Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19760524JOINT MEETING WI~H COUNTY COMMISSIONERS !] Mayor Standley opened the joint meeting at 5:10 p.m. Commissioners Shellman, Edwards, and Kinsley, Councilmembers Pete De Gregorlo, Jenifer Pedersen, Nina Johnston, George Parry, Steve Wishart, .Michael Behrendt were present. HOSPITAL DISTRICT TAP FEE Wilton Jaffee Sr. who ~s on the District Hospital Board and is in charge of raising funds for the Aspen Valley Hospital Fund was present. Jaffee Sr. explained he had requested from he Sanitation District Board that they waive the tap fee for connecting the sewer to the hospital. The Board replied they would be happy to do so provided the City waives the balance of its tap fee for the water; and since the Hospital is being built in the County, the County contribute an equal amount the City was waiving. The total amount is $34,000. This money could be used instead for a valuable piece of hospital equipment. The tap fee Ks S3,000 and the PIF is $15,000 which equals $18,000. The City would waive $9,000 and the County would ~ontribute $9,000. Mayor Standley felt the City should donate the full $18,000 s~nce the County has already given $120.000 in cash. Therefore, it was decided have the $18,000 exist as unrealized revenue. The $3,000 can be a cash contribution which will go into the water department's budget. Behrendt moved ko have the City Council make a contribution to the Hospital fund in the amount of $18,000 to be recognized as $15,000 in unrealized revenue and $3,000 cash contribution from the Council budget to the water department's budget; seconded by Johnston. All in favor, mo~ion carried. TRAILS CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Stanford~was present ~o bring the Commissioners and Council up-to-date as to where the 1976 ~rails construction program is; and what the planning office recommends in regard ~o any efforts to build a trail system. The work completed to date Ks a bike alignment from Herron Park over to the former Middle School. The Planning Department has received approval from the State Highway Department to build a bike path within the rIght-of-way of Highway 82 from Maroon Creek Bridge out to the Airpor~ Business Center. The other bike path goes from Herron Park to the Rio Grande Site. What is being looked at is an entire bike path link that would go from the A~rport Bus~ness Center all the way out to Difficult Camp Ground with a minimum of street crossing. The Planning Office has also received permission to cross the private properties along Castle Creek. The work in progress is the Malcom Ranch Trail. The trails program has received approval from Ted Armstrong and City Manager Mahoney to build a trail along the north permiter of Herron Park and now needs Council approval. The recommended priorities are: 1) pursue the easement on the riverside. This would allow for the construction of a trail from Herron Park into the Rio Grande; 2) negotiate an easement with the School District for trails fromGarmisch Street East to the former Middle School. This is the other end of the lane fromGarmischStreet down to the Trueman Property; 3) would like to start developing a Hallum Street plan which would involve a cul-de-sac from the west end of Hallum Street and will run into Highway 82. This would possibly cut down on automobile traffic on Hallum Street; 4) and would like to see as much construction as is possible on the trail from Maroon Creek to the Airport Business Center. Edwards mentioned he would like to push ahead on the trail from the Meadows which would come into town and one from Castle Creek Bridge. However, this may involve some easement ~c~Distion problems. Parry is interested in seeing a trail developed down the Snowbunny Lane because it would be more' of a commuter route. Edwards feels the above mentioned trai would be more a loop around town. However, Edwards asked the Council to consider joining the County in the tr&ils program. Edwards would like to see the trail completed along Red Butte and along Mill Street which would solve some commuter people problems. Edwards mentioned he didn't feel the trail along Cemetary lane is an appropriate rural county ~1 trail plan and would like Council to think about getting involved because the County I~ would use the financial help. Edwards would also like to see the greenway plan completed. The greenway plan is complete from the Benedict sand pit area to Woody Creek area. Stanford recommended putting an asphalt sidewalk from the alley south of Bleeker Street along the east side of Mill Street down to the Mill Street Bridge and make the trail from the Bridge to Silverking and the Hunter Creek area viable. Another recommendation Stanford brought forth is the signing along Highway 82 at the Villas. Pedersen moved to approve to berm the bike path from Herron Park to the Old Middle School; seconded by Behrendt. All in favor Pedersen amended her motion to include Bloomquist's suggestion of putting the trail alignment from the Rio Grande through Parcel "B" of the Aspen One side east through the Riverside Property, across the river to Herron Park; seconded by Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. TRANSPORTATION REPORT Edwards mentioned George Ochs is out of town. However, Edwards wrote UMTA a letter. It has been decided to see what the committee can do on.its own, thus the staff has been asked to investigate what might happen if the same capital was available that was going to be avialable for the matching funds for UMTA; if the same capital was invested in a bus system, .if that would come close to getting the job done. Edwards explained the idea was prlecipitated in a conversation with the Highway Department and a Commission member who indicated a separate bus system thatmay beput in on the Highway's right-of-way and a safety improved two lane as opposed to a four lane highway. Therefore, the staff has been requested to begin that analysis and simultaneously continue pursuing UMTA application. The county will be contacting Council for their input and suggestions. Shellman presented Ochs' report. The last words from UMTA was a week ago and they said they thought the grant would be out in two weeks. Haskell's office said two weeks ago that the grant approval had been signed and delivered to the Secretary of Department of of Transportation for release. It has been checked on; however, the guy who had it was on vacation. Edwards communicated the County's resolution. The County has decided to go ahead and do a trial county separation. Shellman passed out the resolution to the Council members. The resolution requested to have the county manager to assume control of the county buses and county routes and ~o announce schedules as soon as possible. The County is trying to develop a service philosophy of what is an elaboration of what the head of the City's transportation system, Yank MoJo, has done. This service is to try and develop a basic scheduling and enhance the private sector to augment the schedule. The ~ake over process will ocurr within the next week or two. There needs to be an arrange- ment worked out between the City and the County concerning interim use of county buses. It has also been included in the resolution an agreement f~or the City to lease minimum space in the car barn which would be for a period not to exceed two years. If there are details that need be worked out, they will be. The county will run its routes through the road and bridge department at least through the sualmer and when the budget session commences, the joinder of the systems will be looked at and the continued separte opera- tion. Shellman mentioned how constructive and helpful Yank Mojo has been and feels he is owed major debt and gratitude. The resolution has been adopted. A-95 REVIEW - COMMUNITY FLU VACCINATION PROGRAM Councilman Behrendt moved to route the A-95 review to the State with favorable comment; seconded by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. COUNCIL MEETING Mayor Standley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Behrendt De Gregorio, Johnston, Parry, Pedersen, Wishart, City Attorney Stuller and City Manager Mahoney present. MINUTES Councilwoman Johnston moved to approve the minutes of May 10, 1976 with the following correction: under Acapulco Gold's approval for a liquor license one of the conditions in the motion was omitted. Add "the desires of the inhabitants were to happen.'~ The motion was seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 1. Councilman Behrendt requested to have the City~ager start' engineering a right-of- way search work on trail between the east highway 82 bridge to Herron Park; both for budgetary purposes and because it is necessary to complete a link. Councilman Behrendt asked City Manager Mahoney to have a repor~ on the above request for the next Council meeting. 2. Councilwoman Pedersen mentioned the potholes that are still present on the west end of Highway 82. Councilman De Gregorio requested from City Manager Mahoney a program report with some plan as to what is being proposed for the streets so tha Councilmembers are able to respond to comments and questions made by the citizens. City Manager Mahoney explained one of the reasons the streets are in the present condition is because last year the City did not appropriate money for street repairs. Therefore, this year the street department is trying to catch up. Also, the men normally working for the street department are being used to tear down the mall. 3. Councilman De Gregorio mentioned he will be taking a seven week vacation; therefore, Mayor Pro rem has to be elected in the interim. Councilman Parry nominated Councilman Behrendt; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. 4. Councilwoman Johnston mentioned she would like to see in the subdivision application process the Housing Authority added to the review at the application stage to study the application for generation of housing needs or recommendations with regard to subdivision. Mayor Standley asked City Attorney Stuller and City/County Planner Kane to respond to this request. Kane mentioned he would write a memo. 5. Councilman Wishart asked the following to be on record: Councilman Wishart would have voted for the City/County's Randall property project. Councilman Wishar% understood it to be another vote to spend another $1,000 ~o continue the option to study the project for another 30-60 days. Councilman Wishart does support it and if the County goes ahead with it, and maybe at some future date the City will get reinvolved in it. 6. Mayor Standley mentioned the two vacancies for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Mayor Standley asked Councilmembers to try and find some applicants. 7. Mayor Standley asked one or more Councilmembers to serve as a committee to work with Mona Frost regarding the Aging program. Councilman Behrendt and Councilwoman Johnston offered to be on the committee. 8. Mayor Standley mentioned a petition which he received from the kids of Aspen to get an entertainment center for the children. Some of the requests on the petition were for a coach, concession stand, bean bag chairs, juke box. Mayor Standley said the petition will be placed in with the program that the City may be fortunate to start with the Holy Cross. 9. Mayor Standley mentioned the article in ~he "Times" which was on the progress of the Mall. However, Mayor Standley feels Jim Furness, Mall Coordinator, should take the infective to make sure a news release is out every week prior to the newspaper press time as well to the radio media giving a difinitive status report as to what is going on. 10. Mayor Standley asked to have added to the agenda the Smith proposal regarding the productivity evaluation of the City Governments. Councilwoman Johnston moved to add the Smith proposal to the agenda; seconded by Parry. all in favor, motion carried. STUDENT COMMENTS There were no comments. MILL STREET SIDEWALK Kane was present to explain why the Planning Department is proposing to have the sidewalk placed on the east side of Mill Street. The following reasons are: 1) the majority of existing pedestrian traffic presently uses the east side of Mill Street; 2) The east alignment connects with two existing pedestrian trails that are located on the Rio Grande property; 3) The east alignment will not conflict with the anticipated construction activit this summer on the Trueman Site west of Mill Street; 4) The east side alignment can be incorporated as part of this years' improvements to the Rio Grande Site, and as such probably can be budgeted from the seventh (7th) penney (transportation); 5) The costs of the west sidewalk alignment can eventually be shared by the City with the adjacent property owners, while almost the entire cost of the east alignment will have to be carried by the City. The disadvantages of the east side is it will have to be discontinued when it hits Aspen Auto Center. However, the path could go behind Holy Cross. Mayor Standley felt it would be unsafe for women to walk the path at night; also to obtain easements from Holy Cross may take time. Mayor Standley asked City Engineer, Dave Ellis, what their plans were re- garding the west side. Ellis responded they were trying to look at the dollars involved; and if the Trueman Development happens, there would be pressures to regradeMill Street. Kane mentioned there are private developments on the west side such as the Trueman Property dateand the at no Bennett expense property, to the City. These properties could possibly put sidewalks in at a later Mayor Standley asked City Manager Mahoney when the time of construction would begin. City Manager replied in the middle of the summer. Councilwoman Pedersen suggested the path be lighted so the people can be seen by a person driving an automobile and they can see the path at night. Councilman Behrendt moved to have the alignment on the East side of'Mill Street as outlined! in the discussion; seconded by Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. WEDUM-HYMAN - Final Subdivision Approval Ral Clark, planning office, explained the application which is the WEdum Hyman final subdivision plat and final development plan. Included in the agenda packet is a copy of the final plat and the final subdivision improvement agreement. The application has been in process for over a year. The site has been subject to the recent downzoning which went from R-15 to R-30. Brief history of the project is it was approved as an 8 unit non- cluster project back in June of 1975 and was given preliminary plat approval for 4 units. While the final plat discrepencies were being resolved, there was a variety of ways to disperse the units. One of the options was to have separate entrance points to each of the lots. The four lots, plus common area are on 2.15 acres of land. Features of the finall! plat are the following: 1) the lots are restricted ~o single-family home construction; 2) No vehicle access is allowed from Spring Street in Oklahoma Flats. Access is restricted to one road cut on Gibson Avenue; 3) Lot sizes are less than 30,000 square feet but the totaly density is correct for R-30 zoning. A PUD allows smaller lot sizes; 4) Public road dedications are accomplished for Gibson and Spring Street; 5) a public use fee of $2,334.81 is required; 6) A detailed landscaping and drainage plan has been completed and monies escrowed as a performance guarantee; 7) An Improvement Agreement has been prepared which delir~a.t~s improvements ~o be made to the site and $15,658 has been escrowed with the City to ensure performance by the Subdivider; 8) The project was conceptually approved by City Council a year ago for eight (8) dwelling units. The present four (4) units reflects the new zoning of R-39; 9) The project incorporates a solar collector design. The comments of the Planning Office are as follows: 1) The proper location of the four dwelling units is to cluster the units to the east of the property. This would reduce the stringing-out of houses along Gibson Avenue and improve parking and access design; 2) The site is steep and subject to erosion pressures. Thus emphasis on a detailed reclamation plan. That has caused difficulty in preparing a reclamation of revegetation plan. That is incorporated in the improvement agreement; 3) Major area of disagreement is the ~ennis courts shown on the plat. The reasons are: a) the 10O year floodplain; b) shrubs and trees will be removed from the streamside; thus damaging the riparian zone of the river; c) the court is located contiguous to the right-of-way of Spring street accommodating no building setback (zoning code requires 30 foot setback); d) It will be administratively difficult to restrict future parking on Spring Street for the tennis court and to prohibit night lighting; e) the residents of Oklahoma Flats are adamently opposed to locating the tennis court at this site; 4) Clear title has not been obtained for certain portions of the property. Any approval of the plat should prohibit recording of the plat until a title policy be obtained showing clear title to the total tract; 5) the final plat as presented to the City Council represents the best development plan possible given the applicants unwillingness to cluster the four units to the east of the property. Bill Kane, City/County Planner, mentioned the planning office is recommending approval of the four units on the site. There are two philosophical approaches as to how the land can be developed. One approach is to be able to do a solar conscience project that would be a good demonstration of solar capability in this environment and attractive houses. A negative standpoint, given that same development, the four houses will dominate a hillside that is visually vulnerable. From an architectural standpoint, this approach represents a maximization of the site in terms of building coverage. The second approach would be to cluster the four units on one lot a~ the end of Lonepine drive a~ the intersection of Gibson thus preserving the rest of the site as open space. Kane feels the site could be better maximized and better planned since it is a planned unit development and could be more consciously planned with the clustering of the units a~ the end of Lonepine Drive. Randy Wedum, applicant of the Wedum-Ryman development, mentioned he didn't like the idea of clustering the units and prefers to disperse the four units. Wedum mentioned the four unit~ will be designed so they are concealed into the mountains. Wedum'then argued the planning department's disagreement not to have tennis courts. The major reason not to have the tennis courts was because of the 100 year floodplain. Wedum explained the low end of the courts will be one foot above the 100 year floodplain. The east end of the area will be raised by putting in earth berms to create a detention pond for the run-off. The area will be landscaped. Wedum showed photographs and a map showing the trees and vegetation. Councilman Behrendt questioned the landscaping because there can't be berming in a flood- plain. Wedum explained the City Engineering department required Wedum to make detentions and with the property sloping the way it does, it is hard to make detentions before it hits' the river without stocking it someway. Therefore, the engineering department Wedum hired came up with the recommendation of putting a berm in the area and using a natural drop as a pond and the City's engineering department accepted the recommendation as the optimum solution. Councilman Behrendt asked Dave Ellis, City Engineer, to explain that since nobody is allowe~ to obstruct the floodplain as surveyed by the engineers, how is what Wedum doing justified. Ellis responded he f~tt the critical element in regard to the tennis courts was more in regard to stream margin review and ecology of the area more than the floodplain. Ellis explained he had no objection to the tennis courts being bermed to create a detention pond for handling the site drainage. A C~etention pond is being created for the run-off during construction. The con~t~ns are the improvements be made prior to construction of the sites for the sediment that will come off the sites. Also so the trees and the under- brush in the area of the berm being constructed will not be disturbed. Thus the engineer- ing department was trying to preserve the ecology along the river, that is how Ellis rationalized the fact that a berm could be constructed in that area. Wed~m mentioned the area where there will be berming is an area that will not disturb the trees, the berm follows the edge of the trees and the tennis courts and will only remove things that sit in the middle of the property, not along the trees. Kane felt the project is integrated as much as possible with the existing setting. However the recent change from R-15 to R-30 in Oklahoma Flats itself which was brought about by a petition at the request of many of the land owners in Oklahoma Flats is an J.iRdication of good faith that they wanted to continue as a quiet sleepy residential area as it is at present. This project has been referred to the Oklahoma Flats people and the largest complaint from the people was the tennis courts that would attract people to drive to the courts and create a disturbance. Kane feels the wishes of the neighbors cannot always be accommodated; however, ~uding the tennis courts is possible. Wedum agrees that people have concerns about their property; however, Wedum has concerns about his property. Wedum mentioned the public hearing with the planning and zoning commission at which time they were informed of the neighbor's interests and the planning and zoning approved the tennis courts. Mayor Standley responded that Planning ~nd Zoning is nothing but an advisory body to the City Council. Councilman Parry felt a tennis court doesn't generate that much traffic that would disturb neighbors. Kane responded people will be driving in the area and parking on Spring S~reet. People will be talking loud; and the point is there are residences in that neighborhood and seems like an unfair .situation where there would be tennis courts in the middle of a residential area. Councilwoman Johnston mentioned she was having a problem considering the projec~ when the clear title has ye~ to be clea~ed. Wedum mentioned the decision about the title to the property was to proceed through final approval; however the plat would not be filed until the question with the title was straightened out. Wedum is pursuing it, but it takes time to negotiate it. The status is there will be a pretrial and Wedum has 90 days to file the plat and feels there is plenty of time to settle the title. Mayor Standley asked for Councilmember's reactions and comments on the tennis courts and the four single family homes. Councilwoman Pedersen mentioned she was opposed to the tennis court because o~ the life that is lived in that area and the noise pollution that generated by a tennis court. Councilman Parry had no general feeling. Councilman De Gregorio didn't see the courts as being a noise pollution problem. Councilwoman Johnsto~ was opposed to the tennis courts; Councilman Wishart was not opposed to the courts and didn'~ think there would be that much traffic generated because of the courts. Councilman Wishart also felt that by granting the courts, it would make up for the loss of the other four units. Councilman Behrendt would like to see the houses clustered on lots 3 and 4; but didn't mind the tennis courts if they were sunk down further. Councilman De Gregorio liked the units the way Wedum presented them and was opposed to the planning department's recommendation of clustering them; Councilwoman Johnston agreed with De Gregorio; Council- man Wishart agreed with Councilman De Gregor~o; Councilman Parry agreed with Councilman De Gregorio; and Councilwoman Pedersen agreed with Councilman De Gregorio. George Mansfied who lives ~n the Oklahoma Flats area was present to state his strong objections to the tennis courts ~n the area because of the noise, automobiles and motor- cycles they will generate to the area. Mansfield questioned thepossiblity of a fire in the area, the road is 5oo narrow for any equipment to get through to the area. Mansfield felt the cluster idea of the houses as better than the strung out idea of the units. Mansfield also felt the real residents of Aspen should be encouraged rather than d~scourage.. Mrs. Mayer from Oklahoma Flats was present and feels the property Wedum would like to put the tennis courts on is her proper~y and the ~itle should be settled. Frank Donofrio was present to represent the Volk property which is in the Oklahoma Flats area. Donofrio felt: 1) just because it has taken Wedum 14 months for the project, that shouldn't mean the Council has to make a pressure move; 2) the tennis courts would be a definate traffic generator; 3) the courts are being put in the 100 year floodplain. Mayor Standley concurs that the tennis court is an unecessary intrusion in the area, and it would change the character of the neighborhood and the general feeling of the neigh- borhood. Also the impact of the tennis court on that street would create a problem. Councilman Behrendt made a motion to deny the present subdivision plat both the reason of the inclusion of a tennis court and because of the four plotting and standard subdivision route and what is a PUD project. Councilwoman Pedersen made a second to the motion. Councilwoman Johnston amended the motion to also state that clear title has not been obtained. Councilwoman Pedersen questioned the imperativeness of having the title solved. City Attorney Stuller explained the plat cannot be of record because that would be an author- ization to sell in parcel. One of th~ purposes of subdivision review is to clarify title before it is put on the market. However, Wedum came in and wanted administrative review. However, if the plat is not recorded in 90 days, it would be a denial. Wedum would have to come back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council for one more approval before it could be recorded. Councilman Wishart felt Councilman Behrendt's motion included two separate items that should be voted on separately. The first motion being the placing of the buildings and the other one being the tennis court and title. Councilman Wishart felt Councilman Behrendt's motion should be defeated and another motion should be entertained about the two pertinent issues because most of the Council was in favor of the configuration and location. Councilman Behrendt removed the subdivision part of his motion. Mayor Standley mentioned the reason for denial can be enumerated as part of the motion or not as part of the motion The record needs to reflect the reasons. What has been identified are a series of reasons 3 of them specifically. Councilman Wishart is recommending to defeat the motion so the lotting would not be one of the reasons for denial; the general consensus was the lotting was acceptable as platted. Councilman Behrendt questioned if the motion should be kept as denied on the floor, but remove the reasons. Mayor Standley suggested to Councilman Behrendt that he remove his objection to the motion; so the reason would be lack of clear title, and the inclusion of the tennis court. Councilwoman Pedersen seconded Councilman Behrendt's amendment. Councilwoman Johnston asked City Attorney Stuller if the Council is protected legally or if there is a problem denying on those grounds. City Attorney Stuller responded that if the grounds were lack of clear title that what Wedum would do is move to table it. The problem with the three stage review, and this is the final of the subdivision regulations, is there is some estoppel to change a basic concept that was approved earlier. However, if the problem arises later because of the information elicited by more sophisticated submittal, that brings forward problems that were not evident earlier then that estoppel doesn't exist. Councilwoman Johnston asked if something has been added now that the Council is denying such as the tennis courts being there before and now they are being denied. City Attorney Stuller explained that it is not the tennis courts so much as the concerns that have been elicited. If those concerns were evident in the conceptual stage, then the approval estoppes the Council from changing the position. Estoppel is a theory that prevents the government from changing its mind after someone has approval. The reason for the three stages is it gives a chance to find any problems ~hat were not evident earlier. It is not to give the Council an opportunity to do a complete reversal after someone has relied on earlier approvals. Mayor Standley felt the Council has expressed a reservation all along on the tennis courts. Mayor Standley asked City Attorne, Stuller if it would be more appropriate to go ahead and act on the motion on the floor or would it be more appropriate to table the motion based on the fact the Council doesn't have all the facts. City Attorney Stuller responded that it is the obligation of the applicant %o satisfy all of the requirements for subdivision review and if the application is ~ncomplete to the extent that he has not established ownership to the entire tract; it is up to the applican to convince the Council to spend the time to review a project that may change in a major aspect. If that piece of land is lost, it could affect the entire configuration of the PUD. Mayor Standley felt that for 14 months the Council has been waiting for the title and the project still is not completed and feels it is appropriate to entertain a substitute motio~ to tabt~ the project pending a legal decision on the land massing since the project may not even work if the land is not owned by the owner. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to table the Wedum-Hyman subdivision; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Councilman Parry asked if the vote as to table, would the applicant have to come back and go through the whole process. Mayor Standley replied he would come back at this stage. Councilman Parry suggested the Council go ahead with Councilman Wishart's motion contin- gent upon the fact~hat Wedum will not have to come back and Council won't have to go through the process again. City Attorney Stuller explained ii the Council gave approval conditioned upon the title, the title problem would be resolved before it was recorded. If the plat is not recorded within 90 days, the approval lapses and then Wedum would have to come back. Mayor Standley felt it would be cleaner to table the pro~ect. Mayor Standley asked if there was further discussion on the motion to table. All in favor of the motion to table were Councilwoman Pedersen, Councilwoman Johnston and Mayor Standley. Opposed were Councilman De Gregorio, Councilman Wishart, Councilman Behrendt and Councilman Parry. Mayor Standley then wen~ back to the main motion that was on the floor to deny approval. Councilman Wishart asked if the motion on the floor was to deny with the two reasons being the title and the tennis courts. Mayor Standley responded that it was. Councilwoman Johnston asked what Wedum's ramifications were if the motion is denied. Kane mentioned he would have to start all over again. Councilman Parry mentioned another motion could be made. All in favor of the motion to deny based on the two conditions which ar~ not to include the tennis courts and unclear title. All in favor were Councilwoman Johnston; Councilman Behrendt; Councilwoman Pedersen and Mayor Standley. Opposed were Councilman Wishart, Councilman De Gregorio and Councilman Parry. The motion is to deny the final subdivision agreement. Mayor Standley asked if someone was willing to vote in favor of the above stated motion wished to move to reconsider based on that substitute motion. Councilwoman Pedersen moved. Councilman Wishart restated the substitute motion which was to grant approval of the final agreement on the condition that the final title is cleared and removal of the tennis courl with the buildings in their present configuration; seconded by Parry. That will give Wedum 90 days and it will not be recorded until the title is cleared mentioned Councilman Wishart. Also this motion stops Council from having to go through the process again. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to reconsider the previous motion; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor of the motion were Councilwoman Johnston; Councilman De Gregorio; Councilman Parry; Councilman Wishart; Coucilwoman Pedersen and Mayor Standley. Opposed was Councilman Behrendt. City Attorney asked the Council to let Wedum amend his application with the deletion of the tennis courts. Then it will be a motion to approve with the condition of the title clearance. Councilman Wishart moved to accept the amended subdivision and final PUD plat to 3oln the deletion of the tennis court, and title clearance to the whole piece of property; seconde~ by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor were Councilwoman Johnston, Councilman Parry, Coucnilwoman Pdersen, Councilman De Gregorlo, and Councilman Wishart. Opposed were Councilman Behrendt and Mayor Standley. Motion carried. CHAMBER LEASE Councilwoman Pedersen made a motion to approve the Chamber of Commerce Lease; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ELECTRIC ~ATES City Manager Mahoney was present to explain the City of Aspen's tax payers have been subsidizing the electric customers since April 1 to the extent of $24,000 a month. There is an urgency to change the City's electric rates. There has not been a rate change since 1940. Harold Stalf, Economist, has been preparing to discuss the intricacies of the proposal. Lo~s Butterbaugh, Finance Director, asked to schedule a study session but would like to see the ordinance passed on the first reading because the Ordinance has to be finalized before a period the City can start charging new rate increases. If the Ordinance is passed on first reading, it can be modified and/or changed before it is read for the second reading. After the second reading, the meters could be read on June 23 and the electric change can be in effect after that. Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance #30, Series of 1976; seconded by Council- woman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance ~30 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING NEW ELECTRIC RATES; CREATING MINIMUM CHARGES FOR USERS OF 100 KWH OR LESS PER MONTH; ESTABLISHING RATES FOR USERS OF MORE THAN 100 KWH CONSISTING OF A DEMAND CHARGE, FUEL ADJUSTMENT CHARGE, AND ENERGY CHARGE, ALL AS SPECIFIED HEREIN; AND IMPOSING A NON-REFUNDABLE RECONNECT CHARGE OF THIRTY ($30.00) DOLLARS was read by the deputy city clerk. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to approve Ordinance ~30, Series of 1976, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pedersen, aye; Behrendt, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Wishart, aye; Parry, aye; Johnston, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. Councilwoman Johnston suggested phasing the new increases for all electric customers facing a substantial increase. All Councilmembers agreed. Councilwoman Johnston also mentioned that written in the ordinance under Section 1 it speaks to the minimum charge per u~s~ge of the first 100 KWH or less and the same thing is stated in the alternative. Stalf said it should be rewritten to read, "---in addition to." Bob George was present and asked what kind of excess funds does the City anticipate from the electric department. Butterbaugh responded there will be no substantial change in the amount to be contributed to the general fund. All in favor, motion carried. It was decided to have a study session on Wednesday, May 26, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on the Electric Rates. ORDINANCE #18, SERIES OF 1976 - Wa~er Extension to AVH Councilwoman Pedersen~ moved to read Ordinance ~18, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance ~18 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF THE CITY WATER SERVICE TO THE SITE OF THE NEW ASPEN HOSPITAL SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND CONVEYANCE BY THE HOSPITAL DISTRICT TO THE CITY OF AN EASEMENT FOR ITS TWELVE (12) INCH MAIN IN PLACE PARALLEL TO CASTLE CREEK ROAD was read by deputy city clerk. Councilwoman Pedersen moved ~o adopt Ordinance 918, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Counc£1members De Gregorio, aye; Johnston, aye; Wishart, aye; Behrendt, aye; Pedersen, aye; Parry, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Pedersen m~ved to approve the Water Extension Agreement; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #20, SERIES OF 1976 - Mall Bonding Mayor Standley opened the public hearing on Ordinance #20, Series of 1976. Mayor Standley Closed the public hearing. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #20, Series of 1976; seconded by Council- woman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance ~20 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SALES TAX REVENUE BONDS, SERIES JUNE 1, 1976, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, IN THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF $850,000, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS WITH WHICH TO MAKE CERTAIN CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF THE EXISTING DOWNTOWN AREA MALL IN THE CITY OF ASPEN; PRESCRIBING THE FORM OF SAID BONDS AND INTEREST COUPONS; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON SAID BONDS FROM THE REVENUES OF THE ONE PER CENT MUNICIPAL SALES TAX ESTABLISHED, AUTHORIZED AND IMPOSED PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NO. 15A, SERIES OF 1972, AND APPROVED AT A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 7, 1972, AND FROM CERTAIN OTHER LIMITED SALES TAX REVENUES; PRESCRIBING OTHER DETAILS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, PROVIDING FOR THE USE, DISPOSITION AND HANDLING OF THE PROCEEDS OF SAID BONDS AND SAID SALES TAX REVENUES, INCLUDING THE CREATION OF CERTAIN FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY was read by the deputy city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance 920, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Behrendt, aye; Wishart, aye; De Gregor~o, aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #21, SERIES OF 1976 - Building Code Changes City Attorney mentioned the Board of Appeals and Examiners submitted an additional recommendation. At present, the ordinance permits open shaft stairways if they are encircled with a curtain of water, that is to prevent the up-draft that can be created. However, if one of the stairways is a required stairway for exit it isn't good to have a shower of water cascading down a stairway that is suppose to be used for exiting the building. The Board of Appeals have submitted a recommendation that when the stairways are required stairways then the provision of 3308 and and 3309 must be complied with which means there must be an enclosure at the top and the bottom of the staircase. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance ~21, Series of 1976 as amended; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance ~21 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING EXCEPTION NO. 2 OF SECTION 1076(a) OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SUCH AS TO DELETE THE EXCEPTION FOR ENCLOSURES FOR ESCALATORS AND SUBSTITUTE A PROVISION ELIMINATING, IN F AND G OCCUPANCIES EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT, THE REQURIEMENT OF ENCLOSURES FOR OPENINGS WHICH SERVE TWO ADJACENT FLOORS WHICH ARE NOT CONCEALED WITHIN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, PROVIDED AT EACH FLOOR A DRAFT CURTAIN AND AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE INSTALLED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE OPENING AND WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE DRAFT CURTAIN was read by deputy city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance =21, Series of 1976 as amended, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Roll call vote; Councilmembers De Gregorio, aye; Wishart, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley~ aye. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~22, SERIES OF 1976 - Appropriation from water reserves Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance ~22, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance #22 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING UNAPPROPRIATED WATER RESERVES OF $5,150.00 TO PAY THE BOND INTEREST FOR WATER BOND REFUNDING AND $2,500.00 FOR ROAD BASE FOR THE GALENA WATER MAIN was read by deputy city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance 922, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. Roll call vote; Councilmembers De Gregorio, aye; Wishart, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #23, SERIES OF 1976 - Appropriation to electric undergrounding Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance ~23, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion ca.rried. Regu±ar Ordinance ~23 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING ~50,000.00 FROM THE PROCEEDS OF THE 1976 GENERAL OBLIGATION ELECTRICAL BOND TO THE ELECTRICAL UNDERGROUNDING PROGRAM was read by the deputy city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance ~23, Series of 1976 on second reading; seconded by Councilman Wishart. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~24, SERIES OF 1976 - Appropriation from Park Dedication fees to Wagner, Iselin parks and the golf course Councilman Behrendt moved to read Ordinance ~24, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Wishart. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance #24 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING ADDITIONAL PARK DEDICATION FEES TOTALING $28,137~00 AND APPROPRIATING FROM TRE DEDICATION FEE FUND A TOTAL OF $35,020.00 FOR THE WAGNER PARK UPGRADING, THE ISELIN PARK UPGRADING, AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE GOLF COURSE PARKING LOT was read by the deputy city clerk Councilman Parry moved no adopt Ordinance #24, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #25, SERIES OF 1976 - Appropriation to Woody Creek zoning study and Lift One Building Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance ~25, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance ~25 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING $9,830.00 IN UNANTICIPATED REVENUES IN THE GENERAL FUND; RECOGNIZING A REDUCTION IN PITKIN COUNTY GRANT PROGRAM REVENUES OF $8,495.00; AND APPROPRIATING FROM SUCH FUND $2,250.00 FOR THE WOOD CREEK ZONING STUDY AND $6,080.00 FOR THE REPAIRS TO THE LIFT NUMBER ONE BUILDING was read by deputy city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance ~25, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Parry. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~26, SERIES OF 1976 - Appropriations from Seventh penny sales tax Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance ~26, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance ~26 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE RECOGNIZING S500.00 OF UNANTICIPATED REVENUES TO THE 7TH PENNY SALES TAX FUND; AND FURTHER APPROPRIATING FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED REVENUES OF SUCH FUND MONIES FOR THE FINAL PURCHASE PAYMENT OF THE MINIBUSES, MALL LABOR, PUBLIC RELATIONS COSTS AND COSTS OF EXTRA BUS SERVICE was read by the deputy city clerk Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance ~26, Series of 1976, on second reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vo%e; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Wishart, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All an favor, motion carried. _ DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE ~13, SERIES OF 1976 - Subdivision dedication fees City Manager Mahoney mentioned that Bob George was present to discuss the philosophy and the mechanics of Ordinance ~13, Series of 1976. There are two elements that are being looked at in the Ordinance, those being: 1) The ability to pay, and we find that we correlate the ability no pay no the price of the land. If the przce of the land is high, a higher fee is expected; 2) and the impact through people. The number of bedrooms relates to the number of people that zmpact the parks. Thus, the two factors are multi- plied together to get the fee the subdivider has to pay as a park dedication fee. Bob George was present to discuss the faults he felt Ordinance 13, Series of 1976, has in lt. George's first objection was in order for him to understand the Ordinance, he has to have someone explain the ordinance to him. The City should write ordinances and statutes for the lay people was well as attorney, city council people, CPA's and everyone else. George felt it was interesting how the dedication fee under item ~2 and the repeal of 20-18 which is the subdivision fee are calculated in the same way. George gave an explanation by the following example: One piece of property is $59,~500, the other piece of property is $60,000. There is a difference in value of the property of exactly $500 which is less than 1%. On the $60,000 piece of property, the dedication fee is $4,~50 for a single family dwelling. The piece of property for $59,500 the dedication fee is s194. There lsa difference an value of s500.00 and one is 22 times what the other piece of property is as far as nhe dedication fee. George felt that it is obvious the ordinance is not working and one of the problems is a proposal that the City Attorney has made and will probably make again and that is if a person is going to assess at the time of the building permit application a flat fee per number of people that is going to be put in the unit is required. Front end costs are being created that are regressive. George gave another example stating if a person was to build a single family home for $50,000 with a $4,000 fee, his down payment would be 53% greater. However, if a $120,000 house is built, the downpayment would only be 23% greater. His dedication fee would be 11% in the first case and 4%% in the latter case mentioned and that is just on the value of the house. George continued to site examples of where a person 5 or 10 years ago was able to get enough money together to buy a lot. The lot is being appraised on the fair market value of today. If the lot was bought at $10,000 10 years ago, the lot is worth $60,000 today. If someone came along years ago and b~ht~ lot he is being precluded from being able to build because of the fair market value price quoted in the ordinance. This fee comes on top of an already existing buildin~ permit fee which in the case a $50,000 lot is $170 on top of a planned fee and on top of approximately for a two bedroom two bath house a $1500 water tap. George mentioned if a person was given a lot in the west end of town, and this was applied, low cost housing couldn't be built on it. Councilman Behrendt questioned that within the city limits of Aspen how many buildable lots are being talked about. George felt maybe 40 in the community and asked why those 40 people should have to pick up the parks dedication fee. George mentioned his complaint is a fundamental one with hypocrisy of trying to do anythin for the low income person when in fact everything is being done to screw over the low income person. The person that moves to Aspen is paying a park dedication fee by paying the 6% which is for the 6th penny. Mayor Standley responded that anyone pays that that drives through the town. George responded that the person living here also pays it. Mayor Standley stated that that isn't helping the appreciation of the land; the person · living here is paying it as an on-going price of living here. He is not paying it as the plat investment cost of this community. George asked Mayor Standley to correlate the fact that an improvement to Wagner Park is going to make the value of the property in this town appreciate. Councilman Behrendt explained to make the town look really nice the value of a persons property automatically goes up. Councilwoman Johnston mentioned the fact there are parks and open space that makes the town unique. George would agree if the funds were applied to the acquisitions, than to resod a park that was trampled by people that did not own houses and did not live in Aspen. Councilman Wishart mentioned the sod in the parks was also trampled by people who live in Aspen. George asked if it doesn't make more sense to apply that to acquiring something new. George feels the city is saying we need twenty-five thousandths of an acre for every person in Aspen and that isn't being done. Mayor Standley disagreed becaus that is the same thing as saying what the county should have done is gone and built a new court house rather than spending a great deal of money renovating an existing structure. Mayor Standley feels the same frivolity applies to the maintenance and improvement of open space facilities that also add value uo property just as much as acquisition- of new land. George felt he and Mayor Standley were not going to come to a ~like" way of thinking. It is the impacu that disturbes Geroge as much as anything else. The City is asking a person who was magnanimous enough to build low cost housing to pass that along to his tenant which increases the cost of living. Mayor STandley mentioned George was right and doesn't disagree except for t~e.point that since Mayor Standley has sat on the council there hasn't been one project brought in that is a legitimate employee housing project and if there was, Mayor Stanley mentioned that at the Council's lunch employee housing was discussed and there are four votes who would be willing to waive all of the dedication fees, includilg the plant investment fee and the park dedication fee for a bonified employee housing projecu, knocking $5,000 off the front end. Councilman Behrendt didn't think the ~hilosophical differences were going to be solved with George. Councilman Behrendt expressed his concern that the Ordinance does have strange workout positions that George has illustrated and would like to turn the Ordinance back to the planning department and ask them to give some recommendations on ways t0~clean the ordinance so it is not so obviously unfair and imbalanced on its impact. Clark also felt the ordinance in its calculation technique is unintelligible. Clark suggested adding an example calculation technique to the bottom of the ordinance<~ Having done the computations, Clark cannot find a great rationale to the "in multiplier" to the przce per square foot of the lot. Maybe there is an agreed upon value for residential property, multi-family or commercial and maybe that has to be amended. If there was an agreed upon value for a residential lot and that was the multiplier, then the people would be payzng basically the same rate whether they lived on an 80,000 sq.ft, lot or a 10,000 sq.ft, lot when the single family dwelling zs built. The final multiplier per square foot is not really an amount indicator of the impact. Coucnilwoman Johnston commented on the following: 1) regard to the large expense to the front end. As it was discussed it was felt it could be handled on a phased basis, administratively with the finance department rather than having to put all the cash down right away; 2) there were the people thau moved here and developed the parks and then ther. were the people who bought a condominium that was not used all the time until they became an impact on the parks, yet they have not paid any park dedication and feels that should b~ rectified; 3) if this ordinance is going to be studied, Councilwoman Johnston would not like to see the dedication fee increased ~n any way but would like to have its use be no~ only for parks and open space but for housing as well. Councilman Behrendt felt the choice is to grow or not to grow, and the City doesn't like the cost either. Councilman Behrendt thanked George for pointing out the inequities in the ordinance and forcing Ordinance $13, Series of 1976~ for a redi~scussion and moved to ask Hal Clark to redraft Ordinance $13, Series of 1976, both clarifying 'now it works and to suggest to the Council ways of how to balance the impacts; Councilman Wishart made a second to the motion. Councilman Wishart asked George that since he didn't agree that the money should be collected in this manner, where did George think the money should come from to maintain the level of service in this town that we have and want to keep without letting it deteriorate. George feels the property owners are getting to a point where it is becoming more and more difficult to bear what is going on. An example George gave were the malls. which was a good idea, undergounding is a good idea, putting alight rail transit between here and Snowmass is a good idea, building $750 worth of bike paths is a neat idea, buying open space for the Trueman property is a good idea, and improving the golf courses and building tennis courts is all a good idea. The problem is, the people outside the Council feels that everytime he turns around the Council is trying to get one more source of revenue to spend more money. Councilman Wishart explained his point is as the town grows and if the services are not increased, the quality of life will go down. The questi¢ is, does the citizen want to see the quality of life go down or does he want to find tax money somewhere to keep it the same or better it. George felt it should be balanced with something the people are willing to understand. George feels that the citizens feel that everyt£me something comes through it is another way to raise more revenue without the citizen having any real say in what the priorities are in this town. Mayor Standley felt George's point is correct if it were supported by the actions of the community. Mayor Standley mentioned he sat through three budget sessions, and never had more than one person show up at a budget public hearing where the council spends five and one-half million dollars. Mayor Standley also mentioned he has sat through everyone of the ordinances that are either appropriation or taxation ordinances and this is the first time anyone has ever taken serious issue with one of them. There has been one taxation issue voted down and we all know how it was voted down and what the vote turnout was on it. People don't look at the~fact that the City rebates $21.00 to very man woman and child that lives in the city limits; and the fact that the City of Aspen has the lowest mil-levy property tax in the State of colorado, Mayor Standley stated he appreciated George coming in and' that he is one person in three years who has cared enough to do something. Because George has come to budget sessions, and has made input he has gotten a response out of the Council that Mayor Standley feels is positive. One person has changed the action of 7 Council people. George mentioned the apathy in Aspen. No matter what the Council does will get 1/3 of the people really happy, 1/3 of the people upset and the other 1/3 is not going to care. Council hs the responsibility to get out to the people and react to the people and try and~invol~e them. There is a dsfensivness about the council that turns some people off. Basically, City budgets are unintelligble to the average person. George feels the Council owes it to the city and to themselves to try and involve the citizens instead of sitting back and being defensive about it. Mayor Standley mentioned he has heard the people say that and felt once the election process if over it becomes a "we~ and "they'~ stipulation instead of "us" Councilman Behrendt again moved to have Hal Clark rewrite Ordinance #13, Series of 1976, ,f~r the reasons to make the ordinance more clear, and to change it so the impacts fell more evenly on '~like" projects; the motion was seconded by Councilman Wishart. All ~n favor, motion carried. PARKING STICKERS FOR CENTRAL CORE AREA City Manager Mahoney mentioned the staff was not excited about the Ordinance. Councilman De Gregorio coramented on receiving a s10.00 ticket for parking a car over the weekend in the core area and questioned why a ticket is given because there is no plowing or cleaning of the streets. Councilman De Gregorio gave an example of last Saturday night when there were four cars on the street and they all received $10.00 tickets and couldn't see any justification for the ticket. Mayor Standley asked if there was support from the Councilmembers to pursue the issue any further. All those in favor of trying to cope with the all night parking needs in the downtown core were Councilmembers Wishart, De Gregorlo, Behrendt and Mayor Standley. Opposed were Councilmembers Parry, Johnston and Pedersen. Councilman De Gregorio mentioned he had talked with Chief Hershey and Chie~ Hershey thinks there should be a discussion about the entire parking scheme. Councilman De Gregorio suggested scheduling a work session. The work session was scheduled for Tuesday, June 1 at 7:00 p.m. - Councilmembers, at this time, also scheduled a study session with Art Hougland on the Wheeler Opera House, for Thursday, May 27 at 7:00 p.m. FRANK SMITH PROPOSAL Mayor Standley explained that every year at budget time the Council is concerned with the pay scale and schedule of city employees and also talk about the effectiveness of the City Government. We all share the same feeling that government is not as effective as the private sector and somehow they feel they are not getting their dollars worth. There has been private discussion regarding the Council's goals and lack of a concerted set of goals or h~rarchy of a responsibility on the part of the city. Mayor Standley mentioned he had spent some time with Edgar Stern discussing this problem. Edgar Stern talked about Dr. Frank Smith who is a management consultant to Sears and who organizes a program to find out where the problem areas are, where there is dissatisfaction, and to set goals and objectives to measure effectiveness and figrue out the kinds of problems that could occur. Dr. Smith, City Manager Mahoney and Mayor Standley had a discussion as to what the Council anticipates what some of the problems are. City Manager Mahoney talked about the problems of putting a budget together and how to budget appropriately based on the goals of the City Council and how to mak~ the adjustments other than the cost of living adjustments that we throw in for the City employees and the fact that an employee doesn't get remunerated for merit in the City it is because he manages to last and the longer he lasts the more he receives. In some ways that could be an effective measure of the kind of productivity you get out of your employees, since lenghth of employment does not necessarily relate to productivity. Dr. Smith suggested putting together a proposal or series of proposals and how he could come in and help identify these problems and do some measurement of the effectiveness ~f the kind of organization the city has. Departmen- Mayor Standley mentioned the proposals which he gave Councilmembers at the Council lunch. tal Inter- After City Manager Mahon.ey and Mayor Standley discussed the proposals, the general feeling views was that alternative two was the alternative to choose. Alternative two talks about interviews with department heads and council members ~o identify goals and functions within the department and means of obtaining the goals and barriers that preclude the achievement of the goals. Also included is a survey questionnarie to all employees which gives the employees a chance to talk about what is going on and the way they see the city government or what the Council can do to help them do a more effective job. Mayor Standley asked if anyone else on the Council would like to share the concerns or if this method is an effective way of dealing with the problem. Councilwoman Johnston was interested because it would be a good idea to take a look at what is happening because people can fall into a pattern. It would be another step toward programmer budgeting which is something that needs to be looked at. Councilwoman Johnston was also interested in the paragraph which was in reference to a government agency because the employees do operate as an interface between government and the public and the public is valuable. Councilman De Gregorio felt it was a waste of money. Councilman De Gregorio was involved in a program somewhat similar and felt it didn't do anything but antagonize people and pointed out some things wrong with the structure but couldn't be changed because it was essentially people. Councilwoman Pedersen was not in favor. Councilman De Gregorlo felt it would help City Manager Mahoney and Mayor Standley;butwould not be relevant for the other Councilmembers. Councilman Wishart mentioned theft one of George's commen~s was the Council was not relaying to the public things that it is doing. Perhaps this would be one way of learning how to notify the public. Councilman De Gregorio made a motion not to spend the funds for the proposed program; Councilwoman Pedersen made a second to the motion. All in favor were Councilmembers Behrendt, Pedersen, and De Gregorio. Opposed were Councilmembers Wishart, Johnston, Parry and Mayor Standley. Councilman Wishart moved to study the idea and look more seriously at it, no~ to have the money funded right away; but to look at it and talk about it and maybe there are other ways!i to find the money; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. All in favor were Councilmembers Wishart, Behrendt, Johnston Parry and Mayor Standley. Opposed were Councilmembers Pedersen~, and De Gregorio. Motion Passed. Electric ELECTRIC UNDERGROUNDING EASEMENTS Undergroun Easements City Attorney Stuller asked that the names, Patrick Henry Sports, Ltd. and Dirkan A.S. Dinigilian be added ~o the list of electrical undergrounding easements. Councilman De Gregorlo made a motion to authorize Mayor Standley to accept the easements; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~27, SERIES OF 1976 Relaxation of the BuiLding Code Requirement in "H'~ Ord. 27, 1976. Mayor Standley explained this does not entail blanket relaxation. It allows for a case Relaxation by case evaluation and review and relaxation by the Council. of Buildin Code Re- Councilwoman Johnston moved to read Ordinance #27, Series of 1976 on first reading; seconde~ quirement by Councilwoman Pedersen. All in favor, motion carried. in "H' Ordinance ~27 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, 1973 EDITION, BY THE ADDITION OF A SUBPARAGRAPH (j) TO SECTION 104 SUCH AS TO PERMIT DEVIATIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE FOR NECESSARY REPAIRS, ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO HISTORIC BUILDINGS PROVIDED THAT (1) THE STRUCTURE SHALL HAVE RECEIVED HISTORIC DESIGNATION (2) UNSAFE AND SUBSTANDARD CONDTIONS WILL BE CORRECTED AND (3) TRE RESTORED BUILDING WILL BE LESS HAZARDOUS, BASED ON LIFE AND FIRE RISK, THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING was read by the deputy city clerk Councilman Parry moved to approve Ordinance #27, Series of 1976, on first reading; seconded by Councilman Behrendt. Roll call vote; Councilmembers Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Johnston, aye; Wishart, aye; De Gregorio, aye~ Behrendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE #28, SERIES OF 1976 City/County Trails Regulations Ord. 28, 1976. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance #28, Series of 1976; seconded by Councilman Trails reg- Parry. All in favor, motion carried. ulations. Ordinance #28 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE ADDING ARTICLE III TO CHAPTER 22 OF~THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH SAID ARTICLE ESTABLISHES REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF TRAILS WITHIN THE CITY OF ASPEN; PROHIBITING THE USE OF MOTORIZED VEHICLES ON SAID TRAILS UNLESS A SPECIAL PERMIT IS ISSUED THEREFORE FOR SPECIAL EVENTS; PROHIBITING THE USE OF TRAILS BY HORSE AND BICYCLE DRAWN VEHICLES, AND SLEIGHS, EXCEPT BY PER,lIT; PROVIDING FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF SPECIAL LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY LANDOWNERS ON POSTING NOTICE OF THE SAME; PROHIBITING, IN POSTED AREAS, THE LEAVING OF THE TRAIL RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEN IT CROSSES PRIVATE PROPERTY; LIMITING THE USE OF TRAILS BY DOGS; ESTABLISHING OBLIGATIONS TO YIELD AT INTERSECTIONS; REQUIRING HORSEMEN TO STAY ON UNPAVED PROTIONS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY; REQUIRING SAFE SPEEDS BY CYCLISTS AND HOSEMEN; ITEMIZING CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES ON TRAILS INCLUDING LITTERING, THE ~AKING OF NOISE, THE DEFACING OF PROPERTY Regular Meeting Aspen City Council May 24, 1976 AND CAMPING (UNLESS AUTHORIZED); PERMITTING JOINT MANAGEMENT OF THE CITY TRAIL SYSTEM BY PITKIN COUNTY IF SO PROVIDED BY AGREEMENT; AND IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS BY FINE NOT TO EXCEED THREE HUNDRED ($300.00) DOLLARS OR IMPRISONMENT NOT TO EXCEED NINETY (90) DAYS, OR BOTH was read by Mayor Standley Mayor Standley mentioned the bike path out to the school was built by federal funds and must be available for horses and horses cannot be excluded from the path. The horses have to be able to ride on the pavement. City Attorney Stuller mentioned this ordinance only applies to the City of Aspen. Mayor Standley replied that part of the trail is in the city limits. City Attorney Stuller suggested waiting until the public hearing. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adopt Ordinance ~28, Series of 1976, on the first reading; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio. Roll Call vote; Councilmembers De Gregorio, aye; Wishart, aye; Johnston, aye; Parry, aye; Pedersen, aye; Beherendt, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE ~29, SERIES OF 1976 - Airport Auto Towing Agreement Ord. 29, 1976 Towing agree- Councilwoman Pedersen moved to read Ordinance =29, Series of 1976, on first reading; ment seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance ~29 (Series of 1976) AN ORDINANCE RATIFYING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND AIRPORT AUTO CENTER ("CONTRACTOR'S), PROVIDING FOR TOWING AND STORAGE SERVICES TO THE CITY FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR; WHICH AGREEMENT INCPROPRATES A SCHEDULE OF CHARGES FOR SUCH SERVICES; REQUIRES THE LISTING OF CERTAIN INFORMATION ON VEHICLES TOWED AT THE TIME OF BILLING; PERMITS THE CITY TO CONCEL A TOW AT ANY TIME BEFORE A VEHICLE IS ATTACHED TO A TOW TRUCK; REQUIRES THE CONTRACTOR TO INDEMNIFY THE CITY AGAINST CLAIMS FOR LOSS AND INJURY RESULTING FROM SERVICES CONTRACTED FOR; AND FURTHER REQUIRES THE CONGRACTOR TO PROVIDE INSURANCE COVERAGE, ALL AS MORE SPECIFICALLY PROIDED THEREIN was read by Mayor Standley Councilman Parry made a motion to adopt Ordinance ~29t Series of 1976, on first reading; seconded by Councilman De Gregorio0 Roll call vote; Councilmembers Pedersen, aye; De Gregorio, aye; Parry, aye; Behrendt, aye; Wishart, aye; Johnston, aye; Mayor Standley, aye. All in favor, motion carried. COOPER STREET LOFTS ~iCooper Street/ Councilwoman Pedersen moved 5o pus the Cooper Street Lofts on the Agenda; seconded by Lofts Councilman Parry~ All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to give Cooper Street lofts approval of the final plat; seconded by Councilman Parry. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Pedersen moved to adjourn at 10:00 p.m.; seconded by Councilwoman Johnston. All in favor, motion carried. L£bby M~ ~1~/~5 D~put~--City Clerk