Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19801127Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 1980 JOINT MEETINGiWITH~COUNTYCOMMISSIONERS Mayor Edel called the joint meeting to order at 4:15 with Councilmembers Parry, Isaac, Collins, Behrendt, Michael and Commissioner Edwards present. 1. Report on 1980 Census. Brian Stafford submitted a memorandum outlining the 1980 census. This was completed the end of June and ended up with a population estimate of 8,285 and a housing county of 5,712. The County filed a response challenging the results because the housing county was off from 1978. The Census Bureau brought a special team back in and in September the population county was 10,201 and the housing count 8,226. Again the County was not happy with this and told the Denver regional office they wanted a recount done because again the housing unit count was off. Another count was done and November 18, 1980 the county was 10,446 population and 8,358 housing units. This figure is 1247 housing units off of 1978 and approximately 300 fewer people than counted in 1978. Stafford told the Boards the Census Bureau cited one reason for the housing count being off is that the definition for housing unit changed from 1978 to 1980. This, in effect, eliminated 400 to 500 housing units which were illegal. There may have been other effects in the lodging or motel facilities. Stafford said the schools have had a decline of students of 13.8 per cent from 1978 to 1980, which may indicate the population might be declining. Stafford said the Boards need to decide if they are satisfied with the results and, if not, what they want to do about it. Mayor Edel asked what the options and costs are. County Attorney Stuller said they may sue for a recount, but the Boards have to have enough background and support. Curt Stewart, County Manager, said the discrepancy is in dwelling units and the Census Bureau has come back with a reason why~ The County will lose $20,000 a year in payment in lieu taxes. Stafford said he did feel there is a mistake in counting the housing units. Mayor Edel said this is ~really a County decision. The Council will support what the County decides, but it is up to them. 2. Report on Land Treatment. John Musick told the Boards that in late 1976 the then- Boards directed him to determine the~possibility Of~'conducting a land treatment system with Aspen Metro or Aspen Sanitation, removing the effluent from the Roaring Fork River and putting it on land for agricultural application. Musick presented a mosaic map Showing the results of a preliminary engineering feasibility study to determine if this was possible. The city and county paid $3500 to $5000 to have a water rights engineer determine if it was feasible. Musick had reported it was feasible and recommends to take the next step, which is to work out a cooperative agreement with one of the sanitation districts. There have been s~erall meetings with the sanitation districts, which have resulted in an agreement to conduct a feasibility report to determine how the land treatment system would work with their needs. This report has been completed by Wright-McLaughlin engineers. Musick asked the Boards to consider funding a local share in cooperation with the state Water Conservation Board for completion of the next step, which is pre-design work for this particular projec Musick said they have talked to landowners, some of whom support this in concept. The engineers say this is possible, and this project is now in position to select an engineer to conduct the pre-design report. The total cost is $153,000; Musick is going to the WCB in December to ask they fund this as a state-wide water project. This will make the project eligible for some construction funds and up to 50 per cent cost sharing of the local sharing. The local share would be around $76,000. Musick requested the Boards direct him and their representative to commit to funding the local share. Mayor Edel said it appeared to him the local sanitation districts were not going to spend any money and the County does not have any money to spend. The scope of work applies to irrigation systems and ditches. Mayor Edel does not see where this applies to the city or what the benefits are. Musick said the result of the project is a profit generating system, revenues will be generated from the sales of water and the sales of power. It is the purpose of the pre-design report to establish how much profit can be generated. The city is asked to front the expenses, and all expenses would come back first. If the city spends $100,000, that will be the first monies to come back. Another reason the city is being asked to participate is that presently they have to pump water up to serve the entire Red Mountain area. This project would be trading pumping and lower the costs to the city. LIQUOR LICENSE TRANSFER - Godfather's Pizza Mayor Edel said he had received letters from citizens objecting not specifically to this particular license but more to the concept of it, the infringement on town of franchises. Gideon Kaufman, representing the applicant, told Council Lawrence Lefitz was with Godfather's Pizza for five years; have left the chain and moved to Aspen. Lefitz is going to maintain the name because of the national repurtation. The business is solely-owned by Lefitz. Councilman Behrendt moved to approve the liquor license transfer for Godfather's Pizza; seconded by Councilman Isaac. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Isaac moved to adjourn at 7:00; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 27, 1980 JOINT MEETING WITH COUNTY~COMMIS$IONERS Mayor Edel called the joint meeting to order at 4:15 with Councilmembers Parry, Isaac, Collins, Behrendt, Michael and Commissioner Edwards present. 1. Report on 1980 Census. Brian Stafford submitted a memorandum outlining the 1980 census. This was completed the end of June and ended up with a population estimate of 8,285 and a housing county of 5,712. The County filed a response challenging the results because the housing county was off from 1978. The Census Bureau brought a special team back in and in September the population county was 10,201 and the housing count 8,226. Again~the County was not happy with this and told the Denver regional office they wanted a recount done because again the housing unit count was off. Another count was done and November 18, 1980 the county was 10,446 population and 8,358 housing units. This figure is 1247 housing units off of 1978 and approximately 300 fewer people than counted in 1978. Stafford told the Boards the Census Bureau cited one reason for the housing count being off is that the definition for housing unit changed from 1978 to 1980. This, in effect, eliminated 400 to 500 housing units which were illegal. There may have been other effects in the lodging or motel facilities. Stafford said the schools have had a decline of students of 13.8 per cent from 1978 to 1980, which may indicate the population might be declining. Stafford said the Boards need to decide if they are satisfied with the results and, if not, what they want to do about it. Mayor Edel asked what the options and costs are. County Attorney Stuller said they may sue for a recount, but the Boards have to have enough background and support. Curt Stewart, County Manager, said the discrepancy is in dwelling units and the Census Bureau has come back with a reason why. The County will lose $20,000 a year in payment in lieu taxes. Stafford said he did feel there is a mistake in counting the housing units. Mayor Edel said this is ~really a County decision. The Council will support what the County decides, but it is up to them. 2. Report on Land Treatment. John Musick told the Boards that in late 1976 the then- Boards directed him to determine the~:possibility Of~-conducting a land treatment system with Aspen Metro or Aspen Sanitation, removing the effluent from the Roaring Fork River and putting it on land for agricultural application. Musick presented a mosaic map Showing the results of a preliminary engineering feasibility study to determine if this was possible. The city and county paid $3500 to $5000 to have a water rights engineer determine if it was feasible. Musick had reported it was feasible and recommends to take the next step, which is to work out a cooperative agreement with one of the sanitation districts. There have been several meetings with the sanitation districts, which have resulted in an agreement to condu~t a feasibility report to determine how the land treatment system would work with their needs. This report has been completed by Wright-McLaughlin engineers. Musick asked the Boards to consider funding a local share in cooperation with the state Water Conservation Board for completion of the next step, which is pre-design work for this particular projec~ Musick said they have talked to landowners, some of whom support this in concept. The engineers say this is possible, and this project is now in position to select an engineer to conduct the pre-design report. The total cost is $153,000; Musick is going to the WCB in December to ask they fund this as a state-wide water project. This will make the project eligible for some construction funds and up to 50 per cent cost sharing of the local sharing. The local share would be around $76,000. Musick requested the Boards direct him and their representative to commit to funding the local share. Mayor Edel said it appeared to him the local sanitation districts were no~ going to spend any money and the County does not have any money to spend. The scope of work applies to irrigation systems and ditches. Mayor Edel does not see where this applies to the city or what the benefits are. Musick said the result of the project is a profit generating system, revenues will be generated from the sales of water and the sales of power. It is the purpose of the pre-design report to establish how much profit Can be generated. The city is asked to front the expenses, and all expenses would come back first. If the city spends $100,000, that will be the first monies to come back. Another reason the city is being asked to participate is that presently they have to pump water up to serve the entire Red Mountain area. This project would be trading pumping and lower the costs to the city. · ~=~u~ ~==u~9 aspen ul~y ~ouncl± November 27, 1980 Musick said the hope is that this system will provide the ultimate solution of the needs of sanitation in the ~alley - that the land will be able to accept the secondary effluent and be able to treat it as the system grows. Councilman Behrendt asked, if that was~true, why didn't the sanitation district join in on this. Musick said they figured they have gone this far and didn't want to change in midstream until they see if the effort is worth it. Joe Edwards pointed out the previous study addressed only what could be done to keep water in the rivers; this also addresses<lthe benefits to the Hunter Creek treatmen~ plant. Councilwoman Michael suggested the City Manager look at some long term water department money and how it might be used for this. Councilwoman Michael also said someone should go back to the sanitation district to see how they feel if positive results come out of the study. Flood said this will not be less expsnsive than the sanitation district's nitrification plan,~ This is a very complicated project with a lot of negotiations between the sanitation district, ditch companies, the city, etc. Flood said at this point, there are no commitments from anyone. Chapman said he felt the sense of Council was to step back from the immediate pursuit of this idea, work on a resolution with the sanitation district, and to view this as part of a capital improvements program. Mayor Edel said someone should go to the WCB meeting to see if they are interested in funding in part this study. Musick said if the city was not willing to commit to funding on December 2nd, the WCB will not commit. If,~the decision to commit to funding is not made next week, it will have to wait a year. Chapman said part of this decision is for Council to look at the recommended water rate increases. Councilman Isaac said he felt this was a legitimate expenditure of the $200,000 that is sitting. Councilman Behrendt asked if the County would change their position on the expenditure of the Hunter Creek settlement. Edwards said they probably would because there is not much feasibility of purchasing water Councilwoman Michael moved to table the matter for the city attorney to look for the $70,000 in the next week, and pursue Councilman Isaac's idea of changing the policy on the Hunter Creek settlement money; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. 2. Report on Ruedi Reservoir. John Musick reported that November 7th, several members of the city and county attending a meeting with the Water & Power Resources in Denver; and subsequently a meeting November 14 with the Frying-Pan/Arkansas Commission. The result of the meeting with WPR is that they are going to issue contracts for the sale of water out of Ruedi. The result of the November 14th meeting was there are no people who believe that Ruedi was intended to have a guaranteed recreational level. Musick said, despite all the work that has been done, it is possible to bring all parties together on the issue of a minimum recreation pool. Musick said even the River District is not capable of agreeing to a minimum level; the reason for this is the first and Sole use of the reservoir is for replacement purposes for the Southeastern district the entire - 104,000 acre feet can be used for replacement. It is the position of the Southeastern district that no contract for municipal and industrial water can occur on a finite basis; all contracts have to be interruptable. It is the position of the River District they may give finite, defensible deliverable contracts, for M & I water. These two positions are irreconciable. When it comes to the issue of recreation water, there is no concession by any party that recreation was any more ~han an opportunity. They quantified the value of the opportunity to reduce part of the cost of the reservoir by that, but it was an opportunity and that's all. Musick told the Boards the River district and WCB have made overtures, and everyone has been working on a concession; unless Pitkin County is willing to recognize an interruptable recreationa2 use, there is no basis to agree upon. Musick said if Pitkin County is willing to recog- nize an interruptable, reereation use, lawyers can work out some kind of interruptable use agreement. If they are insistent upon maintaing a fishery, above 34,000 acre feet in any year, or maintaining the recreational level above 86,000 feet there is no basis for agreement. ' Musick told the Boards he had updated the feasibility study to include the economic benefits flowing from the reservoir as well as costs in sales scenario and recreation scenario. Musick passed out a cash flow analysis he had prepared. Under a guaranteed minimum recreation use, 86,000 acre feet and 57,000 acre feet every year, under scenario number 1, the Roaring Fork valley presently receives a recreational value of $3,600,000 a year - this is a value to the community. This is figured based upon professors inter- viewing communities; figuring out how much people spent or would have spent, the upset figures, etc. For the purposes of this assumption, it is assumed that the recreational value and spin off value is $4,600,000 for the Valley, for which a certain percentage is tax dollars. Musick said he was trying to define two different categories; how the Valley benefits or suffers from the operation of Ruedi, versus the participation of the Valley in the Colorado River Water Conservation District. In other words, it is done by the Valley or the River District does it for everybody, in which case, Pitkin County's interest would be 1/15 and will be averaged with all other parties. Musick stated under the guaranteed recreation versus opportunity recreation, if Pitkin County does nothing, the citizens of the valley will lose revenue generated from the existence of Ruedi as a recreation facility, as well as the spin off industry. Musick said the the Colorado River District operates the reservoir, the Colorado River Mainstem will be benefitted by millions of dollars. Musick told the Boards as part of the River district, Pitkin County will receive benefits that accrue to the River District as a whole, but the benefits will not be from recreation. They will be from water sales, power sales, increased industr~ and homes. If Pitkin County's interest is in preserving the recreational amenities, a non-negotiable point, then they have to look at the dollars they are saving for the citizens of the Valley and the potential cost. Musick has given a positive cash flow of $500,000 a year on this from the date of water and power sales. To get to this point could be 3 or 4 years of negative cash flow, which, if Pitkin county owns the facility, will cost $400,000 a year negative cash flow.