ by .adlvlder lII' controcl<< _ replacod; w~
1011(.. clay. All tr-n.. fI'IWt bo backfilled, tn-lop r.I.... lfldli. (121:j
witt. ~ ..vol ond 1,:Of\4MIeted. No _ II... GIld........ llne.:~.,..
put In !: ..c..tralldl. n.........boall. "''-lIfa''''nNfullar~_;
(10') Inh._ ..,fIe_lIel _ ond ....t.. II..... (Ord. 906, 7."'5;/') '~}~I,..
~, - ~~
- , ...,-
(I) WI__llk.,f"M",I_ 7 for...... U.... to_..... "_, r rr'~i:-....
...,II8ed'!!......II....lWl1ffll__....a_tt._-lll"". .-""!'~~
11,..- 1- fI'I!'.._II.... tho_rll...II'IUltba~J.rorIP.t,.~~
_benDloI~Ift~.~I!.!l!J~'!t}~..,~..J(!~_i'..
.._.,01....(_ ..... (OnI. '"' 1~17...l) 'boO';'"~
..~..
('1 At'...."'......, tMvJ.___.........Ol'lIII 1"'0,;- I
~~~J~ ttiii atdMlt If. iio.-Ik curb COlIlblnotlon 'Tt::..~
WilnttKe t,\lrh If d1-WCW,curiI_ at.... It...... Thll.. '1 I It .1Ii
, c_'" . .".. ~-'..-
-..w.-of,"Mt(4.)~..,bel4!tro,p4ocJ~of.......~, . '
,n,..,... utllitypel.o.:~lt~""."n.'; "fof"ap dt!!na[fillt".'
'AII",v1+n,,_ '~~__"'MUII...or~ICa!.l.:"
Oty_ .....at^~.,.1 to n....par cenI (ft) of ""tofiil &.Ind~
"'~.-;-LI ~.kladOf __ to 1M City. In ""alt""'l~
Cownd~i"", _11ft dhkr.tlon, r-.wlre tlw pa~ llllt of twa,~ed~
($2CIO.00) "'.'" b .-ch ocr. of 6and '0 b.lUWlvrdild;.,_....v or
~'<<lll.J....tt.iOtylnlf.ldof~rl..rila-,pttof.~.JQ!id~~! ~
_,~ aholl be bpf'lft. I ). ate Oc'" 0l'Id .naIT;,,- u;~,lf~6nj;lll
,wile...., ,lal._A and~bYllcII'9:'! "". - -1' ,-;".. .:;;~
_.' v , _ -",~.~
".,. -..,~
.-.')'.,::-
-.-,_..'o-~ ,"
.. '':'.,,;t:....''''
-....,,,,'''''';-''~' .
:co~~_ __
;'j"
'.-,.-
J
"
l
,
"
p-'
\>-~
.
L,
~'
:.J'
I
,
'"
IlJ'
""
..
"
,
,
,
tl
III
"
"
PrlortoCOf\lttuctiano'onyfQcillll_,propoledplonlondJP..@lflGOJion.~'t~"\o'j.:"
be lUtwl1in-.:J to Ihao City for pl'~Wi~J:la~y~J. .kt~.p..~Pl'lf'~~:~' < {j
flnally oec.plitd by.ri-i Clly, lMi".nu.~l.tl,l~ct~~,W...a:~
qty OJ III <<>mlrucllon and 011)' .!evl':"iOtl Of '1n1pr09..~omrrucli~
pl."..d M COIT..:led boIfor. facilltl. c:on bto ut6d or flnal approYGI (II'O-nl~_il
(Ord. No. 936 5.15-1958) -".
, ,
(G) Arterial roaa..MII b.l>pKlally deslgn<ll.d 01 wc:h ond the ...lnll....", _...r~-,:f7. '.
....,1 of IlrM" or>d 01111)" .hall be <II followt: }~
"
, '.:~
X,
"",:
, ~,\
,>",,-<,,-""":;"';"~
M_IaIStr...
f1fty-.l"f..'(56') curb to curb
a.ldtntlal Str....
IOftyl.., (4Q') (:urb to_~\!"b
Alleya
lOrd. No. 906 7-9-1957)
twefOtyf..t(20')
,;;:~
'-
.q.:
~.
~i"'~
,
"
'-i~""'._.._"'.
~
.R"",
REAL ESTATE EVALUATION - CALDEilliOOD SUB-DIVISION
The Mason & Morse advertisement on the Calderwood sub-division that ap-
peared in the ..spen Times, Dec. 28, 1962, is an example of the exp10i ta-
tion of the Tourist Zone in the Oounty.
The tract contains 3.9 acres, 14 sites, resale price ~88,146. The road
area is about 11% of the total, approximately 20,000 square feet. Re-
sale price per acre with road and utilities - $22,600. ~stimated cost
of improvements $30,000, approximately $7,692 per aore.
Developer hopes to,recover costs on water, s~wer, natural gas and electric
to a considerable extent due to contracts with various utilities.
With utility contracts and annexation to the City, developer will be free
and clear of all obligations and responsibility for service, operation,
maintenance and improvements on road and utilities.
Utilities are planned to extend through propertymr possible connection
to east in developer's property that also is zoned Tourist.
The Oounty and Oity o.m land on the borders of this sub-division. The
developer is pressing for these to be made public parks. Without open
spaces, the sub-division is too high density and crowded to be acceptable
as a sub-division.. This "gimmick" forces the County and Oity to supply
the park area that justifies the developer's cluster project. The park
area is approximately ten acres which is itself a valuable piece of real
estate.
1962 assessed valuation for sub-division is $5,570. If this tract is
annexed, the Oity tax, 18 mills, gives revenue of $100.26 per year without
buildings. The Oity furnishes road maintenance, snow removal, fire
hydrants, street lights, police patrol, and miscellaneous administrative
services.
This property was originally listed February 14, 1962. It is represented
as 50% sold within 10 months.
Comments:
This sub-division should be used as an example for the City in establishing
sub-division standards and regulations. In addition to the use of annexa-
tion policy questions, the State guide for sub-division standards and
regulations, and the annexation evaluation sheets, we should have this
project appraised by qualified realtors. Interesting background material
for analysis of this project .rill be found in T.B. 40 - "Hew' Approaches
to ResidentialIand Development". This Bulletin contains experience and
comments on some of the problems arising from this sort of cluster develop-
ment.
The writer has initiated the residential sub-division of Oounty Tourist
zoned land in the Tipple Woods sub-division project and holds an additional
undeveloped tract of over 6 acres in this zone. This interest, experience
and continued study 1encls insight to the problem of the developer's
responsibility and the public interest.
KNCB Moore 1/18/63
.
t""\
,-..,
BACKGROUND FOR ANNEXATION POLICY FOR ASPEN
- -_...- -
Annexation is not an un-mixed blessing. Expansion of an old~
fashioned government and property tax structure may create more
difficulty than we have now.
Aspen is proceeding to accept territory without clear knowledge of
the advantages and disadvantages of gro'l'ring obligations. ,.,e need a gen-
eral procedur~ to establish facts, prepare balance sheets, and guide
discussion on the overall effects of annexation on community life.
The following headings outline my organization of the problem in its
various aspects. They are rough and unfinished. The contributions of
public officials and interested citizens will add a great deal to the
balance and completion of these check-lists. Discussion will then start
from a common ground of information and contact. Decisions will be
documented and more intelligible to the courts, the public and the future.
1. General Annexation Policy Questions
2. Annexation Information Maps and Balance Sheet
3; 'SUb-DiVision Standards and Regulations - Preliminary Plat
Checlc List
4.
Real Estate Evaluation and Land Use Direction
5.
Political Realities
'to
101)1>0"'1 7.
8.
6.
Social Concepts
Utilities - Check List and Balance Sheet
State Legislative Action on Local Government Jurisdiction
and Finance
~
East Aspen Patent
KNOB Hoore
1/16/63
.t"'.,
~
. .
GENERAL QUESTIONS ON ANNEXATION,PO~ICY
1. Is it the City's polioy to encourage annexation and acoept all proper
petitions? If no, under what circumstances should City discourage
annexation?
2. Should the City require a minimum area? If yes, what minimum?
3. Should the Oity refuse an annexation because it could not furnish Oity
utilities Within a given period? Define and explain time period?
4. Should the City refuse annexation because of extremely high costs in
providing municipal services to the area?
5. Should the city encourage annexation for the purpose of providing appro-
priate development controls? Was this a factor in the Riverside Annex?
Is it a factor in the Oalderwood Annex?
6. Should the Oity have any general plan and policy indicating areas it
would like to annex within the next few years?
7. Should the Oity encourage or require persons wishing to annex to include
other properties which the owner may not want annexed?
8.
lihat
(a)
(b)
(0 )
(d)
is the best way of establishing boundary lines along Oounty roads?
on the near side
on the far side
center of road
at least one lot depth from road
9. If an owner Wishes to anneX'~;only part of his property, even though all
his property is eligible, should the Oity require he annex the entire
parcel?
10. Should the Oity require surrender of water rights controlled by the
annexing property?
11. Should the Oity require public land donation at the time of annexation?
Or should it be required at a later date?
12. Should land needed for streets and rights of way and easement be de~
dicated at the time of annexation?
13. Should the City try to determine the future need for public land and
take steps at the time of annexation to reserVe this land?
14. lfuere Oity utility lines had previously been extended beyond Oity limits,
should the Oity make a charge against the annexing property owners for
these utility lines as one condition of annexation?
15. Do you require annexing property owners to bring their streets and Oity
utilities up to Oity standards as one condition of annexation? How?
Should we allow a time period?
16. vlliere sub-standard conditions exist (sub-standard housing, inadequate
sanitation, animal nuisances, etc.) should these conditions be corrected
prior to annexation? If no, how would they be corrected after
annexation?
t""'\
~
17. Should the City charge an annexation filing fee? ',il10 pays for plats,
maps, copies of contracts, fact sheets, etc.?
18. How much time should be allowed for review of annexation petition be-
fore the City Council acts?
19. Shpuld the City establish zoning at the time of annexation? Should it
adopt the,.same County zoning'? Hhat revie,; would be needed to determine
if the County zoning should be changed?
20. Should the City require platting or sub-dividing of all undeveloped
land in the annexing area prior to annexation? Or should density
limits be substituted for platting?
21. Is metes and bounds sub-dividing allowed by the City?
22. Should the City set restrictions on the type of the development in
annexing areas where unusual topography, water conditions, etc. limit
the suitability of the area for certain types of development?
23. Should the City establish extra-territorial jurisdiction over all
l~d development i'rithinthree miles of, the City boundaries as allo"red
by Colorado Revised Statutes, 1953, Chapter 139, Article 59?
Source: "Questionnaire on Annexation Policy and Procedures" .. colorado
Municipal League
Comments: These questions should be applied to Riverside iillnex to determine
what polieies have already been established and what has been neglected.
,Then, apply the questions to Caldervrood ..nnex.
Although, East Aspen Patent area is hot a true annexation, the effect
on the City will be that of the annexation of undeveloped territory.
Precedents establiShed in the Hi verside .Annex "Till apply to EaSt ..spen.
As there is one tract of over 30 acres in East Aspen, it is vital that
sub-division standards and regulations be adopted.
It is necessary that we have standards of performance and their cost
on City services (e.g., costs per block for street paving, curbs and
gutter, maintenance, snow removal, etc.) in order to calculate costs
to City to supply services to people and areas.
It is necessary that a study be made of the assessments and revenues
in the City showing a breakdown between tourist, business and residen-
tial and old and new improvements.
Background Reading Available:
Municipal League releases on annexation, urban problems and re-
apportionment.
"Municipal Oosts and Revenues Resulting from Community Growth" - by
W. Isard and R. COUfh11~.
"The Planning Aspects of .Annexation and of Service Areas" - by
M. Kurtz, Chief Research Planner, Denver, Colorado.
.
f""\
~
ANNEXATION EVALUATIOli
INFO~1ATION NEEDED FOR EVALUATION:
r-:-
( 1.
CUy)
ENGnEER
! -/2.
~.
~. miNER ~
1 Jones 5000
2 Jones 2000
o~ir..~"'>. 3 Smith 1500
~v
1)$, c"'>.o~ 4 Brown 1800
1)1. '?$
, Public Service 2000
~1ountain States ~
Total 12.300
GRAND TOTAL $54.200
(8.
I
.~~i~
~1.>Jl>>'~., 9.
I
~
Map
lot
the
of subject area at scale at least 1 = 400.
lines, right-of-way, and other map features
proposed boundaries of the subject area,
The map must show
,dthln 200 ft. of
Map must have light contour lines at 2 ft. intervals.
Map must have l~st name of recorded owners of each tract and an
encircled tract number assigned by the development director for
control purposes. Distances of all appropriate lines should be
sho.-m .
---,
4. On separate sheet the assessed valuation for each tract by tract
number and recorded owner should be shown as follows:
IMPRVI-1TS
PERSONAL
PROPERTY;'
9000
6000
4000
3000
3400
1500
none
none
none
8000
9000
24.000
~
17.900
"Commercial Property only~
Aerial photograph at scale 1 = 200 (should be same as map, f
pOSSible). A paper print or photo of existing aerial print
satisfactory to help cut costs.
6. Door to door survey of araa for "annexation census". (Perhaps
water meter readers conduct this survey).
7. Estimate of total. population after ultimate development based on
above information. Also estimate of assessed valuation after
three years and after ten years.
Map overlay on facing paper showing abutting City zoning and ex-
isting County zoning.
Map overlay on tracing paper showing land use in subject area and
abutting area.
Map overlay on tracing paper showing pOSSible City zoning and
right-of-way layout for future development of subject area.
.
,1""'\
M
ANNEXATION EVALUATIO~2
11.
Map overlay on
sanitary sewer
f3ize and type.
shovm :
tracing paper showing existing water lines (blue),
lines (brown), and storm sewer lines (green) by
On same overlay additional information should be
a. Needed water, sanitary, and storill sewer lines
shown in dotted color lines with f3ize indicated.
b. Portion of existing water line to be "bought" from subject
area owners and amount to be paid.
c, Portion of future water line which must be installed
within three years and estimated cost of same.
d. Portion of sanitary sewer needed within three years
and proposed time schedule.
e. Indication of whether private party will pay for in-
stallation of sanitary sewer line or vn1ether district must
be formed and estimated cost in either case.
BALANOE SHEET:
After the above information has been compiled it should be pictured
in concise form on two separate balance sheets, one for a three-
year period after annexation and the other for a ten-year period after
annexation. These balance sheets should be identical in format
and be made up according to the following sample: (See attached
sheet) .
Source: Procedure for Annexation Bvaluation, Council Memo #29-60 and
'Staff, i:emo }20-60, July 18, 1960, Grand Junction, Colo., Joe
I:' Lacy, City Hanager.
!""\
1"'"\
ANNEXATION EVALUATION - 3
BALANOE SHEET -- 3-YUR PERIOl(
From
(date)
To
(date)
Development Assumption: This should be a paragraph or so indicating the
basis for assuming ultimate population, development and assessed valuation.
Any other explanatory comments should appear here also.
OOSTS
Oapital ImProvements
Buy Existing
Water Lines.~........
Water Lines..........
*Sewer taps...........
Street lights........
#Share of City Capital
Imp. over 3 years....
(10)years)
Sub-total. . . . ... . . . . . .
Annual Operation~ & Maintenance
iHfUtili ties Dept.--
Water & Sewer Plant
and Crews...............
*'kPublic i'lorks--
Streets, Engineering
and Drainage.........
Refuse Disposal......____
*i~Police. . .. . .. . .. .. . .. .. .. .. . .
i~;*F1re.. . .. " . . .. .. . .. .. .. . .. . ..
iH*Other Depts.............. '_.
Suh-total. . . .. .. . .. .. .. . . ..
TOTAL.. .. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. .
**Oompute shares of total costs by
area and by population.
##Does not reflect usual increase
after annexation.
REVENUES
Oapital Oharges
Uater taps.. '" .. . .. .. .. . .. . .. .. .. . .
Sev.Ter taps....................... .
i'Depending on the arrangement by
which sewer was or will be installed
(0eparate District, Oity District,
pri vate party).
#Revenue appears in General Taxes.
Sub-total. .. . <I . .. .. . . .. . .. ... . ..
Annual Fees & Taxes
\'Jater Bills
incl. IlSC 11. . . . .. .. . . .. . . ... . .
Sewer Charges"'...................
Refuse Oharges...........
Franchise Payments.......
Hwy. Users ]unds.........
Taxe s .............................
Misc. Fees, Fines,
Permi ts, etc......,...........
Sub-total. "'........ ..........
TOTAL. .. . . . . . . . . '" . . . . . . . . to
IIATER REVENUE:
Now:
Annexed:
##Net Loss:
in water usage of residential areas
1""'-,
~.
PRELHIINAll-Y pLAT - CHECK LI ST
Name of Subdivision
Location
Owner
Zoning District
-,"-
Address
Tel.
Surveyor or Engineer
l1'el.
Address
Date submitted for Preliminary Plat approval
CEECK ,):,I ST
copies submitted 10 days pr~or to hearing.
notification of hearing to subdivider and adjoining property
0\1l1ers.
copies sent to City (or County) Engineer and City (or Oounty
Health Officer for recommendations.
copies of private deed restrictions, if any.
Nap (drawn to scale of not less than 1" equals 200') contents:
Name and location of subdivision.
Names of adjoining owners and/or subdivisions.
Name of owner and surveyor.
Date, north point, and graphic scale.
Acreage of land to be subdivided.
Boundary lines of tract to be subdivided.
Proposed lot lines and lot numbers.
Contours at not more than 5' intervals.
Location of platted streets and easements, within and adjacent
to the tract, water courses, existing sewers, water mains, and
culverts.
Proposed street layout.
Profiles (1" equals 20') with grades indicated if required.
,.....-___--~-.--.--.---..- '-__,_, -.____'0.._.
, .
"
~
,-,
Preliminary Plat - Check List -- Page 2
Cross-section (pavement width, sidewalks).
street names.
Plans and profile of proposed sanitary sewer.
Plans and profile of proposed water system.
Building set-back lines.
Public dedications and reservations of land, if any.
Approved
to proceed to final plat. Jubject to
(date)
following modifications:
Variances Granted:
Disapproved:
for the following reasons:
(date)
. '
~JJ. '
~
,.......
,........
, ,
POLITICAL REALITIES IN ANNEXATION
Aspen is a City that is essentially a trade location at the foot of the ski
mountain. It is on the main highway and is the seat for the County government.
So, presently, we have a limited function for our City, it serves the residen-
tial trade area and the tourists. The biggest payrolls and public facilitres
are in the County.? The largest investments and the greater potentials for ex-
panding are outside the City. A new shopping center in the County could further
restrict the City to more entertainment and tourist functions.
The fact is that the highway, courthouse and residential shopping could be
moved, but not the ski mountain.
So actually the City has a limited function unless it can seize the political
and financial power to control the surrounding area.
Claims that the City is responsible for the growth of the area simply divides
the community because it is saying in effect, the City did more than the
County. City and County, urban and rural-suburban, call them what you will,
are both necessary parts of the community. It is a great mistake to say the
City government is a common agency that can satisfactorily solve community
growth problems,
There is a nationwide movement to give the cities more pOvTer. Suggested bills
on reapportionment and annexation are in the State legislature. These are
drafted to overcome rural-suburban resistance to the territorial and political
ambitions of the majority party;
Because big cities can deliver the vote in state and national elections, they
receive extra attention from the politicians. The federal government has a
deliberate, program of building poli tical, po.,er in its urban rene.'Tal programs,
its labor legislation and defense contract policies, federally supported public
housing and social welfare programs, etc. The forced growth of the cities
creates complicated problems, overwhelmtngnumbers of voters and large patronage.
Thus, city pqlitioians encourage the annexation and reapportionment legislation
to further complicate the situation and discourage reform. It is extremely
difficult to buck the machine under these circumstances.
In Aspen, we do not have such advanced complications as there are in large
cities like Denver, but we do have the drive for power and territory in the
moves toward instant annexation. Because tax revenues are not sufficient to
pay for City services in residential areas, we have the City going into the
utility monopoly business to finance expansion with profits. The City was ad-
vised by its water engineer to use the City water system as a club to force
annexation. 1ihy should we tie an archaic political structure to a water main?
Our Federal Planning grant is channeled thru the City government, although the
County actually has most of the problems and need for this program. It is
extremely unfortunate that the City-County division exists. Everything must
be done to combine these entities until they are replaced by a new system
by State legislation.
Actually, the County and rural living appeals to more people than the City
does. When we annex suburbs, we take in voters who didnft want to be in the
Ci ty in the first place. ~ ~ s.
01__ ~ ... -. -..."
r-
1"""\
Political Realities in Annexation - ~
It seems that Aspen will actually be giving away its political balance of
power thru annexation because eventually the new residential population will
out-number and out-vote the old time City residents, the merchants and the
lodge owners.
Country home Ovffiers don't have much in common with the governmental needs
of City tradesmen, hotel managers, and bartenders. Because of annexation,
we may find ourselves forced together in an unsatisfactory system. Instead
of living together in a small friendly town, we may find ourselves joined
together in a sprawl of dis-similar interests. We may find ourselves voting
our interests against one. another.
Be sure to read the outline -- State Legislative Action
KNCB Moore 1/18/63
, ~- 'oj,..
r-,
,,......,,,
,
!\;lCUL CONCEPTS' IN ANN.!L41ION
"... at this year's Design Conference, we had Mr. Robert \leaver of the HHFA.
Mr. Weaver is dedicated to the, use of the power of his agency to solve the
social welfare problems in the cities and suburbs. We are all familiar with
the?HA mortgage insurance program that led the way for huge suburban housing
sprawls. Today, Mr. \feaver says that these suburbs as a status symbol must
be destroyed. He plans to redesign cities and suburbs so that he can elim-
inate the attitudes of single race, economic and class exclusiveness."
Suggested Reading:
Restrictions for the Caldervrood Subdivision
The Death and Life of Great l~erican Cities by Jane Jacobs
The government has the
we live in as a group.
social framework.
power and responsibility to plan and organize the land
The exercise of this power has an effect on our
If the Oity of Aspen establishes a policy of accepting sub-divisions into the
Oity it tends, to encourage sub-divisions to be developed. By offering utili-
ties and services, the Oity actually is sponsoring annexation of residential
projects.
Host sub..divisions have restrictions on the use of the land and the style of
architecture. Thus, these projects attract people who voluntarily accept
these restrictions upon their private property. It is only natural that
these people are similar in taste and outlook and become somewhat segregated
from the rest of the community. For purposes of illustration it might be
said that restricted sub-divisions are the "fraternities on the community
campus ". I am sure you have read of the attempts to abolish fraternities,in
the colleges and universities of the U.S. Actually, there is an interesting
parallel between Mr. Weaver's indictment of artificial social status in sub-
divisions and the attempts to ban the SOCial injustice of fraternities from
the campus. Both schools of thought believe that governing bodies should en-
courage variety and diversity in social contacts and are against institutions
that foster class distinctions.
Originally, Aspen had less social stratification than it has now. We all
share the sentiment attributed to !VIrs. Tukey Jonas by the Sat Eve Post - "Go
to a party here, and, just as often as not, you're liable to find someone
like Thornton Wilder off in the corner, talking literature with the town
barber. That wouldn't go in the ~ast; Things are more informal here, more
fun, more Aspen. II
Will the encouragement of sub-divisions with restrictions like Caldeniood's
preserve the sort of thing Tukey is saying: that Aspen is more fun because
it is more democratic and less conformist than the East? How will these
suburbanites fit into the scheme of the unsegregated city that has many of
the characteristics and people that the restrictions do not allow or encourage
in the sub-division?
As the greatest opportunity for population growth lies outside the city, and
the real estate trend is toward large, self-contained developments - should
the city allow these social values to become the standard for the city when it
is impossible (and unadvisable) for the city to establish the same sort of
restrictions?
Increased pressures toward conformity may be a hidden cost in the annexation
of sub-divisons.
KNCl]3 I'loore
1/18/63
"
,('*\
,
,......",
UTILITIES CHECKLIST
vlATER DEP ARTMENT
A qualified engineering firm should update the water report of 1956. A
schedule comparing yearly figures should be prepared covering the following:
Gallons of water consumed shovring increase or decrease 1956-1962
Number of water taps showing increase or decrease 1956-1962
Utility plant investment per tap
Operating revenues per tap - this could show commercial and residential
revenue
Balance of net income per tap
Gallons pumped per tap
Electric povrer pump expense per 1,000 gals.
Gallons pumped
Total cost per 1,000 gals. pumped
Balance of 'net income per 1,000 gals.
These figures would analyze the present system and establish standards that
could be applied to annexation demands. The figures would also show what
our present above ground storage should be. They could be projected to
estimate the timing for new wells, or surface supplies. This forecast would
give us lead time for engineering, construction and financial planning be-
fore added supply is needed.
The areas propoSed for annexation should then be surveyed for pipeline
supply system and estimated cost. Projections should be made on the basis
of experience showing when the capital investment .vould be recovered from
water taps and sales. Oonsumption figures should be taken into account in
the forecast for added supply. Most important would be the capital needed
by the water system to keep up with normal growth and with annexations.
Riverside Artnex figures could be used as an example. Calderwood and East
Aspen would be examples for projections. In addition to the above, investi-
gations should be made into the effects of surge and air hammer on existing
piping and equipment. An analysis should be run by a water treatment firm
to determine if any treatment is advisable.
A Hunter Oreek water supply system should be surveyed. A reservoir with a
slow sand filter has been proposed. Additional water rights may be available,
!LEOTRIC DEPARTMENT
Estimate cost of condemnation of Holy Oross facilities needed to connect and
serve Riverside Annex, Oalderwood, East Aspen Patent, and all other areas in
range of annexation. Project time needed to recapture investment from sales
in these areas. Oompare and analyze city rate structure with Holy Cross.
Estimate electric department surplus available for transfer to other depart-
ments after rebuilding and condemnations. A consumer analysis comparison by
years by meter is needed on a similar basis as the above .vater schedule.
The proposed planning contract covers such utility studies involved in
planning the Aspen region to 1980.
KNB~ Moore 1/25/63
",-. ''*-''''
r-..
,
~
STA~E LEGISLATIVE AOTION ON LOOAL GOVERNMENT JURISDIOTION AND FINM~OE
From Governor Love's message to the Colorado Legislature: "The Denver-
Metropolitan area is an outstanding, but not the only, example of the growth
of the new urban prOblems of a new era. Because this tremendous urban growth
is rapidly encompassing several counties in and around venver, a responsible
and responsive state government can no longer stand aloof and expect the
citizens at the local level to meet these problems with anti~uated local
government structures and inade~uate financing. Everywhere, in the midst
of unprecedented growth and progress, we see examples of government lagging
behind in the solution of problems of increasing traffic congestion, water
and sewage treatment needs, air pollution, the overlapping of small special
districts, recreation, annexation, zoning, police and fire protection and
many others with which we are all familiar.
I commend the legislature for its recognition of this important area by
the establishment of standing committees in both houses. I should like to
s'ee the state government address itself immediately to these uni~ue and
pressing prOblems of urban areas, not to serve any particular group or county,
but to begin to help bring solutions to the citizen who lives with the
problems."
From an article by Marty llolf in ~m's Journal: "Colorado needs a con-
stitutional convention and it may finally get one. The Oolorado Oonstitution
was dra.vn up in 1876. There has never been a convention to update this vital
document. lIe are operating under a cumbersome, antiquated set of rules
which desperately re~uire revamping and modernization to meet the complex
needs of today's state government.... Problems such as reapportionment,
annexation, metropolitan and oounty governmental structure, taxation, the
old age pension plan, civil Service procedures and election laws have all
been nailed do~m to some extent by the Constitution as it now stands. Olari-
fication and modernization are needed."
From an information sheet of the Colorado Municipal League: "As Harold H.
Martin has described it in the Saturday Evening Post, 'Vlliat we are witnessing
now, and will continue to witness for several generations to come...is one
of the greatest migrations in human history, a revolution in land use which
destroys forever the old patterns of human habitation.'
If the causes of many muniCipal headaches brought on by this incredible
growth can be summed up in a single statement, it probably would be: present
governmental, political and administrative patterns are totally inade~uate
to meet the new problems. Cities splash across county lines. Suburb-sleep-
ing daytime populations of core cities greatly increase the cities' costs
without enhancing the cities' tax base. And police protection for at least
one urban area of more than 100,000 people is still provided by the county
sheriff system uhich originated in medieval England. Again to quote l;r.
Martin: 'Stubbornly cherishing the illusion that we are still a rural
nation, we are trying to impose the economic and social patterns of the
urban twentieth century on the political sub-divisions of the horse-and-
buggy days.'"
Nelson Rockefeller put it this way: "As the irresistible forces of the se-
cond half of our century collide with the immovable forms and structures of
the first half, the stresses are sometimes acute. Most metropolitan areas
today have outdistanced their governments, with the rssult that they have no
common agency or satisfactory method of dealing with area->iide problems."
KNOB Moore 1/23/63
+-'.. ~- ~
r"
t'""\
~ jiSPElT
In 1955, proceedings were initiated to clear up the title and political.
status of the East Aspen Patent area. In 1958 the Bureau of Land Management
granted the Oity a patent to the territory with the mayor as trustee.
Presently, there a~e some ,technical difficulties that prevent the city from
obtaining jurisdiction in the East Aspen Patent.
If and when the city does assume responsibility for the area and levies and
collects taxes, the city will have to provide services in the area.
Property ovmers and residents of East Aspen Patent will,be able to sell or
finance land and improvements when they secure good title. Oity "Tater, road
maintenance, fire hydrants, police protection, etc. will be needed.
With the pOSSibility that land use will be scattered and slow in developing,
the Oity is faced with a large investment in engineering, utilities, roads,
etc. without much return for a number of years.
This area has the greatest possibility for, mining abtivity, although the pre..
sent Oounty zoning is residential. The city may change the zoning in this
area so that it is more" flexible and realistic based on the historic use,
future needs of the city and the rights of the owner. Of course, resumption
of mining would bring industrial taxes and payroll to the City. It would
probably put heavy traffic on the road to the railyards and increase the
railroad fr~ig~t traffic in Aspen.
If the city can gain the cooperation of the property ovmers in this area,
there is a good opportunity to ,make an up-to-date plan for a more ,balanced
community than is presently pOSSible under zoning. This plan would talle in-
to account mining and traffic circulation, as well as parks and other nec-
essary public facilities. A school site might be feasible in this location.
We are lucky that the land in the East Aspen Patent is not developed. It
affords the Oity an opportunity to show the proper use of planning and zonin~,
There is the possibility that the area could be made more self-supporting by
an enlightened approach to land use and the needs of the local economy.
Actually, when you think of it, we are lucky that Aspen itself is not
highly developed, planning has a more free hand because of it, Some reasons
why Aspen ht3.snot g:t'own,as rapidly as other towns are its remote location,
its seasonal economy, its lack of large government projects, and the absence
of conventional financing.
~
But in time these factors will change. The Ruedi Reservoir project will
cost in the millions and take many years to complete. The highway program
in GleuvTood Oanyon and on Independence Pass road will give Aspen more traffic:"
The price of silver, because of increased industrial useage and fears of
inflation may rise to the point that ,,,spen I s mines will open again.
Planning is forecasting and timing. Planning in East Aspen will have to
take into account the place for industry in the local scene. Much of this
will be predicated on the price of silver. It is a challenge to a planner,
real estate and social values hang in the balance.
KNOB Moore
1/23/63
~
,--..
DEVELOPMEBT PROGRAM FOR "SUNNYSIDE SUBDIVISION"
'1'0 BE AN!fE.UD TO THE GlTY OF ASPEN
Lets plattad tG WHIt Aspen 01 ty zoning requirements
Yd.ll be s81d with the char unde:rstandiag that all
e.sts lilt 1nlprev.ments and utilities will 'be berne
by IN.yers except these COcsts accepted o;y the ei ty.
C<Junt;y and DiStricts as their clearrespeasib1lities
if' any.
Sellers will 8nly reugh.-grade stroll,ts to pr",vide
access te lets.
coincident wi th purchas,e er lilts buyer will sign a
petitien tel" organization ot an imprev<iJll1ent district
tor the eenstructien .r curbs and gutters and tel"
street grading !lAd paving. These improvements to be
ae pngrUlllled that the laying ot utility lines will
net cause undue damage.
SEWER- ApplicaUon will be made to the Aspen Sanitation
~str1et tv s...r service to the addi t10n under the
Distriet"s es:tabUshed policy.
WATER- Appl1eatifn .ror service dU be 11lIlde te t.p.e
Aspen Water Depart.iaent with the understanding that there
:will be tap charges and service charges adeqpate to
defNy the (lest et 11lIl1n extensiGna and ether capital
imprevements ever a reaa.nabl. length ot time.
ELECTIUUITY- :aeme construotion wll~ be in a relatively
eenoentrated ar.a presenting nlll problem te the exten-
sion et power lines.
GAS- Service willa be available according te established
pe1101 of the a.cky Mountain Natural Gas ell..
{\
r'\
Riverside Property Owner
Page 2
March 26, 1962
'the COurity miii leVy is ~resellt1y56 mills and tbe citY.m1ll levy is 74.
Therefore. after atmeXation there would be an increase in taxes of 18
mills or approximately 32% over what you now pay. These increased taxes
would be somewhat offset by lower fire insurance rates and the avail-
abiUty of city water at city rates rather than the 30% higher water
rates the city %lOW charges for outside users. There is also an indica-
tion that the increased cost for outside users of city water will
eventually be twice as much as city :rates.
The county does %lOt have as meny legal means for law enforcement as the
city. Many of the Riverside property owners caD. well appreciate this
fact. especially when they realize that some of the houses would have
~eeno~l!\I1ch better,construc:\tion if the building code had been enforced
as it shOuld have been. '
If it 'wer~ a part of the city. Riverside would be regularly patrolled
by the ,Po11ce. ,Should afire break out. especially at night. it would
be much lIlOre U1<<Ily to be detected intillie to save property and perhaps
lives. , Fires which break out in vacant housesqftengo unobserved
wtil it: is too iate, and this protection should be of particular
interest to absentee ownets.
W:f.th tegar4 toeiectriotty. the REA would eonti'l1\1~ its sefflee as in
the past. The city might eventually purClUl/le this as well as other
Unes now in the city which are owned by REA. A study of existing
rates is being made by the city and they plan to offer a special rate
to volume users comparable to that %lOW offered by REA to those who
have electric heat.
Many property owners have had considerable problems with water service
this past winter and especially those who are on the water system
installed and maintained by Mr. Cantrup. This entire system is ser-
viced by plastic pipe and in the event of freezing it is virtually
impossible to thaw this Une by electrical means. Although Mr.
Cantrup has water rights to the Aspen Ditch. he is %lOt using this as
a source of supply but rather is taking water out of a ditch which is
used for runoff from ponds above the old railroad right-of-way. The
purity of this water is q~stionable since adjacent to the ponds is
a horse pasture. To complicate the problem even 1DOre. although Mr.
Cantrup is under contract to 12 water users on his system. because
of the trouble it has caused in the past. he plans to discontinue
this water service as soon as the ground thaws. These people will
then have to tap onto the city water Une which was installed last
s_r 01." try to maintain the present system themselves. The cost
of tapping the new line. as you all know, is $500.00, and in addition
your rates would be 30% higher than those in the city. as previously
mentioned.
r.
I; ,
r\
--
Riverside Property OWner
Page 3
March 26, 1962
Absentee owti.ts ~ho rent their houses through realtors in town can
hardly be justified in rentiug a house with an uudepeudable, "ateI'
system, and esp.eially if the water at times is cousidered impure
and not safe fordriuking. It is also felt that should this water
system be taken out of Cal1trup's hands and maiutained by the owners
it servell, the costs and headaches involved in revamp1.aa the. system
would far exceed the cost of a city system through aunexation.
'~
It should be" obvious that a city system of pure, safe and healthful
water maintained by the city would be far more depeudable than
aI10ther system maintained by a small group; no one person or group
would be solely responsible.
Whether this area is annexed or not. thosewis~ingto tap on ,to the
dty water maiu mu.t install service liues" in afcording With city
specificatioiiS~ This is for thair own prot\!lcl!i,ou, as a liue properly
laid at the dapthllf the city ma~h and carr.:I.ed ,ll.t that depth to the
llouse bas little chance of freezing. During the past winter Ouly
oue of the many frozen service lines in this area was in the dty.
B.iverside bas toO often beeu tetDleCl "P1,.ASTlCiInJ.B" and a ''MODEaN
SLuM". Bec0miu8. part of the dty as well as bltving the advantage
of 1IIllI11 of the above;;'mentionecl improvements would certainly help
blot out these very undesirable desedp.tions. We all want to take
pride in what we own and the area in which we live. If annexatiou
will help iu maintaining this pride, then it deserves the right of
C1veryone's cousideration and action.
"-wliit
In the uear future, after you have bad s.ome time to think. discuss
and c:onsider. you will be approached personally or through the mail
Wi1:h a petition asking for your siguature in favor of 8IlDexation.
Many of the residenta have already pledged their support and we
eertainly would like to eoUl1l: on yours as well.
\..,
In 1:he meantime should you be for or against annexation and should
there be any questio11S 1:ha1: in your opinion ueed answering, I would
cer1:ainly appreciate bearing from you.
Respectfully submitted.
Theodore 1.. ~larz
Box 166 .. Aspen. Colorado