Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19800527 ~eguiar meetlng Aspen Clty Councll May 27, 1980 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor.Edel called the joint meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt, Michael, Parry and Van Ness present. County Coramlssioners Kinsley, Child and newly appointed County Manager Cur~ Stewart also present. Also attending were City Manager Chapman and City Attorney Stock. 1. Report on Planning Office Work Program. Planning Director Karen Smith presented the study evaluation of the planning office work program that she, City Manager Chapman and George Ochs had conducted. She gave a synopsis of the study as follows: some pro3ects Planning offic~ have dropped off (i.e. the Goals Task Force) until a later date; it was found that 3/4 report of the Planning office hours are spent on administrative matters (administrating codes, serving on boards and commissions). Both Ms. Smith and Commissioner Child realize that it is difficult to break from the administrative duties to long range planning functions which Ms. Smith feels is the most important function of the planning office. Ms. Smith felt that her task is to determine how to manage and organize better with the present staff level and to minimize the administrative duties. The other alternative would be to increase the staff to deal with all the present functions. She said that she could foresee using "technicians" to handle case loads and mundane sorts of things. Presently the P.O. has an administrative assistant position which now serves ~o fill this function. Ms. Smith added that perhaps the P.O. should be divided into an operational division and long-range planning division. Mayor Edel asked if there were a source that people could refer to without disturbing the P.O. Ms. Smith said that presently there was a case book that the secretary kept avail- able to the public. Commissioner Childs suggested that the City and County should set their priorities on all of the projects and decide which ones they could postpone or cancel. Councilwoman Michael suggested reviewing the P.O. programs every slx month or so to examine priorities. Mayor Edel asked if there would be the same problem of cases piling up at the end of the year. Ms. Smith said the P.O. would try to advertise their availability prior to the year's end so that this did not happen. Councilwoman Michael asked what some of the strqctural changes might be. Ms. Smith stated that there could be functional subdivision~ (i.e. transportation, housing, etc.) or that there be short range operational divisions with day-to-day public ~nquir~es versus long-range planning. Councilwoman Michael asked the percentage of time the P.O. spends on the administration of land use. Ms. Smith said that 72 per cent of their time is on administration. Councilwoman Michael asked how much time is spent on long-range planning. Ms. Smith said that at best 25 per cent; she said that she was not satisfied with this ratio. Commissione~ Child asked how much time the P.O. spends on City/County boards? can the County help to cut the time? Ms. Smith did not have statistics on this but was looking at weaning the P.O. from some of the boards and commissions that really did not need their participation. Ms. Smith said that even consolidating P.O. items on the agenda would expedite some of their time and efficiency methods. Councilman Behrendt expressed appreciation for work done by the P.O. and Ms. Smith 2. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management - Glenwood Spr~n~s Resource Area The BLM wanted an input of what the public land management should taken an the next 10 to 15 years, what should be done? Mayor Edel said they had received the letter from the BLM recently and asked County Commissioners if they had received the same letter and were taking any action on it. Commissioner Kinsley said they were; in particular Mark Fuller was. Councilman Behrendt said that he had met with Lou Bue,ttner, engineering department, and they reveiwed some areas surrounding Aspen discovering that certain parcels of land might be available to the County and City that would be useable for trails, water tank sites, building sites. It might be as a joint program between City and Councty. Mayor Edel referred the letter to Manager Chapman. 3. Crested Butte Bill. Commissioner Kinsley asked about the $80.00 bill from Crested Butte. Mayor Edel asked if anything had been resolved. Manager Chapman said h~ thought it would be nice if the County matched the contribution. Commissioner Kinsley said that the decision would then be that the City Council defer the whole bill contingent upon the County giving the Council one-half of it. Mayor Edel suggested that the City and County Managers get together and resolve the budget item. 4. Forest Service - Ashcroft Property. Mayor Edel stated that he had met with Tom Evans who said that there is an opportunity for the Forest Service to buy the Ashcroft property from Ted Ryan. President Carter has held all the lands and water conservation Forest Servic~ funds through the deferral process and the Forest Service is not allowed to spend it. Ryanproperty With the land, the Forest Service could put it into public use instead of private use. Mayor Edel said that he has contacted Senator Gary Hart about the situation and for Hart to back the Forest Service acquiring the land. However, William Armstrong needs to be contacted for his support. Commissioner Kinsley suggested that a resolution be drawn up by a joint effort of the Cit and the County. Councilmember Michael moved that the City/County Managers draw up a resolution urging the federal government to finalize the financial arrangement with Ashcroft~and the Forest Service; Commissioner Kinsley seconded the motion. All in favor, motion carried. 5. Ruedi Reservoir. Mayor Edel requested Commissioner Child to report on the Ruedi Reservoir status. Commissioner Child said that he, Tom Isaac and Alan Schwartz had met Ruedi Reservoir with the new head of the Department of Natural Resources, Monty Pascow, who made no sale of water commitment. He said that they went to the Colorado Water Conservation Board and talked to the person involved in the Ruedi reservoir studies. Commissioner Child said that the results of the studies should be ready in late summer or early fall. Mayor Edel asked if anything would be done before that. Commissioner Child said that they'll be working o it all summer, but that there would be no guarantees that there would be no action taken. However, after Child had spoken with Congressional aides a few weeks prior to this meeting with the Water Conservation Board, they had assured him that the sales process was a lengthy one and that nothing would be happening for quite some time. 6. Hunter Creek Memo. Councilmember Behrendt received a letter from Musick, et. al. about the Hunter Creek area and Andre Ulrych. Councilmember Behrendt asked how it relate! ~ater rights to City Council and the Commissioners. Commissioner Child said that the memo stated that ~unter creek the State had appropriated $250,000 to buy water rights to increase the water flow at the confluence of Hunter Creek and the Roaring Fork. City Attorney Ron Stock said that Ulrych was going to come before City Council to ask whether they would be willing to negotiate in order to purchase his water rights and leas~ these rights back to him with a termination provision and an agreement that if they recei~Fe the right to build on that property from the County under the normal process, that the City will provide them with "x" number of water taps - about $60,000 for CFS. In other words, he will have the right to taps on if he receives a building permit in the next 20 years. COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Councilmember Michael moved to to approve the minutes of April 28; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION There was no citizen participation. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilman Behrendt requested rescheduling the FAR meeting with Manager Chapman, the date to be determined by the Manager. 2. Councilman Behrendt requested that the Street department look at the southwest area of the community (roughly between Main street and the mountain) to sweep the gutters and curbs. 3. Councilman Behrendt moved that the Institute SPA approval be rescheduted to the first Aspen Institute part of the meeting; seconded by Councilmember Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 1980 - Aspen Institute SPA Approval Councilman Van Ness moved to table Ordinance #21, Series of 1980, until all Councilmember Ord. 21, 1980 were present to vote on it; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carrl, d. SPA approval Aspen Institute LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER OF LOCATION - Firehouse Tavern Councilman Van Ness moved to table the Firehouse Tavern transfer; seconded by Councilwomal Michael. All in favor, motion carried. LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER - Galena Street Corporation Ronnie Morrison was present on behalf of the Galena Street Corporation. Mayor Edel asked Liquor License Morrison if it were a stock transfer; Morrison said yes. Mayor Edel asked the city clerk transfer if there were any encumberances on the transfer application. Deputy City Clerk Susan GaleD~ Street Johnson said she had received none and then enumerated the documents that had been Corp. required and received. City Attorney Stock said he had no problems after reviewing the documentation, and that everything was in order. Councilman Behrendt made the motion to approve the transfer of stock for Galena Street Corporation. Seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. EFFICIENCY REPORT Councilwoman Michael asked Manager Chapman about the efficiency reports concerning the City Councilmembers and when they would be available. Manager Chapman said that he had sent for organization methods for evaluation and was waiting for a reply. DOWNTOWN SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPING PLAN Downtown Planning Director Karen Smith gave a presentation for the extension of the downtown plan. Sidewalk and landscaping Ms. Smith said this is necessary because a sidewalk plan has been referenced in the side- plan walk code for the last five years and there has never been a plan. Ms. Smith presented an outline proposal from Gage Davis & Associates from Boulder for a downtown plan. Ms. Smith stated it parallels the concerns and interests that several sta f members asked be accomplished under the proposal. Gag Davis & Associates worked with City Engineer Dan McArthur and Ms. Smith to draft the proposal. ~=~uz~z l.~eumn~ Aspen clty ~ounczl May 27, 1980 Ms. Smith said the reason it was brought before City Council was: 1) to receive permis- sion to hire the firm (Gage Davis & Associates) and 2) whether it accomplishes all the work the City Council would like to see done within the proposal. The proposal was in two phases: 1) focusing on the landscaping and sidewalk pland and 2) the additional work regarding parking configuration and parking improvements to downtown area, although there are no funds available for the second phase at this time. Ms. Smith requested that Gage Davis & Assoicates be hired because they are the ones who produced the downtown plan and have done most of the ground work leading to the project. By hiring the firm, no backtracking would have to occur. Mayor Edel asked why there would have to be any backtracking? Why not hire a local firm to accomplish the plan and carry it out. Ms. Smith replied that Pitkin County Parks Association recently appropriated $500 for the downtown project and they wanted local expertise used. Ms. Smith suggested this to Gage Davis. Ms. Smith said again that the fimr has the capability to cover all the facets of the project with their knowledge of landscaping, engineering, and design knowledge. Councilwoman Michael asked how this plan differed from last year's downtown beautifica- tion plan. Was it going to cost $1,000,000 in the long run? Should it be phased? Ms. Smith replied that the plan was to fill the gaps in the Municipal Code; that people in the commercial core are required to do sidewalk improvements according to the down~ town sidewalk plan, but there is no plan at present. Councilman Behrendt asked about neckdowns at the intersections, why were only about half the curbs this way, the others left unfinished. City Engineer Dan McArthur said that they were not good for snow removal and that they probably would not be used. Council- woman Michael asked if the PCPA conditioned their donation upon using local people. Ms. Smith said they did not. Mayor Edel asked if any local firms were investigated for the work. Ms. Smith replied that they did not but that they had in mind some local people who could participate in certain areas and have suggested to Gage Davis that they might use these people. Mayor Edel commented that he felt any money that could be spent to help local people should be looked into; therefore, before approving Gage Davis, he wanted Ms. Smith to investigate and suggest local fimrs that might be able to do the work. Councilman Van Ness asked how much money was planned for the project. Ms. Smith said that City Council had appropriated $5,600. Councilman Van Ness said that it would seem easier if the Planning Office would recommend something directly to City Council and that a vote be taken on it rather than spend $5,600 to investigate possibilities. Councilwoman Michael asked Manager Chapman's opinion. Chapman said it was his experience that there was a better return for the money if you worked with the same people that you started with. That way, somebody new doesn't have to learn what was already done. It eases administration time, too. Councilman Behrendt made the motion to table the discussion pending a report from the Planning Office and Manager ~hapman; Councilman Parry seconded the motion. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Van Ness. Motion carried. CONCEPT 600 SUBDIVISION EXEMPTION Subdivision Assistant Planner Sunny Vann presented the Concept 600 subdivision exemption case. In Exemption particular, it is the ground floor of the Concept 600 Building, located in the C-1 Concept 600 Commercial District. The Engineering Department recommends approval with no conditions. (cc~xuercial) The City Attorney had no comments; the Housing Director was not applicable; and the Planning Office recommends approval subject to the applicant's filing a condominium plat and the P & Z concurred with the Planning Office's recommendation. Councilman Parry moved to approve the Concept 600 Subdivislon Exemption; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Discussion followed concerning access to the location by ramps. The Engineering Department recommended that the applicant could provide better access to the lower area. The applicant had replied that since they did not own all the facilit' , they were not in a position to fulfill this request. There exists a street level access at the southeast corner of the building, near Freddie's Main Street Cafe. All Councilmembers in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #5, SERIES OF 1980 - Emergency Alarm System Ord. 5, 1980 City Attorney Ron Stock explained why two Ordinance ~5's were included in the packet - ~nergencyAl~ one was the former adopted one, and the amended one. Stock said also that George Bauer syst~s of PSI intended to appear for this meeting; therefore, the Attorney asked to delay the ordinance until he was there. Councilman Behrendt made the motion to delay Ordinance ~5 until later at the meeting; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #19, SERIES OF 1980 General Obligation Bonds Ord. 19, 1980 Mayor Edel opened the public hearing. G.O. Bonds for ~mployee Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance ~19, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman housing Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~19 (Series of 1980) ~N ORDINANCE TO CONTRACT AN INDEBTEDNESS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO .AND UPON THE CREDIT THEREOF, BY ISSUING THE GENERAL OBLIGATION Regular Meeting aspen BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCT- ING PUBLIC HOUSING FACILITIES: PRESCRIBING THE FORMS OF THE BONDS; PROVIDING FOR THE LEVY OF TAXES TO PAY THE SAME; PROVIDING OTHER DETAILS CONCERNING THE BONDS; RATIFYING ALL ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was read by the deputy city clerk Councilman Van Ness asked if City Council's limit on the vote was 8-1/2 percent. Mayor Edel said that they were under that percentage at 7.94 per cent. Councilman Van Ness made the motion to adopt Ordinance ~19, Series of 1980; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmentbers Collins, aye; Van Ness aye; Behrendt aye; Parry, aye; Michael, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. CITY MANAGER 1. Fair Labor Standards Act. Manager Chapman gave the history of the Act and how it migl affect City of Aspen employees. Chapman said that in 1976-77 the Supreme Court decided that FLSA did not apply to state and municipalities. The Department of Labor decided that the above ruling applied only to traditional areas of service and has since promul- gated rules which said FLSA did, in fact, apply to municipalities that were not tradition. 1 of municipalities' services. Included in that area, affecting the City of Aspen, were local mass transit systems and generation and distribution of electric power. (i.e. it would apply to City bus drivers and electric department employees.) Mayor Edel asked the Manager exactly what all of that meant. Chapman said the implicatic s would be fairly significant in that overtime hours would have to be paid for all hours over 40. There would be no opportunity for deviation from this. And, it must be paid during the pay period it is earned. Manager Chapman said that the National League of Cities took the issue to court in 1976- 77 and it was determined at that time that it would not apply to municipalities. The National Institute of Municipal Law are challenging the ruling of the Department of Labor that the Supreme Court ruling did not apply to the non-tradiontal areas of employ- ment and are looking for interest in the participation of this lawsuit with class action. They are first looking for injunctive relief; if the municipality were not a participant in the lawsuit, ~hen the injunctive releif would not apply. Manager Chapman said that so far there was no problem because the City has been giving time off or building up vacation hours for overtime hours. If it became law, then the City would have to pay the overtime. Transportation Direcotr Duance Fengel supported evidence that his employees (bus drivers) were satisfied with being given time off, but they they wanted to be paid the overtime hours, they were paid. Councilman Behrendt made the motion to allocate $250.00 from City Council advocacy funds to participate in the National Institute of Municipal Law lawsuit; seconded by Councilma~ Parry. All in favor, with the exception of Councilman Van Ness. Motion carried. CITY ATTORNEY City Attorney Stock introduced Cheryl Peterson; she will be a CETA intern for him for the summer. He said that she will start in the collection process for the City of which ther are approximately $15,000 in debts to collect, mainly water and electric services. Other areas she may cover are compiling a booklet of rights for defendents in the Municipal Court, and perhaps the training of police officers in enforcing and understanding the City statutes. Opal Marolt Marolt Annexation Agreement. In reviewing the annexation agreement minutes of the Annexation January meeting, City Attorney Stock wants to modify some items in the agreement, and asked Council to substitute the amended agreement for the one approved on Janaury 28, 198 According to Attorney Stock the basic changes involved changing the sytle and the description of the property. The property described in the first agreement was not even in the city limits. The amended agreement would mean that the Marolt's would follow Ordinance ~4, Series of 1980. The prior agreement seemed to create a separate law for Marolts. In paragraph 3 of the amended agreement, Attorney Stock said they could apply for housing overlay under Ordinance ~16, Series of 1980, and not pre-decide that City ~ Council would grant that. In paragraph 5, it was amended that the Marolts can only obtain approval of financing through revenue bonds; the City would have no responsibility of payment at any time whatsoever. Finally, it would be required that all partners sign instead of just one. Councilman Behrendt asked Planner Karen Smith to comments. Ms. Smith said the planning office recommended writing in paragraph 2 of the agreement that 125 units be constructed but the Council does not have to approve 125 units. Councilwoman Michael asked if the Council could substitute this agreement, or if it would have to go through all the processes again. Stock said the agreement was reviewed only by Council and would not hay to go through any more processes. Stock asked Council to approve the alternative to the document approved on January 28, 1980. Councilwoman Michael moved to substitute the agreement presented at this meeting between the City of Aspen and the Marolt Association for the agreement of the City Council with Marolt on the meeting of January 28, 1980; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Mayor Edel asked if, in paragraph 5, the form of financing prevented them from obtaining private financing. Attorney Stock replied that that would also be okay. They may - not shall - organize financing under the industrial revenue bonds and the City will be will- ing to issue industrial revenue bonds, but not to issue general obligation bonds or revenues bonds of the City of Aspen. The City has adopted a $3-5 million inducement resolution for industrial revenue bonds requested by the applicant, and that action was taken by City Council about two months ago. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 2'/, 19~u ~ Councilmembers Michael, Parry and Mayor Edel in favor; Councilmembers Collins and Behrendt opposed. Motion carried. ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 1980 - 70/30 Split Ord. 20, 1980 Attorney Stock said that if the Council approved this ordinance, they would be authorizing ~ ~ployee hous~ it to go to P & Z for public hearing and to return it to Council for final adoption. to resolve Basically, the wording in Ordinance #20 strikes certain language from Ordinance 94, Series conflicting of 1980. Language striken in Ordinance $3 is; " for the purpose of this section, ordJ_nances 70 per cent of the total development shal mean 70 per cent of the total number of bedrooms within the project." REvised in Ordinance #20 to read that it would be divided on unit basis - same as housing overlay, but that the housinq project maintain an average of two bedrooms/unit within the deed restricted portion of the project. Mayor Edel directed the Council's attention to a letter received from Rick Ferrell. He asked Ferrell to com~aent on the letter. Ferrell said that at present, the ordinance was missing economic input. Ferrell said that there were three constraints needed to the ordinance before it could work: 1) the number of units so that there would be some ratio of more than 70 per cent employee units; 2) bedrooms - without bedrooms mentioned, there i~ a motivation to create too big or too small units. Should have some phrase indicating the number of employee bedrooms/units; 3) FAR - the floor area of employee units to free market units. Ferrell feels that the planning office and P & Z should refine it more and take square footage into consideration to get it in a workable form. Attorney Stock said the purpose for this ordinance is to initiate the process of amending the code and to take these comments to P & Z. Councilman Parry made the motion to refer the oridnance back to P & Z for more discussion and amending Ordinance ~4; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #22, SERIES OF 1980 Redefining Bedrooms Unlimited Ord. 22, 1980 Redefining Attorney Stock said that this ordinance was also before City Council for initiation and bedrocks referral process. Its purpose was to amend Section 24-3.4 of the Aspen Municipal Code by unlimited redefining bedrooms unlimited. Attorney Stock said that within the Housing Overlay ordinance, it states bedrooms meaning anything with more than three bedrooms or more than 2 baths. It is an anomality and has been changed in the housing overlay, and Ordinance 922 would change it in the Municipal Code. He said that he is asking only that Council look at it and draft a motion to refer it for P & Z's consideration. Councilman Parry moved to refer Ordinance #22 to P & Z for consideration; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. ~ RESOLUTION #13, SERIES OF 1980 - Aspen Employee Housing #1 Subdivision P~so. 13, 198¢ Attorney Stock stated that he and Dawson & Nagel had drawn up this resolution which Aspen E~ployee deals with the employee housing on Cemetery Lane. Stock said that the resolution finds Housing #1 certain facts, then makes finding by Council that the property is not currently in use property for public purpose and states the property may be sold, exchanged or disposed of without not inuse a vote of the electors. Attorney Stock asked Council to adopt Resolution ~13 and to for public authorize Dawson/Nagel and himself to prepare documents for the sale of one duplex to use. Ann Freers and Wayne Chapman. The target date is June 9 for the first reading and the second reading on June 23. Mayor Edel asked if there were any restrictions. Attorney Stock replied that they will be in the deed including both price and future availability as housing for memebers of the municipal staff. The actual sale will be by ordinance with a specific deed attached to it; the deed will be very detailed in its restrictions. Councilwoman Michael said that wording was sufficient. Mayor Edel said that the municipal staff didnot include the superintende of schools (Ann Freers). Councilwoman Michael asked if there should not be some sort of formal request by the school about housing. Mayor Edel said that he and Councilman Behrendt were going before the Board of Education the following week advising them of the $150,000 gift to the school and asking for some monetary involvement and commitment to further housing in general, to have the Board come back with an equivalent work program in the form of housing. Attorney Stock then recommended adding language to Section 2 of the resolution stating, " . or if the staff of the Aspen School District " Councilwoman Michael said that that was open-ended and that superintendent should be added. Mayor Edel asked what the urgency was. Stock said that the resolution must be adopted before the ordinance was. However, it could be delayed and the resolution could be adopted just prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Councilwoman Michael wants there to be official communication with the school board or their attorneys as to what is being done. Councilman Behrendt requested the attorney to prepare something for Monday night's meeting. Stock said he would be out of town and not be able to prepare anything prior to his departure. Dawson/Nagel were preparing the deed at present. Dawson/Nagel are acting as the attorney for the City of Aspen and being paid by the four parties who are planning to buy the units - two lots with two duplexes. At this time, there is a proposal from Wayne Chapman and Ann Freers to buy one lot. Mayor Edel asked who the other parties were. Manager Chapman reminded the Mayor that he had prepared a memo some time ago listing interested parties. In this instance, the two other parties are Ron Stock and Dan McArthur. Mayor Edel wants the Attorney and Manager to come back to Council with an ordinance that states what the deed restrictions are, what is going to be done, how it will be sold, etc. Councilman Behrendt said he did not feel capable of knowing what kind of statement to prepare to present to the Board of Education. Manager Chapman clarified one issue to Council and that by including the superintendent of schools or school board at this time, that the City is not necessarily making this as a gift forever, and that it is a critical part in the resale agreement. Whomever the resale agreement is with is the choice of the Council. Council can dictate what the form must be, but require the school board to be the party with the first option, or reserve it for themselves (Council). Chapman suggested that Council does have the first option and that the school board have the section option. Councilwoman Michael moved to approve Resolution #13 with the following amendment on page 3, line 3, ~I'-- municipal staff and superintendent of Aspen School District, RE-i." Councilman'Parry seconded the motion. Councilman Van Ness remarked that they were taking the taxpayer's money from the City of Aspen and saying that it could be used to house someone from a different tax district. Councilman Van Ness was not objecting to helping the superintendent. He objected to using City mone to do it and that only City employees should be housed. Councilman Van Ness ask. why not consider housing hospital employees. Councilwoman Michael said that because the housing idea came up at the same time as the superintendent changed and that there was a critical housing need. In the future, the superintendent could leave and a City employee could be housed or perhaps a hospital administrator. The ordinance would set out these guidelines. Vote taken: ~.three memebers were in favor - Michael, Behrendt, Parry; three members agains;; Collins, Van Ness and Mayor Edel. Motion NOT carried. Manager Chapman requested instructions from Council as to what they want. Mayor Edel said that the instruction is to come forth with the ordinance. Councilman Van Ness made the motion to approve the Resolution as written; Councilman Parry seconded by motion; he then said that the problem was that the resolution would not includ the superintendent of schools. Councilman Behrendt suggested that the ordinance be written out, setting everything down. He asked the Manager if he had made any commitments depending upon the resolution. Chapman said no but that it was costing the City more to share the cost of him staying in his present housing as opposed to moving into permanent housing and him paying for it all. Mayor Edel said nothing was being delayed because the ordinance was not available. Attorney St~ck said that both the resolution, perhaps modified, and the ordinance stating the actual sale of the proeprty setting down the terms of the sale, the rights to repur- chase, the right of first refusal, etc., could be presented at the next meeting. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Collins, nay; Van Ness, aye; Behrendt, nay; Michael, nay; Parry, nay; Mayor Edel, nay. Motion NOT carried five to one. Mayor Chapman requested a signal check of what the exact feeling was of City Council; specifically, about the superintendent of schoOls being included. Roll call check; Van Ness, yes; Behrendt, yes; Parry, yes; Michael, yes; Collins, yes; Mayor Edel, yes. SUMMI~STREET EXTENSION Attorney Ashley Anderson was not present to explain the problem; therefore, Attorney Stock added his comments. Stock explained that during the winter a fire alarm was turned in Sur~r~t street by the Mountain Queen condominiumis but the fire trucks could not get past a bus that extension was jack-knifed in the middle of the street. There was no way to reach any of the condos above the Swiss Chalet. At that time, the City began looking for alternative routes for dead end streets. The best solution for this location was between Monarch and Mill with the street running at the top of that road creating a secondary access. Property owned by Hans Cantrup who has the right-of-way to the Mountain Queen and he wants a quid-pro-qu¢ from the City for use of that right-of-way. Attorney Stock said that he was asking only for negotiation instructions from the Council. Cantrup is willing to give the property free and clear if the land underneath it may be considered for his density calculations. It means the difference between a single family and a duplex. Plus, Cantrup is asking that 1.7 feet of Lot 21 be deemed and included with Lot 22. Actually asking for subdivision approval to move a boundary line. If Council says yes, then this will go back with subdivision approval to P & Z and be brought back to Council with the dedication of the road at the same time. Councilman Behrendt asked if the road were really necessary; it would be difficult to maintain. Attorney Stock said that basically there was a utility need~ however, the City does not have the money to build the road. Bil Dunaway from the Aspen Times said that when the Mountain Queen was approved, it was conditioned upon the road being there. Dunaway said that he remembered it being Mountain Queen's responsibility, but there had been no follow-up and it was never done. Attorney Stock said that Mountain Queen's approval process stated they were to acquire the propert5 not to construct the street. The documentation was not recorded at the time of their condominiumization and the new owners have refused to take any efforts to acquire. Stock said that the City may be able to make them pay for the acquisition but have been told by their attorneys that the City may have to sue them in order to recover the property. Mayor Edel requested that Council obtain the exact working of what had transpired. Stock said that the prewLous owner and developer agreed to acquire the land; but the new~'~ property owners have since had a lawsuit wit~ the dveloper and they don't recognize any agreement which isn't in writing and recorded. Attorney Stock said he will bring the issue back with an entire list of the property and give Council the option to go back to the Mountain Queen people in an action in paying for the property. Stock said that the City also has the option of taking the property for eminent domain. He said that whatever happena, the City will be paying for it. Councilman Collins asked why this oversight had happened. Planner Karen Smith commented that it is a problem in communicating approvals between the approval phase and the build- ing inspector. Planning has tried to deal with it; Sunny Vann has prepared a checklist requireing a sign-off by the City Attorney, City Engineer, planning staff before the building inspector issues a building permit. CODE AMENDMENTS REQUES.TED BY COUNCIL Planner Karen Smith said that this was regarding employee units and non-conforming lodges Code Amendments to go along with the lodge preservation clause. Ms. Smith recommended that Council initiate to P & Z commission a proposal that would consider up to two employee units in non-conforming lodges in the same manner caretaker units are considered (i.e. by the conditional use process). Ms. Smith stated that this would be one hearing befOre P & Z commission with the review criteria being the surrounding land uses and compatability with the neighborhood. The limitation would be 600 square feet of additional space. Units must be attached unless a pre-existing unattached structure could be converted to employee housing. Counciiman Behrendt asked if P & Z would consider basements for employee housing and the additional parking load. Ms. Smith said she was tired of employees being pushed ,out-of-sight" and "out-of-mind". Councilman Parry moved to ask P & Z to consider this topic; seconded by Councilwoman Michael. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~5, SERIES OF 1980 - Emergency Alarm System Ord. 5, 1980 Councilman Van Ness moved to table this discussion; seconded by Councilman Parry. Alarm Councilman Behrendt said that it was in Council's interest to handle it at this time; Syst~u he requested Attorney Stock's opinion. Attorney Stock said that it was in Council's interest to handle it as soon as possible becuase it creates an effect of monitoring the City which creates incentives for people to repair their alarm~systems and to avoid false alarms; at present, the system is ineffective. Councilman Behrendt moved that Ordinance ~5, Series of 1980, be read; seconded by Council- man Van Ness. Attorney Stock clarified why there were two Ordinance #5's in the packet. One document was unsigned the "City Manager's Proposal" written on it. The other document was passed on first reading on March 24 indicated on page 3 of that document. Asking to substitute City Manager' proposal for that first signed document. Mayor Edel opened the public hearing for second reading with changes. Manager Chapman itemized the changes in the document. Chapman stated the basic difference was under the false alarm fee, " in accordance with procedures established by the City Manager." Chapman said that this procedure change would charge the business that actually installed the alarm rather than the owner of the premise. Chapman said the reason' for this kind of action is that the City of Aspen and PSI cannot agree on an arrangement in terms of collecting the false alarm fee or terminating the service. Chapman ~said that PSI's position was that upon installation of equipment, they entered into a contract to provide those services and they could not terminate services if the false alarm fee was not paid to the City. However, the City does not have any power to collect this fee. He said that the false alarm fee is intended to be a deterrent. He suggested that most false alarms are caused by owners using the alarms in the wrong way. Mayor Edel requested information as to how many false alarms were received and how costly it was. Manager Chapman said that the police were responding to about 40 a month; each time, two police respond to the call tying up their services for at least a half hour. Chapman said that PSI reports to the~ity that they screen out about 80 per cent of the calls, and therefore, the City is having to respond to only about 20 per cent, of which nearly 40 is false. Chapman said that he would be satisfied charing the premise if he could get PSI to agree that if the owners refused to pay the false alarm fee, that the service would be terminated. But PSI is not willing to do this because they are in con- tractual obligation. He continued stating that the situation is not really changing only the dollar amount being collected through this amended ordinance. Councilman Parry asked if the City could refuse to give PSI their business license if they did not agree to the terms of the ordinance. Manager Chapman said that this was definitely possible. Councilwoman Michael said that this was going to make it PSI's rebponsibility to keep the various alarms working correctly. Chapman said it would do more than that by being an incentive to reduce the number of false alarms. Mayor Edet closed the public hearing. Councilman Behrendt made the motion to read Ordinance #5, Series of 1980, as amended; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #5 (Series of 1980) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, BY REPEALING AND REENACTING CHAPTER 8-1/2 THERTO ENTITLED "EMERGENCY ALARM SYSTEMS: AND REQUIRING A PERMIT TO INSTALL, OPERATE OR MAINTAIN THE SAME; REQUIRING THE LICENSING OF THOSE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING PROTECTIVE SERVICES; AND, ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR FALSE ALARMS TO WHICH THE POLICE RESPOND was read by the deputy city clerk 2894 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 27, 1980 Councilman Parry asked why PSI's business license was $200 instead of $25 like every other business license. Attorney Stock said it was issued under unique circumstances. Council- man Collins said that there were many oonditions that resulted in these fees. Mayor Edel asked if the premise of the $200 was based upon some extraordinary service that was provided by the City. Attorney Stock said that was correct, that service no longer exists so the rationale for charging them a differenct fee is only historical. Aspen Times editor Bil Dunaway, commented that PSI is linked by direct lines to the Aspen Police department; and they are selling a service based on the reliance of the police department. -- Attorney Stock said that the original $200 fee was because the finance director was asked to go out and investigate and approve the equipment being installed. This is no longer being done. Stock said he assumed that prior to approving an alarm system's hook-up that the police would inquire what kind of equipment was being installed. Stock said the ordinance no longer demanded that the ~finance director investigate the alarms; there was some justification that the police department investigate the alarms but it was not mandat d in the ordinance. Manager Chapman said that this was the rationale for charing PSI rather than the business the false alarm fee. PSI is making business off of the police department's response. He said ~hat he has tried to discuss the matter with PSI, but they have not reacted favorably In fact, they told Chapman that if the ordinance was passed that PSI would go out of business, they would not honor their contracts. Roll call vote to approve as amended on second reading Ordinance ~5, Series of 1980; Councilmembers Collins, aye; Van Ness,.~aye; Behrendt, aye; Michael, nay; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried, five to one Mayor Edel entertained a motion to approve the amended Ordinance #5, Series of 1980 Councilman Behrendt made the motion to approve; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. Roll call vote; Counc±lmembers Collins, aye; Van Ness aye; Behrendt, aye; Michael, nay; Parry, aye; Mayor Edel, aye. Motion carried. Councilman Behrendt had recently asked Attorney Stock what his salary should be. Attorney Stock said that it should be no more than the rest of City employees had received this yea which is about a 10 per cent raise. Behrendt said that since the Attorney works for the Council and not for the City Manager, it should be handled by the Council. Mayor Edel said this discussion should be in executive session. Councilman Behrendt requested that tl City Manager arrange this. Councilman Behrendt made the motion to adjourn; seconded by Councilman Van Ness. All in favor, motion carried. Council adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Susan E. Johnson, Deputy City Clerk