Proximity of Elected Aspen Official’s House to Proposed Roadway Project Not a Conflict, City Determines

An elected Aspen official lives in close proximity to a proposed site to reroute roadway. According to city legal counsel, however, it will not affect decisions behind his final vote.

This week, talks among Aspen City Council continued over what to do with the city’s aging Castle Creek Bridge. The two-lane overpass, Aspen’s main entrance, is reaching the end of its 50-year lifespan.

Its possible replacement includes two options to reroute Colorado Highway 82 from the roundabout. The proposed site for the reroute is through the Marolt Open Space, where Aspen City Councilmember Bill Guth lives near.

During Tuesday’s meeting, City Council voted unanimously to waive attorney-client privilege from a previous executive session concerning any perceived conflict of interest involving Guth. The discussion centered on Guth’s participation in proceedings related to possible bridge replacement options. This includes discussions over the Preferred Alternative (PA) route for the Entrance to Aspen Project (EAP).

Executive sessions typically involve legal counsel to discuss forthcoming matters, often protected by attorney-client privilege. 

In this instance, City Attorney Jim True had provided his legal opinions in a confidential memo during an executive session, addressing the proximity of Guth’s private residence to the PA route being considered by Aspen, which crosses the Marolt Open Space.

“I made the position clear that I did not think Guth was conflicted,” said True.

Ahead of Tuesday’s meeting, City Councilmember Ward Hauenstein introduced a resolution proposing to waive the attorney-client privilege and make True’s legal opinion public. Guth supported the idea, volunteering the idea prior.

Hauenstein confirmed that no conflict of interest was found and emphasized the importance of transparency in addressing an issue as contentious as the EAP. 

“I do not think it does any harm to let the community know that the city attorney found no conflict of interest as it relates to Guth’s involvement in decisions and discussions for the EAP,” said Hauenstein. 

He further noted that True’s opinion determined Guth would not receive any monetary gain from the project and that proximity alone does not constitute a conflict of interest.

Guth agreed with Hauenstein’s statements.

“Everyone is conflicted, and this affects everyone in the community,” he said. “There is no clear reason why this would benefit or hurt me financially, and therefore there is no conflict.”

Guth acknowledged living within a certain distance of the proposed PA route. 

“There is already a road there. It’s not like they (proponents of the PA route) are talking about putting in a new road,” he said. “There is already a road there.”

He said that while he may have a bias, so does “everyone else in the community.” 

“This is something that affects every one of us, and in a similar way,” Guth said. “Regardless of what your opinion is for a better solution, we are all opinionated and biased based on our personal experiences and our love and preferences for Aspen.”

Guth said he would be willing to make personal sacrifices if he believed the PA route was a good solution for Aspen, but that he does not think it is.

By: Westley Crouch I The Aspen Times I August 14, 2024