HomeMy WebLinkAboutelection decision.20071029 DECISION OF HEARING OFFICER
IN THE MATTER OF THE PROTESTS TO INITIATIVE PETITIONS FILED
WITH THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
REGARDING THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN — MODIFIED DIRECT
CONNECTION AND THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN — DIRECT CONNECTION
INTRODUCTION
Two protests were filed on October 10, 2007, by Les Hoist, Clifford Weiss, and
Terry Paulson ( "Protestors ") in the office of the City Clerk, City of Aspen, Colorado.
The protests were to two initiative petitions submitted by Jeffrey Evans and Curtis
Vagneur ( "Petitioners ") regarding the entrance to Aspen. One petition concerned a
modified direct connection and a second petition concerned a direct connection. The
specific issues contained in the protests were: 1) the initiative petition included
administrative matters not subject to the initiative power; 2) more than one subject was
included in the petitions; and 3) the ballot title was misleading. Additionally, Petitioners
argued that the protests were deficient because they were not filed under oath and
therefore, the hearing officer had no jurisdiction to rule on the protests.
The protests were timely filed in accordance with the provisions of 31- 11- 110(1),
Colorado Revised Statutes.
The hearing on this matter was held before Karen Goldman, Administrative
Hearing Office for the City of Aspen in the City Council Chambers on October 22, 2007.
Protestors were represented by Herbert S. Klein, Lance C. Cote, and Corey T. Zurbach of
Klein, Cote, & Edwards, LLC. Petitioners were represented by Jeffrey Evans. The
administrative hearing officer issues this decision pursuant to 31 -11- 110(1), Colorado
Revised Statutes.
•
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Matt Lowry is a member of the firm Klein, Cote & Edwards LLC,
representing the Protestors.
2. Mr. Lowry stated he attempted to obtain copies of 1989 and 1995 draft
environmental impact (EIS) documents regarding the entrance to Aspen.
Among the places he researched were the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) website, the City of Aspen, the Pitkin County
library, and the Glenwood Springs office of the Colorado Department of
Transportation.
3. Mr. Lowry stated he found nothing on the website, more than one copy at
the Glenwood Springs CDOT office, and one copy at the library. He
stated that, in general, multiple copies for public use were not available.
■•■•■ID
4. Randy Ready is Assistant City Manager for the City of Aspen. He has
worked for the City since 1993.
5. Mr. Ready became Assistant City Manager in 1996. His previous position
was Director of Parking and Transportation.
6. Mr. Ready stated that the Aspen City Charter requires that any change to
the Municipal Code be done by use of an ordinance. A resolution is used
by the City Council to enter into contracts, lease agreements and to issue a
statement for or against any matters before them.
7. Mr. Ready stated that the role of the Aspen City Manager is to oversee
twenty (20) administrative departments and to manage all administrative
functions as provided for in the City Charter.
8. Mr. Ready said that he served as the City of Aspen liaison on the EIS
process for the entrance to Aspen. He stated the EIS effort began in
January, 1994 and resulted in four (4) documents having been created in a
period of five (5) years, culminating in an FEIS (final document) which
was released in June, 2007. He stated a multi - disciplinary approach,
involving persons with expertise in a variety of technical areas, was used
to create the EIS. This included seven (7) to eight (8) staff from the City
of Aspen and four (4) staff from Pitkin County.
9. Mr. Ready said the creation of the EIS was an administrative process.
10. The analysis involved looking at the following four (4) components for all
alternatives proposed: lane size; profile or grade; mode, including HOV,
bus lanes, light rail, etc.; and alignment. Additionally, each alternative
was judged by the following: "reality check" or was the alternative
feasible; fatal flaw analysis or did the alternative meet the project
objectives; comparative analysis or how did the alternative compare to all
other alternatives.
11. Mr. Ready said that Alternative D was rejected at the DEIS (draft) stage
using the comparative analysis test. The alternative also did not meet
project objectives including safety.
12. Mr. Ready stated that the Federal Highway Administration (FHA), the
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the City of Aspen
agreed that the approved design for the entrance to Aspen should be two
(2) general purpose lanes for vehicular traffic and a corridor for light rail
or bus lanes. It would be a modified direct alignment and include a cut
and cover tunnel. The tunnel would allow the road to be built below grade
and then covered to preserve open space and to provide pedestrian access
and a wildlife crossing, as required by federal law.
13. Mr. Ready stated that Resolution No. 61, Series of 1998, authorized the
City of Aspen to enter into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with
the FHA and CDOT regarding the FEIS and for the City Manager to
execute agreements. He said the resolution was an administrative matter.
14. Mr. Ready said the major points of the MOU were to spell out intent and
what needs to take place while construction is occurring.
15. Mr. Ready stated that the MOU constitutes a contract among the parties
that may only be amended upon written approval of the parties. He said
that the amendment provision was still in effect.
16. Mr. Ready said that Resolution No. 34, Series of 2002, conveyed a right -
of -way (ROW) easement to CDOT for construction, operation, and
maintenance of a two -lane parkway and a corridor for light rail over City -
owned property. He further stated this was an administrative matter.
17. Mr. Ready stated the Aspen City Charter, Section 13.4, requires a vote of
the registered electors in order to sell, exchange or dispose of public
buildings, utilities or real property, including real property acquired for
open space. He further stated that the City Charter open space cannot be
sold, exchanged, disposed of or converted to uses other than for
recreational, agricultural or easement purposes unless it is replaced with
other open space of equal or greater value as determined by a resolution of
the City Council. He said that any attempt to change the use of open space
would require both a public vote and an easement change by the City
Council by resolution.
18. Mr. Ready said that the City Council granted 8.6 acres of open space to
CDOT in exchange for 31 acres of open space. He said that CDOT has
already used some of the open space granted to it for designated purposes.
19. Mr. Ready said that the elements contained within the initiative petition
would create a new, hybrid alternative to the preferred alternative.
20. Mr. Ready stated that changes to the elements of the preferred alternative
would impact decisions already made, would impact the elements of the
MOU, and that several items would have to be re- evaluated. He said that
Alternative D had not gone through the complete administrative review
process and could not be legally implemented unless certain steps were
taken. These included: creating a new EIS; becoming the new preferred
alternative by being deemed superior to all other alternatives; placing a
ballot question before the voters regarding the use of open space;
obtaining a funding source for construction; meeting federal requirements
and obtaining the approval of the FHA, modification of the MOU and
ROW agreement. He stated that the current preferred alternative qualifies
for funding while Alternative D does not.
21. Mr. Ready stated that when a policy is changed or a new policy is put in
place, it may require changes in subsequent administrative actions.
22. Bud Eylar is a former Pitkin County employee. He worked for the County
from 1982 to 2006 as public works director and county engineer. He is a
licensed civil engineer.
23. He participated in the entrance to Aspen DEIS process as a representative
of Pitkin County and was part of the committee that reviewed the
documents.
24. In the 1980's, after the County passed a use tax for county road projects,
including work on Highway 82, Mr. Eylar said he was the administrator of
the process.
25. Mr. Eylar stated that as part of the entrance to Aspen DEIS process, the
committee looked at fifteen (15) to twenty (20) alternatives. The County
was concerned with whether the traffic worked well, whether there would
be any back -ups, and how well people would be moved in and out of
Aspen.
26. Mr. Eylar said that safety is the first thing considered when looking at a
{ possible traffic route. Additional factors included environmental impacts,
sound, noise and light, and costs of the project.
27. Mr. Eylar stated that, as an engineer, he wanted the ability to be able to
design a traffic route to safety standards. He stated that several elements
of the initiative petition would restrict or eliminate that ability.
28. Mr. Eylar specifically identified the following issues:
a. Item 7 as a whole impinges on the methods engineers would bring
to the process.
b. Item 7a. might not meet appropriate safety standards
c. Item 7d. contained language open to interpretation and would
dictate an administrative outcome
d. Item 7e. included subjective language and could result in a "no
design" option, taking away engineering prerogatives
e. Item 8 limits design options for mitigation purposes because it
requires the use of certain elements that may not be needed
f. Item 5 doesn't provide for the flexibility needed to be able to build
something based on what's actually happening in Aspen and to be
able to make changes in the future. It impinges on the methods
engineers would bring to the process.
g. Item 6 would create problems in designing the highway based on
the criteria listed.
h. Item 3 restricts engineering ability.
29. Mr. Eylar stated that the Record of Decision provided parameters and did
not have specific engineering requirements. He said the initiative petitions
require specific standards.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The process of initiative in the City of Aspen is governed by Article V. Initiative and
Referendum of the Charter of the City of Aspen. Section 5.1(b) states: "The registered
electors of the City may initiate a proposed ordinance, pursuant to the initiative power
reserved by Article V, Section 1(9) of the State Constitution, as to any legislative matter
which is subject to said legislative power ". Section 5.2 states: "The manner and
procedure for exercising the powers of initiative and referendum shall be as set forth in
Article 11 of Title 31 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, as may be amended from time to
time by the state legislature, except as otherwise provided by the Charter ". Provisions
found in Article 11 of Title 31 of the Colorado Revised Statutes include, but are not
limited to, those procedures for filing and hearing a protest.
The issues in the protest involve three (3) matters. They are: 1) the inclusion in the
petition of matters that are not subject to the initiative power; 2) inclusion of more than a
single subject; and 3) the misleading nature of the ballot title. Additionally, the
Petitioners raised the issue that the protests were not properly filed and thus the
administrative hearing officer did not have jurisdiction over the protest. This last issue
will be discussed first.
The two protest petitions were filed by Klein, Cote & Edwards LLC, attorneys at law
representing the Protestors, on October 10, 2007. This was the last day protest petitions
could be filed in accordance with state statute. The protest regarding the initiative
petition known as the "Direct Connection" was signed by Herbert S. Klein. The protest
regarding the initiative petition known as the "Modified Direct Connection" was signed
by Lance Cote. On October 16, 2007, Jeffrey Evans sent an email to Kathryn Koch, City
Clerk for the City of Aspen, alleging that the petitions had not been filed under oath as
required by statute, were thus invalid, and that the hearing, scheduled for October 22,
2007, should be cancelled. Representatives of the Protestors filed verifications with the
City Clerk prior to the October 22, 2007, administrative hearing. The verifications for
Les Hoist were dated October 12, 2007; for Terry Paulson, October 19, 2007; and for
Clifford Weiss, October 18, 2007.
31 -11 -110 of the Colorado Revised Statutes governs the process for filing protests. It
states in part: "Within forty days after an initiative or referendum petition is filed, a
protest in writing under oath may be filed in the office of the clerk by any registered
elector who resides in the municipality, setting forth specifically the grounds for such
protest." Petitioners argued that at the time the protests were filed, there were no
accompanying oaths and that although the oaths were subsequently filed, they were filed
after the deadline for filing the petition. They further argued that there was no provision
in state statute that allowed for filing the oaths after the filing deadline. Therefore, the
petitions were not valid. Supporting this position, the Petitioners presented three (3)
court cases, Ramer, a 1916 Supreme Court decision regarding the omission of the word
"sworn" in the notary public's statement; Adams, a 1989 Court of Appeals case dealing
with the lack of appropriate review by the clerk of the court that recall petitions met the
threshold statutory requirements — the petitions were remanded to the clerk of the court
for further administrative processing; and Fabec, a 1996 Supreme Court decision dealing
with, among other matters, inconsistencies in the dates of the affidavits of petition
circulators and of the notaries public. It is Fabec that contains matters relevant to
Petitioners' argument.
The common and usual standard for determining compliance with election procedures
and processes is substantial compliance rather than strict compliance. Fabec included a
three -part test of substantial compliance: 1) the extent of the non - compliance; 2) the
purpose of the applicable provision and whether that purpose is substantially achieved
despite the alleged noncompliance; and 3) whether there was a good -faith effort to
comply or whether compliance is based on a conscious decision to mislead the electorate.
The attorneys stated that in previous cases, they had filed protests that did not contain
statements under oath from the protestors. Once the Protestors were made aware of the
lack of verification on these protests, they obtained statements under oath from each
protestor for each of the two petitions and filed them with the City Clerk. All were filed
prior to the hearing. The protests were filed in a timely manner and the content was not
altered after the verifications were filed nor were they altered by the subsequent filing of
the verifications. The lack of oath on the protests was an oversight. There was no
intention to defraud or deceive the public. Looking at the test under Fabec, it appears that
the test of substantial compliance was met.
Furthermore, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional rights related
to the initiative power should not be hampered by technical statutory provisions nor by
technical construction of those provisions. In other words, all due diligence should be
taken to allow the citizens of the state their right to the proper use of the initiative power.
It might be argued that in order to construe the initiative rights liberally, one would have
to construe the procedures for protesting initiative petitions equally strictly. Otherwise,
the rights to initiative would be limited and perhaps prohibited. If that were the case,
however, it would follow that there should be no opportunity or no ability to protest
initiative petitions. The opposite scenario exists: the state legislature has established a
procedure to permit protests to take place. Since this protest procedure is a part of
election law which is to be liberally construed, then the standard of substantial
compliance applies in protest procedures as well. To state it colloquially, "what's good
for the goose is good for the gander ".
Petitioners' argument does not stand and the administrative hearing officer has
jurisdiction in the matter of this protest.
The initiative petitions seek to change the preferred alternative for the entrance to Aspen
with a plan similar to, but not the same as, Alternative D, identified in the 1995 DEIS. It
further seeks to rescind any and all prior enactments and authorizations that would be
inconsistent with this alternative. Section 1 of the petition states: "The State of
Colorado, Department of Transportation (CDOT) is hereby authorized to construct,
operate and maintain a four -lane highway configuration which substantially conforms to
the design described herein, subject to the following terms and conditions ", then lists nine
(9) specific terms and conditions, summarized below:
1. the highway shall be built after completion of a reevaluation and issuance of a
revised Record of Decision if either or both are required;
2. acceptance and implementation of the authorization (the ballot question) shall
not result in any funding obligation for condition #1;
3. the highway shall be constructed as if it were Alternative D listed in the draft
DEIS of August 1995, "except as provided therein ";
4. CDOT shall have sole discretion for design for the Maroon/Castle/Highway
82 intersection and for the location from Main St. to Highway 82
HOV/Transit lanes;
5. lane management shall be consistent with/no more restrictive than, access
limitations on the Basalt to Buttermilk segment of Highway 82;
6. the alignment and bridge engineering shall be sufficient to allow the addition
of a light rail transit system when community support and financing become
available;
7. the conveyed property (open space) shall include, but not be limited to,
several environmental and historical resource mitigation measures:
a. avoid encroachment on community garden and hang - gliding and para-
sailing landing areas;
b. return to open space certain land to be abandoned by CDOT;
c. be as sensitive as possible to location of the historic Holden Smelting and
Milling Complex and Museum when considering alignment;
d. use a minimum total of open space, consistent with good design
e. design the bridge to be sensitive to the environment and community
character;
f. landscape with plantings, berms, depressions, and other methods to
mitigate environmental and neighborhood concerns along the entire
corridor;
8. any adjustments to conveyed property resulting in a net increase in acreage
conveyed to CDOT shall require no further compensation or consideration to
the City of Aspen;
9. any ground disturbing activity necessary for preliminary engineering or design
work shall be the minimum reasonably necessary; if construction does not
commence with one year, CDOT shall re- vegetate and landscape immediately
upon completion of the activity.
Protestors' first argument is that the petitions include matters that are not legislative in
nature and therefore, not subject to initiative powers. They argued that legislative matters
proscribe the "what" while administrative matters proscribe the "how ", "when" and
"where ". Protestors said that if the proposed ordinances contained in the petitions were
to be adopted by the electors, then the petitions would amend and, in some cases, rescind
previously executed documents, specifically a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
among the City of Aspen, Federal Highway Administration, and the Colorado
Department of Transportation and a right -of way (ROW) easement between the City of
Aspen and the Colorado Department of Transportation. Both these documents concern
administrative processes that are needed to effect implementation of a proposed entrance
to Aspen approved by the electors in 1996. Protestors further stated that by substituting
another plan for the entrance to Aspen authorized by the City Council, the petitions apply
conditions for that road that are specific design, engineering and mitigation processes that
are administrative in nature and normally handled at the staff level at the City of Aspen.
Petitioners stated that, in 1996, when the City Council put a question before the voters
regarding the use of open space for a new entrance to Aspen, that question included
several conditions that identified environmental and historic mitigation measures for the
use of the corridor. Petitioners further argued that these conditions were legislative as a
result of their having been included in a legislative act, a change in the use of open space.
A change in open space use can not occur without first obtaining the approval of
registered electors at an election for that purpose, in accordance with Section 13.4 of the
Charter of the City of Aspen. In order to change the use of the conveyed land, the
purpose of the initiatives, Petitioners thus had to include similar conditions in their
petitions in order to show where the change in use would occur. Petitioners further
argued that the conditions included in the initiative petitions were neither legislative nor
administrative, but descriptive and necessary to instruct both the voters of Aspen and
CDOT what they could expect from the new entrance to Aspen, in terms of location, use,
and form. They further argued they were merely mirroring the form of the 1996 open
space ballot question referred to the voters by the Aspen City Council.
The City of Aspen is governed by a Council/Manager form of government. The City
Council sets the policy direction for the city and the City Manager is responsible for
carrying out that policy, utilizing the appropriate city staff. Specifically, Section 6.1 of
the Charter of the City of Aspen states: "The manager shall be responsible to the council
for the proper administration of all affairs of the City placed in his charge..." and then
further states that he shall be required to: "Provide for engineering, architectural,
maintenance and construction services required by the City." Thus, the charter
acknowledges that tasks related to construction projects involving engineering,
architectural, and construction services are administrative tasks.
The City Council of the City of Aspen has the ability to refer any matter to the electorate,
as provided for in Section 5.5 of the Charter of the City of Aspen: "The council on its
own motion, shall have the power to submit at a general or special election any proposed
ordinance or question to a vote of the people in a manner as in this article provided."
That matter may be legislative, it may be administrative or it may be advisory. Citizens
do not have that same latitude. While the initiative power is reserved to them, it can only
be utilized for matters of a legislative nature. When the City Council placed a question
on the November 5, 1996, ballot regarding the conveyance of open space for the entrance
to Aspen, the question included specified conditions, including seven (7) environmental
and historic resource mitigation measures. These measures identified what needed to be
considered in designing the corridor. It is likely that these conditions were included to
provide more information to enable the voters to make an informed decision. They were
descriptive in nature and they described considerations that were administrative in nature.
The fact that they were included in a ballot question regarding a change in open space use
referred to the electors by the City Council does not automatically or necessarily make
these conditions legislative.
These measures or conditions are more fully enumerated and expanded in the MOU that
was authorized in 1998. This document goes into great detail regarding the mitigation
measures included in the 1996 ballot question and includes specifics on how trails will be
relocated, re- graded, and re- paved, how much open space will be used, how the bridge
will be constructed, how street re- alignments will be made, how historic buildings will be
protected, etc. Not only does the MOU identify administrative, i.e., engineering,
construction, mitigation actions, the MOU itself was considered by the City Council to be
a routine administrative action by virtue of its having been approved by resolution. As
stated in testimony, resolutions are used for administrative matters.
While it appears the core purpose of the proposed initiative petitions was to ask the
electors of Aspen to vote on a different entrance to Aspen alternative than the one
approved by the voters in 1996, a vote made necessary by the need to use open space land
in the project, it also appears that a secondary purpose was to mandate specifics regarding
the design, location, and mitigation measures for that roadway. The proposed ordinance
contained in the petitions also mandates the amendment or rescinding of existing
documents authorized by the City Council because they would conflict with the specific
elements or conditions of this new roadway. Both the secondary purpose of the petition
and the amendment/rescinding of the documents are administrative matters entrusted to
the City Manager of the City of Aspen and his staff. In fact, the MOU can only be
amended "upon written agreement of all the parties" and not by the electors.
In response to the argument by the Protestors that the conditions included in the petition
are administrative, Petitioners responded by stating that new administrative procedures
often follow changes in legislative policy. That is true. However, in the case of the
petitions, the administrative procedures regarding type of transit corridor, location,
mitigation measures, are specifically included as an integral component of them. Thus,
requiring the City Council to authorize a new and different MOU and possibly a new
right -of -way easement is not an administrative process that flows from a legislative
change. It is an administrative requirement required by and stated in the proposed
ordinance itself. Additionally, not only do Petitioners want to see a different proposed
alternative serve as the plan for the entrance to Aspen, they want to see the alternative
done their way, a particular way, and no other. While this hearing officer believes
Petitioners felt that, in order to effect their core proposal, they had to enumerate and
include all the conditions that constituted a change in use from the current proposal, in
doing so, they encroached upon the administrative processes reserved to the
administrative staff of the City of Aspen as authorized by the City Council. Thus, both
petitions over -reach and intrude on administrative responsibilities of city staff and are not
proper subjects for consideration by the electors of the City of Aspen. Allowing citizens,
through the initiative process, to either dictate or negate administrative actions normally
undertaken by city staff is a misuse of the process and is contrary to the rights to initiative
established by the Charter of the City of Aspen.
City of Colorado Springs v. Bull allows a hearing officer to sever impermissible portions
of an initiative under the following conditions: when the remainder of the proposed bill
can be given legal effect; when deleting the impermissible portions would not
spirit of the measure; and when the sponsors and subscribers
substantially change the spi p
would prefer the measure to stand as unaltered. Severing the impermissible portions of
the initiative would result in a proposed ordinance that asked the voters to determine
whether the new entrance to Aspen should consist of two general highway lanes and two
vehicle and/or transit lanes (HOV). Petitioners have testified that they believed the
conditions listed were necessary to understand the proposal they were promoting and
since it was a specific proposal with specific conditions, this hearing officer is reluctant
to sever impermissible portions of the initiative and instead will consider the proposed
petitions in their entirety.
The initiative petitions contain administrative procedures that identify very specific
requirements that must be met in order to effect an alternative proposal for the entrance to
Aspen. If approved, the petitions would amend and possibly rescind previously- approved
documents, including the MOU and the right -of -way easement, which were not only
authorized by the City Council of the City of Aspen as an administrative matter, but also
implement administrative procedures to be followed in the design and construction phase
of the currently- approved entrance to Aspen. Allowing citizens to ask the electors to
decide administrative matters would not only restrict and have a chilling effect on the
ability of the City Council to enter into agreements; it would be done in violation of the
Charter of the City of Aspen, which only allows citizens to initiate legislative matters.
Petitioners' argument that the conditions included in the 1996 ballot question the City
Council placed before the voters were legislative because they were part and parcel of a
legislative question and that including similar, if not the exact same, conditions was thus
also legislative is not a valid one. The governing body may place anything before the
voters while citizens may not. Administrative or descriptive or illustrative elements do
not necessarily become legislative simply because they are part of a ballot question.
Protestors' arguments on this issue stand.
Regarding the remaining two issues in this protest, the inclusion of more than a single
subject, and the misleading nature of the ballot title, little, if any, testimony was presented
in connection with these issues. However, the hearing officer will consider these matters.
In regards to the first issue, that the petition contains more than a single subject, in
looking at the petitions closely, there is actually a single subject, the question of a four -
lane highway, two for general traffic and two vehicular and/or transit lanes (HOV), using
certain property, including open space. It is the inclusion of the administrative conditions
and requirements that appear to make this a multi- subject issue. Setting those conditions
aside in terms of determining the subject, it is clear there is only one subject of the
petition. However, this issue becomes moot because the petition itself is not the
appropriate subject for the initiative process.
In regards to the second issue, that the ballot title is misleading, no ballot title has been
issued at this point in the initiative process. In accordance with 31 -11- 111(1), Colorado
Revised Statutes, a ballot title is issued following the setting of the election date by the
governing body for voting on the question. Therefore, this issue is also moot.
DECISION
Upon review of the protest and the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing on
October 22, 2007, it is determined that the initiative petitions contain administrative
subject matter that is not subject to the rights of initiative, and therefore, the initiative
petitions are not sufficient.
(s) Karen Goldman
Administrative Hearing Officer
October 29, 2007
Date
CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29 day of October, 2007, a copy of the
foregoing Decision of Administrative Hearing Officer was sent to:
Kathryn Koch, City Clerk
City of Aspen
130 South Galena St.
Aspen, Colorado 81611 -1975
Herbert S. Klein
' Klein, Cote & Edwards LLC
201 North Mill St., Ste. 203
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Jeffrey Evans
P.O. Box 324
Basalt, Colorado 81621
Curtis Vagneur
P.O. Box 1471
Aspen, Colorado 81612
James R. True
Special Counsel to the City of Aspen
216 S. Monarch #102
Aspen, Colorado 81611