Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19750904 Mayor Standley opened the meeting with Councilwoman Johnston, City Manager Mahoney, and City Attorney Stuller present to discuss with the County Commissioners the trails agreement. County Commissioners present were Michael Kinsley, A1 Blomquist, George Ochs, and Joe Edwards. Mayor Standley mentioned that City Attorney Stuller has drafted the proposed trials agree- ment and what Edwards would like to do is to get the City to the point of going ahead and doing something with the agreement. The question which came up on part of the Council was what kind of involvement does the city want with the trails and if the trails within the City if they should be a subset of recreation thus treating the trails as part of recreation. Ted Armstrong, Director of Parks and Recreation was also present and because the trails are part of recreation it should be discussed in that total concept. The3City has adopted a City/County trial map that has been formally adopted by both boards, but the implementation on it is not very fast in the City and much more agressive in the County The City, at this point, would like to stay in the recreation business and let the County be in the trails business and that is the reason the County put the trails out on the City golf course and the trial from the Islin pool down to Maroon Creek. The City hasn't bascially cooperated other than making right of way availableto the County when they need it. Mayor Standley suggested that Joe Edwards go through the Counties position and what the County wants to do especially the idea of condemning trails within the City limits and then have Ted Armstrong explain his recreation department; what's involved in it, what the magnitude of it is, who participates, and how the trails would fit in. Edwards explained that what had participated City Attorney Stuller's and his conversation was the fact that the trails were coming together without any real.understanding between City and County on what was going on. An example is the trail from Islin Park and the golf course which was built last year and there has never been an easement granted to the County and it is actually within the City limits. Just recently, counties were given authority to install trails in of themselves and the past regulations with respect to their operation and it is a class three misdemeanor for violation; it is a new Bill so now the County has passed a supplemental resolution and they are calling them trails and secondary roads. The county is running into significant problems with respect to the acquisition right of way. Edwards went on to explain that even though they have an adopted City/County plan, which will work fine in areas like the Benedict project, but in areas that have already been developed; single family residential, chances of getting a trail through those areas without going into combination are relatively remote. The question then arises; does the County have the right to condemn within the City limits for trails and/or County secondary roads. There seems to be some authority that Mick has which will be referred to C~ty Attorney Stuller and will get a copy of it that.will state that the County can do that. There is also some statutes that City Attorney Stuller is aware of which states when the City annexes property the County roads cam become City Roads. The question has arisen as to who is going~to repair, patrol, clean up, sign, restrict and enforce the trails. Also, what about the trials that are within the City that the County built or that are in the City property that the County built or in the County that the City built; it is a disorganized jurisdiction. Edwards continued saying that his purpose is to get some feeling as to what is going to be done with the trails. Should the City own all of the trails within the City limits as City Attorney Stuller's agreement draft kind of proposed and police them and maintain them and sign them; and should the County conversly do everything outside the City limits; or should the County own and supervise the mall and have the sheriff enforce them under this new act. If the City maintains jurisdiction over some and the County maintains jurisdiction over some then we ought to have uniform signing and substantial uniform regulations. We have to come to some kind of understanding on who is going to own them. The County puts asphalt down on your propert and there is nothing in writing that says we own it. Some kind of structure ought to be established and the relathionships and the responsibilities for maintenance and enforcement clearly defined. For example the bicycle trail to the high school is almost becoming impassable by thistles and the City put it in and the County has never put a sign on it or done anything with it and yet it is not in the City limits so who should go out there and cut the thistles down. Edwards also feels that there ought to be keys to the posts that there should be posts that keep cars out and locks on the posts. The second level of problem, Edwards continued, is if the County decided to condemn an important link then it would be iron clad if that link was in the City limits and the City Council would participate. If it was just the County, the Statute seems to say that the County can't do it within the City limits; the qualification is that if it fits ir and ties in with the other County roads we call them secondary roads. That might be a defense ascerted; we don't have the right to do that and it occurs to me that the condenmi~ zation would be definately for certain if the City would join with the County in such a condemnization in which case it is going to have to be something which the City agrees is an important link because everybody goes solid when they hear condemnization. Edwards continued saying that the County is spending alot of money for trail links that are some recreation and some are really going to be important City commuter routes. Most of the trail construction has been in Aspen area and most of the planned future constructi¢ is in the immediate Aspen area with certain noteable exceptions and it would be appro- priate if the City would participate in it; perhaps totally or shared with the County. The adopted plan only really defines corridors and doesn't actually define particular actual locations and the City through the Planning Office has imput where the County is putting them; but the Council itself doesn't want to get involved. The County Commissionel feel that the trails is really more than recreation and believes that the trails will be going into commuter links. Edwards pointed out what the County Commissioners feel is important to do within the next year and all of it is urban links and they will be going with the idea of condemnization because the County is running in opposition from the land owners. A bicycle loop around the urban area would be valuable, the poeple would be on the loop and would be able to get to other places in town without having to get on the street network system and therefore it is the County's intention to try and develop a bicycle loop that would loop around the town and when it gets down to Hunter Creek changes from a bicycle trail to a hiking trail. We would like a commuter loop as opposed to a recreation loop and at the same time we are trying to locate it in a place that is pleasant so we could put in the Rio Grande trail which will draw the people from the Western portion of the City and they can all go down t¢ the Slaughter House bridge and take it up and come to town as opposed to coming up on the highway. The other links we would like to do; however we are running into static about, are the Smuggler Mountain loop which appears we will not get without condemnization, a portion of which is in the City and a portion of which is in the County. The loop from highway 82 back to Ute Avenue is all in the City and it looks like that is going to go if conceptual approval of the Benedict is granted and that will loop on the other side of Crystal lake as now proposed across the river and then run into Benedict's new office building and up the old wagon road to the corner of the Ute Children's Park and then pick up on wagon road from the Ute Cemetery and un all the way to Glory Hole Park. We will build it as soon as the easements are available. If that happens and if we can get con- demnation of Smuggler Mountain together then'we have half of the circle dOne. Other links that we felt were important where there is discussiOn as to where this link ought to go; originally the adopted plan takes the trail down castle creek all the homesites and lot owners have built up on the bluff, there is no development down there and is in nature of the Rio Grande Property so if it ran straight down Castle Creek across the corner of the institute picnic area, that would put together about 3/4 of the link that we are talking about and the only thing that Would~be lacking would then be a route across the base of the mountain which might parallel the midland right of way and a section through the Marolt ~roperty on the south of the Castle Creek Bridge where there is a nice plateau, and coming down would not interfe~r with that property and then come up Seventh Street. However, the lot owners are opposing to the trail even though they can't get down to it without repellin because it is so steep which means 3 or 4 of those lots would have to be condemned and the Institute got very solid when they tried to get the approval and nothing hapPened, maybe CU would be easier to deal. So it looks like if we wanted to put the trail through there i have to mean condemnization. Another alternative would be to run it along Red Butte Road and alot of people in this area that it's strictly a commutor trail and not a recreati trail and it really isn't an experience. The other trail links in the back of the Court House, since we have picked up this piece of property and Planning on a bicycle trail along the river it would be nice to continue that along and have it come up the Riverside Trailer Park area. That would also have to be some kind of condemnization and it would go right over ~o Herrin Park and that could put together the Roaring FOrk Greenway plan. Mayor Standley said that the City has the easement for the trails and have tried to dedicat them this summer but found that they were out in the river. Edwards said that the City owns the Ute Cemetery area all the Way into the river front to Water Street and there happens to be a retained easement with the Water street subdivision that would allow the City to connect in there but not alot of development on the other side of the river and would be neat if the bicycle trail could come all the way in from where Ut. Cemetery area is, all the way down to Mill Street Bridge and begin to bring the Roaring Fork Greenway plan into effect; that would be a through town connection and would be valuable. They are also trying to think of a way to get from Stein Bridge to the Maroon Creek Bridge on Highway 82. Mayor Standley asked Armstrong as to whether he feels that the trails relate to his program in terms of his ability timewise and manpower. Armstrong said that he didn't have enough people to do it with because the budget is not good enough. It would have to be the Council's decision if they would want the Recreation Department to be involved. Last year the budget was $350,000 in which land payments, the recreation funds came from, and the parks funds came from. Also there were 6.5 people who worked for approximately $3.50 per hour for 5 months and 4 people on the golf course which also came from that. There was alotted $73,000 for salaries and out of that was $44,000 for regular salaries and $18,000 for temporary help and the rest was for equipment. Mayor Standley asked that if the budget were available if Armstrong would have the time and the ability to take on the trails program from a maintenance point of view. Armstrong said that he would if the budget was adequate. Mayor Standley asked Edwards if the trails were being maintained at all. Edwards said that they had been. The Islin Park Trail was completely rebuilt and there are 2 or 3 actual cre ~s going on both maintenance and construction; alot of maintenance on the'Hunter Creek trail. Standley questioned if it would be more appropriate for the County to take on the entire trails and for the City to participate financially; for for the City to take on the main- tenance. Mayor Standley felt that the City shouldn't be involved in the building because there isn't much building in the City, Armstrong is not a building director he is a parks recreation director. Edwards said that their intention is to continue the program and once they get the desgin done it doesn't mean they will stop. This year the County expanded out to Snowmass and built some substantial trial links and they will be moving out to other trial areas as soon as the trail network gets completed in the Aspen urban area. The County would like to involve the City in the trails that immediately affect the immediate area both from a planning standpoint and financial participation. ~ichael Kinsley suggested that since the County is picking up the trails, maybe the City could pick up the parks and that could be the tradeoff. Mayor Standley thought that that sounded like a logical thing to do; for the City to take care of parks and the County Parks as far out as the Airport Business Center and for usl''~ to agree to join you in condemnization for approved adopted trails within the City to completely eliminate whether you have the legality or not. If we just went to a Straight trade off and try not allocate the whole thing as to whether we spend $80,000 on main- taining your parks and you spend $70,000 on building your trails that seems like a logical approach to me. Study Session Aspen City Council September 4, 1975 Mayor Standley suggested that the City should adopt the Counties trail master plan and the County should adopt the Cities recreation master plan which is based on the build out under existing zoning that can take place in theCity but effectively he is looking at the population based on the entire Roaring Fork Valley. If the County would adopt the recreation plan that would give the City the cloud, especially the idea of working with Brian of permanent housing making a subdivision dedication fee that's based on the acquisition cost of land outside the City limits for active parks versus open space in the City which is more expensive and still let the absentee owner pay the high ticket price and the permanent resident pay the low ticket price to try and bring down the cost of residential housing. That plan would have to be slightly updated. Shellman felt that they should get the planning office to get the parking plan and the trail plan together and let them extend into a capital sowe'dhave an idea of what the next 5 years money we really should be talking about. If the City is into parks, $350,000; and the counties into trails, $250,000; maybe we should come up with $350,000 fOr an equal push of maybe for some kind of allocation of tasks of whose buying land, who gets what better funds, and what chances are there of getting State participation. There are alot of ~hose things that are not really looked at until they have to be budgeted for. Even if it is a five year budget it is better to be able to pick and choose from it and at least have a sense of priority and that is what has been missing from our plans is a longer view so if we want to say we want to go to Herren Park with a trail how we could go a little futher but not this year but opens a whole new threshold and everybody says it would be nice to go to the next step and that's what we would like to say we could do. Mayor Standley suggested to have an action plan to 1) have City Attorney Stuller redraft the agreement to encompass what is being talked about basically County responsibility for the trail, CitY for recreation and Armstrong work with the planning office, 2) update the recreation plan so it's sensatized basically to the upper Roaring Fork Valley and with Don Rogers and Louis Butterbaugh put toghther a budget and then have another meeting to put all these three facets together --1) the financing, 2) the adopting, and 3) the adoption of the agreement. City Attorney said that what they would like her to do is to adopt both a park and trails agreement, and allocating responsibility for construction and maintenance, management and policing to the County for trails, and to the City for parks whether they be within or out of the City. One step further to adopt their County trail map to justify our actiVities and they adopt our recreation plan both to justify our dedication fees and one step further and direct the planning office intricate the trails and park plans suggest the capital improvement plan for at least 5 years for it and start allocating past from that not necessary from this agreement but that's the intention and the rights of condemnation will be as they stand now. The policing maintenance construction of trails whether they be within the City or County will be the County and will pick up the parks in the County and any new parks that will be built in the County. Mayor Standley asked that the Trails Condemnization be added to the agenda for the Council meeting to be held MOnday, September 8, at 5:00 p.m. Meeting adjourned at 6:10. ~ K~l~,~Y~'~ity' Clerk Eli~eth M.