Proximity of Aspen elected official’s home to proposed road project is not conflict, city determines

An Aspen elected official lives in close proximity to a proposed road rerouting site. According to the city’s legal counsel, however, this will not affect the decisions behind its final vote.

Discussions between the Aspen City Council continued this week over what to do with the city’s old Castle Creek Bridge. The two-lane overpass, the main entrance to Aspen, is reaching the end of its 75-year lifespan.

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

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

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

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

“We made the position clear that we did not believe Guth was conflicted,” True said.

Before Tuesday’s meeting, City Councilman Ward Hauenstein introduced a resolution proposing to waive attorney-client privilege and make True’s legal opinion public. Guth supported the idea by giving the idea forward.

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

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

He also noted that True’s opinion determined that Guth would receive no monetary gain from the project and that proximity alone did not constitute a conflict of interest.

Guth agreed with Hauenstein’s claims.

“Everybody is in conflict, and it affects everybody 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 that he lives some distance from the proposed PA route.

“There is already a road there. It’s not like they (supporters of the PA route) are talking about building a new road,” he said. “There’s 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 each of us in a similar way,” Guth said. “No matter what your opinion is for a better solution, we are all partial 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 thought the PA route was a good solution for Aspen, but he doesn’t think it is.