Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Castle Creek Bridge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council divided over November ballot for Aspen entrance; staff recommends polling and more technical work
Summary
Council split on whether to place a binding November question authorizing use of open space for a transportation corridor (a historical 2001 question) or to use polling/advisory votes; legal staff said some uses (e.g., converting Murrell-Thomas open space to bus lanes) likely require voter authorization, but staff recommended polling as faster and less costly than a coordinated ballot question.
Council held a lengthy, at times contentious debate about whether to place a question on the November ballot to authorize use of open/park space for an entrance-to-Aspen transportation corridor.
Council member Ward asked staff to consider reviving language from a 2001 binding ballot question and argued that voter approval will likely be required for options that convert park/open-space to transportation use. He said the city needs to move quickly to authorize an SEIS and to give CDOT direction. Sam urged either a binary vote on the preferred alternative (2001 language) or an advisory question to clarify community preference. Kate Johnson (city attorney) explained that an earlier 1996/1998 vote authorized a two-lane parkway and a transit corridor, but that converting certain Murrell-Thomas properties to bus use would require explicit voter authorization under the charter.
Other council members, including Mayor Tory and John, expressed caution. Tory said he was uncomfortable with the current form of the 2001 language (which had been modified in staff materials to reflect bus lanes as an interim step) and favored polling to better target the question. Sarah (staff) recommended polling as a faster, cheaper way to get statistically valid public sentiment and noted that a polling approach can include long-term residents who are not registered voters. After debate, council did not direct staff to place the 2001 question on the Aug. 27 agenda; staff said it will not prepare ballot language absent clearer council direction and recommended polling and further technical analysis (including the SEIS and cost/impact details) before any binding ballot placement.
