Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.19630527 Mayor Garfish opened the meeting at 7:30 PM, with Councilmen Beyer, Moo~e and NewelI, City Administrator Humphrey, and City Attorney Stewart, and Gary McFadden, present, and Councilman Zordel came in shortly thereafter. Aslo attendin~ the hearing were - Mr. Cornell of Portland Cement Co.-Tom Sardy- Mfs.Frost and Mrs. McCabe - Peter Green- Werne? Kuster- Dr. Barnard- Ed LaDck- Robert Sommers- Pat and Ginny Henry- Phil Scheid- Stan Johnson - Dr. Baxter - Bill Dunaway. Mayor Garfish explained purpose of meeting - to hear complaints and ~ecommenda- tions on the paving program, and told assemby that the State Highway Department in- tends to use hot mix rather than soil cement on State Highway 82. Gary McFadden outlined cost based on use of both soil cement and hot mix and said information received from Tallmadge and Tallmadge indicated that notice of intention to create the improvement district would have to be re-published if an alternate method of construction is to be considered. Dr. Barnard asked why a commitment in writing had not been obtained from the State Highway Dept. and Gary said such commitment could not be made by the Depart- ment until after appropriations on May Ist. Discussed- previous information from attorneys that only one method of con- st~uc%ion could be i~cluded in notice of intent,- that some petitions had been signed with the provision that soil cement base would be used - need for written rather than verbal commitments. Letter of Mayor Garfish read a letter from Mrs. Terese David opposing installation of curbs opposition, abutting her property.~ Mr. Sardy asked if improvement district can continue as he was told construction would be either soil cement or hot mix. Discussed - use of soil cement by State Dept.~ in other areas in Colorado - Mr. Stewart said he had been informed by Mr. Watrous that the Highway Dept. is not really concerned about the base, but will require asphalt mat. Discussed - that general reaction of the people iS~ffo~ a good job rather than low bid. Verbal objec- M~s. Frost expressed objection to the project as she~,feels Aspen was prettier tion before such improvements were made. There were~no other objections expressed. Discussed- time element. Attorney Stewart phoned Tallmadg~ and Tallmadge - and then reported as follows: The State Highway can rebuild with hot mix, and balance of di~trict can be with soil cement; that it was originally thought to be impractical to have two methods of con- struction; that Council can go ahead on present notice, and call ~or bids- that it is up to Counci% to decide whether to include Highway 82 in bids - if Council calls for alternate bids, notice of intent will have to be published with alternate ~hod included, Mr. Stewart asked if compliance by the State Highway Dept. with grades is of specigl ~en~fit to property owners abutting on Route 82, and Council agreed that this is so, also that over-all grading system and curb and gutter installation is an over-all benefit to the district. Mr. Stewart informed Council that Tallmadge and Tallmadge had given the decision on soil cement because they thought this was the will of Council, and some petitions do indicate "soil cement". He also said that, since th9 City requires that Route 82 be cut to grade to provide drainage, participation by the State is in the nature of a grant; also, as the State Highway Dept. will not permit "dips", a letter of intent must be ob- tained by. the City indicating what arrangements will be made for culverts and at whose expense. Mr. Stewart then informed Council that, based on what Tallmadge had just said, re,publication of notice will not be necessary. Mr. Sardy asked if property on Route 82 would have to pay the same amount as others in the district, and Mr. Stewart said Tallmadge had advised that they would if special benefits accrue to them. After discussion, a motion was made by Councilman Moore, seconded by Councilman Newell, that there is a special benefit accruing to all property abutting on High- way 82 in Special Improvement District No. 1 of the City of Aspen, by reason of the MOTION establishing of a grade for Highway 82 as the same traverses through said Improvement District in order that proper drainage can be accomplished, and by reason of the in- stallation of curbs~ and gutters and surfacing of said Highway $2, and that a gen- eral benefit accrues to the entire District by reason of surfacing~ drainage, and in- tersection grading throughout the District where Highway 82 passes through. Motion .~ carried unanimously. Discussed- timing - up to Council to specify in bids; need to co-ordinate with State Highway Dept. Dr. Barnard suggested that City "forge ahead" and no one opposed commencing paving program on July 1st. Mrs. Henry asked about oiling where streets are not to be paved, and Council in- formed her that this will be done. d Discusse - curbs and parking at ~as stations, and Mr. Humphrey will check on standard procedure. Motion The Clerk informed Council that request has been received from Steve Rieschl that Recreation she handle the accounts payable and payroll for the Recreation Committee, and after Comm. discussion, a motion was made by by Councilman Zordel, seconded by Councilman Beyer, that the financial transactions should be handled by the Recreation Committee, and not by the City. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 PM upon motion by Newell, seconded by Moore, and carried. Aspen, Colorado Proceedings Special Meeting '- May 27, 1963. City Council. At a special meeting of the City Council of the City of Aspen of Aspen, Colorado, held at the City Hall in said City, being the usual meeting place of said City Council, on Monday, the 27th day of May, 1963, at the hour of 7:30 P.M.s, there were present and answering at roll call: Mayor M.J. Garfish Councilmen Wolf J. Beyer Kenneth NCB Moore~ Clyde Newell Wilbur Zordel Also present: City Attorney Gllnton B. Stewart City Engineer Frank J. Humphrey City Clerk Dorothy Hoffmann Absent - City Treasurer - Mrs. Etta Taylor. _ Thereupon the following proceedings, among others, were had and taken: The City Council had previously directed that Notice of a Proposal to Create Improvement District No. 1 be published in four consecutive weekly insertions in the Aspen Times and mailed to each property owner to be assessed for the cost of improvements, and it appearing that said Notice was duly published and mailed, in ac- cordance with law, and that the date of the Hearing was May 27, 1963, at 7:30 O' cl6ck, and on June 3, 1963, at 7:30 8'clock P.M., the Council proceeded to hear complaints and objections concerning the proposed Improvement District No. 1. The following property owners appeared and entered an objection and protest as follows: The name and add~ess of the property owner who entered a protest, a brief description of the objection and the disposition by the °ity Council is as follows: Mrs. Ethel Frost - ~21 East Main - expressed objection to improvements - she thought City would be prettier without them. Mrs. Terese Davis 210 East Main - by letter read by the Mayor - opposed installation of curb and gutter as taking away from the charm of Aspen. There being no further objections or protests, the meeting was adjourned,