meeting_id
stringlengths 27
37
| source
stringlengths 596
386k
| type
stringlengths 4
42
| reference
stringlengths 75
1.1k
| city
stringclasses 6
values |
|---|---|---|---|---|
DenverCityCouncil_03052018_18-0115
|
Speaker 0: And Councilman Espinosa has also called out for a Vote Council Bill 137 approving the annual Public Works Infrastructure Program by waiving the requirement that contracts above 500,000 be individually approved by City Council under pending, no items have been called out. Did I miss anything? All right, Madam Secretary, could you please put the first item up on our screens? And Councilor Cashman, will you please put comfortable 115 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 0115 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions by members of council. 115. Those called out by Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: All right. Um, sorry. Yeah. So I had some concerns reading the legal description. You know, we were considerably, you know, the way it's written, there's considerable amount of air land area that has been added to this area for condemnation. But I understand it's it's customary, but I would like somebody from public works to to speak to how this acquisition would be, how this kind of these new this new area, as defined, would be used to sort of assure me and this council that the recommendations of the Illyria neighborhood plan, which asks that the which states in their its recommendations that improvements to Brighton Boulevard do not go east beyond what is there today, so that there there is no, you know, destruction of the existing fabric.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Lisa Lemley, Division of Real Estate. So, Councilman, I can address in a general way first, the land acquisition ordinance is what is traditional for us almost 100% of the time. We use the vesting deeds to for each of the properties that we may impact. The reason for that is we come at a time before the design is 100% completed, but we need to be moving the land acquisition forward or the ordinance forward so that we can meet the timing of the project itself, recognizing that the intent is not to take all of the properties on this particular project. I can confirm with you, but in general I believe the ratio is ten of them are temporary easements, two are permanent easements and three are partial acquisitions. And the partial acquisitions are where Brighton curves a little bit. And the intent of the project primarily is a little bit of widening and sidewalks where there are no sidewalks right now. Now I would need to probably follow up with you on the Illyria plan that you're referencing as it relates to the design in terms of going east. The project is just between 44th and 47th grade.
Speaker 6: Yeah, yeah. I'm happy it's C 115 or I, I had it printed out but I forgot to bring it. So the, the reason why this is concerning when I saw the legal descriptions is we, we certainly put a exception on the final five feet of the property for the alley right of way. Me personally, I would have much rather seen an exception come further closer to the to the front property line where you actually need the right of way. The reason why it's concerning, though, is because we're in the process of acquiring everything west of those properties. And so we can certainly widen and put all the the the right of way improvements on our property that we already own. So I'm just it's important that. Yeah, well the question I should add, I'll ask it this way. So the intent of the neighborhood plan, which recommends not going east into the existing fabric, would be met by the proposed plan. I mean, the proposed project isn't as envisioned right now, correct?
Speaker 8: My understanding is yes. And like I said, I'm happy to follow up with you tomorrow then to confirm that. But my understanding is, yes, we are taking just there would be three small parcels and it is just to get around a curve, and that is with land that we do not own as part of the National Western Project.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. I sort of just want that on record because I don't want us to be in the it's a great opportunity. And there's also language in the plan about the redevelopment along Brighton Boulevard, but I wouldn't want us to be in this business of acquiring land through condemnation procedures and only to put it back on the market.
Speaker 8: No, there are very specific requirements around that with the Uniform Relocation Act, the whole process. No, it's it's very controlled. And how the city moves forward and public works and real estate move forward with these projects.
Speaker 6: And then one last bit of clarification. You know, I was told it was a public works project, The Broad, the Brighton Boulevard. But it is clearly stated in the bill this is part of the National Western Center is.
Speaker 8: The distinction is it is not within the National Western Center boundaries for the original land acquisition ordinance. It is in the National Western Center area. So Brighton Boulevard obviously is a major roadway that will support National Western. So that is why it was referenced because of that 44th to 47th block and it is being paid for from national Western funds.
Speaker 6: Oh, great.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: I don't see anybody else with questions. Councilman Espinosa, did you want to make comments before we vote?
Speaker 6: No. No comment.
Speaker 0: All right. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Espinoza. I. Flynn. I. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Sussman. Black. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close voting. And now the results. Lebanese Lebanese Council Bill 115 has been ordered published. Final consideration will be Monday, March 12th. Madam Secretary, if you could put the next item on our screens and Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 151 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the National Western Center Project.
Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed for the Brighton Boulevard 47th Avenue to Race Court Reconstruction project including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, permits and other appurtenances located at Brighton Boulevard from 47th Avenue to Race Court in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03052018_18-0151
|
Speaker 0: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close voting. And now the results. Lebanese Lebanese Council Bill 115 has been ordered published. Final consideration will be Monday, March 12th. Madam Secretary, if you could put the next item on our screens and Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill 151 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 0151 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions by members of council. Councilman Espinosa, you have questions on this one?
Speaker 6: Yes. Can somebody explain to me what's the difference between this? You know, I see we're changing the fund name and the number. What is the significance of that? Yes.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Members of Council Jackson Brockway in the Budget Management Office representing community planning and development. So in relation to the different.
Speaker 6: Types of let me interrupt just for the public's understanding. So we have been collecting fees. We've had the ability to collect development and and and infrastructure fees at the Gateway area for the better part of eight years. And we have been collecting them and putting them in a fund. And now we're changing the name of that fund in the number of that fund and moving those funds over.
Speaker 3: Thanks. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that one.
Speaker 6: So within this area, in the Gateway area, there are two sets of fees. There are impact fees.
Speaker 3: Which have been assessed and collected since 2000. And then there's development fees. Historically, these have been paid actually through land dedication.
Speaker 6: Instead of paying the fee. Just recently we have begun to receive.
Speaker 3: Payments.
Speaker 6: And therefore will need to actually set up these new funds in order to deposit those dollars. So these are actually new funds and there is just is a need to create the fund or create.
Speaker 3: These new funds in order to have somewhere to put them instead of just absorbing them within.
Speaker 6: Agency budgets. And the like I said, the the ability is 18 years old and so was it. I mean, is there something structural in the in the impact fee and the development fee that it actually grew over time as the rate of the that fee grew over time? Or are we still stuck in a 2000 fund? I mean, a fee assessment? I mean. Right. That's that's a great question.
Speaker 7: I'd be happy to follow up with.
Speaker 3: Some additional information historically on that.
Speaker 6: Again, the age of this of these funds, we've been they've been on the.
Speaker 3: Books for quite some time.
Speaker 6: My understanding.
Speaker 3: Is, is the land dedication has been the preferred method of.
Speaker 6: Paying these fees.
Speaker 3: And there has not been a unforeseen.
Speaker 6: Need to pay the fees and have just done land dedication instead. But I'd be happy to provide some. Yeah. Great information. Wow. If, if that's a fee that needs to somehow, uh, it'll be, I'd like to know more and less we can do that in, especially in a private briefing because, you know, that's a tool that we don't use very often. And yet we have one here that's 18 years old. Thanks, Bob.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I don't see any other questions on this one. Councilman Espinosa, did you want to make comments before we vote?
Speaker 6: No, thanks.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. I. Flynn, i. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez I knew. Sussman Black.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 2: Sorry. Get a plug in. I got for 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, Constable. 151 has passed. If you could please put the next item up on our screens. And, Councilman Cashman, will you put Council Bill 137 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing new funds in the Grant and Other Money Projects Fund for the “Gateway Area Development Fees”.
Establishes two interest-bearing capital special revenue funds, Fund 38424 and Fund 38425, for depositing revenues from Gateway Area Development Fees in lieu of dedication to support the Gateway Areas’ major park, open space, and trail system in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-13-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03052018_18-0137
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, Constable. 151 has passed. If you could please put the next item up on our screens. And, Councilman Cashman, will you put Council Bill 137 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 0137 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded questions by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: All right. Question for public works. This one. I just wanted some clarification. We've got six bills today, four for $3 million, $6.3 million contracts for sidewalk gap. So obviously, we could theoretically. Charge up a storm on that and I'm sure everyone would love to do. What is that, $18 million worth of sidewalk gap? But but this bill here only has basically earmarking $1.5 million to that program. How is that in addition to some of additional other funds? How much money is going to is already allocated for this year to the Sidewalk Gap program to sort of justify having six $3 million contracts
Speaker 8: . Uh, I think this is a separate ordinance from the question that you're asking. So the annual ordinance is our annual maintenance program. The on call the Sidewalk Gap program is something different.
Speaker 6: So there's a there's a specific number, and I could call it let me call it up that identifies it as sidewalk gap program. So which is why.
Speaker 8: I was yeah, there are some there are six on call contracts on the docket tonight that are for the Sidewalk Gap program.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. I'm bringing it.
Speaker 0: Up. Well, he's looking that up. Would you mind introducing yourself for everybody?
Speaker 8: Charity named Angela Casperson with Denver Public Works.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 6: So it's a it's fun 3030 1050-5011100 PR 002. Sidewall Gaps and safety repair. Is that. In addition. I mean, could these guys do both? I mean, is it a separate program?
Speaker 8: It's they are going to be utilized for a couple of different programs. So we will see some money for this sidewalk gap program. And it's my understanding that they could potentially be used for other sidewalk needs throughout the city. So that includes if there's go bond fundings, that sort of thing.
Speaker 6: So we had talked previously about a $4 million allocation to the SIDEWALK program. Is this so? Is this in addition.
Speaker 8: So this is. This is. So are you asking me about the on call contracts or, you.
Speaker 6: Know, this funding? So we're giving you the ability to contract out on all these different fund requests. I mean, these fund based on these fund amounts, these budget allocations with this. What do we call this thing, this ordinance for annual programs? So we're so one of those line items in that is 1.5 million to sidewalk safety repair. We've also then made a pledge to start this regional sidewalk repair program. Right. For to the tune of $4 million. How did these separate funds or do these support?
Speaker 8: Separate. Those are separate funds.
Speaker 6: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Tell us we new did you want to jump in?
Speaker 5: And this is the normal annual request for all the capital improvement programs. Right. For public works. Right. And these were all reviewed in the budget process. And we approve the right.
Speaker 8: Yes.
Speaker 5: Right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman knew seeing no other questions comments by members of council for we will. All right. Seeing done, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 2: Raquel Espinosa. Flynn Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Janet Lopez. All right. New assessment.
Speaker 8: Black eye.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announced the results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes comfortably on 137 has passed. That concludes the items to be called out tonight. All other bills for introduction are ordered published which are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, will you put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass on the block for the following items. All series of 2018 175 one 9166 184 185 187 194 196 138 159 one 6161 162 163 164 170 60030 165 177 178 one 8181 182 197 198 143 144 156.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Tells men that look good to me. Madam Secretary, did we catch them all?
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Great. It has been moved and seconded. And, Madam Secretary, roll call black.
Speaker 2: Espinosa, i.
Speaker 7: Flynn I.
Speaker 2: Gillmor, I. Herndon, I can. I. Can. I.
Speaker 3: Lopez All right, new.
Speaker 2: SUSSMAN. Hi, Mr. President. I.
Speaker 0: Uh, Madam Secretary, please close voting and note the results. 1111 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 8.0043 changing the zoning classification for 1630 South Acoma Street and Overland.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Department of Public Works 2018 annual programs and waiving further City Council approval of specific contracts implementing the annual programs.
Approves the annual Public Works infrastructure program by waiving the requirement that contracts above $500,000 be individually approved by City Council. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-19-18. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-13-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_03052018_18-0043
|
Speaker 9: , and express concerns about issues facing the city and your community. It's a great way to meet neighbors and learn for yourself how well the city is working and what may affect you and your neighborhood. So join the mayor at the next cabinet in the community meeting and share what's on your mind.
Speaker 0: 6 minutes on the presentation monitor on the wall you will see your time counting down. Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Cashman, will you please put Council Bill? 43 on the floor.
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council bill 18 0043 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Constable 43 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 10: Good evening. I'm Sarah White with Community Planning and Development here to present the staff report for the rezoning request at 1630 South Acoma Street. The request is to rezone from IAU oh two to IMX five. We are in Council District seven. In the Overland neighborhood. The subject property is in the block immediately west of Broadway, fronting Acoma Street between Iowa Avenue and Mexico Avenue. The property is just under 25,000 square feet in total. There is a single storey commercial building there. Currently the applicant Urban Peak is requesting the rezoning to allow a redevelopment that would allow them to expand their shelter use, which is currently on site, as well as adding residential uses and some other administrative uses. And the current zoning of AIA does not allow any new residential uses to be established on the site, which is the reason for the rezoning request. And so again, the rezoning is from IAU oh two, which is the Billboard overlay to Annex five, which is our industrial mixed use five storey district. The surrounding zoning. The property to the north is zoned oh two to the west we have IP are to which is our heavier industrial district to the east along the Broadway corridor we have our urban main street three story districts and to the south is APD. That was written specifically for the storage facility that is on the site there. The surrounding uses are a pretty mixed context. So to the West, as you would expect, there is a mix of industrial uses as well as some vacant lots and parking as well as some office mixed in there, particularly immediately across a comma from the site and then along Broadway, as you would expect, we have the mix of commercial uses. These are some photos to get a sense of the general context. The top photo is an image of the subject property. The middle photo there is the office building that is to the west, across Acoma Street and to the south is the bottom is the view of the building to the southwest across Acoma Street. And then some more views. The top photo here is the view of the site essentially from what would be Broadway. So between the site and Broadway is a car sales lot. And then the picture on the bottom is a view looking northeast from Acoma and Mexico at that storage facility that is located directly south of the subject property. The process so far. This matter went to planning board on January 3rd and was voted unanimously, unanimously to recommend approval and then went to the L.A. Transportation Committee on January 23rd. The public outreach, all of the appropriate notification and posting has been done. There was a letter of support that was submitted with the application from the Overland Park registered neighborhood organization. During the process, we also received a letter of opposition from the Platte Park Peoples Association on the basis primarily of height. And then we received 25 letters of support throughout the process from property owners and Denver residents, as well as two letters of opposition opposition from nearby property owners, again, primarily on the basis of height. So looking at our five review criteria to evaluate our rezoning. The first is consistency with adopted plans. As usual, we have our two city wide plans, comprehensive plan 2000 and Blueprint, Denver. And then we have two older neighborhood plans, the Overland Park Neighborhood Plan and the Shattuck District Plan. The request is generally consistent with several strategies outlined in Plan 2000, primarily related to encouraging mixed use development near transit and infill development that is in place where services and transportation exist. Different. Denver classifies the site as a mixed use, which considers a sizable employment base as well as housing. It is generally a higher intensity than you would find in other residential areas. It is an area of stability which generally means being consistent with the surrounding character, but also allowing for reinvestment. And across the coma to the west, you see the blue. It is across a coma from an industrial designation. The surrounding streets. So Acoma itself is a non-designated locale. But just up to the north a little bit is Iowa Avenue, which is a residential collector which intended to provide a balance between mobility and land access and would be the primary street that you would access the site from , as well as Broadway being designated as an enhanced transit corridor. So this is an area that blueprint Denver is acknowledging has a higher level of transit and should continue to be that way. The Overland Park neighborhood plan is from 1993 and as such of our older plans, we don't have specific area recommendations. There is general language about transitioning from industrial uses to residential uses. So we're not transitioning here from industrial to residential, but we are in an area of transition from industrial to commercial. And there's also recommendations related to commercial industrial businesses investing in and beautifying their sites. So generally the request to Annex five would allow redevelopment of the site and is generally consistent with the Overland Park plan. Again, the Shattuck District plan is a little bit older plan. It's from 2003. And again, we don't have specific recommendations to the property, but there is a vision for the neighborhood to be where people live and work, where housing is affordable, where there are sufficient employment opportunities, where wages are sufficient and public revenues are being produced, where there are households and numbers sufficient to enhance the climate for businesses on Broadway, and where there is a mix of businesses, goods and services available to the neighborhood and where the quality of life is generally good . So again, really envisioning a mixed use place and supporting the businesses that are already there. And again, the request to Annex five to allow redevelopment of the site would be consistent with this plan. The request would result in the uniform application of the IMX five zone district, and it would further the public health, safety and welfare both through the implementation of adopted plans, but also through the allowance of a community serving business to continue and expand their use. Serving the low income and youth of the community. The identified justifying circumstance is that the lander, its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that it's in the public interest to encourage a redevelopment. The justifying circumstances identified here is the development along the Broadway corridor as well as the nearby transit stops. So although not within the transit buffer, we are about halfway between the I-25 and Broadway rail station and the Evans Station. And then consistency with neighborhood context, own district purpose and intent. So obviously we have a request for five stories here and we don't have any plan guidance specifically on height. So we need to look to the surrounding context to determine what an appropriate height to apply would be. So there isn't anything really above three stories in the immediate area. However, the idea and iby zoning that surrounds the property is an air base zone district. So the height that you can build is primarily based on the size of your personnel and the floor plate size that you use. So looking at the parcels, particularly some of the large ones and the one directly across a comma from the property site could potentially build up to eight stories under the current zoning if they were to use smaller floor plates. So we do find that the IMX five is an appropriate zone district to transition from the three stories of Broadway to the industrial area to the west, and further to the tracks. So given that all five criteria have been met, Steph does recommend approval. I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. We have ten individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'm going to call the first five speakers. I apologize in advance if I mispronounce your name. If you could make your way up to this front bench the first five, that will help speed us up as we go through. So the first five are Christina Carlsen, Chad Holsinger, David Jennings, Michael Burman. And Kristen Banfield. And Krishna Carlsen, you are up first.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Christina Carlson, and I am a lifelong Denver resident and the CEO at Urban Peak. We're here tonight to ask your support for the proposed rezoning of our property at 1630 South Acoma Street. Tonight, I thought I'd tell you a little bit about us, but I'm going to start with you all the way . We start our meetings where we refocus and we revisit our mission, vision, belief and commitment statement. So I'm going to share those with you tonight. Our vision at Urban Peek is that all Colorado youth have safe housing, supportive relationships and the opportunity for self-sufficiency and success. Our mission is to ignite the potential and youth to exit homelessness and create self-determined, fulfilled lives. We believe in the transformational power of acceptance, in the responsible stewardship of our resources that with compassion, guidance and support, positive change and healing can happen. That ending youth homelessness changes trajectories, saves lives and creates lasting community impact. We are committed to problem solving, shared accountability, and a relentless focus on achieving real, sustainable and measurable results for the youth we serve to being a national model of innovation and best practices through intentional focus on continuous improvement and growth and creating and providing a culture of safety, responsibility and respect. At Urban Peak. We are the only nonprofit organization in Denver that provides a full progression of services for young people ages 15 through 24.
Speaker 8: Who are homeless.
Speaker 10: We operate the only shelter in this area for young people aged 15 through 20. Our goal in the work we do is to help youth overcome real life challenges and become self-sufficient adults with safe and stable housing. We provide essential services including but not limited to street outreach, a drop in services at our drop in center case management, stabilization. Shelter. Education, employment, workforce development, programing and supportive housing. Today. We're here to talk to you because we are pursuing a project that will enhance the services we currently provide at 1630 Acoma Street.
Speaker 9: South Acoma Street.
Speaker 10: We want to add up to 60 units of affordable housing for the young people we work with. This rezoning is an important step for urban peek to rebuild the extensive shelter into a more comprehensive support center for youth who are experiencing homelessness. And the addition of this supportive housing at this location is critical to increase the successful outcomes for the youth we serve. There are a lot of other people are going to speak. So I'll just say that I'll be here to answer more questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chad Holsinger.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Brown, and members of the City Council. My name is Chet Holsinger. I live at 4103 West 30th in Denver. Longtime resident of the city. And I'm excited to speak to you a little bit about Urban Peak's proposal. I'm an architect, a chopper X architecture, and our practice focuses a lot on affordable housing. We've done a lot of work lately with folks experiencing homelessness, and I think what's really exciting about this project is that it creates a continuum of services between what's offered at the shelter all the way through housing and stabilizing folks lives through housing. My role is to speak a little bit about the zoning rules and what the impact of particularly the complaints about height are.
Speaker 9: The proposed property is currently.
Speaker 3: A zone by NFR, as Sarah pointed out, and I think it's important to recognize that in the area a 2.0 floor area ratio is not regulated as with respect to height. So buildings can be proposed by right in this case up to eight floors. Basically due to a view claim that's elsewhere in the code. So I think it's incorrect to say that height is inconsistent. The proposed height of IMAX five is inconsistent with the zoning that's allowed in the area. And I would expect that given the fact that, as Sarah pointed out also, that the property is on an enhanced transit corridor in the form of Broadway and kind of nestled between two station area plans, though it doesn't the stationary plans don't reach this particular site as two blocks away from the Broadway plan, and it's five blocks from the Evans plan. It's pretty clear that it is anticipated that density in the form of height would occur along Santa Fe and into the Platte River. So we believe that this proposed density is wholly consistent. With what's expected in the neighborhood. Additionally, the building directly to the west is a very large, already assembled parcel and there's three or four of them within a couple of blocks that would support easily six. Two eight story buildings with floor plates of 32,000 feet or more. So it's our belief that the proposed rezoning is appropriate. It serves a need in the community, and I, too, will be available for any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, David Jennings.
Speaker 7: Thank you so much, Council. My name is David Jennings, and as a small business owner or current board member of a room and a former client who was helped by a peek when I was a teenager, I asked for your support for him. Piece proposed rezoning at our property at 1630 South Acoma Street. Recently by having dinner with some friends. They were talking about their high school girls, busy schedule of AP homework, sports and activities. Volunteering and preparing for college. At this point, I couldn't help but reflect about what my life was like at their age. I grew up with a single mom. I was one of six kids. And he used to say life wasn't so stable. I left home at the age of 14. At the age of 15. A few years ago for my own healing, I requested my child welfare records. There were over 500 pages documenting neglect and abuse from the time I was 14 months old. And so I left my home at 15. I bounced around from friends, homes, sleeping on in parks and living on the streets. I was lucky to receive a self-referral bed at a shelter for abused, neglected children. Unfortunately, this was only a temporary solution. After that, it was back to bouncing around again. I was fortunate enough to hear about a place called Urban Peak. Maybe fortunate wasn't the right word to use to describe how our impact changed my life. A safe place to stay. Meals to eat. A place to shower and wash. My clothes was the beginning of my new life. As a direct result of consistent guidance, counseling, job training and job placement from the fantastic staff at Urban Peak, I was able to earn my first apartment. Having a place to call my own. Was the first time in many years that I felt stable. Also, this gave me hope for a better future. If it wasn't for urban Pekin and in particular their staffing guidance for me in through their housing program. I wouldn't be here today. I hope that you will approve the rezoning application so that urban peace can help more youth in this situation I was in over 17 years ago. Thank you so much for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Michael Berman. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Michael Berman. I'm a park resident. I live at 1630 South Washington Street. Just some very brief comments. Primarily, I'm up here because the three may submit a letter of opposition, but then I don't think they sent a representative to speak. So perhaps I represent our neighborhood and I want to make it very clear I'm very much in support of Urban Peake. It's simply opposed to the five storey building, whether that's rezoning or not. Just having a five storey building in that cadre is what I'm opposed to. I just think it sets a precedent for development in that area high density development, high rise development that Black Park residents don't want. I also think it's important to recognize the park is more impacted by this site than Overland Park is. Most Overland Park residents live on the other side of Santa Fe, whereas this site is directly adjacent to Platt Park residents. So anyway, that's the reason I'm here, just to register my opposition. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Christine Benefield. And if the next five could come up, we had clear the bench for the next five BOE, BRAC Chairman Sekou Clayton Gonzalez, Charles Knight and Ben Schumacher.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman Clark, and members of City Council. My name is Kirstin Benefield, longtime Denver resident and currently living in District ten. Before I begin, I would like to recognize and appreciate our Urban Peake Board of Directors, staff, supporters and donors. I'd like you to please stand up for a second. Thank you. They are all here tonight in support of our rezoning. Ask and more importantly, show up for our youth every day. As a Denver resident mother and the board chair of Urban Peak, I asked for your support for our proposed rezoning of the property on 1630 South Acoma Street. We are already very grateful to be part of this neighborhood and we want to make it better. The property where our shelter is located is currently zoned in a district that does not permit residential uses. We plan to enhance our current services roughly a 40 bed temporary shelter for young adults 15 to 21 by building a more modern space, adding up to 60 affordable housing units, and moving our administration offices to this site. Providing additional oversight for programs and services. Urban Peak is the best prevention model we have for ending chronic homelessness. We don't want our homeless youth to become homeless adults. The supportive services and transitional housing Urban Peake provides gives our youth a chance to develop skills, find safe and stable permanent housing, and be a part of a thriving, inclusive city. We have all come to love. Last year, I was given the honor to serve on the inaugural Colorado Governor's Fellowship, and I was privileged to see our government in action. One of my favorite definitions of public service is helping the greater population and making a difference by giving people a voice. We are here tonight to give our youth, our homeless youth, a voice they haven't been able to find yet. I urge you to approve this rezoning. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Bob.
Speaker 7: Rick. I'm part of me. Hi, my name is Bo Breck. I live at 421 South Gaylord Street. I work for a company named LCP Development and I'm here to represent the ownership entity, LCP AM, RFP, Broadway LLC. We are the owners and developers of the project. Exactly one block east of the subject property here. It's 1616 Plat Park. 40 residential condo units over 7500 feet of retail space. So our ownership group is very supportive of the Urban Peak's organization and their mission. However, we did submit a letter to community planning and development registering our formal opposition to the rezoning application. And I'm here this evening to reiterate to council the grounds for and reasoning behind our opposition. So. You know, we believe the proposed rezoning to five storeys is inappropriate in the neighborhood context and would be more appropriate at three stories. And the basis for our opposition is that we did not believe that the rezoning application complied with the general review criteria, and we also do not believe that the justifying circumstances listed in the application were entirely accurate in terms of consistency with the neighborhood context and zoned district definitions. So talking about some of those pieces, the review criteria listed in the application includes the Evans Station Area Plan and the 25 and Broadway station area plans as the guiding documents. This property does not fall within either station area, so the Evans Station plan says that the plan will be used, quote, The plan will be used to guide decisions regarding appropriate public and private investment within a half mile of Evans Light Rail Station. And likewise, the 25 and Broadway plan defines core station area. And this Broadway site, this property is point eight walking miles north of the Evans station and outside of a mile radius from both the I-25 and Broadway station, as well as Louisiana and Pearl Station. So we we don't think that those were necessarily guiding documents that they should be pointing to in terms of their review criteria and complying with. Second, the application or the rezoning letter makes multiple references to transit oriented development and the widely accepted definition of transportation development. TODD As we know, it is development within a half mile of transit centers. And again, this property is outside of that radius at the point eight walking miles from the nearest station, which is Evans Station. Regarding justifying circumstance. The letter, the rezoning application claims that the applicant's new facility will be consistent with its current surroundings and anticipated development along the South Broadway corridor in terms of uses and density. We do not believe that five storeys is contextually appropriate in this location. While we agree that.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, Mr. Breck, your 3 minutes.
Speaker 7: Are up. Oh, shoot.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Chairman, say scoop.
Speaker 7: Oh, yes. Good evening. My name is Chairman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for self-defense. Whose primary focus is on poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. We unanimously support. This ordinance change. And. We want to be crystal clear about this thing. Very seldom, and it's been more than less than I actually took pride in this body and the work that it does in consideration. I really do. And that's a dangerous place for me to be because I'm actually starting to like you guys a little bit. You know, and when you do things like this. And consider these kind of things. It gives. Of folks who are doing the work. Like the urban people. You know what I'm saying? Opportunity to intensify and increase the excellence of the services that they provide. Because you're right. I have just participated in three suicide intervention of homeless people behind the question of housing, picking them up out of ditches and finding them emergency housing in the homes of individual citizens who are willing to open up their doors to strangers and say, Hey, man, come in for a minute, defrost. All right, I'm going to feed you and then we're going to work to put some services around you. So. These this also absolutely necessary. Because I don't do it. You do? I don't. I don't. I can do is get them to a safe place in hopes that I can find you. And I'm glad you're here because I need your help. I mean, for real. Because I'm not clinical at all. I'm not. I'm not. I just. Do rescue missions and do the best I can with it to save lives. See, this is about saving lives. If you don't want no growing homeless people, you've got to catch them now. And give them a vested interest in being a part of the city so that like this young man would want to go. No one had been. Yeah. Evidence, success. All right. And we need more stories of folks who can come up out of those programs and actually become productive members of society right now. Yeah, those are the things that's in this. You know what I'm saying? That people may not like that. And guess what? That is hard to do. Everybody will be down for this. But most people are. And so as practitioners of democracy.
Speaker 0: And I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Your 3 minutes, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Clayton Gonzales.
Speaker 7: Hello. My name is Clayton Gonzales. I'm the director of programs that are on peak. And today I am asking for your supports in Urban Peak's proposed.
Speaker 3: Rezoning.
Speaker 7: Of our property at 630 South Acoma. You've heard from our CEO, our architects, our board chair. You've heard from a board member who has lived experience in our services. You've heard from those that support us, those that oppose. I think I just need to take a moment and try to say a few more things about our services of what makes this such a strong ask. Our shelter. We provide services night to night. So we are there for stabilization, but we're so much more. I've had the pleasure of giving some of you tours of some of our locations, and if you walk through our doors, you'll find youth who one have been provided a safe place to be to. They have been given resources. If you go into a shelter every day, you'll find 8 to 1012 youth in our shelter trying to gain job skills, trying to perhaps get their G.E.D. or get back in school. But the main prize that we're really trying to work for here is, I mean, the greatest gift that we can give to these youth from Urban Peake, from our community, is that we're giving them a place to be off the streets that's greater than shelter. Our outreach team. We frequents Platte Park. We frequent the Decker library when we're not reaching out to every other part of the city where homeless youth reside. Ben Kinghorn, who's our shelter supervisor right behind me. He stays in close contact with Decker library staff and often receives phone calls with concern about a particular youth. And he will be there within minutes to try to help in the situation, even if it's not one of our kids. I think. We have we have a responsibility to our community, to, one, be good neighbors by providing the service. And the single greatest thing we can do for the youth is get them off the streets. And so that's why I just want to ask for your support. Lastly, I think you've heard about some success stories here. I think. One of the best one of the. Well, the greatest accomplishments I think I can claim in my work at her peak is one, just being a relationship with all these kids we work with. But when you get to be with a young person who gets to walk into an apartment to have their own bed for the very first time in their life. That that makes this all worth it. So my last please, please support us in this change. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Next up, Charles Knight.
Speaker 3: Hi there. Thank you. My name is Charlie Knight. I live at 1620 South Pearl Street, and I own two rental properties in Platte Park on South Pearl and South Grant. I'm here to support the application to rezone this property to accommodate the proposed residential use. There's four main reasons that I support it. One, this is an important transit oriented development location. I understand it may not be technically within the transit plans for the two stations, but last time I checked, bus service is also transit and this is a major bus thoroughfare. And I've walked outside many times and it's an easy walk from both Evans Station as well as to the Broadway Station Project and to our our retailer on Pearl. So it's a perfect location for transit oriented development, too. The zoning is consistent with adopted plans and intent. Blueprint Denver, we heard earlier, envisions a mix of industrial, commercial, civic and residential uses for the area. The current use of primary industrial is not the highest and best use. It's primarily marijuana grow facilities and we could use a few fewer of those and more housing and retail and mixed in. And we think urban I think Urban Peak's proposed mix of housing, social services and office space in a five story structure is consistent with this vision. Three The proposed zoning is consistent with the neighborhood context, although awarded to the East a three story commercial along Broadway. As we heard earlier, other sites in the immediate area can currently be developed up to eight stories, including this large slide across the street, which could house a huge building of 230,000 square feet. So this is really more about use than it is about height. The proposed five story zoning is much more esthetically appealing than what's currently possible. And because this lot slopes down to the west, it's going to feel like a four story building from Broadway. And going from three stories to four stories doesn't seem like much of a give given the opportunity to develop some residential there. Fourth, it's the right thing to do. Supportive housing in the site is critical in addressing the affordable housing challenges that face our city and make this rezoning a matter of citywide concern. Urban Peak's proposal to collect kid housing in the shelter with administrative and operations on one site will result in more effective outcomes and an improved relationship with Platte Park. And finally, as you know, we need more housing in Denver and allowing for this opportunity residential on this site. And ultimately, I hope expanding the entire area from Evans to Broadway is going to be critical. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And our last speaker, Ben Schumacher.
Speaker 3: Thank you. My name is Ben Shoemaker. I live at 1250 South Logan Life. I have a resident. I've known Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 7: Probably most of my life.
Speaker 3: I grew up in and around the South Pearl Street area. My my parents still live and own a home in East Wash Park, but they owned a business on South Pearl Street. So I have been there for over 30 years, off and on. When my wife and I are, then my girlfriend decided to buy a house. It was one of the neighborhoods that most attracted our attention. And we love it there. And I'm here tonight to speak absolutely. In support of Urban Peake. I will tell you, I am also a member of the Park Peoples Association Board. I firmly believe we made a mistake. And I feel like we did not do a very good job of ensuring that we were representing our broader membership. And rather we took a board vote and a little and a CFD vote, which is our Committee for a Responsible Development, but we never put it before our membership. And that left a sour taste in my mouth. And I have raised that multiple times with my fellow board members and and nobody really seemed in favor of changing that. So I felt it was my duty to come and tell you that. I don't believe that our letter of opposition is necessarily representative of our neighborhood. I will tell you that I strongly believe in the mission of urban peak. I believe in transit oriented development. I am a I'm a bike commuter. I am a transit user. My wife and I have one car, even though we have two young children, a six year old and a three year old. Like, we need to be able to provide housing in areas that has good transit and connectivity options. And this is an excellent opportunity for that.
Speaker 7: As Charlie said.
Speaker 3: The the Evans station is maybe a half mile away, maybe a little bit beyond. But it's it's a technicality. Broadway is also very nearby. The zero runs all the time. So these are all great opportunities. These are kids who probably don't, you know, almost certainly don't have cars. Right. So they're going to find other ways to get around. There's great bike lanes down Platte River. This is actually very close to there's bike lanes that take you, you know, straight down to Logan to or not Logan technically, but whatever. Logan to Washington and Clarkston. And you can get all over the city on bike and bus, whatever. We should be supporting these youth. We should be supporting this organization. And I believe that this is not out of context. I believe that a five story building is where we should be going in this area. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? All right. Sarah, would you mind coming up? Just quickly. Oh, here they come. I'll wait. Councilwoman Kenny.
Speaker 8: That's okay, Mr..
Speaker 0: Put the ball on the dryer.
Speaker 8: Mr. Pro-Tem, it is your district indeed. So I would defer to the questions.
Speaker 0: Could you? Thank you, Councilwoman. Could you? It wasn't in the presentation. I apologize if you said it, but it was. I looked back and it wasn't on the slide planning board. What was the vote?
Speaker 10: It was unanimous.
Speaker 0: Recommendation was unanimous. And then where this is located there you mentioned there are two transit plans that don't quite touch it. And then there's an underlying overland neighborhood plan. Yes. And how old is that Overland?
Speaker 10: I think the Overland was 93 and the Shattuck District plan is 23.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then from my looking at the the stationary plan, so correct me if I'm wrong, they they go from usually a recommendation of three on Broadway, five the next block over up to eight, ten, something like that as you approach the rail line? That's correct. On both.
Speaker 3: Sides. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And then could I have somebody from Urban Peak come up and Christina, I apologize. Your name did not come through in my system, and I apologize for that. Could you just walk us through I know you have talked a lot about, you know, supportive housing and stuff, but can you draw, you know, paint us a picture of the plan, you know, five stories. What are you doing as you walk up through these stories?
Speaker 10: Sure. So the current lot has our shelter on it. And our hope is to take the building down and put it back together, as we say, and that the first floor would have the shelter, which would consist of a 40 bed shelter that could go up in numbers to 50 and our current licensing based on inclement weather and then also have space for minors as well because there's some licensing nuances and all of that. And then on the second story, have all of our supportive services around case management, education and employment. We've been talking about an art studio. We'll have our administrative offices there. And one of the ways we've described it is bringing more adults on campus to really provide more services and to have the ability to provide wraparound services all day so that the way it looks right now is that folks can leave the building and then that would mean they could stay. And then the third, fourth and fifth floors or apartments.
Speaker 0: And would those apartments be serving the the youth from the shelter? How do you envision that that housing working?
Speaker 10: Well, that'll depend a little bit on the funding mechanisms and the tax credits and stuff, but ideally it's a continuum and that we would move people through.
Speaker 6: The whole.
Speaker 10: Process from shelter into some transitional pods, into.
Speaker 3: Housing.
Speaker 0: And are there other shelters serving this population in our city?
Speaker 10: No. Not for minors?
Speaker 3: No. Just. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you very much. Those are my questions right now, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. You started the conversation about the bus travel, but I just wanted to kind of clarify the record. So, Sarah, if you can just step up real quickly, what are the bus headways on Broadway? How frequently do you know?
Speaker 10: I don't know that off the top of my head. I do know that the zero does run run pretty frequently. And with the the designation in blueprint of an enhanced transit corridor, we do consider this to be appropriate to be called Tod, I think.
Speaker 8: Okay. Yeah, I was I was going to cheat a little bit where members of the transit planning group and this is a high frequency quarter, which I think it's 15 minute headways at the worst and it's probably ten minute headways probably at rush hour. And so Clayton Gonzalez could jump for just a second. I was just going to ask about just again, to clarify the record because we had speakers in for it, but let's just get it clarified. How do the youth who are working and who come and go from your shelter tend to come and go? How do they get to and from?
Speaker 7: You know, I would say the bus the bus on Broadway, the zero is primary. They also walk quite frequently to the Broadway station and Evans station, and we provide bus tickets. So they they use either or.
Speaker 8: Okay, great. Thanks. And then so I just want to get the transportation together. So, Sarah, I'm going to bring you back up for a change of topic. I want to just get at this. I think it's been touched on, but I don't I don't think we want to slow us down. So I'm looking at the picture in your slide show, if you can put it up and the reasoning around the site. And I was reading the staff report. And it's tricky because you've got a mix of old zoning and new zoning, and our new zoning has these handy numbers in it, but our old zoning doesn't. So can you just clarify for the properties that have and I b according to staff report, a number of those could go to eight stories or more depending on how they developed. Can you just point those out to us, please? Using your cursor, I think the little arrow we should be able.
Speaker 10: Does it show up on there? Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, all of these really along the west side here are the I and I b have a factor of 2.0. So if.
Speaker 8: Air is.
Speaker 10: Floor area ratio, so that means that you can develop essentially twice the amount of floor area of the lot size. So if you have a 5000 square foot lot, you can develop 10,000 square feet worth of floor area regardless of how it's configured or height or that sort of thing.
Speaker 8: So we have the potential to go up to eight and then you have the three on the other side is what you were describing. Can you just show us that visually real quick?
Speaker 10: Yeah. So a along Broadway to the north on both sides and on the east, that is our MSA three. We do have starting just to the south of this pudi on Broadway. It does go up to you at most five here.
Speaker 8: Okay. And then I just wanted to ask in terms of the the record we're establishing here, a couple of folks mentioned the area sorry, the station areas and that this is not in it. But can you just clarify for me just let's eliminate the transit piece altogether. In other areas of the city, do we regularly transition between three and eight with the five in between? Is that something that occurs in other areas of the city, main streets, for example, or other areas that don't have?
Speaker 10: I would say that's good planning policy. I can't think of anything specifically. But generally, when we talk about transitions in height, it does go generally three, five, eight, 12, 20.
Speaker 8: There's nothing inconsistent about this, even absent the fact that it's not in the train. Tods However, we've established that it is in the bus rapid transit. Tod. Okay. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Sir, could you walk me through the analysis that occurs at CPD when you look at these applications and you look at the uniformity of district regulations because. The way it's explained here seems a little bit at odds with how I've understood it, which is that it's uniform here as elsewhere. But here, when I read the staff report, basically you're saying that it's, you know, it'll result in the uniform application of the zone district standards. I mean, that's that's a tautology. Of course it does. When we put a zone district in there, you follow those regulations. So, yes, it is.
Speaker 10: True that it is a little bit of a strange criteria. I mean, the language that's in the staff report is pretty consistent with how we evaluate it. In past staff reports, the best way to describe it is there is nothing different about this IMX five request than other IMX five zoning in the city. So for example, there are no waivers or conditions.
Speaker 7: That's what I'm getting at. So that's it's not specific to this site. The uniformity of district regulations is not specific to this site. Do you know what the conditions are on the PD to the south?
Speaker 10: I don't I do know that it's pretty specifically written for that that storage facility. And then in terms, you know, some of our older beauties are very specific and they were written for existing buildings to allow or to build very specific buildings that that is very specifically related to what's on the ground there.
Speaker 7: And then right south of there, you have along Broadway, you have aa5 story zone. Correct. So half a block away. Yes. Is a five story you know, five story buildings aren't yet, though?
Speaker 10: I don't believe so. Not within this immediate proximity.
Speaker 7: And then again, just a little bit south of there is eight story.
Speaker 10: Yes. As you move closer to the real stations.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. That's almost president.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Clayton. Christina During construction, you said you're taking the building down. Where will the kids go during construction?
Speaker 10: So that'll depend on when the building and when that transition happens. But there have been a number of these projects that happen, and Volunteers of America has provided some space for the Dolores project and there have been other situations like that. We've had some early conversations about that and we'll be very dependent on time, but that's a big piece of our planning.
Speaker 4: And as far as the the space you have now, Clayton was kind enough to take me for a tour a few months ago. And then in the new facility, just the the basic shelter level will be the same amount of space per kid or how will that work?
Speaker 10: Well, I think the way we think about it is that the whole.
Speaker 9: Floor.
Speaker 10: Will have some of that same services, but in different layouts. And so there are requirements for licensing about how much space people get. But it'll be a similar footprint that will expand a.
Speaker 6: Little bit.
Speaker 10: Based on it, because there's a fair amount of open space and parking around.
Speaker 6: It.
Speaker 4: Okay. And yeah, just wondering, as you envision it, since we're talking about clients that will most probably not be driving cars. What's what's what are thoughts about parking on the on for this project?
Speaker 10: So there will be parking that's underneath the plan has been underground parking that will be available for. All the folks that work and live there and stuff like that.
Speaker 9: Sure.
Speaker 4: I think that's what I'm got. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Accountable 43 is closed. Comments by members of council. And I'll take the first shot since this is in my district. First of all, I want to thank everybody for coming down here, sitting in the hard seats, participating in the public process, adding your voice to it . I think that that is such an important thing and you have way more important things to do and be out and you chose to be here. And I appreciate that, especially for me. This is in a community where I live. And so to see people who are not just constituents but who are neighbors and who are friends taking time out of their life to come down here and speak up, even when we don't all agree, is a really important part of the process. You know, I also want to thank Urban Peake for everything that you do for our community. It's a it's an amazing resource and just an incredible organization. I think that a lot of the conversation in opposition came around the height issue, and I'll just use this as a moment to say we need more resources for the folks at CPD, that we can get more of our neighborhood plans done. And we're not looking at neighborhood plans from 1993, and we're not working with communities like Platte Park who don't have have never had a neighborhood plan. They've never had the opportunity to sit down with planners to talk about what is our plan for our community. And there is a lot of stress happening right now. You have the former Gates site that is blowing up with huge use by right buildings. You have Pearl Street, which was a quaint trolley corridor. We're literally there for buildings that have been demolished on Pearl Street in the last year and a half. And that's causing a lot of stress because we've never had a community conversation about what we want. And now all of a sudden, here's another ask for another big building that's coming in to the neighborhood. And I think it's so critical that we get those resources. And I love that we've moved from a 70 year plan to a 15 year plan. We've got to get a lot better than that because 15 years from now, there won't be anything left on Pearl Street and parts of Platte Park if we don't come up with a plan. I, I think that a lot of the opposition centered around this height idea, and I think that it is really hard when you're looking at the site and you see a lot of one story buildings to talk about. How is this in context to have a five story building? But that's not what we're tasked with looking at. We're looking at what is the current use by right on those properties and the nearest plans that we have and the best plans that we have. And I think that this does meet the legal criteria for a rezoning. And while it is not part of the our deliberation or our legal criteria, what ultimately gets built there, we're looking at these criteria and does it meet it. And I think it's been demonstrated that it did. I think Planning Board had a great conversation about the letter from Plat Park and appreciating the effort to talk to those criteria. But that again, you can't look at what's existing. You have to look at what could be under the use by. Right. And they and they tackled that well but I think that I lost my train of thought. But the in addition to it, that's where I was in addition to it meeting the criteria. And while this doesn't play into it, I think that this is a critical thing for our city to have an organization that serves this clientele. And I think that it's a little bit terrifying to know that there's only one, you know, and that we should have lots of resources for. I mean, you want to talk about the most vulnerable people in our community and you want to talk about the success stories. I can't think of an organization that is closer to serving the needs that we have in a growing city that is so expensive and more expensive today than it was yesterday to find a way. And and so, again, what doesn't meet the criteria, I think that here's an opportunity to have an organization that is lucky enough to own the land and not be forced out as development is coming to this part of our city. And to build permanent supportive housing and affordable housing and to be targeted at this corridor is something that is critically needed. And so thank you for stepping up and for looking at this and looking at what did meet the criteria and coming in and proposing it in front of us. So with all that being said and getting a little rambly here, I will say I will be supporting this tonight and I hope my colleagues will as well.
Speaker 6: Councilman Espinosa Bramley on zoning. That's my job. You know.
Speaker 0: I didn't say that rambling.
Speaker 6: Well, the I'll be supporting this as well and I like the the president pro Tim's initial comments. I'm going to deviate just because it is in context. We have we have citywide plans. We have stationary plans. We have a small area, neighborhood plan, small area plans. I think in this whole Denver process, I think we need to add immediate area plans. And why I say that is because by the time we get done with the Neighborhood Plan Initiative, we will be three quarters of the way through our 20 year plan that we're working out. Update that we're working on right now. And those those neighborhoods that are leading that charge will also be 15 years. You know, they'll have a plan that is closer to being expired and irrelevant than they will be to anything that they have that is current. And so there are things that that are that are consistent with our adopted plans, but that are radically different than existing conditions. And that I wish we had a tool for conversation not just on that parcel, but you're going to have public meetings anyway. Talk about that area and how things how this might actually inform the things going forward rather than have these little one offs. And so it's just I wanted to say that because it was something that just popped into my head the way things do, this idea of this immediate area plan. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President, I. It's funny how life works sometimes. I see the folks who are sitting here in our pews here in the council chambers with a an idea that's way long overdue to address an issue that is not going away any time soon. And I think that's. You know, and listening to the criteria and having this, you know, the application in front of us, it makes sense. I mean, it makes absolute sense. The population that urban peak serves is a special population because there are young people. And they absolutely deserve everything that this city can do to back them up for the future, to prepare them for the future. So many of them do not have the luxury of having parents teaching them how to dress for a job interview. Or to pay rent. Or dare I say, being able to go to school and get your diploma. And the staff over at Urban Peak every single day does the jobs that so many kids deserve to have and so many people, so many kids and so many children in our and our city have. Well, let me just say, there's so many. People in our community don't realize that they. Have and they take for granted every single day. Irene. I know this intimately because in 2002 I was an employment counselor over at Urban Peak. I worked every single day with a growing caseload. And it was probably one of the hardest jobs I ever had. Now hard because of the caseload, but hard because it was just every day I struggled to go home. I went home. And these youngsters. Had these beds in a shelter. And we you know, what we do with what we what we could with that building. But it just was never enough. Never enough and not enough space. And we would have our G.E.D. classes we had at the cafeteria. You know, we had a small little desks where our youngsters would come and hang out and figure out how we inundate places like Coors Field with all of our kids. With jobs in the summer with the biggest issue space over there. We had a rent out space across the way on Iowa. Just so we can have our team meetings. And talk about the different cases and different kids. I. I can't think of a more unjustified rezoning in this area for something like this. This is a very easy yes for me. I know with that space with the but this the possibilities that exist. Imagine what Urban Peake has done and its in its history and its existence. Imagine. Up to now. Imagine what they can do from here on out. Right. And so this rezoning allows that it it allows them to expand, to grow and to serve the kids. Absolutely needs somebody to have their back every single day in a safe place to be and a place that feels like. Paul. So I'm very happy to see you all here. I'm very happy to support this rezoning, Mr. President. And I'm kind of jealous because I thought a long time ago, especially in 2010, I should have redistricted this precinct in my district. But the problem is, is it has to be contiguous and that just is not going to fly. So, anyway, I'm super supportive of this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez and I will entertain no hostile takeover of my district. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. 1980 889. Urban peak started am I am I right in that. Yeah I hate the throw and I remember the olden days at sure. But in my career as a journalist, I remember when Urban Peak opened its doors a few blocks from my office, and I remember hearing that it was the only shelter in the front range of the state at that point that specifically served homeless youth. And I was stunned. I was just stunned and so grateful that that business had moved into our area and have watched it over the years through your predecessors and other staff things and so on. And it was always the one thing that remained consistent is you were lifting kids off the street, out of out of the cold. I mean, this is as far as. Emotionally, morally and an extremely easy, easy lift. But we're charged with certain criteria to to approve these rezonings. And I don't minimize the concerns over height. I never do. But I'm comfortable that the existing zoning with the floor area ratio options. Provides that option for height along that corridor. But the one thing of all the criteria that struck me this time is the pub serving the public health and safety. And I'm going to do something I don't know that I've ever done and I'm going to quote brother, say, coup, that if you don't want homeless adults, you got to do something about homeless kids. Right. And that is exactly I mean, when city council met a couple of months ago, now looking at our priorities for the next year, how affordable housing and homelessness was top of the list. And this deals with both. This deals with both for our at risk. One of the communities that really is not equipped to take care of itself without a great big leg up. So I'm thrilled with this project. I think it has the opportunity to not just transform the organization, but to transform our community. So. I'm extremely happy to support this. And the last thing I wanted to throw in, you know, I've also worked with the Overland neighborhood again, but in my time before council and through their trials and tribulations about the Shattuck site and all that stuff. And I've known a lot of people in that community over the years. And I'm just guessing and this is just, you know, not an official position, but I'm guessing they'd be real happy to approve this. So that's what I've got. Thanks, Mr..
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. The Overland neighbors did vote on this and it was unanimous at that meeting. Councilman Neal.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm proud to support this rezoning. Also, you know, we look at the homeless population in Denver. In the last count, about 5000 homeless on the street. One of the when you talk to the police or the homeless services, the one of the largest increases in our youth, in our homeless population. And so I'm so proud of the work that Urban Peak's doing to address the youth. And and I especially, like Councilman Cashman mentioned this, but I look at the youth, so here's a group of disadvantage that we can probably make a real difference with. We can catch them young and help them prosper and grow and council them and and help them become productive citizens that have a quality of life. So I just really think you're doing a wonderful job and I and I look forward to seeing you continue your services. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So much. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Of course, the issue of the use of this building isn't the issue before us this evening is the zoning that's before us. And on that count, I see that the case has been well made. Councilman Clarke also mentioned this, but the the the rise from three stories to five stories to eight stories is something that we see quite often in the city. The fact of having residential near transit oriented development makes a lot of sense. The density makes a lot of sense for that. I know that it might not be close to the stations, but it's close to Broadway, which is a very large transit corridor for us. And so the case for the zoning is well made. I think the the fact of its use just gives it a little bit more value to us. And you think about three stories and five stories and think about what's going to be used. If it were only going to be three stories, we would lose two thirds of the opportunity to provide homeless with transitional housing or or affordable housing. So even the zoning issue of 3 to 5 stories has a special meaning for all of us. So I will be supporting this as well.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black eye Espinosa, i Flynn. I Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. Cashman. I can eat i. Lopez I knew.
Speaker 8: Sussman Yeah. Hi.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close voting and note the results.
Speaker 2: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 Eyes. Comfortable. 8.0043 has passed and seen no other business before this party. This meeting is adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1630 South Acoma Street in Overland.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 1630 South Acoma Street from I-A, UO-2 to I-MX-5 in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-23-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02262018_18-0117
|
Speaker 0: I'm going to do a quick re recap. We have no resolutions. Got out under bills for introduction. Nothing is called out under bills for final consideration. Dr. Sussman has called out Council Bill 117, correcting the legal description of 1414 36 South Irving Street in Mali, underpinning no items have been caught out. Madam Secretary, can you please pull out 117 for Dr. Sussman?
Speaker 5: Oh. It's great for me to go. Thank you, Mr. President. The way the city's attorney's office has determined that this bill does not does require a public hearing, after all, with a four week notice. So I'll be offering a motion to postpone final consideration.
Speaker 0: Great. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 117 on the floor?
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 18 dash 0117 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman, we offer your motion to postpone.
Speaker 5: Or I move that final consideration of Council Bill 117 series of 18 with a public hearing be postponed to Tuesday, March 21st, 2018.
Speaker 0: All right. March 27.
Speaker 5: What? I said. March 27th, 2018.
Speaker 0: There you go. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Seeing no questions comes from members of council. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Sussan. Susan Black. Clerk Espinosa. Hi Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon. Hi. Cashman. Lopez. Hi, New. Ortega Hi Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I police close voting announce US results.
Speaker 2: For vice.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes 117 has been postponed. Okay, this concludes all the items I need to be called out. All of the bills for introductions are published. We are now ready for the black votes on resolutions and bills in front of consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or bloc vote and will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Black, will you please put the resolutions for adoption of bills for final consideration of final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, I will. I move that council resolution and council bills all series 18 014201460148. 0063006400650066006700680140012501410147011601360107. All be adopted and be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, do you concur?
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. My secretary, Raquel Black.
Speaker 2: Clerk Espinosa Flynn Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Palacios. Voting announce the results.
Speaker 2: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills of inflation for finance, adoration and do pass. Seeing no other business before this body. We do stand adjourned.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance correcting the legal description of a specifically described area, generally located at 1400 and 1436 South Irving Street in Mar Lee.
Corrects the legal description for the property described in Ordinance No. 20170729, Series of 2017, located at 1400 and 1436 South Irving Street in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 2-6-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02122018_18-0029
|
Speaker 0: Okay. No motion is required. Do any other members of council have any other comments on that? All right. 77 is postponed for a week. All right. Let's see, Councilman New. You called out resolution 29.
Speaker 6: Yes. Yes. Was proposed. I did.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: There's a question.
Speaker 6: I don't know if everybody's here from Road Home or.
Speaker 0: Anybody here from Denver's road home. Ah, okay. Come on up here. You're hiding in the corner and see you got that.
Speaker 3: Vince Rivera. Denver Human Services. Now, try to answer your question the best I can.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thanks for coming up. You know, it looks like, you know, the adding $1,000,000 for up to two for me million our contract. Just want to go over just like this confusing is a multiyear contract and put in what do we spend last year for the emergency transport service for the homeless. You know.
Speaker 3: Last year. So we're splitting the allocation for this particular amendment. 20,000 will go to last year's services and I think it ended up being one. $1,460,000 total. Okay. So and that kind of fluctuates when the weather gets frigid like it is right now. And they need to run an extra extra service. We might need to allocate more funds towards.
Speaker 13: The current.
Speaker 6: Run. It runs about nine months of the year.
Speaker 3: Or I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: How often does it run? How many months of the year does it run?
Speaker 3: So I spoke with the program manager and it's four busses dedicated to service, to making three trips a day and to making four trips a day. And it averages about 700 people. In the evening and 700 coming back in the morning time.
Speaker 6: Okay. And it looks like that's maybe a cost of per passenger about, you know, 6 to $8 a trip, which, you know. Right. And I think they were looking to look at the expense of this race for this this appropriation of all dollars gives you to September, where you're going to be reevaluating the cost of the transport service.
Speaker 3: Yes, absolutely. So the solicitation that we ran is valid until September. But what well, before that date, I'm actually suggesting in the summertime they need to prepare a solicitation to continue services in this manner and at the same time looking at. How the city could personally invest to also reduce costs for these services, so that that would kind of be two separate projects happening at the same time with the goal of not breaking service.
Speaker 6: All right. Well, I encourage you also, we've got homeless all over the city. You know, and I know that you're transporting work from the rescue mission with three areas you're coming from.
Speaker 3: Yes. Let's see. 48 thing. Colorado Catholic Charities, Smith Road, Denver and Rescue Mission. Harley Street. And. Clients arrive back at the rescue mission and Samaritan House in the morning. Time for breakfast.
Speaker 6: It's important to get the homeless off the street. There's no question about that. So I just encourage you to look at that transportation system, that address the homeless or in other areas of the city, as well as those main areas. So I know it's a difficult job and we've ridden with the homeless out there. And so it's a it's a it's a very needed service. But I think we can probably do a more cost effective if look at it. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you very.
Speaker 3: Much.
Speaker 0: Yes, sir. Thanks, Vince. Thank you, Councilman. You. All right? Yeah, you can do it. We now have a council bill. One of five. Councilman Espinosa, will you put us on the floor for publication?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Eighth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Busco, Inc. to provide homeless persons with transportation to and from overflow shelters.
Amends a contract with Busco, Inc. to add $1 million for a new contract total of $4,050,000 and to add one year for a new end date of 9-30-18 to provide transportation for people experiencing homelessness from the Denver Rescue Mission to various approved recreation centers and shelters located throughout the City (SOCSV-2013-13589-08). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-5-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 1-17-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02122018_18-0091
|
Speaker 0: Just when it smells. I'm sorry I didn't see you.
Speaker 11: Well, I wanted to.
Speaker 1: Ask Mr. Kennedy.
Speaker 11: Yeah, but I do want to second counsel news comments. Just, you know, I thought about this the other day when, you know, we always sort of have that day where we honor public works and they just sort of wanted to randomly thank them. So you're going to get that praise. They have been doing a stellar job in District one, really bringing some some novel solutions. And and but in and the roads are have never been better than at this point in my term.
Speaker 12: Hey, I appreciate that. We still have a lot of work to do.
Speaker 1: And yes. Well, what.
Speaker 2: Were you doing with that? Bond will help a lot. So, yeah.
Speaker 11: The the question I had, though, is this 750. So I'm comfortable that we're getting reimbursed for work that we're doing. But does this come at the expense of I mean, do we have essentially man hours and vehicles that are sort of sitting there idle or are we not doing other things to sort of take on this work for, you.
Speaker 1: Know, this is we're doing the same level of service that we provided in the past. The previous DGA, which was a five year figure, had a fixed dollar amount. It was X number of dollars per mile of road that the city was received from the state. No matter how much work we did the last year of that contract, the previous fiscal year was about $291,000 is what we received from the state. And so when we did that math, that math I just went through, well, we're paying 500 to $600000 out of the city's pockets to do that work on the state highways. When that contract came due, we sat down to renegotiate so we could get the funds that we were expending for that work on their highways.
Speaker 11: Okay, great. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman McKinney, we have more kudos.
Speaker 3: Go trying to sneak out of here, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 12: Oh, thanks, Rose. I actually clicked to to remove my name, but I. Steve Oh, okay. I just wanted to thank them very much also so I can get some streets because.
Speaker 1: Our program will be published here pretty soon.
Speaker 0: All right. Seeing no other comment, I just want to say, you look really good today. I mean, this was just about something about you, Pat Kennedy. Okay. Thank you. We're done. All right, Madam Secretary, please, for the next item on our screen.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation for ongoing maintenance of State Highways.
Approves an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for $750,000 and for one year to reimburse the City for costs associated with the ongoing maintenance, snow removal, pothole patching, crack seal, and minor subgrade repair of state highways within the City including sections of Colorado Boulevard, Alameda Avenue, Colfax Avenue, and Federal Boulevard (201839397). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 3-5-18. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 1-30-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02122018_18-0014
|
Speaker 0: All right, 11 eyes. One day, 17 passes. We will now look at Council Bill 14, count 14 and 19. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put 14 on the floor and place upon final consideration? Do pass.
Speaker 11: Do we want you both 14 and 19?
Speaker 0: We didn't we didn't put it on the floor yet.
Speaker 8: You can do.
Speaker 10: When it does, but we have to vote.
Speaker 11: On it. We moved them in a block.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Would you like to move, Madam Secretary? Okay. Moving a block? Yes. Okay. 1490. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 11: We postponed it. Sorry. I moved that council bill for bills 14 and 19. Be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block.
Speaker 0: All right. These are the special revenue funds for affordable housing, an incentive fee fund and establish a affordable housing incentive fee and special revenue fund to receive the amount of revenues derived. All right. It has been moved in. Second, it meant a secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 8: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Clerk.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn, I. Herndon Katherine Kennedy. Lopez. No new Ortega. I Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I was voting and that's results.
Speaker 5: 11 I won.
Speaker 0: 11 I's council, 14 and 19 has passed. All right. We passed four bills and we still have another one. Now you see why this took over two years. So why don't you come up? Councilman Espinosa, please put 15 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing a new fund in the Community Development Special Revenue Fund for the “Affordable Housing Incentive Fee Fund”.
Establishes the Affordable Housing Incentive Fee Special Revenue Fund to receive and account for revenues derived from incentive height fees targeted for production or preservation of rental housing, rental assistance programs, for-sale housing, homebuyer assistance programs, permanent supportive housing for homeless persons and for supportive services associated with such housing, programs supporting low-income at-risk individuals in danger of losing their existing homes, and for mitigation of the effects of gentrification and involuntary displacement of lower income households. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-26-18. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 1-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02122018_17-1461
|
Speaker 0: Calcium, our protein here. I'm going to ask you because Councilman Espinosa is not here. Will you please put Council Bill 1461 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council 17 dash 1461 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. The public hearing for Council Bill 1461 is open. May we have the staff report? Jeff Hurt. Is here again. Are we talking about parking or.
Speaker 1: If you to be my pleasure to go looking around if you want.
Speaker 13: So Jeff, here with community planning and development. So this is a request for a rezoning from a single unit to a neighborhood mixed use zone district in the Whittier neighborhood.
Speaker 0: So it's in Council District nine.
Speaker 13: Again, Whittier neighborhood, northeast corner of High Street and 26th. So the subject properties are two parcels that in total are about 6300 square feet. And there's two.
Speaker 2: Commercial structures that were.
Speaker 13: Kind of built in different periods and that share a parcel boundary. And the request is to you Max to X, which is a neighborhood mixed use zone district, and the request is to accommodate or to support redevelopment of the Western parcel. And so the existing zoning is UCB be one, as are the surrounding sites or the surrounding properties. Excuse me, existing land use is of commercial and retail and industrial actually.
Speaker 0: So under some images of.
Speaker 13: The subject property. So you can see there's two buildings that share a parcel boundary. So the Western building actually is a filling station originally that was built in 1953 and it's been in a number of different commercial uses over time, including restaurants. The Eastern Parcel is that buildings about 800 square feet and the Eastern Parcel is about a 2000 square foot warehouse building built in 1901. So both structures have been used for commercial historically and under some images of the subject property.
Speaker 0: So just looking.
Speaker 13: East and west. And then images of the surrounding properties. So this is looking at top images, looking north on the.
Speaker 2: Subject block and then looking south on the.
Speaker 13: Bottom image across 26th. And so this is looking east west along 26th Avenue. And so the proposal in district is you Emacs to X. And so it's a neighborhood, urban neighborhood context mixed use district intended for small lots that have embedded commercial with the neighborhoods. And so the zone district has a lot of restrictions on more neighborhood intensity or higher intensity uses. So for example, drive thrus are prohibited and a number of other things to kind of ensure that neighborhood context. And so in terms of the rezonings that have.
Speaker 0: Happened in the area and.
Speaker 13: This is just kind of background information for the decision several properties and I think most properties in the area that were historically.
Speaker 2: Commercial and on commercial corners.
Speaker 13: Were re zoned as part of the 2010 citywide rezoning to your max two or you max to ex. These particular parcels were not although we do have some information that some requests from the community actually to go to your max two. But we don't have good information as to why this one was not rezoning to your max to ex. But again, it has been used historically as commercial. So the public process has been our standard process. Public outreach was done directly with a number of different registered neighborhood organizations in the area. We did receive a letter of support from the Whittier Registered Neighborhood Organization. Their support was with a sort of a comment that the support was.
Speaker 2: For commercial.
Speaker 13: Uses here rather than necessarily residential. But the letter was in support of the zoning district in the request, and there was one nearby resident letter of opposition who stated preference for residential zoning to stay the way it is. These are the review criteria staff uses to evaluate rezonings. So in terms of citywide plans.
Speaker 0: A number of different conference and.
Speaker 13: Plan policies support the request and most related to encouraging.
Speaker 3: Infill development.
Speaker 13: And reusing existing structures, things like that. In terms of a neighborhood or excuse.
Speaker 2: Me, blueprint in Denver.
Speaker 13: The subject properties are classified as an area of stability.
Speaker 0: And as single.
Speaker 13: Family residential. So that is a mismatch that is actually common throughout this neighborhood. Do we have an existing commercial embedded use that has the similar mismatch? So those properties with a max two X nearby we just looked at have a similar issue. And so in terms of a neighborhood specific plan, the only one is the Whittier Neighborhood Plan. And so there are a number of policies this request supports, mostly related to reusing and.
Speaker 2: Redeveloping.
Speaker 13: Underutilized commercial properties and commercial sites. And so the only other criteria.
Speaker 2: That I'll touch.
Speaker 13: On relate to justifying circumstances. So that's one finding staff has to make to support a rezoning. And there has been some redevelopment nearby, the subject properties. And then of course, there have been a number of closures for restaurants and other uses in the filling station over time. That was that represents a change condition. And then lastly, in terms of the consistency with the neighborhood context, the new annex to ex district is really designed for neighborhood scale sort of context sensitive, embedded commercial, unlike these sites on this scale. So staff thinks it's consistent with that. So staff does recommend approval, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. We just have two speakers for the public hearing this evening. Journalist DiCaprio and Chairman Sekou. Mr. DiCaprio, you're up first. And you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 1: Councilman. I'm Joyce Caprio.
Speaker 3: With the same platform where the agent for the owners of this property. So really just here to.
Speaker 1: Answer questions.
Speaker 3: If you need.
Speaker 0: Them. Thank you. Thank. All right, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 1: Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 12: My name is Chairman Sekou. Founder organizer for the Black Star Action Movement.
Speaker 1: For self-defense, representing poor, working poor.
Speaker 12: And senior citizens. We see.
Speaker 1: That. This has the possibility.
Speaker 12: Of enhancing the.
Speaker 1: Neighborhood. One, which I attended high school, Emmanuel Manual High School, right around the corner. And there's a caveat in it because it needs to be this whole zoning thing needs to be consistent so that, you know, we know exactly what we're doing with this and people aren't caught up in the process. That's economically. Not fair. Many of these projects, you have to spend thousands, tens and thousands of dollars before you even dig a hole in the ground, because you got to go to this zoning process and changes and whatnot. And we're moving forward with this thing as it comes out. We're changing it. So that's a good thing. That's a good thing. Now the question becomes. What's coming with this? What's coming with this? Because when you change it into another deal here, you open up the door and Pandora's box. To housing that folks in the neighborhood can't afford does number one. It don't look like none of the stuff that's there. Well, they throw up a building and then, whew, in the midst of brick houses, we got this ultra super kind of looking kind of thing, and we got this witness. It was a Mendez. You wouldn't want to have in your own neighborhood. I mean, come on. Can you imagine putting this in Cherry Creek, man? Come on. For real? It wouldn't happen. So we see the vulnerability of our neighborhood and us organized. And that's why we need City Council to ask some real specific questions like, what are you going to do with this? What's going to do it safe? And some people feel this zoning and a place for it to go. But I know all of you know, most of you have talked to these folks before, even came to the floor about what is to do, what's to do, what is what's the planning. And we don't know what that is because that's not on the agenda. See, and most people in neighborhood don't even know these folks. All right. So gentrification comes in on the down low because you start building stuff that people can't afford in a neighborhood, and then they had to move out because you increased them corner lots. And then what we have is increase in property taxes for folks who are in the middle of that, who are fixed income, who lose their houses because they can't pay the property tax. But the house is already paid for and here comes the developers are gone. The banks will go mosaku.
Speaker 0: Your time is up.
Speaker 1: It's time to go. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Say who? Thanks for our speakers. Questions for members of comment. Members of the council. All right. So another public hearing for 464621 is now 14, 61 is now close. Any comments from members of council? All right, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn. Herndon. Cashin. Carnage. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Sussman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Political goals. Voting in US results promising to.
Speaker 8: SUSMAN And my husband was not. A screen.
Speaker 5: Is frozen. Okay. ESPINOSA Great. 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. 12 Eyes Council vote. 1461 has passed. Congratulations. Okay, Madam Secretary, we have a couple of bills we need to put on the floor here. How would you like to do this?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2600 High Street and 1919 East 26th Avenue in Whittier.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone land at 2600 High Street and 1919 East 26th Avenue from U-SU-B1 to U-MX-2x (urban, single-unit to urban, mixed-use) in Council District 9. If ordered published, a public hearing will be held on Monday, 2-12-18. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02122018_18-0017
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one nay counts. Bill 16 talking about the over can you remember we we're voting on there revision or design overlay has passed will now go on to 17 and we'll put that on its. Do we need to put that on the floor, Secretary? Go ahead. Councilman Espinosa, please put 17 on the floor.
Speaker 11: I move the council bill 18 zero. That's weird. 1718 number 17 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded just to read it into the record. This is 17 before ordinance changing the zoning classification. Numerous properties locate generally within the 30th and Blake approves official legislative map amendment applies the river north design overlay in 38th then it goes into some specifics there you guys can see there council members it's been moved in second it madam secretary roll call.
Speaker 8: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: Herndon. I. Cashman can eat. Lopez. They knew Ortega. My assessment.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 5: Sorry. There's one missing.
Speaker 0: Yeah, we are missing one. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Close. ANNOUNCER Very close the votes. And tell us with the.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes one name.
Speaker 0: All right, 11 eyes. One day, 17 passes. We will now look at Council Bill 14, count 14 and 19. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put 14 on the floor and place upon final consideration? Do pass.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for numerous properties located generally within the 38th and Blake Station Area.
Approves an official legislative map amendment to apply the River North Design Overlay (DO-7) and 38th and Blake Incentive Height Overlay (IO-1) to existing underlying C-MX- and I-MX- zone districts and overlays on properties generally located within the River North Business Improvement District or within the boundary of the Future Maximum Building Heights Map in the 38th and Blake Station Area Plan Amendments in Council District 9. If ordered published, a public hearing will be held on Monday, 2-12-18. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-2-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_02052018_18-0053
|
Speaker 0: Chief Hopes to lodge in campgrounds special renew fund set right Councilwoman Tax Assessment Under Pending No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, will you please bring up 53? Right. Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put 53 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 18 dash 0053 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and second it. Dr. Sussman?
Speaker 4: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. I am requesting that my colleagues vote no on this bill to defeat it, since the wrong fund name for the cheap house a large is listed in the title. A new bill will be filed via consent next week with the corrected title.
Speaker 0: Right. So you know the comments from Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 2: Sussman. No black. No Clark. No. Espinosa. No. Flynn. No. Gilmore. No. Herndon. No. Cashman. No carnage. Lopez. No new. Ortega No. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No, please. ALL Very nice results.
Speaker 2: 13 days.
Speaker 0: 13 nays, 53 has been defeated. This concludes the items that have been called out. All of the bills for introductions are or publish. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration calendars. Remember, this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, it's your last chance to call up an item for a separate vote. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put the resolutions for adoption in the bills in front of consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, President Brooks, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration. Consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 000600750076000300710074. And those were all series of 2018. And then the series 2017 is one, two, six, eight, and then back to 2018. Series 0069. Back to series 2017 1417 Series 2018 00900510054. And the last series 2017 is 1144.
Speaker 0: All right, looks like you got it all. Madam Secretary, would you concur?
Speaker 2: Was at 0009. I'm not sure if she said three zeroes or not.
Speaker 0: I think she said it.
Speaker 2: Okay, good. All right.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. My secretary call.
Speaker 2: Black. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Clark. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I heard in Cashman I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman Mr. President, I please.
Speaker 0: Please close the voting and announce results. 13 Eyes 13 Eyes resolution have been adopted and the bills have been placed for final consideration and do pass. Since there are no public hearings, no objections, members of Council will not take a recess.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance 235, Series of 2008 concerning the “Chief Hosa Lodge and Campground” Special Revenue Fund and transferring cash within the Culture and Recreation Special Revenue Fund.
Transfers the remaining cash balance for the Chief Hosa Campground from the Event Facility Fund 15823 into the Denver Mountain Park Fund 15825 and amends Ordinance 235, Series of 2008, to remove all language concerning the Chief Hosa Campground. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 1-16-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01292018_18-0049
|
Speaker 1: Let's see. Under bills for introduction, Councilman Ortega has called out for a question and possible vote Council Bill nine approving the purchase and sale agreement with the retailer for property located 8101 East 40th Avenue and also street under bills for final consideration. No items were caught out under pending. No islands have been called out. Madam Secretary, take the first one. 49. Councilman Ortega, ask your question.
Speaker 3: So I was able to get my question answered from Aaron Barraza from DIA. It was clear that this was actually a revenue contract. And so this you know, my question was if it had any direct impact on the Great Hall and the fact that it is a revenue contract sort of changes that equation. So. Aaron Glover, you're at. Thank you for the information. So I have nothing further on this one.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Ortega and Aaron Barraza. Is your last time in this chambers and this official position. We want to thank you for all your hard work. He's giving a skin upgrade at DHS. Let's give them a hand. You did good. You answered a question. Good job. Way to go. All right. So we're going to go on to the next one. Madam Secretary, please bring up 40. Yes. Go ahead and ask your question. Counsel, Marty.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment between the City and County of Denver and ALClear, LLC d/b/a CLEAR concerning expedited screening options for passengers at Denver International Airport.
Amends a revenue contract with ALClear, LLC, doing business as CLEAR, to add three years for a new end date of 1-21-21 for expedited screening options using biometric authentication for travelers at Denver International Airport. There is no change to the minimum annual guarantee amount of $250,000 (201208853). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-20-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 1-17-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01292018_18-0040
|
Speaker 1: You did good. You answered a question. Good job. Way to go. All right. So we're going to go on to the next one. Madam Secretary, please bring up 40. Yes. Go ahead and ask your question. Counsel, Marty.
Speaker 3: Okay. So this one was a. So my question in this one was whether or not the cost of the legal services has come out of the 800 million earmarked for national Western or if it is general fund dollars that are paying the cost of the legal services for National Western Center.
Speaker 1: So I think we have someone who can answer that question.
Speaker 2: Hi, Councilwoman. I'm Joann.
Speaker 4: Walburn.
Speaker 3: Assistant city.
Speaker 5: Attorney. Those dollars.
Speaker 4: Are general fund dollars that were appropriated to the city attorney's.
Speaker 3: Office. We don't we.
Speaker 5: Can't use the capital dollars that are set aside for the capital build.
Speaker 3: For those purposes. So this is part of the overall cost that the city is incurring, which is part of the National Western Center office, if you will, that is paying part of the costs that are not covered by the. The funds that were approved by the voters. Correct.
Speaker 5: I just want to be clear. They're a part of the city attorney's budget and not the mayor's office of the National Western Center.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's right.
Speaker 5: But otherwise, yes, they are city dollars going to support the National Western Center project.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. I think at some point it would be a great opportunity to have an update. I know periodically they do updates on the progress of the the project itself. But, you know, where are we in in the finances and the spin that we have been drawing down on the National Western Center, both both city as well as from the the the funds from the project.
Speaker 1: Right. Councilmember take I'm looking at our chair of LUDI for just a little head nod and also Gretchen, who's the head of National Western Authority. So, um.
Speaker 2: Yesterday at our regular.
Speaker 3: Updates, they also gave us a report on the finances of the, of the project.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: If you can just let us those of us who are not on the committee know when that's coming. That would be helpful. Thank you.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Butler Snow LLP for an increase to the maximum contract amount.
Adds $199,500 to a contract with Butler Snow, LLP for a new total of $592,000 for outside legal services for implementation of the National Western Complex project in Council District 9 (201629665-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-20-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 1-16-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01292018_18-0047
|
Speaker 3: If you can just let us those of us who are not on the committee know when that's coming. That would be helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Okay. We're going to put up 47, Councilman Herndon, where you put council resolution 47 on the floor. Certainly, Mr. President, I move that council.
Speaker 0: Resolution 47 be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and second it. Go ahead, Councilman. Let's see who we got. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you, Mr. President. I simply have some unresolved concerns about the composition of the authority board and therefore, will be voting to not approve the slate at this time. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other comments by members of council? You know, we have some authority more folks here today that I'd like to recognize. And then we've got Kelly Lee used to be here as the running the whole national Esther as Lovato. Is she here today? Okay. We also have Liliana Flores from Glover, Larry Swansea. We also have John Zappia on. Here in the in the house as well. And we'll be approving these. And, you know, I think I've been a part of this process the entire time. And, you know, I want to thank everyone from the community for serving and being a part of this board. I think, you know, what we really heard from the community is we wanted to get to vote on council on this authority board. And we have John Zippy on as the voting member of the 30 board from the community. And we also have Liliana Flores as a member of the community, a non-voting member. And, you know, I felt like it was a real opportunity to sit down with the mayor and sit before him and try and get these two votes . And we were not able to do that. And so there is some concern from the community around this. And I want to let that be known that I pushed for the two votes, but we did not get there. I also want to recognize Rob Brown, who's in the audience as well from the community and appreciate you serving. And so, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Well, you've just said some of the things that I wanted to share. I attended a number of the meetings when the makeup of the board was being discussed at the Community Advisory Committee, meetings of the National Western Center. And yeah, some of us pushed for making sure that there were two community voting members, even if it was maybe one resident and one business. But the meetings were held with the mayor to discuss that very issue. And the recommendation that moved forward was to have only one voting member from the community. So, you know, I'm going to support this tonight because I think it is important to move the the board forward so that national western. Board can do the action that it needs to, you know, take the action that needs to take place in addressing the many things that are happening. There are some things that are yet to come forward. You know, there's been some discussion about a community benefit agreement. There's been discussion about the coliseum, a roll up. That is something that we won't see for a little while until we see buildings on the national western campus. But I think that is something that would generate some dollars that would go into a community investment fund. But those are still some of the details that are are being worked out at this point in time. But I share that concern and was vocal during that process about the desire to have two voting members from the community . We do have two voting members from National Western. We have two voting members from CSU. You know, it made sense to have two voting community members, but that's not what ended up being moved forward. And so what we have in front of us, we either vote it up or vote it down. And I think it is important to move it forward. And I would hope that at any point in time in the future, as any of the the seats change, that this might be something that could be revisited.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, I want to recognize Pat Garrett, who's in the audience as well, and serve and represent the National Western Stock Show as well. And doing a great job doing it as chair. Okay. We have Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: It just seems to me that on an ongoing basis, there are certain groups in our city that get a full voice in the civic dialog, and there's other groups that don't seem to get as full of a voice. I am a solid supporter of the National Western Center project. I'm excited about what it brings to the table, but I'm nowhere near as excited about the makeup of this board. I don't think two voting members from the community is too much to ask. I just think we're giving short shrift to the voice and the wisdom of the neighborhood so I won't be able to support this. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't serve on the committee, so I'm not sure how much discussion this got at the committee level, but I was kind of unaware of some of the concerns on the community side until just today. And then I think there are just some other questions about the potential appearance of conflicts based on former employment. And so I don't have any desire to, you know, have a debate about individual qualifications or, you know, disparage anyone or casting doubt on the integrity of the body. But I guess that since I've gotten kind of some concerns that arose at the last minute, I'm not quite comfortable. So I think I need to abstain because I just didn't have enough time to kind of dig into all these things. And again, not serving on the committee, if those on the committee thoroughly debated all that, including, you know, the fact that there wasn't quite community buy in for the community seats, I guess, you know, I want to defer. You know, if there was a full council debate that I missed, that's one thing. But. But hearing about this late, I just don't feel comfortable voting. So I'm going to be abstaining tonight.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Canning. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. I just have a question. I don't know if it's. I don't know who to ask him. I'm wondering why. What was the what's the reasoning behind that? I mean, the two community seats not being able to vote. Being a vote. Not being voting members.
Speaker 1: Krystal de Herrera. Okay. From the mayor's office.
Speaker 0: Oh, okay. Thank you. Crystal addressed that.
Speaker 4: Good evening, everyone. It's always good to see everybody here. I'm happy to answer these questions. I think these are important questions.
Speaker 1: Can you introduce yourself for the.
Speaker 4: Sorry? Crystal Torres de Herrera, deputy city attorney for the city for the Denver City Attorney's Office. I'm happy to answer these questions. These are important questions. As you guys as all of you may recall, there was actually robust discussion on the council floor when the framework agreement actually came before council. I remember vividly because we did have several members of the community here, which I was really proud to see, because I think it is really important to hear their voices as well. And I know that Councilwoman Ortega and Council man Brooks were very much a part of the conversations, both with the Citizens Advisory Committee, as well as with the other community members that were here. And there was a robust conversation at the time about what was the board composition, what was it going to be? And. Councilman Espinosa, I know you asked several questions that we dialoged about at that moment here in front of this body. Councilwoman can issue might have I wasn't sure if it was right around your recent nuptials. So you may not have been here for that vote. So I think it was right around that time. But at any point we did discuss the importance of having community representation. But ultimately where the agreement ended up was that there was going to be a voting member of the community as well as a non-voting. And I will tell you that when the framework agreement was first. Discussed and put in writing among the partners. We did go to the Citizens Advisory Committee. We actually went to them first before we filed it with council, and it was in those conversations with the community that we actually came up with the non-voting seat and it was at the behest of the community who said, Well, wait a minute, what happens if we have somebody on there and they're either not able to attend that day who votes for the community or what happens if they move on? There's nobody there in the wings who's been there to appreciate and understand the decisions that have been made within that body. And we said, you know what? That is a fair concern. That is something that we need to address. And it was because of those conversations that we added the non-voting member. And so, you know, we didn't. Now, did they get the second voting member? No, but we added the additional non-voting member. I will also say from a process standpoint, not only did we have a lot of conversations with the CAC, but we invited and Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman Ortega can attest to this. There was a conversation with the mayor as well, and it was about hear this, here's the composition and what we are looking for in board members. Here are the attributes, the characteristics that we think are important to sit on this board and fill these seats. And that was really important. I want to thank everybody who contributed to that because that was really, really key. And we took those we took those attributes to heart. And I think you can see that from the people that we have in front of you today that the mayor proposed, that, you know, we want to make sure that whoever sits on this board understands the incredible, valuable role that the surrounding neighborhoods play. And it's not just a one time role. It is an ongoing role. And it is about this project not just being a successful project, but it's about how do we share the opportunity with the surrounding communities and make sure that they benefit as well. The other conversation we had on the council floor that evening when I came to last spoke about this, was about the community benefits agreement. And the mayor did a letter that I read from at that meeting that I had also shared with Councilwoman Ortega ahead of the Monday night. That evening was that the mayor had also included and mandated to the incoming board members that we would do a community benefits agreement. We needed to work with that, but that we had to value and make sure that this board was responsive to and working and collaborating, being respectful, inclusive with the surrounding communities. And I think that we're really proud of that work. We couldn't have gotten there without the help of, frankly, Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Ortega and the community that we talked with. There were some really important strides that happen here. And so we're excited to get this board in, let this authority get up and running so we can start doing the good work that we've talked about so we can start working on the community benefits agreement because that is what the board, the authority board will do. That is their that is part of their job. So we're really excited about that. But I just wanted to make sure all of you were aware of the process and the conversations that went in to get us to this point.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. I'm sure you can sit right there because we got some more comments in there. Let me see Councilman Flynn, Europe and then Councilman Neal.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to remind everybody that the the debate, as Ms.. De Herrera just outlined, the debate over whether to have two voting members from the community occurred during the approval of the framework agreement a while back. So tonight is not the time to not fill the seats that we agreed to have on the board. Tonight is the time to fill those seats that we did agree and then perhaps further that debate. But it would actually take an amendment to the framework agreement that we approved a while back to get that second voting member . And I am sympathetic to that cause as well. But this vote tonight is not the place or the vote to say we should have a second community voting member. We need to fill the seats that we already agreed to have and then proceed to that conversation. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, good point, Councilman Neal. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I'm in favor of voting. I support this today, but I missed the point. The rationale for the non-voting member. And I didn't quite hear that from everything that you said. Could you can you simplify that? I'm from the South, so you have to go speak slowly. So but I just want to understand the rationale for one voting and one non-voting. Do somebody say that we don't need. A second voting member for some reason. What was the.
Speaker 1: Reason?
Speaker 4: So we did have. So when the framework agreement, when we initially were talking to our partners and trying to figure out what was the right balance and the board composition of the seats, there was a lot of priority about having a small and nimble board that could make actions because you have to have a you know, you really want a odd number of voting seats because of that. In the event of a tie, you need someone to break a tie. Right. And we were talking about what was the right distribution. And there's a lot of behind the scenes conversations between the partners about, you know, do the equity partners, do CSU and WCC, do they get two seats? Do they get four seats? What does that look like? So that conversation happened. You know, in the course of the framework agreement, when we came to the community, they said, hey, we appreciate that you gave us the seat. We'd like this other seat. But from a math and other reason standpoint, we decided to go that it was because we'd already drafted the framework or agreement and we said, this is going to be the best resolution to this. We also felt that by having that non-voting seat that that gave, there was no gaps in terms of if somebody couldn't attend the meeting or if there was he or if John wanted to get off. We didn't know what the point that was going to be. John's AP But if John's even decided, you know what, I've been here a year, I'm going to go do something else that somebody could step into the shoes. So it was that was the rationale. They did meet with the mayor. The mayor decided that that was the way he wanted to go as well. Now, I will say this. There are various touch points in this authority that have to have that they have to have with the community. Right. Or it doesn't work. That's just a fact. And so. The board is an important touchpoint, but it's not the only touchpoint. And we have specifically embedded things in the framework agreement and in the instructions to the board members about the community benefits agreement, about the way they're going to interact about the Community Investment Fund. There are other touchpoints because the only way this works is to have everybody's features embedded and to make sure that in order for this project to succeed, the community succeeds as well. And so we've tried very hard to do that.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much, sir. So it really was the mayor's decision. He felt that was the best way to go.
Speaker 4: It was. It was the mayor's decision and it was our decision as well.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Neal. And thank you, everybody, for weighing in. Obviously, this is a tough issue. And I think, Councilman Flynn, you underlined it pretty well that, you know, we agreed to this in the framework agreement. The meeting that I had with the mayor, with members of the community was saying to the mayor, this is this is an opportunity for you to use one of your seats and take care of this with the community voting member, you know, and so that's that what I want to say is the individuals that are here today that the mayor picked, especially from the community and thank you for serving and we're going to need you in the future. This is so, so incredibly important. And your leadership means everything right now. And so regardless of this conversation that's being had right now, I think there's still an opportunity for a lot of success in the future . Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Council President Brooks I think Monique just want. Monique Lovato Yeah, it's west, west side right now, right. West Denver in the house. Look, I didn't I was just I got into the. Our cultural norm of doing questions and then answer and think kind of in. Public hearing mode. So forgive me if I didn't say this later, earlier, but I and I appreciate the question being answered. However, you know, when we approved the farm framework, I didn't. Get the peeing like I like my colleague council woman can each kind of realizing this today right tonight that this has been an issue. So having said that, I'm still actually pretty concerned that we don't have that other vote. Are there any other positions on the board that are on the board but don't have a vote? Or is it just a community one?
Speaker 4: There is another position on the board that doesn't have a vote. It is the CFO of the city. We have a standing spot for the CFO in the city. We think that's important and that person does not have a vote as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. I appreciate that, Crystal. Look, I just. I'm. I just remain concerned about. Not having that community voice or that vote, especially because this is in Globeville. I think it's Illyria. Sorry. Local area swans and geese. You know, I. I love this talk show. I absolutely love being a part of it. I love seeing it being revitalized. I love seeing it being revived. We went on a tour. My first term in council. And we saw that it was falling apart. We saw that it was not seamless with the community. There was just a lot of improvements that needed to take place. And I was, you know, excited, excited to see it move forward. I'm still excited to move forward. So I don't want anybody to think that this is something as a statue I voted for, to see, campaign for, to see. I think it's a just a great opportunity to keep it here and take it to the next level and create that that seamless experience and then just blended into the community and not have a project where it's kind of like L.A. Live, where it's kind of its own little Disneyland. There's the community, right, and separate. And I think a lot's being done to do that. But. I have a hard time accepting that just the two an extra community member on that board cannot vote. And that just it just doesn't seem like it's it's it's valued enough to vote that that vote voice is isn't as strong as the others. And it happens to be from this community that lives in the shadow of the highway. Right. That has gone three decades without a grocery store, has a home, you know, a lot of a lot of infrastructure needs. So I think, you know, for me, I have a hard time. I mean, the first thing I want to say is. I would love to see some kind of, you know, rehashing of that that agreement. I think, you know, there is definitely an opportunity to look at that. Again, I know this might not be the proper place and I acknowledge that, Councilman Flynn, but. The organizer. I mean, the community organizer me has an issue with that. With not having that vote. So it's nothing against the to stock show as an organization or the work that everybody's put in. But I just think that that voice is critical and especially coming from this neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman, in each last word.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to clarify the record, I'm sure the long lived historical record of this very important road. I am just record. I'm not protesting the the the composition in terms of voting in non-voting. I agree with Councilman Flynn that that's been decided. It's because questions were raised about the slate. Yeah. And the who. And so it is not an attempt to reopen questions in the agreement, although the points by my colleagues on that are are well taken. But my personal vote is about concerns raised about the slate. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. I will be supporting this and looking forward to to continue conversations of opportunities down the road. This is a big deal for the city of Denver, and it's a big deal for the neighborhood for the first authority board in the city to have neighborhood representation. But I do agree that we should have more. Okay, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 2: Herndon. I cashin. Can each. LOPEZ No. New. Ortega I.
Speaker 3: Sussman, I.
Speaker 2: Black eye, I. Clarke all. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please those voting US results.
Speaker 2: I think one is missing.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: We are missing one.
Speaker 2: Clark.
Speaker 1: Clark. President pro tem.
Speaker 2: Eight eyes, three days, one.
Speaker 1: Abstention, Iraqis, three nays, one abstention. The Port Authority, 47 passes. Okay. We are moving on to Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega, would you like to put.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving the Mayor’s appointments to the National Western Center Authority Board.
Approves the following Mayoral appointments to the National Western Center Authority Board: Jacque Hinman, Steven McCarthy, and John Zapien (neighborhood resident Board member) for terms effective immediately and expiring on 12-31-21; Robb Brown for a term effective immediately and expiring on 12-31-20; Kelly Leid, Monique Lovato, and Liliana Flores Amaro (neighborhood resident non-voting Board member) for terms effective immediately and expiring 12-31-19, or until a successor is duly appointed. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 1-16-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01222018_17-1400
|
Speaker 0: This is regarding the bump stock legislation under pending. We have nothing called out. All right, Madam Secretary, thank you for putting the items on the screen. Councilman knew where you put council bill of 1400 series of 2017 on the floor.
Speaker 4: And move the council bill 17 1400 be placed upon final consideration to pass.
Speaker 0: All right, it has. Make sure it's been moved and checking it. It has been moved. I need a secondary grate. It has been moved in. Second it. Councilman Flynn, your motion to amend.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I move that council. Bill 17, Dash 14 would be amended in the following particulars on page two, Section one Line 20 will be amended to include a new subsection three that provides three dwelling units. Has the meaning set forth in the zoning code. I'm sorry. A dwelling has the meaning. I should read from the yellow sheet. Dwelling shall have the same meaning set forth in the Denver Zoning Code. Page two, line 20 through page three, line four, renumbered paragraphs two through seven as three through eight in subsection B, accordingly, page four after line 27, add the following three. A person who possesses a magazine that holds or may be modified to hold between 16 and 20 rounds if he or she a owned it on July 1st, 2013, be maintained continuous possession of such magazine and c possesses the magazine within the dwelling in which the person resides. On page four, line 28, strike three and replace with four.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman. Questions or comments?
Speaker 2: Murmurs, accounts go from me to second.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So we already had a second on there. Councilman Flynn, your comments.
Speaker 3: Yes, thank you. First of all, I want to thank my colleague, Councilman Espinosa, for working with me on this. As you know, last week, I had a concern that we would be essentially criminalizing a lot of law abiding, good, decent gun owners in Denver who have followed our ordinance for 28 years that limited high capacity magazines to a maximum of 20. And in conforming this to the state bill that passed in 2013, the bill, as filed, did not import the grandfathering provision which allowed people to continue to possess that which they legally possessed. As of the passage of that 2013 state bill and in passing the bump stock ban, which we heard testimony and I've had email from various gun owners who said they are completely supportive of that. I know I've heard from a few who aren't. But I know that most folks I've heard from are very supportive of that. But they were very concerned about about the fact that we would be criminalizing folks who for self-defense at home or for whatever reason, have been following our law since 1989, and have a magazine that maybe has 17 round capacity. And suddenly we'd be making we're making that illegal and we're putting them in a dilemma. Do I get rid of it? I know we received information that you can get a a ten round magazine for as little as 20 bucks. That's not the point. The point is putting. Good, decent, law abiding people through the needless exercise of getting rid of something that is perfectly legal today. But we're saying you can't have tomorrow. And so, Mr. President, I initially wanted to do to import the full grandfathering, but in working with Councilman Espinosa, we were able to arrive at a compromise that I believe will have a majority of the votes tonight, and that is a homesteading provision that was suggested by a gun owning constituent of mine. If you keep it in your home. You're good to go. This addresses the problem that was brought up last week, Mr. President, where it's difficult to enforce whether did you own this magazine before July 1st, 2013, under the state law, if it's not in your home, we don't have to bother asking that anymore. So it addresses the enforcement issue. And if it's in your home, we're never going to see it anyway. So God bless you. And if you go out to a shooting range or whatever, then take your take your 15 or your ten round magazine with you and leave the 17 or the 20 at home. I think that this is a compromise that I want to thank, Councilman Espinosa, for reaching with me and coming to one on something I think is rather an important piece of legislation in what it principally does, which is to ban the bump stocks. And I think it's unfortunate that we had to get into this level of debate about conforming the bill, conforming with the state bill. But I think this will satisfy a lot of folks. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, counsel. Councilman Flynn, for your your amendment and your comments. I don't know. I'll put it in my comments and I'm not even at this moment. Sure, I'm still with you on it. And it sort of depends on some questions I have. And it mostly as a result of me sort of meditating on this time and again over the weekend. But it really still you've seen me do this before where I'm still at odds with myself on something. So the question I have in this comes from constituents reaching out to me as late as today with their own concerns about this amendment. So the questions I have are. Are we? Do we have. Do you have any sort of confidence that we will not run into a sort of slippery slope here where we are? The bill is proposed, has a very clear, you know, direction with regard to to the magazine capacity. If we create a homesteading provision where we're not going to run into some sort of litigation about the definition of, you know, why or why, why a dwelling is so much more significant than a person or a person's vehicle or something like that you have. So is this a this is a question in Councilman Flynn. Correct. Councilor Flynn.
Speaker 3: I can't guarantee that we won't be in litigation over anything that we do. Councilman So I obviously can't give any guarantees on that. I just believe that this is a reasonable compromise to allow the legal continued possession of that which has been legal for 28 years here in Denver. And I think that's a slippery slope that I'm more concerned about, is that in five or ten years, we don't come back here and say, okay, now you got to get rid of those and we're going to limit you to ten or fewer that we don't go through this again.
Speaker 0: Councilman Esmeralda, do you have another question? Yeah. And that's a legitimate concern because, you know, one of the original compromises I made, as you know, when a constituent put forward the measure, he was recommending an eight round limitation. The compromise was to to to meet this the state at its number of rounds. But I still think that from a clear sort of public health side, I think the 15 outright ban was was was appropriate. The other question I have is what what does concern me is we're defining this as dwelling. That's a new portion that I hadn't seen until today that would encompass apartment buildings as well in their entirety. We don't limit dwelling to just the apartment unit itself. But my real concern on the apartment, even in particular, is that what we're still allowing is 20 round capacity magazines in any number in dwellings, and a certain percentage of our calls by our law enforcement are to dwellings where it would be, it would be a gun owner would be okay to have that. I mean, the recent shooting incident in Douglas County was a call to a dwelling in an apartment building. Do we have do you have some sense about why this line would be better than an outright 15 round band? If all's our concern is the the the cost impact to the legitimate gun owner who could easily accommodate this this change. Counselor.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure I understand the question.
Speaker 0: The question is, do you have a sense about what percentage of calls our law enforcement make to homes? Ah.
Speaker 3: No, I don't know.
Speaker 0: But we have law enforcement here. I'm not sure that they're prepared to answer that at all. Okay. They're not. Next question. Okay. That was it. So I'll save the rest of my comments. But now you're sort of sorry to see what what would sort of been in my mind of late on going on what I thought was a very reasonable compromise, I think. All right, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to look over at our city attorney. Kirsten, I don't expect you to have the answer to this because I just brought up. But do we have any provision regarding collectors of like antique guns that are that like an old timey gun or anything like that in somebody's home or in a or in a museum or anything like that? I mean, do we have any provisions that keep that protect people for having. Let's say an old, old fashioned gun that has more than 20 rounds from 16 to 20 rounds. Is there anything that protects people that are collectors and anything like that?
Speaker 2: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Counsel And I don't know. And keep in mind that we're just talking here about high capacity magazines, the type of guns. And I don't want to turn a tough question over to Mali, but Mali Bartowski, from our prosecution and code enforcement and here is might have some idea about that.
Speaker 7: I mean, maybe and maybe we can go ahead and clarify that question. If there's an antique gun that has a it's its capacity is more than 15. That's like a collectors antique gun or anything like that.
Speaker 2: Not to my knowledge. But we can look into that and get back to you.
Speaker 7: Okay. So I'm just wondering if there was any kind of anything that a property owner is entitled to. Under any kind of collectors. You know, classification or anything like that. Because I know there's people that are like showmen and stuff like that and they.
Speaker 0: Good evening, counsel Marlee Bordeaux Ski with interim director of the prosecution section of the city attorney's office. There is no antique kind of an exception in any of our ordinances, even existing.
Speaker 2: Ordinances right now.
Speaker 0: So this would this exception would be unique to that particular ordinance. Okay. And if that helps.
Speaker 7: Okay. Now, let me ask council president, we ask one question of Councilman Espinoza. Okay. Go ahead, Councilman. I was under the impression that you were supportive of an amendment.
Speaker 0: And you if you had that impression, you weren't wrong. When Councilman Flynn wrote this to me on Friday. I actually really like the idea that that at least the intent of the the magazine restriction was was met because you couldn't leave the house with it. And so. But what what what you're seeing in my response and in my hesitation now is just thinking back to again, our problem in in this nation and to risk to to life safety is is that is is each bullet and reducing the number of rounds there is a legitimate law enforcement concern, and that is the intent of the magazine restriction. It was supposed to be ten. There was some there was some anecdote that was shared at the state when they were pursuing ten where a person could shared that they saved them. They saved their life by with that 15th round. And so magically we ended up going from 10 to 15.
Speaker 7: Was the original legislation that the state proposed at ten.
Speaker 0: Correct. And so even Glocks themselves were originally manufactured with ten rounds or they have the standard ten round bracket because that is the sort of normal limitation. And so to Kevin Flynn's point, it's not unreasonable to think that at some point, if we could if it made sense, we could pursue a ten round limitation. But again, my goal was really the stock ban originally and and create conformance with the state. But since since there is a legitimate life safety reason on why you wouldn't want an enforcement reason on why you wouldn't want additional rounds. I'm sort of. Sort of. As much as I appreciate the effort to not just grandfather the way the state did, which is really, really confusing. I think this is a good compromise. But I me personally, I don't know that I'm still willing to go there. Having thought about it some more. Okay. Let me let me go to Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: So circle back around with me. I know we don't have somebody from law enforcement prepared to answer the question. I just want to know. Quickly council president just what the what your standard issue police you know handgun what the magazine is in a standard issue handgun per the manual.
Speaker 0: Police officers want to answer.
Speaker 7: And my asking my asking around that is that I assume under some kind of situation where you're entering an apartment or somebody is firing from inside the apartment, depending on the sound of the other mechanism. A person could probably wonder, hey, that was the that was the 10th round that he shot. He must be out. Or there must be a pause as opposed. I'm just wondering what the what the.
Speaker 0: Please, please introduce yourself to see.
Speaker 7: What's a standard issue magazine capacity on any kind of gun. Right.
Speaker 3: I'm Officer Morgan with the Denver Police Department.
Speaker 4: Thank you. The standard for most full sized pistols is a.
Speaker 7: 17 round magazine and most.
Speaker 0: Full.
Speaker 4: Size rifles is 30.
Speaker 0: Okay, enough, sir, just to make a distinction. We do have SWAT, which are able to handle much more than that as well. Correct.
Speaker 7: They generally carry the same.
Speaker 3: Capacity of weapons. They have different.
Speaker 0: Weapons available to them. Okay, great. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: So if you could stay up there, that was part of my question. So the most of our officers are now carrying nine. Mm. Correct.
Speaker 3: That's correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. So you're saying the average is 17? Correct. Okay. So how easily is it to swap out a. Ten round or 15 around for what is built for 17 round magazine.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure I understand the question. You mean to convert.
Speaker 4: A smaller one to a larger one?
Speaker 6: Yeah, the magazine, by the way. So instead of because I think Councilman Espinosa said at our last meeting that, you know, for the price of a magazine, which is somewhere around $20, you can swap them out. But I don't know how easily it is to actually replace what is normally made as a 17 round magazine for, say , a Glock or, you know, whatever kind of weapon that, for example, our officers carry. To then for the public reduce it down to the 15 round that is now in this ordinance.
Speaker 0: You generally can't reduce the actual magazine, but to.
Speaker 7: Change out the.
Speaker 0: Magazines takes a matter of seconds.
Speaker 6: Well, that's that's what I'm. It's the replacement issued.
Speaker 7: Not right. If you purchased a new magazine, it takes.
Speaker 3: Less than a minute to transfer the ammunition to that magazine and then that magazine to the firearm.
Speaker 6: Okay. So they are readily available in the market then to replace a lower number, a magazine that carries a lower number of bullets than a 17 round, for example, in Colorado.
Speaker 7: Most of them are 15.
Speaker 0: Rounds, not ten enough.
Speaker 3: To.
Speaker 0: Comply with state law. Right.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. That answers my questions.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right, Councilman Flynn. Yeah. Yeah, that is right. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Actually, I had a question for you. Council President We have a motion on the floor and I would thought this was a comment period. But are we dividing now between question and comments with motions on the floor rather than just a public hearing?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Councilwoman, there's an amendment on the floor so we can both ask questions. I don't think we're necessarily into comments, but asking questions.
Speaker 5: All right, I have a comment.
Speaker 0: Okay. Flynn.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, you want to go to Councilwoman Black?
Speaker 0: Oh, just point blank.
Speaker 5: Thank you. I just have a clarifying question of our police officer. You just said when you walked away that in Colorado. Magazines have 15 rounds in order to comply with state law.
Speaker 0: New manufacturer.
Speaker 5: So if you were going to buy one legally in the state of Colorado they have they AR 15.
Speaker 7: Correct.
Speaker 3: Or smaller.
Speaker 5: A firearm that is a small couldn't legally buy one that was larger. No.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 3: Thank, Mr. President. I didn't have any other questions. I was just coming in for comments. I don't know if anyone unless someone else had a question.
Speaker 0: Once you start that.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. I'm offering this amendment not because it is an easy or relatively inexpensive to go out and replace your currently compliant grandfathered magazines with new ones. I'm offering it because, number one. I think we all. We're all sitting up here realizing that a person with criminal intent certainly isn't going to go do this. Someone who's going to rob a convenience store isn't going to say, Oh, I can't use this magazine. I have to use a smaller one. All we're doing is putting law abiding, decent gun owners in Denver in a dilemma of do they now go out and get rid of what they have now that we've told them for 28 years is fine and proper and is still fine and proper under the state legislation. Just because we want them to. And I think that we owe them we just owe them the right to keep in their home at least. What they've legally held for the last 28 years. Councilman Espinosa this morning sent me an email. 1036. Thank you for finding this middle ground. Great work. We didn't actually handshake on it, as you recall, councilman, but we did fist bump. And I guess fist bump is the new handshake. So I would ask the councilman that you'd give this consideration and give the people of Denver who in good faith have been following our law for 28 years, that the right to continue to follow it and to truly conform this bill to state law, because right now, the way the title is written, it says we're conforming it to the state legislation and we are not. We are not. We're changing our number to 15, but we're not including the grandfathering provision that would conform it to state law. And so I asked my colleagues to vote yes just to respect the rights of our of our citizens. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Espinosa, I want to confirm that I did, in fact, fist bump him. And I do still stand by the fact that I do appreciate the amendment as it is today versus where I thought we were going. And so I, I think we have an improved, you know, we're doing the right thing, whether we amend it or we don't. I just happen to know, you know, think that personally, it's we're doing we're doing a better job. If we if we if we don't amend. But I respect and even any and all my colleagues, regardless of which way they vote on that amendment, because I do think as far as a compromise is concerned, those who are in fact, concerned about that, that inconvenience of sort of, you know, historic existing magazines, it's a decent compromise , but it is exactly the same one without the amendment, meaning that if you have that, if you if you continue to possess it in your home and you never have a reason for the law enforcement to go digging through your personal possessions, you're going to be fine, you know? But if if if you take it out of your home, then you're in the same boat that you are with or without the amendment. So from again, from from the sort of from a genuine concern about the the the availability of high capacity magazines, the damage that can be done. You know, I just think in my own estimation, we're this close to sort of going one step further to to, you know, preserve, you know, better, better preserving the health and well-being of our our citizenry. And I don't again, for you know, if you want to go, the explanation I made before, which was if you if you want to go to the range, you're going to be paying a fee of 18 bucks an hour unless you're a member and a box of bullets, just 25 rounds is going to run you another 12 bucks. So you're already willing in to just to spend a couple of minutes in a range. You're you're investing more than it would cost to come into compliance. And each one of those magazines that you has has a real, real value. So you can sell that and offset the cost. And it's just a matter of, yeah, it's an inconvenience, but we do these things. For the right reasons, and I'm okay with that. And so I do still. So I do still think it's a good amendment and a good compromise. But I am I don't. Me personally, you won't see me going there on this one things. All right. Thanks. Councilman Espinosa. Dr. Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, Mr. President. This was a very tough one for me. This because I like I think most people are alarmed at the gun violence in our society. And you can see other places that have limited gun ownership like Australia and Canada. And the difference in our gun violence and I know that gun violence is perpetrated by violent people, not by the gun itself, but the correlations can't be denied. And I was very happy to vote on making bump stocks illegal. But the the the amendment tonight made me think a lot about why do I need to be a realist or do I need to think about what it means? Because this amendment is is very intriguing. But I try to think of an analogy, and one of them I thought of was a switchblade. If you are going to say switchblades are dangerous, they're dangerous wherever they are, whether they're in my car or at a restaurant or at home, they are just as dangerous. And of course, we. We really legalized switchblades some years ago. Interestingly enough, we made it illegal, but we wouldn't say that a switchblade was safe in my home. A safe thing to have in my home, but not a safe thing out in my car. And to me, that made the analogy a little bit a little bit easier for me to understand how I wanted to vote tonight. If a girl if a certain kind of number of rounds in a magazine are dangerous outside of the home, they're dangerous inside of the home. And the rate of our domestic violence and then accidental firings are so scary about what's happening here. And I know that it's difficult to enforce this, and I don't think I can change my mind about the dangerousness of some of these weapons just because it's difficult to enforce. We don't usually make laws, let's say, oh, well, let's let them do it, because we'd be hard to catch them. And I so I after much thinking about this and and my feelings about gun violence and whether a weapon is dangerous regardless of where it's located, I think I'm going to have to vote against the amendment tonight and stick with the original proposal by Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Kasich.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting no on this amendment tonight. I believe that when you have a path to reducing harm and you have a new standard for the community, you change the standard for the community and you ask the entire community to meet the same standard. I think about the shootings that have occurred in our city and how many of them focus on the home. So South Denver had someone who, you know, called police down and shot a tank, I believe, and created an explosion and, you know, created a showdown with police in South Denver from his home. We have youth that sometimes get a hold of guns that are in homes. We have home is the most dangerous place in America for women. And, you know, we think a lot about mass shooters and strangers. But the truth is, women in this country are far more likely to be shot by their intimate partners. And so if the moment of reloading while someone's locked behind a door gives them a moment to get to a phone or, you know, go to safety, I all you know, all of those situations focused around the home and so on. Unfortunately, gun violence often is occurring from a home base and not from some anonymous hotel room or some anonymous place in a in a public place. And so. So I vote for harm reduction. I vote for reducing risk, and I vote for a consistent and clear standard that everyone in our community meets. That, to me, is the best way to govern. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman can. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. So I appreciate the fact that Councilman Flynn was trying to find some way to address this concern of putting people in this precarious situation where they're in compliance with state law, but will now be in conflict with this this law that's already passed. First reading, I know at our last meeting somebody had talked about a potential grace period as maybe an answer to give people time to replace the magazines so that they are in compliance with local law in hearing how. Affordable it is to do that, you know, basically sort of makes my decision for not supporting the amendment because I think. You know, for people who typically own a car and a lot of them do target practicing. I've gone to Target practicing with friends in the past to some of the local ranges. And, you know, you spend that money on the on the bullets themselves. So, you know, the amount of money you would spend to just swap that out and replace a magazine would would not be that expensive for gun owners. You know, if we were not in a situation where it. Appears to be an epidemic in this country. And again, to Councilwoman Nature's Point, I think she's the one that mentioned this. You travel around the world and you don't see the kind of gun violence that exists in the United States. And if there is a way that we can keep our community safer by passing this provision, then it's not unusual for Denver to pass laws that are more stringent than state law. We've done that on so many different things. And I think this is just one more example where Denver is trying to lead and be proactive in how we protect our community. And so I will not be supporting the amendment tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Black.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a really tough issue for many of us up here. I am no fan of guns. Councilwoman Sussman and Councilwoman Kennish, your remarks were were very moving. I've also talked with Councilman Flynn a lot about his original proposed amendment and about this compromise. I think compromise. It's great that Councilman Espinosa was on board with it, too. I've also talked to our city attorney about it. And Councilwoman Kenney, she talked about consistent and clear standards. And one of the things we talked about I talked about with city attorney is consistency with state law and clarity for people. Since 1989, people in Denver have been allowed to have 20 magazines. Mr. Emerson is my constituent and he has made some very persuasive arguments to me and I know that he is a law abiding citizen. There are also some legal issues around private property and private property rights. So I have been convinced that this is a reasonable compromise. I am going to support it, as I said that I would. That said, if the amendment fails, I also will support the original bill because I think it's important. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black Councilor Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I think there's two issues here. One is the bump stock ban, which I absolutely support. And the other is a question on capacity in magazines. You know, I wish that we had a little bit more time to discuss the amendment. I don't think it's any of fault of yours. Councilman Flynn, I think it's just a the process in which our council works. I would have loved to ask a little bit more about, you know, more details about magazine difference in capacity when you're talking about 16 to 20 rounds and 15 and what we encounter, you know, and if we ever confiscate anything like that or ever run into it, as opposed to just your your regular, you know, 15 round capacity, if we ever come across those those others. Then I think of just this policy, and I never thought it would actually come to city council. I've been following on the state level, on federal level, but now it's here and it really spent some time thinking about it since last week. And, you know, to be to be quite honest, my own position changes based on whether it's in the public or at home. Right. If I was being you know, if somebody was entering my home and I did had no idea what they had. And I was in my bedroom. I wouldn't be wanting an extra for bullets. I'd want a whole nother magazine just in case. And it's not illegal to have another ten round magazine. Or another, whether you have a rifle or a pistol, a handgun. I don't think we're robbing anybody of not passing this amendment of a capacity issue. You just buy another magazine in typically you know in your head you how those magazines are able to exchange them within I'd say 30 seconds even. So in the public, however, it's a little different. You honor in a concealed carry. Usually the weapon that you have in a concealed carry does even have more than a minute. Your average pounds per magazine, some not so worried about that in public. Councilman Flynn, I hear where you're coming with this. I really appreciate, you know, being, you know, floating that out there and taking it. Could be a great idea, a good compromise to the to the table. But I don't think I'm there yet. I don't think I'm there yet in terms of how this policy affects our general public health. For me, it's not the I'm not in magazine rounds that really. That's that's a public health issue. It's the cost to these rounds, how quickly people can get a hold of them and how many times I've seen young people in my neighborhoods growing up and people who I've known for have died at the hands of one round. Versus anything else. So I'm not there on the amendment. Councilman. Councilman Flynn, I know where you're coming from. I just think, Justin, in the big picture, I'm just. I'm. I don't think it's an inconvenience to such an inconvenience to have to have another magazine as opposed to a magazine that holds 16 to 20.
Speaker 0: Okay. Seeing no other comments just reminded members of council we are voting on the amendment on the on the floor put forward by councilman flynn. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Flynn, i.
Speaker 2: Gillmor, i. Cashman.
Speaker 5: I can each.
Speaker 7: Know. LOPEZ No.
Speaker 2: New. ORTEGA Nope.
Speaker 5: SUSSMAN No. Black eye, Clark.
Speaker 2: Like Espinosa? No, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 2: Sorry. Some of the votes aren't showing up yet. Now they are. 66 nays.
Speaker 0: All right. 66 nays. The amendment fails. Now, Councilman, do we need you to order publish? It's already on the floor. So now we're going to we're going to put and vote on floor 1400 series of 2017. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Espinosa comments.
Speaker 2: But. Doing it. Stop the voting.
Speaker 0: Okay. Members do you have comments on the bill that we just the comments about last week? Just firstly.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Yes, I fully support the bump stock ban, but I have to vote no because of the rejection of the amendment. I just want to explain my no vote is nothing to do with wanting bump stocks. I don't. I want them eliminated or I want them to be banned from the city. But I think that the the reasonable amendment that just got voted down, I think requires that I vote no, although I know the bill will pass. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I just. I didn't take time to thank my colleagues and everyone because. You know, the gentleman who brought this force to our attention in public comment is now sitting right in front of me. And so, you know, we didn't just run with it day one, but I can tell you that from day one, when I first when you guys first heard about this, I knew you were there on board and recognize that this is important for the city that you care about and the people in it. And so I'm disappointed. But I understand Councilman Flynn's own comments and positions. And I apologize to him and to you all for having to witness this sort of real time change of heart on my part. But I do want to thank everyone for sort of recognizing the potential potency of of of taking on any sort of legislation on this front. And and and and being willing to move forward. So I just wanted to thank you all. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Flynn? No. Gilmore Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 2: Sassaman, I. Black guy. Clark, I. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Please all voting in US Results.
Speaker 2: 11 eyes one ni.
Speaker 0: All right. 11 Ies one ney council bill 1400 series of two dozen 17 has passed. All right. This concludes all the items that need to be called out. All of the bills for introduction of order published were now ready for the black vote. Some resolution of the bills for final consideration council members. Remember, this is a consent or blackmail and you will need to vote. Otherwise, it's your last opportunity to call out an item on a separate vote. Councilman Newby, please put the resolutions for adoption on the table and the bills for final consideration for final passage on floor. Okay.
Speaker 4: I move the resolutions be adopted in bills and final final consideration be placed upon final and do pass and or block vote. The following I read the resolutions first 18 dash 006 118 Dash 002 518 002 618 Dash zero 0 to 0. Now the bills for final consideration 17 Dash 1450 618 Dash zero zero 1218. Dash zero zero 13.
Speaker 0: All right. Looks like you got it. What's an affirmation from our secretary? Okay, great. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Black tie. Clark. I. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gilmore. Cashman. I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Ortega Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please cause Vali Nasr results.
Speaker 2: To advice.
Speaker 0: To advise. The resolution have been adopted and builds upon pace placed upon final consideration and do pass since there are no hearings. If there are no objection from the Council, we will not take a recess. No. Thank you, guys.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Section 38-130, D.R.M.C. concerning the regulation of assault weapons, banning bump stock firing mechanisms, and conforming the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to state law.
Amends Section 38-130, Denver Revised Municipal Code concerning the regulation of assault weapons, banning bump stock firing mechanisms, and conforming the maximum capacity of ammunition magazines to state law. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 1-3-18.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01082018_18-0035
|
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Seeing no other announcements. We're going to move on to presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations?
Speaker 5: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: And now communications. Madam Secretary, will you please read the two communications from the Department of Finance?
Speaker 5: Dear Council President Section 20 Dash 92 of the Denver Revised Miss Code requires the City Council be notified of the retention of a financial adviser by the mayor or the manager of finance. Purpose of this notice is to advise City Council that the Department of Finance has retained the following firms to provide financial advisory services to the city. Hilltop Securities, Inc., whose services include developing, evaluating and recommending financing alternative structure strategies related to direct financial obligations of the city, including but not limited to general obligation bonds, excise tax revenue bonds. Wastewater revenue bonds. Golf Revenue bonds. Certificates of participation transactions. Hilltop Securities will also provide similar service related to special districts and conduit debt issued by the city, including, but not limited to industrial development bonds, multifamily housing, mortgage revenue bonds, mortgage credit certificates and bonds issued on behalf of nonprofit 501c3 entities and CSG Advisors Inc., whose services include advising the city on financial transactions , economic development matters relating to affordable housing, including but not limited to the city's turnkey down payment assistance program. Single Family Home, mortgage revenue bonds, multifamily housing, mortgage revenue bonds, mortgage credit certificates and nonprofit 501c3 entities, both Hilltop Securities and CSG advisors, were selected through competitive request for proposals or request for qualification processes completed in the fourth quarter of 2017. Sincerely, Brendon J. Hanlon, Manager of Finance. Dear Council President. In keeping with the provisions of Section 22 and 93 of the Denver Revised Missouri Code, the DRM. See, I'm hereby notifying you the Department of Finances intent to issue city and county of Denver for and on behalf of the Wastewater Management Division of its Department of
|
Communication
|
20-92 Notice informing Council of the retention of financial advisors by the Department of Finance for financial advisory services related to City financial obligations, special district and conduit debt, and affordable housing matters.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01082018_18-0033
|
Speaker 5: The accompanying attachment contains a more detailed description of the financing, as required by Section 29, repair and B of the Dear Emcee. Sincerely, Brendan G. Hanlon, Manager of Finance.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Secretary. All right. We're going to move on to our proclamations. We do have one proclamation this evening. Evening, Councilman Nu, will you please read Proclamation 33? Thank you, Mr. President. This is proclamation number 18 003 that's been introduced by Councilwoman or to Councilman Cashman, myself honoring Helga Gregory from Outstanding Leadership and advocacy for small , minority and women owned construction companies in Colorado. Whereas Helga utilized her voice in education and MBA in operations management in her career and volunteer time to pursue her passion for diversity, fairness and cooperation for all in education and business. And. Whereas, Helga Grinspoon has taught students in high school college levels and through an online financial class for Regis University Master's in nonprofit management program, thereby influencing future business leaders with the need for inclusion of talent from many sources and with the necessity and profitability of good operations practices. And. Whereas, Helga Grandin has demonstrated her organizational leadership by serving on a myriad of committees for such entities as the Denver Public Schools, RTD, CDOT, Denver Water and the State of Colorado as part of the Colorado Minority Business Advisory Council and the Building Jobs for Colorado Coalition. And. WHEREAS, since Helga Greenwald started with the Hispanic contractors of Colorado's diversity leader in 2000, the membership has more than tripled and includes some of the largest contractors in the United States, plus some of the smallest contractors in Colorado. And. Whereas, in her capacity in these organizations, Helga Gertrud has fought tirelessly to develop programs geared toward increasing opportunities for diverse companies and for diverse workforce development, recognizing especially the benefits of public projects that provide small minority women owned companies, particularly in the construction industry. And. Whereas, drawing upon Helga's teaching experience, HCC secured grants for the T-Rex project, which launched the HCC Contractor Academy Education Program, offering a monthly series of workshops, a certificate program and scholarships for small businesses. Whereas Helga Greiner and has been the recipient of numerous awards, including the Minority Enterprise Development 2006 Advocate of the War of the Year , the Associated Builders and Contractors. Rocky Mount, Chapter 28 Excellence in Construction Award. The Independent Electrical Contractors Rocky Mount. Chapter 29 Construction Industry Service Award, the Denver Metro Chamber 2010. David Bailey, Small Business Advocate Award and the Deputy's Task Colorado Chapter 2015 Diversity Leadership Award and the RTD 2017 Champion of of Growth Award and. WHEREAS. As you know, Greenwood has been a driving force and major contributor and determined champion of the effort to pass the Denver City Council pavement ordinance legislation for small, minority and women owned businesses initiated by Councilman Wayne, new councilwoman Debbie Italian Councilman Paul Cashman, an ordinance which revised and improved the laws and means of enforcement for the protection of diverse construction companies. And. WHEREAS, she retired recently from the from the position of executive director of the Hispanic Contractors of Colorado in December 2017, but has vowed to stay involved with many small business issues, launching her own business consulting firm and helping scout develop their mentor apprenticeship program, providing that she still committee proving that she is still committed to her passion to assist all contractors, regardless of side size, ethnicity and gender, to position themselves to become successful now, therefore be a proclaimed by the Council, the City of County of Denver, Section one, that the county applauds Helga Green Reed for her passion and commitment to the small minority and women owned businesses and their workers. Section two that the clerk in the city county of Denver show affix your chest and face the seal of the city of Denver to this proclamation and a copy be transmitted to Helga Green Room. Thank you, Councilman. Knew your motion to adopt. I move that I move that proclamation 30 3ba document. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council. Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. It's just been a real pleasure to work with Helga over the past year. I can. I can think back. So about a year ago, when you and and Bennett had first brought this issue of, ah, the need for a prompt payment ordinance to, to our attention and, and we walked and we talked and talked and, and worked on this. And as a brief, we briefed all our council members about what the ordinance was about and, and the need to involve other organizations. I can remember so vividly talking to Councilwoman Gilmore and she said, the first person you need to talk to, this Helga girl, she is so dynamic and she needs has been a voice for the small business and the minority and the women owned businesses. And she she's going to be a great help to you. So we help with that call. And she really joined our team and really helpful so she heard it was just amazing the her experience and knowledge and in the passion that she had for these small business owners and trying to improve the prop pay and the improvements in for their their operational practices to make them more successful. So she was just so dedicated for the growth and development of small business. She had a great insight into payment difficulties and sort of helped us get down to the nuts and bolts of the ordinance that helped put our procedures and our mechanisms in place to improve those practices. So we're just so pleased with the practical, the common sense and recommendations that she helped us with our ordinance. And it really brought that. The 2014 ordinance to life with what we did. And so we're mean. We're so glad that council passed it unanimously. The mayor never signed it. So we're so pleased with what we did. So I just want to thank Helga for all her leadership and her dedication and support that she's given to us in the development of the ordinance and and especially just her support for all the small business in the growth and development over those years. So she's really been a model of excellence for the small business in the construction industry. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. First, I want to thank Councilman Noon for bringing this forward. Anybody who knows Helga knows that there was not a meeting in the city dealing with publicly funded projects, that Helga was not in the room at, making sure that there was advocacy on behalf of small and minority businesses who are trying to access any of this work with the city. And unfortunately, the challenges still exist today. We wouldn't need our BWB ordinance if we didn't have ongoing challenges, but Helga knows and understands those challenges better than anybody on what these small businesses, minority businesses, have to go through just trying to get their foot in the door to do business with the city and as Councilman knew, indicated, she was a tireless voice in this process that we just went through and also connected us to many of the businesses who are willing to talk to us, but were afraid to come to our public hearing because they didn't want to be labeled as someone that a prime business would not want to work with. And so having that connection in those voices really helped shape the details that ended up in the ordinance that ensures that we will have prompt pay and transparency in the building process to ensure that people who do construction work on a job that have to purchase the materials and pay their suppliers and pay their workers, are going to get paid for the work that they did that has been completed and accepted. And Helga, your your voice and your advocacy in this overall effort was invaluable as well as. And who's sitting right behind you to to ensure that we understood what those challenges were and helped, again, make sure that those details ended up in the ordinance. So I appreciate you and the work you've done over the years. Thank you for your service to our community and to the many small minority businesses that we have throughout the city of Denver. And I wish you the best of luck in your new. Ventures with your new business. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Helga, congratulations on your retirement. I have a hard time having gotten to know you the little bit that I have picturing you just going fishing for the rest of your days. I have a hunch you're going to stay a lot more active and involved than that. It is not lost on me that in the current political climate that this this team that was assembled to to help pass the the prompt pay ordinance was a team of strong women representing a variety of corners of the construction trades. And Helga was was among the the strongest and most consistent voices in that entire process. And I thank you for that very much. I learned a lot from you along the way. You know, when Councilman Nu first brought the topic up and made a great deal of sense to me, but neither the councilman or myself or Councilwoman Ortega are experts in that field. And Helga, you were the first person after and who actually brought the topic up originally that brought this new level of expertize to the discussion and really helped me understand the importance of what we were doing to help the small businesses and the maybe we be minority and women owned business contractors . So I just want to add my thanks to you for the many years you've devoted to to the work you've done in the community. It is very, very important and you've changed a lot of lives. And thank you for that. And again, congratulations.
Speaker 1: Thank you, counsel. Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore, your next stop.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I just want to share. Congratulations. There's not many people in Denver that you can say one name, and it might just be that your last name is a German name and difficult to pronounce. But you say, Helga, and right away, especially around construction or leadership in Denver, people immediately know.
Speaker 10: Who you are and know your.
Speaker 9: Passion. And so I'm so honored that, you know, way back a year ago when Councilman New called me and I talked with him about this project and I said, there is one person, one woman that you have to get in touch with that she knows construction in and out. And she really understands the barriers and the challenges, especially that minorities and women undergo to to get into this field. And so just want to want to convey my thanks and I'm sure we will be seeing you around. I'm glad to know that you're going to have a consulting firm because we've got a lot of construction projects all across the state. And we're going to need to continue to have your help to make sure that.
Speaker 10: Our.
Speaker 9: Minority and women owned businesses can compete on on that playing field. And so congratulations again, Helga. Thank you. Princeton President Pro Tem.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Kennedy.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief. I actually worked more with Helga, I think, before I was elected than I have since. Ironically, it was some tables at our TDI that brought us together around construction training, which I'm just going to say it was not as cool of a topic back then. The economy was slow and everyone thought you didn't need to train people and you know, folks that were with contractors. We're all very aware of the aging workforce and the fact that the economy would come back someday. And but it was kind of like crying into the wind back in those days, right? Because it was hard to keep anybody working, much less getting new folks trained. And so. Well, we know how that turned out, right. It's it's it's been a really challenging moment, but it just shows the breadth of the career you've had through different cycles to see the way the industry has changed. And so I enjoyed working with you then, and I want to congratulate you and wish you the best in your retirement.
Speaker 1: All right. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: New Ortega I Assessment I Black.
Speaker 7: Eye.
Speaker 5: Espinosa, i Gilmore. I Herndon. I Cashman. Hi. Can eat. Lopez All right, Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Could you please close the voting and announce the results?
Speaker 5: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Proclamation 33 has been adopted. Councilman New. Is there someone you would like to invite up to the podium to receive the proclamation? Yes, Mr. Fraga. To help his colleagues like to speak. And versus his is Jacob Break. Thank you, counsel. Thank excuse the call. I may.
Speaker 11: Mumble. Thanks for the opportunity to join with all of you to congratulate.
Speaker 1: Helga and I.
Speaker 11: I want to do two things, and then I'll sit down so we can get to the Alabama game. Before you really understand how much Al Gore accomplished, you got to understand where she started. 27 years ago, I got a call from a young man named Lester Trujillo when I was executive director of the Associated General Contractor. And he said to me, we're starting a new construction group in Denver. And we'd like to meet with the Associated General Contractors Board to get.
Speaker 1: Partnering.
Speaker 11: And get cooperation to help us get this thing off the ground. So a bunch of us met and some of you remember the old regimes. They used to have these little back rooms and get breakfast. And we met in that backroom with Lester Trujillo and several of the Hispanic contractors, one of whom was supposed to precede me . Phil Rubio Bill couldn't be here tonight, but we met the backroom with our board and this whole band of Hispanic contractors and they said, we've got a goal. We want to create businesses that can compete in your world. Big general contractors is who we were. And build businesses that we can leave to our children. That was their goal. To do that, they formed the Hispanic contractors of Colorado. I asked our board if they would just let me give space to the HCC to give off a space for as long as it took to get them going. We went through three executive directors in about 93 years and none of them had any experience in running a nonprofit, in managing an organization. They didn't have membership lists, for example. Helga stepped in as founder there, never got a tax return filed for the Hispanic contract with Colorado. They didn't have a membership list. They didn't know organization. So they finally said, we're going to go out, hire a pro. And they hired Helga. She and I were office. 50 feet down the hall from each other for many, many years. And. She was in that office. You talk about her being at every meeting, night and day, all by herself. No assistance, just alcohol. She pulled this organization kicking and screaming into the 20th century, then got them all current with federal tax laws and everything else. And then she began to build the organization from which she launched all of these accomplishments. The Hispanic contractors in Colorado. I've heard all of you comment about how helpful she's been to the small minority business communities in the state of Colorado, basically, but primarily Denver. I want to give you some perspective on who else she helped. You mentioned it. Our general contractors and the Associated General Contractors were the ones that were subject to compliance with the minority ordinance. And we couldn't have done it without Helga because we we don't know. We put someone out for bid and however many build better 20, 30, 40. And when the ordinance was finalized, it required affirmative action, which required the big general contractors, the non minority contractors to meet certain goals, meet certain outreach efforts. And because of Helga's organization, which had a membership list and everything, we had a ready made Kadri of.
Speaker 1: Hispanic contractors primarily. But Helga and I had several.
Speaker 11: African-American contractors as well, and many women contractors. So we had a Kadri in the general contracting community of firms we could go to to solicit is in order to comply with the then new ordinance and. To the extent that Helga organized this so well. Our members, the general contractors suddenly had a source. To reach out to them, which would never have been possible. I hope that helped the national contractors as well, because now their compliance with the ordinance was made a lot easier and a lot more possible, and we owe it pretty much all to help them. So with that perspective also that they'll come up.
Speaker 1: Bill Garcia. Hi. My name is Bo Garcia.
Speaker 2: I'm a small business owner.
Speaker 1: I'm the president.
Speaker 2: Of Alcan Metals. And when Councilman News Office called me and asked if I would speak on behalf of the ALGA, I said I'd be more than happy to. Oh, I have some notes. I'd better take them out anyways. However, was hired as the executive director of Hispanic Contractors in 2000, and I was a board of directors at the time that we hired her, and I think it was the best move that Hispanic contractors ever made. Actually, she she was recruited and brought in some of agency into the agency, some of the largest construction companies in the country. She has sat on countless committees on behalf of us being our advocate. In 2004, when the voters of Colorado decided they passed a ballot initiative to pass the fast tracks light rail projects. One of the first projects that built was the West Corridor, and when they were building the West Quarter, a lot of the contractors were bidding that were bidding on that project.
Speaker 1: Were going out and looking.
Speaker 2: For small women owned and minority owned businesses to be part of their teams wanted to meet their goals for that were set aside for those purposes.
Speaker 1: Helga introduced or introduced the.
Speaker 2: Project manager on the West Corridor to my company.
Speaker 1: And he came over to my office.
Speaker 2: We had a conversation and after the conversation and several days passed, we signed an agreement that my company would become part of the of the Denver Transit Construction Group, J.B., the builders of the West Corridor. What that meant to me is that we had at that time was a $10 million contract. What I was able to do with those money was I was able to increase our workforce tenfold.
Speaker 1: I gained valuable experience.
Speaker 2: That I took to the Eagle P3 project, and from that project I took it to 225 and from 325 we went to the North Metro Project and we have done some work on every one of those projects with the funds that I've generated, which are in excess of $25 million over those three projects, I was able to fund payroll, pay taxes and insurance, pay off our suppliers, increase my line of credit with my.
Speaker 1: Bank and.
Speaker 2: Build a 6000 square foot fabrication and still distribution distribution warehouse. I just want to tell Helga that my business would not be worthy of today without the advocacy and the assistance of Helga. And I just want to say, Helga, thank you for everything. Good luck and God bless. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Bill. Now go. Would you like to come up to say a few words?
Speaker 9: Well, thank you. It's a humbling experience to be recognized by all of these people.
Speaker 7: But in truth, all I've done is just pay it forward. I am an immigrant.
Speaker 9: Whose.
Speaker 7: Family came to this country and my father started a business and sent three girls to college. And it it's been a labor of love working with companies that could do the same thing. Thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Helga Grunerud for outstanding leadership and advocacy for small/minority/woman-owned construction companies in Colorado.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01082018_17-1428
|
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Sir. All right. And under pending, we have no items called out. So, Madam Secretary, if you will, please put the first item on our screens. And, Councilman Ortega, will you put Council Bill 1428 on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 1428 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council Council woman's husband.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Mr. President, for the request to the administration. I'm asking my colleagues to vote no on this bill. The Department of Transportation, Department of Transportation is revising the original statement of work to include a new traffic signal redesign and reconstruction at Federal Boulevard and Exposition intersection. The modified intergovernmental agreement was see that will be forthcoming before a city council at a later date.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other questions or comments. Just a quick reminder that the request is to vote no. Madam Secretary broke off.
Speaker 5: Sussman. No. Black. No. Espinosa. No Gilmore. No. Herndon. Cashman can eat. Lopez.
Speaker 1: No, no, no.
Speaker 5: Ortega. No, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: No. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: Zero I's 11 days.
Speaker 1: Zero I's 11 days. Council Bill 1420 has been defeated and I believe those were all the items called out the so that concludes those other bills for introduction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and that you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 9: Yes, I will. I move that the following resolutions and bills for final consideration be be moved forward. 17. 1373. 17. 1453. 1457. 1459 1454. Oops. I'm sorry. We don't need the bills for introduction. Just the resolutions, correct?
Speaker 5: Kelly Yes. Just resolutions and bills on final.
Speaker 9: Okay, so I'm stopping at 1459 on the resolutions.
Speaker 5: 1459, yes.
Speaker 9: And then we'll go to the final. And I move that the. Well, we have a public hearing in 1421. I move that also 1448.
Speaker 5: Starts with 1356.
Speaker 9: Why am I not finding that? Okay. Sorry about that. Okay, so we have 1356. These are all 2017, 1357, 1358, 13, 59, 14, 16, 14, 33, 14, 34, 14, 35, 14, 27, 14, 29, 14, 13 and 1444.
Speaker 5: 14, 30.
Speaker 9: 30, 13, 14, 30. That they they be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right. We get them all there.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black. All right, Espinosa. Gilmore, I. Herndon Cashman. High Carnage Lopez High knew Ortega. I assessment. I Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I Madam Secretary, please close the voting and Mills results tonight. Tonight, the resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 1421, changing the zoning classification for 1420 38th Street and five points.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving and providing for the execution of a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the State of Colorado, Department of Transportation, concerning the "Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) 2018 Package 2 City and County of Denver Traffic Signal Replacement " project and the funding therefor.
Accepts a grant from the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) for $3.4 million and for five years, as part of the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Package II to fund the construction of five new traffic signals located at the intersections of Federal Boulevard and 38th Avenue, Federal Boulevard and Kentucky Avenue, Federal Boulevard and Mississippi Avenue, Federal Boulevard and Jewell Avenue, and Colorado Boulevard and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in Council Districts 3 and 9 (201738522). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-22-18. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 12-19-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01082018_17-1448
|
Speaker 1: 11 eyes. Comfortable. 1421 has passed. Next up, Councilwoman Ortega, will you put comfortable 1448 on the floor?
Speaker 9: I move that council vote 1448 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and second in the public hearing for council 1448 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 13: Good evening. I'm I Andrew Johnson with the Department of Finance here on Council Bill 1448 to give you the staff report. It is for a service plan amendment of metropolitan district. The district was originally formed in May 2009 after approval of the district's service plan by City Council on March 9th, 2009. The district was previously named Alameda Station Metropolitan District and located on the former RTD bus barn site near the near Alameda and Santa Fe. The Alameda Station District was created in 2009 by a developer who was unsuccessful in purchasing the RTD bus Burnside. Subsequently, the RTD bus, bar and site was acquired by the same ownership group as the Denver Design District. The ownership group determined that the district at the RTD bus burn site was not no longer needed and had taken the appropriate steps, including City Council approval in June 2017 to activate the District Board and move the Metropolitan District to the Denver District. Denver Design District Site. The amended and restated service plan has been submitted for City Council approval on behalf of D4 Urban LLC pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act. The initial project and future inclusion area to be affected by the proposed metropolitan district consists of about 25 acres generally located near Broadway and Center Avenue. Together, the areas are referred to as the service area and the district will not provide any duplicative public services or improvements in the service area. The amended and restated service plan is submitted for approval concurrently with three new metropolitan districts titled Broadway Park. Metropolitan Districts Number two. Broadway Park. Metropolitan District Number three Broadway Park. Metropolitan District number four. Together, the districts will be responsible for coordinating the financing, acquisition, construction, completion operation and maintenance of all public infrastructure and services within and without the service area, including without limitation all streets, safety, protection, water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation and park and recreation facilities. The districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted by the Special Districts Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills plus rates, fees, tolls and charges. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to provide the initial development are approximately $77,822,000. In order for the district to have the fiscal wherewithal to provide for the installation of the public improve is improvements needed is needed in the service area. The district shall have the ability to issue up to 3,000,400 304,470,000 in debt, the repayment of which is supported by the revenue generated from the imposition of up to 50 mills . The district will also have the ability to use up to ten of the 50 mills authorized to raise revenue for operation and maintenance of the rest of the district. Improvements. Approval of the Service Plant Amendment establishes the following. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing services in the area are adequate for a president projected needs. The district is capable of economically providing sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included as and will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city and county of Denver. Staff recommends approval of the service plan. Also here tonight, you'll have the applicant and their representatives here to respond to any questions you might have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you very much. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. If you signed up to speak on this item, please come to the front pew. First up, we have Paula Williams.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Paula Williams. I'm with the law firm of Mcgeady Becker. Our office serves as general counsel to the district that is requesting the amended and restated service plan. I'm here to answer any questions if the Council has any. Otherwise, thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Next up, Dan Cohen.
Speaker 2: Hello. My name is Dan Cohen. I'm the president of each of these metro districts. I also represent the underlying land ownership, and I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Last speaker up on this one, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 11: Yes, Chairman Sekou. Like starting a movement for self defense representing poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. Okay. Here we go. We support. This ordinance. With. Serious questions. About how this thing is going to work. Now, these metropolitan districts are very, very tricky because you start out with the process of how does the governing board constitute itself ? That's one. All right. And then what is the agenda of that board as it goes about the process of doing the project? Now, Councilman Clark has awesome responsibility on the oversight of all of this because this is primarily your district. All right. And the success of it is going to be dependent upon the teamwork that's created. So there's some of these things that we talk about actually getting manifested, for instance, from way. We're talking about opportunities for women, minority contractors, small businesses that are key component to making this thing work because here's a great opportunity to practice that process as you corrected some things that were inequities so that people can move forward with the possibility out of this SBA thing of actually getting some graduates out the process where they begin to perform on a level playing field. What major follow because that's the purpose of the program, is not to keep them small, it's not to keep them down. They're scrambling for the crumbs of 22 to 23% while the traditional folks get to 80. We're talking about the male dominated industry. We've got to begin to continue to level the playing field so that we get to a 5050 love. I mean, come on here. And we can do that because the standards have to be accelerated and upward mobility and ask ourselves the primary question, can we do better than this? And then refuse to settle for anything less than the best that we can do for the citizens. Because if we're not about that, why are we here? So. So we cannot accept mediocrity. That is criminal. Especially when we can do better. And with the skills that we have with folks and the unknown folks, us doing this thing because everybody bad passes up the real true soldiers in the background who have the experience from city councils before then that are helping new folks move this thing down the road. So we've got some serious players like. Mary Beth. Yeah. For real? For real. You know. And since he looks like he's just years, he has that grandmotherly look, you know, and she's going to be kind to everybody, but she knows how to push it forward. And she has that grimacing smile. But she really wants to just fall out of a chair because she don't believe I'm saying this, but she's outstanding player. And then, of course, you got the technical expertize here with the experience. All right. And we're talking about folks that know how to dot the I's and cross the T's and present this in a way so that the mayor can accept his. So, yeah, we're talking Robin, commuters do an outstanding job with that because no matter how bad, I want to push it forward to do other things. She recognizes gravitas, which is functioning well and can couch that in a way that pushes the mayor to be transparent and to do what's necessary to make this thing happen. So we want to thank you very much for the work that you put in with this. All right. Because you're doing an outstanding job and you've been there and doing this for a long, long time. People don't know how really good an attorney you really are. And as you work with the city attorneys and you question some of the ideas and whatnots and interpretations to give them a pause to go, Hmm, maybe, maybe not, then that's what we need. And continue on doing that great work. You're outstanding with that. And then last but not least. We're looking at a couple of things. One include the police safety aspect and budget for the state. It's huge and it's going to require that and we're going have to factor that in. So they're going to have to have the adequate manpower to make this thing work. Second of all, we've talked about the composition of the board. I have questions about this and maybe you can share with us how you how you select the people on there and who's making that all happen, because poor people would like to be at the table when the policies are made. So we make sure that we're included in the decisions at some level, at some aspect. We need to be in this because it's about the entire city and we're all going to utilize that transportation hub. And so last but not least, we talked about economic opportunities for subcontractors and minority folk, creating bigness and greatness and graduating from the program. And last but not least, jobs, jobs before people enrolling them in the process, lifting up the bottom of the social stratum from the bottom up with foot soldiers on the ground helping to do every aspect of this thing because we have something the young ain't got. We got time, we got energy, and we're willing to put it forth to make this city great. And with our contribution that we make to this thing and you add that with all the other partners, we got all the necessary ingredients to make this thing work so this don't have to be a aggravating situation. Is atomistic self determination. And we're ready to go. On any given.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Your time is up. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. I have a couple of questions. The first is for Andrew Johnson. Andrew When we are looking at the creation of special districts, do we at all look at them in the same way that, for example, Dora looks at TIFF? Because this is this is using a city finance tool, if you will, to assist development in being able to offset the cost of their infrastructure. So do we look at them in a way of how we address issues like affordable housing? And tell me how we do that.
Speaker 13: Sure. And so metropolitan districts are a state authorized entity. And so once created the they come to the local municipality here is for city council to authorize their service plan. It is a financing tool and so it is a tool for financing infrastructure, public infrastructure and maintaining said infrastructure in the public right away. It also is here to support additional services as set out by state statute within the the state statutes. And one of those is include additional security. It does not call out in specific affordable housing, though, if that was where you were trying to go with this line of questioning.
Speaker 9: So under the creation by the state does not address affordability of housing in any way, shape or form, is what you're saying.
Speaker 13: That is a true statement.
Speaker 9: Okay. I would like to ask Dan Cohen, if you wouldn't mind coming to the microphone. So I was looking at one of the documents you have here, and it looks like the the phasing and the build out. And let me let me make sure I understand the geography. So it's basically from Alameda to the I-25, right? It's actually Broadway to Santa Fe.
Speaker 2: It's actually starts closer to Center Avenue and then move South Side 25, bounded by Broadway on the east side and the RTD light rail on the west side. Okay. So it's it's really the southern half of about the southern half of the Denver Design District General Development Plan area.
Speaker 9: Okay. And when Andrew first started talking, he talked about the RTD bus barn. So does this also include the old RTD bus barn property?
Speaker 2: It does not. It does not. And council took an action to basically allow one of these districts to move from the RTD bus barn site to the the area that they're currently covering, which is the southern portion of it.
Speaker 9: So your full buildout looks like it goes to roughly 2040. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: At this point in time, that's our best estimation of of when the build out will occur. Yes.
Speaker 9: So I want to ask you a question, because you and I had a conversation quite some time ago encouraging you to look at a development called REO in Montgomery County, Maryland. I don't know if you remember this, but this is a development that is very unique, which is pretty much at the end of the red line. Those of you who are familiar with Montgomery County, where, you know, a manmade lake was built and all the rest of the development kind of surrounds that. And it is a magnet for communities that live all around there. They go there on weekends for, you know, entertainment, meals, work out. There's a movie complex there. There's big box retail, tons of housing, some hotels. And I know you all have big visions for high density with this site, which is, as I've heard, the scale of lower downtown or Cherry Creek. Right.
Speaker 2: Roughly in terms of geographic area. Yes. Right.
Speaker 9: So I'm just curious, did you ever look at that?
Speaker 2: Yes, I did.
Speaker 9: Have you ever been there?
Speaker 2: I have not personally been there, but I did look at it and and, you know, looking at the Broadway station area plan and other small area plans that govern this area as well as the GDP, this is likely to be higher density in nature.
Speaker 1: And specifically.
Speaker 2: The uses within these districts are contemplated as primarily being commercial, being located at at Broadway and 25.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I guess we have unique opportunities to do placemaking where we have large parcels of land within the city. You know, as we've known, we've been a landlocked city for a long time and few opportunities like this to be able to look at placemaking, that becomes a magnet not just for Denver but for the metropolitan area also . And so I was just curious to know how how much you really explored that potential model?
Speaker 2: Yes, we have and we absolutely have a plethora of placemaking ideas that will be part of this development. The metro district will be involved in that as well. Okay.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. See no other questions. The public hearing for Accountable 1449 is closed. Are there any comments by members of council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: I don't know if this is. I'm sorry. I don't know if this is where that line of questioning was going, but I've seen the presentation in and. And quite frankly, the 2040 build out is is a lot underwhelming. And, you know, it's just recreation of city blocks. It's doing some things. And it's sort of not. It's to me, sort of one of the missed opportunities we did as long as Lake Right. Is we just took down in a big, huge hospital. We created a street grid and started selling off the parcels to sort of generic developers to build blocks. And, you know, nothing wrong with the grid because it's a very effective tool for managing the city and warehousing people and jobs and things like that. But yeah, I this is coming this is coming from somebody who's just now concluding the Central Platte Valley vision plan and potential rezonings and placemaking and capturing, you know, you know, doing something, being thoughtful about what it is that we're sort of and what we're initiating when we're doing this is very much integrated in all of that conversation. And hopefully it carries on with a master developer. And that that is that is completely apparent as things move forward. And I'm saying all this because when I first got into office, I had the 2015 and 17 Denver Post property owner coming to me with something is, is, is, you know, something that I said essentially the same thing, which is, you know, you've been sitting on this property for a really long period of time and the best you can do is this. And and this is too valuable of, you know, in that case, their views of downtown and of the mountains and everything. There's just too many assets there and too much potential to overlook. And I was glad that they actually took that to heart, came back with a complete revisioning of their proposal, reusing of the repurposing of the Denver Post site as opposed to actually tearing it down. This site is not unlike that. I mean, there has been some visioning that has gone on south from the in the master development, I mean, planning of the area south of this this area. And they're cognizant that they have incredible mountain views to the west and incredible downtown views to the north. And, you know, I hope that we don't just recognize that, you know, one era allowed us to do big box retail and wear and masses of parking. And that era has now gone. And now we're capitalizing on the next sort of movement in, you know, generic retail development. And that's what I because that's what it looks like. And so Denver is a place that, you know, where all the great places are, are, are largely desired and being capitalized on, whether it's Northwest Denver or Cherry Creek. And we're building new ones like Reno. And this is an area that, you know, has enough land area and and access and proximity to amenities and proximity to all the things that make Denver great, that it could actually build off of that. So I hope that's part of it. That's obviously and just opining it because I can it's not going to affect the fact that, yes, this is the right tool for the job. But, you know, when I just have higher expectations as we move forward on these sorts of scale of projects, things.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. I just want to clarify, I may have said I was closing the public hearing on 1449, which is next. I meant 1448 to clarify which one we're closing and moving on, I just want to thank all of you for all of your work on this with all the moving pieces and the former bus Barton site, this is an exciting piece of property that has already seen one era of redevelopment and is now looking towards the long term future. It's exciting to start seeing things happening sooner than anticipated because of the long term leases that are on the property. So I want to thank the city team for all the work in getting this put together. I'm excited about the opportunity for infrastructure and these metropolitan districts and I think Dan and your team, for all of your engagement with the community over multiple years and I'm sure more years to continue as this really exciting site starts to take shape and continue to take shape. Very happy to support this today and hope all of my colleagues will as well. So with that, Madam Secretary, please roll call.
Speaker 5: Black. Hi, Espinosa. Hi. Gilmore I Herndon High.
Speaker 8: Cashman High.
Speaker 5: Can eat. Lopez I knew. Ortega I assessment. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the results. 11 Eyes. 11 Eyes. Constable 1448 has passed. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 1449 on the.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving an Amended and Restated Service Plan for Broadway Park Metropolitan District No. 1.
Approves an amended and restated service plan for Broadway Park Metropolitan District No. 1 located near Broadway and Center Avenue in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-19-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01082018_17-1449
|
Speaker 13: Approval of the service plans establishes the following There is sufficient and existing projected need for the Organizing for the Organization of Service in the area. The existing service in the area is adequate for present and projected needs. The district is capable of economically providing a sufficient service to the area within the proposed boundaries. The land and proposed development to be included does and will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. And the facility and service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city. City staff does recommend approval of the service plan. The applicant, their representatives and city staff are here tonight to answer any questions that you might have.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We have the same three speakers for this one as the last one. So we'll go through again Paul Williams.
Speaker 10: Good evening. Paula Williams. I'm with the law firm of McGinty Becker. Our office represents the applicant in the formation of the three metropolitan districts. I'm here to answer any questions, if you have any otherwise. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Dan Cohen.
Speaker 2: Hello. Dan Cohen, president of the Metro Districts and representing the underlying land ownerships. Thank you. Here to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: And last up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 11: Chairman say coup. Black Star Action Movement. Self-defense. Representing poor working. Poor senior citizens. Okay. So let's try one more time. My question was never answered. The diversity of the Metropolitan Board. Who's on it and does it represent a diverse neighborhood from which they're operating? And under what circumstances are poor people going to be included in making sure they're in the back room, in the seat, making decisions along with this thing? We need to be in it. Demand in the spot. So there are voices are clearly heard during the process of policy and vision of what you're doing and how that's going to impact us. Being able to advocate for housing that we can afford and services that are within that area because poor people are not just in a specific area in this town. We're all over this town all over and strategically dispersed. So that is very difficult for us to become organized. And yet on the other side, the flip side, because we're everywhere. We know everything that's going on. So it's just a question that's coming together and organizing that and needing a vehicle in an operational, structural way to do that, to be of service and not adversarial. So as we go about this process. I'm looking for the diversity. I don't see it. Now. Maybe you got it and it's not here, but I don't see it. And as long as I've been down to city council, this thing, this has always been in the metropolitan districts. We're not in the policymaking positions. By design. By design. So it's very easy to look the other way when we're talking about including subcontractors and minority, who's going to be there to enforce it, who's going to be the voice. So we've got to get real authentic about this and transparent about this and just actually say what we're willing to do and start talking about it and do it or stop talking about it because you're more consistent because you're not doing it. And that's authentic and that's transparent, and that's not much to ask. At all. Because that's why we're here to service everyone, every citizen in this city. It's not an easy task to do because old habits. And cultural traits and characters are not easily transformed overnight. Especially when you're pursuing the evolutionary process. Well, we're a revolutionary organization. And yes, Paul, there's an urgency. Yeah. And not just in one level of government, but in all levels of government because we have lots of work to do and very little time to do it. And so there has to be a futuristic vision for the city council in terms of how we're going to transfer all of this work over to the incoming city council people that are coming, because this project is going to go beyond a lot of people's time here. And so as you had to reconstitute a new team to carry this forward, we have to make sure that that teamwork has the same chemistry, that the existing body who's going to be left with finishing this thing off in addition to transfer of power in a organized way that we don't have. Because all of this is getting ready to be replaced and changed fundamentally, starting with the mayor's office, in addition to the six seats that are open now. So he got to start thinking about that. Especially you, because you're going to be stuck with this thing to the end and it's going to be completed during your term. So because you're going to do it again, I know it. You got to. You can't quit, Pat. Now, not now, now, not zero. You got to do this one more time or so we can complete this thing to the end. So we have total success, see? And that'll be your stamp and your legacy, why you was here. And I can look in your face in determination and see that you ready for it. So to not labor any further with this, those are the concerns. Looking forward to working with each and every one of you in this matter and very excited about. Given a push toward this thing in a way that. Works for all of us. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: One quick question for you, Paula. There's the, you know, the huge art piece that is there at the Denver Design Center and it's called a district. Was there public dollars that went into the design center previously?
Speaker 10: So the Denver Design Center is. That's not part of Broadway market.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 9: It was not.
Speaker 10: It is not. There's three existing metropolitan districts on the north side of the property that are the BNP metropolitan districts. Number one, two and three. Those districts. In connection with the city of Denver, put together a major regional drainage project. And so those districts did receive some moneys from the city and county of Denver in order to effectuate that drainage property. The Denver design districts are actually not part of those right now.
Speaker 6: So so they're sort of carved out of them right now.
Speaker 2: Maybe.
Speaker 6: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: There's the the Denver Design District is is just a moniker, a name. It's there's there's not technically a governing authority. It's it's a name that was created when the general development plan was brought forward. So there's there's a set of metropolitan districts on the northern end of that general development plan that have been in service for ten years now. And the new districts are being formed. They're going to cover that that are up for resolution right now, are going to cover the southern half of that general development plan.
Speaker 6: Okay. Um. All right. Thank you. Yep.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Dan, will you remind us? It's my recollection that it was in 2011 that city council had to approve an extension of the tiff to cover the cost of that storm drainage that came from West Wash Park through the Design Center property. And I think it goes under 25 and over to the river. It's my understanding that's all done. But do you remember what that amount was?
Speaker 2: The the total project cost was about $21 million. The city contributed about $16 million and the Bbmp metro districts covered the rest.
Speaker 9: Okay. And do you remember how far that extended the tiff out to.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Basically the bonds were were being close to paid off at the time. And so essentially, rather than extinguishing the tiff with the bonds being paid off, it was extended another six and a half years basically to the end of its 25 year life term.
Speaker 9: And that can't do the math in my head. Right?
Speaker 2: I believe it expired towards the end of 2017. Yeah.
Speaker 9: The end of.
Speaker 2: 2027, 2017, October 26. So the tiff has expired.
Speaker 9: All right. So that all that debt than has been paid off.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And and Dan, if you at the microphone quickly, since our friend, Chairman, you did ask the first time and I apologize if I forgot to reiterate the question, could you just buzz through for us or you can kick to Andrew? However, I take it with these metropolitan districts, how are the boards formed? You guys are the only landowner in all of these districts, is that correct? And just buzz through the one minute version of the of the boards first.
Speaker 2: Correct. The basically the the the metro district will be taxing the underlying property that is within its boundaries and we are the only landowner within those boundaries for now. So in order to control the amount of tax that is going to be levied on that property, state statute actually requires in order to to essentially be eligible to be on a board, you have to either be a resident within the district or a landowner within the district, as well as a resident of Colorado. Right now, I'm actually the only person that is eligible as a landowner within the the district and a resident of Colorado. But eventually, there will probably be other landowners within the district or residents within the district that would have the ability to join the board as well.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you very much. All right. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Blackie Espinosa actually did have comments. But anyway, we that was still questioning.
Speaker 1: I thought, oh, are we still in questions? I thought we'd move to comments. I'm sorry. It's getting late. I haven't even closed the thing. I'm sorry, Madam Secretary. I have to close the hearing first. So seeing no other questions. Public hearing for counsel Bill 1449 is closed. Comments by members of Council Councilman Espinosa. Did you have a comment?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I just wanted to to the chairman his comments. I didn't want it. I am not going to use this as an excuse, but I didn't want to go on and recognize that. That, you know, development in this area. We have a whole host of other ordinances and policies and programs in place to sort of try to make inroads on affordable housing and homeless needs and things like that. And and the reason why they're all sort of structurally in place and we're doing quote unquote, the best we can is as these new developments come online, they're going to pay linkage fee and they're subject to a whole bunch of other expenses that hopefully feed into those other things that the city is trying to do to sort of address other social concerns and other needs of our citizens. As we all know over the last ten years, it's clear that, you know, the things that we're doing today still are painfully inadequate. That's not lost on me. And it's also one of these things that if I were in, you know, more of a bargaining position at the mayor's end or something like that, we might be asking more of these of these developers, because what's not lost on me is I have a I have a street in my district called River Drive. There's approximately 30 residences on that on that street. It's been that street. Most of them have been there, some of them dating back into the early 18 I mean, late 1800s. The street and what's underneath it largely has not been changed. The infrastructure that serves those houses yet, they're paying right now $180,000 a year in taxes. They're not using $180,000 a year in taxes. So if we said, hey, that's $5.6 million that you're going to amass over the next 25 years, what would you like to do with that? And then we'll just self tax you guys and pay for it. I'm sure they'd be all sorts of ideas on and that's what we're doing. What we're doing metro districts right is we're, we're taking money that would otherwise go into the general fund and. Oh, no, okay, wrong kind of district.
Speaker 13: Metropolitan districts.
Speaker 9: Come to us.
Speaker 1: You have to come to the mike for an additional fee.
Speaker 6: This is on top of the tax.
Speaker 13: Yeah. So just to be clear, Andrew Johnston with the Department of Finance, when we create these special taxing districts, it's actually a tax in addition to the DPS mill levies in the city mill levies. So this would be a brand new tax in a specific general, a specific area.
Speaker 6: So that's even better. I love that. That helps me. Right, which is then the city still is getting its portion, DPS is still getting its portion, city still getting this portion to to to share the workload that stable neighborhoods like I was talking about are already contributing to on an annual basis that's not forgone. So what they're using they're doing is putting an additional burden on themselves to pay for that infrastructure. So that goes to that other point. The previous point, which is we're still doing what the best we can with what we've got. We're still collecting it in this regard, just like everybody else in my block included. And trust me, I would love to, to, to, you know, we don't get our, you know, the $100,000 would more than pay for the paving of that road every year. But we just we can't do that. We're not doing that. And that's where we're all in this in the collective good. The that's the good news. So I'm I'm glad once again to be reminded of the difference between this versus other buckets. That way I don't get to rail on developers for for for taking they're only taking what they're adding on to their on to their vertical and or actually everybody that participates. And and so this is this is back to my previous comments. This is the right mechanism to do this sort of development. I still wish there was more more sort of clearer vision about what we're doing. But with this sort of latitude, the developers and the horizontal and vertical developers will have a lot more say and we'll probably be more comprehensive and cohesive and what they do provide. So that's me rambling. They did it again. But I just wanted to, you know, you heard and this council very, very much very is is is in tune with and has a place in their hearts to try and and lift all boats. And, and we're very limited and in the portion of the budget that is still available after we pay everybody in the city. But we're trying things.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, and thanks for catching that. I had skipped completely over the comment section. I think you also make a great point. We have an area here that has big box stores and a sea of parking and a lot of public infrastructure that's being built on a private landowner choosing to tax themselves above and beyond what feeds the general fund and schools to help build that public infrastructure so that this can redevelop into transit oriented development. So I will say again. Thank you. I'm excited to support this. I hope my colleagues will, too. And now, Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 5: Black Eye, Espinosa Gilmore, Herndon. I Cashman can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving three metropolitan district Service Plans: Broadway Park Metropolitan District No. 2, Broadway Park Metropolitan District No. 3 and Broadway Park Metropolitan District No. 4.
Approves three metropolitan district service plans: Broadway Park Metropolitan District No. 2, Broadway Park Metropolitan District No. 3, and Broadway Park Metropolitan District No. 4 located west of Broadway and Center Avenue in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-19-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022018_18-0001
|
Speaker 5: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: How about communications or any communications?
Speaker 5: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: How about proclamations? Yes, we do have. I'll answer that for you. We do have one proclamation this evening. And many of you are looking up here saying, why are you are some of your dress like that? Well, it's we're this is proclamation one of 2018 first proclamation welcoming the 112th National Western Stock Show and Rodeo Horse Show to Denver. And I will read it and it says this. Whereas the annual National Western Stock Show Rodeo and Host Horse Show opens in Denver for the 112th time on January six, 2018. And. Whereas, The National Stock Show is a storied treasure of Denver's Denver's past and a unique and colored history dating all the way back to 1906. And. Whereas, Mayor Robert W Spear declared Wednesday, January 31st, 1906, as Denver Stock Show Day and an official holiday in the city of Denver so everyone could partake in the first ever stock show. It was on this day that the banks, department stores and other businesses in every corner of Denver shut their doors at noon while streetcars hustled from the 15th Street Loop. I wish we still had those 3 minutes to the stockyards and the Burlington Railroad rushed special trains from Denver Union Depot for a round trip charge of $0.25. And. Whereas, today, the primary mission of National Western Show is to educate urban and suburban citizens about the importance of understanding and preserving Colorado Western heritage in agriculture, providing city kids with hands on experiences with farm animals. And to host one of the world's largest professional rodeo and horse shows. Whereas the National Western annually attracts more than 600,000 visitors from all 50 states and foreign countries and contributes approximately $100 million to the Denver Denver's economy. And. WHEREAS, activities during the 16 day event include the Wild West shows, horse shows, dancing horses, extreme dogs, the Super Bowl of livestock shows and art exhibition. And Colorado's largest agriculture trade show. And. WHEREAS, The City of Denver this year signed an historic agreement with the Western Stock Show Association, Colorado State University, and guarantees that the National Western Stock Show will remain in Denver for the next 100 years at the National Western Centers. Whereas Mayor Michael Hancock, the WSJ a CSU Denver Diamond as an historic Denver historic Colorado recently broke ground and national Westminster Silver, solidifying the National Western Center mission to become the global destination of agriculture and heritage and innovation. Now, therefore, be a proclaim by the City and Council of Denver, by the City Council from the City and County of Denver, Section one that the Council hereby enthusiastically welcomes the 12th Annual National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver and extends its best wishes for another exciting, successful year and encourages Denver residents to saddle up and enjoy the show. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affix a seal. I see. You can see my hair and the way to wear your hat for the city and county Denver to this proclamation and that the copy be transmitted to the National Western Stock Show rodeo and horse show and I move the proclamation one be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. And I'll just make a couple of comments because I know we may have others make comments. And this is we are so blessed in the city of Denver to have this history, to have this historic organization, to make Denver the National West Center stage for an entire month. And I don't know if many of you guys remember at least to see passed. And it talked about taking this money and putting in investment to make sure that not only the stock show, but these other organizations and this vision of having a national western center could come. Every precinct in the city of Denver supported that initiative. And that that goes a long way in the city of Denver and shows the support that that the National Western Stock Show has so much support that the three little ones living in the whole neighborhood that live in my house are they know they don't have to see the signs. They don't have to see any commercials. They know exactly when the national western stock shows open because they are excited to be there. These urban kids love these animals and they love to be engaged with their agricultural roots. I don't know where they get it from, but they're connected with it. And I know that there's young people all over the city and all over the state who are so excited to have the National Western Stock Show alive and well in the city of Denver. And I am proud to have it home in the Fire District nine. So we are excited to put this proclamation forth, and I hope that all my colleagues will be supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. We talk about the National Western Stock Show a lot in terms of the heritage and the history. But I think we should also make note that it's very forward looking in its development and where it's going. And especially I want to commend the outreach to young people that it does from not just from the Denver area, but I think all over the country, but mostly the Western states. It's a very forward looking organization and a very forward looking show. It's history is one thing, but it's still making history. And I want to make sure that we welcome it in grand style and wish them a successful show. And part of me doesn't want to believe that it's actually stock show time because it's not below zero. I don't know when when we started being above zero for stock show that. Welcome. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for bringing this forward. This is an annual proclamation that we do. And, you know, just recognizing the history of Denver and the stock show and what it means to our economy, you know, people spend all their money at the end of the year and and normally our revenues are kind of flat at the beginning of the year. But the National Western Stock Show brings in a lot of people. It fills up our hotels. Um, you know, people spend money at the event. That's where I like to go find my Western apparel. There's some great shopping there for, for women who like Western wear men as well. But it really is a great opportunity for young people in the inner city to be educated about, you know, where some of our food comes from. And the fact that we're going to have CSU on the National Western campus is going to be pretty phenomenal. And when you hear. Mr. Frank talked about the fact that they anticipate that facility on the National Western site to help solve world hunger. That is pretty amazing. And if you look at what's happening around the world, when we have times of drought and we have some of our communities that we've historically relied upon for our produce to come from, but now they don't get water because of drought conditions. We have to find another way to ensure that we're producing food, not just for folks in in our state and our country, but around the globe. And so the changes that are coming for national Western are going to be pretty incredible. I'm particularly excited about the commitment to ensuring that we have a local higher program in folks from the surrounding neighborhoods will have an opportunity to take advantage of jobs during construction as well as after the new facilities are there I think will be pretty amazing because there are lots of changes happening to those neighborhoods as well. And we're trying to make sure that with all the changes in this quadrant of the city, that we're looking at ways to raise the tide for everyone and particularly those who are being most directly impacted. So, Mr. President, thanks again for bringing this forward and to the folks from National Western. Good luck with another great season. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, I know there's many years you're representing this district as well and represent in the National Western Stock Show. I think you brought up something that I do want to highlight and I want to thank Paul Andrews and his team for doing this. I don't I don't think there's ever been a time the National Western Stock Show has been more engaged in global Larry Swansea than today. And and that's not my words. That's long time residents like John Zappia and I even see an Elizabeth in the house as well. You know, I think there are a lot of you guys have done a really good job, um, righting the wrongs and in a relationship with that neighborhood and they are very grateful for it. So thank you so much for that. With no other comments, Madam Secretary. All.
Speaker 0: Black I. Clark. All right.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Flynn, I.
Speaker 0: Herndon I Cashman High can each. I knew.
Speaker 5: Ortega Susman.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I. Police was offering us results.
Speaker 5: Two were.
Speaker 0: Missing. One.
Speaker 3: We are. We are missing one and. Okay, here we go. We've got 11, 11 I's proclamation. One has been adopted. I have one individual, I believe.
Speaker 2: Come on. Come on.
Speaker 3: Thank you and Elizabeth for being excited about that. The rest of you can get excited, too. Hey, how about a hand? Come on. Got a rough crowd for the first city council meeting of the year. We're going to bring up Paul Andrews, president, CEO of the National Listen to talk show, said a few words. Well, thank you, Councilman Brooks. That was very, very kind words. And let me just start by saying, you know, there's something special that's happening in Denver right now. And honestly, it only happens with great leadership. And I got to tell you, Mayor Hancock is one of the great leaders in this city, and he can't be the great leader that he is without the support of all of you. And all of you have consistently supported the National Western Stock Show and so has Mayor Hancock. So our hats are, after all of you this year at the 112th National Western Stock Show. We cannot thank you enough for your generous support of us and your support of the Nation Western Center that will bring us into a new, new era, as many of you have mentioned tonight. So our show.
Speaker 2: Starts this Thursday. Really, it.
Speaker 3: Starts with the parade downtown. Kick off is high noon on 17th Street, right at Denver Union Station. So we'd love to have a huge crowd. All of you that are watching us on TV.
Speaker 2: Please come out. I think it is perfect. Stock show weather that day.
Speaker 3: 50 plus degrees. And what a great kick off Councilman Flynn for that. And so that will start us off. And then the show itself opens on this Saturday, the sixth. And that will start with three great rodeos, Colorado versus the World. And then Sunday, the Mexican rodeo extravaganza. It is always a tough ticket. And then next week starts off with three nights of Pro Bull riding with the PBR tour. So please come out and enjoy some of our 16 days. Dust off your boots, dust off your hat and come have a whole bunch of fun right at I-70 and Brighton Boulevard, where we will be for the next 100 years. So thank you all. Thank you. All right. Resolutions, Madam Secretary, where you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation welcoming the 112th National Western Stock Show, Rodeo and Horse Show to Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022018_17-1356
|
Speaker 3: The right councilman Cashman All right. Under bills for final consideration, no items have been called out and under pending. No items have been caught out. Madam Secretary, let's just look at all those, I think, within a block. You can bring them up on the screen. Councilman Cashman, you can make a comment.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. For those who are not informed, the Colorado Department of Transportation is moving out of a couple of properties in the Virginia Village neighborhood and District six. They're building new facilities down by Mile High Stadium, and they've placed these two properties for sale. See that headquarters site? Most people have familiarity with at Arkansas, East Arkansas Avenue and South Birch Street. It's about 12 acres. The see that also has occupied the region one headquarters site at 2000 South Harley Street, a little bit smaller at 11 acres. See that was required by ordinance to offer these properties to other governmental entities first. And Denver entered into a competitive bidding situation. We felt I agreed with the administration. It's in Denver's best interests to try to control the disposition of these properties as much as possible. And a lot of hard work by our real estate department and Office of Economic Development. And we did secure the rights to negotiate on these properties. These four contracts that we have before us tonight have Denver facilitating the transfer of ownership of both locations from SEED out to an organization known as the Control Group. I see Jimmy Beloff us over here with his cards. You want to wave your hands at Mr. Belov so people can send you gifts and thank you cards along the way? The cost of the 11 acres on South Holly Street is 5.25 million. The property? The 12 acres on Arkansas in Birch. A bit more expensive coming in at 14 million. As I've stated since first hearing about the sale of these properties, I am very excited at the opportunity to help guide redevelopment of these sites, but I'm also very aware of the substantial challenges that these projects present. And in order for something to occur here that benefits the community rather than stifles it. It's going to take a real partnership between the developer and the city and the affected neighborhoods. The initial proposal over on South Holley Street involves construction of some 200 for sale three story townhomes, possibly 50 to 60 assisted senior housing units. The developer does not need a rezoning here. The existing IMX three zoning allows for this use, and while a public process is not required since the zoning is in hand, Castro has agreed to engage in a dialog with the community in an effort to arrive at a project that addresses as many of their needs and concerns as possible. It is in cointreau's best interests to to establish that dialog on Holley, because the project that will eventually be proposed over at Arkansas and Birch is a much more expensive project and therefore is likely to have a much more intense use on the property and potential impacts. And being so much more complex to meet the developer's bottom line and the community's needs and desires is going to take a real effort. The contract between the city and Castro requires them to apply for a rezoning on Arkansas and a full, full public process. I would expect that information on the basic frame. Work of that public process in the next couple of weeks. The developer has talked early on about 150. Affordable housing units on the southeast portion of that property in the 60% AMI range. Perhaps a health club on the northern part of the property and possibility of other residential retail office uses. It is very early in the structure of that project and as a lot of moving parts that will come out as we get involved in the public process. And I want to emphasize that the current contract talks about for Arkansas a five month due diligence time period. In other words, the developer looks at the project, talks to the community about a rezoning. The city looks at what the developer is proposing, and either side can decide to move ahead or are call quits on the deal . There's an opportunity for the developer to purchase three additional 30 day due diligence periods, I think for $100,000 each. So which gives you eight months, which sounds like a lot of time. And in a project of this complexity, it's not a lot of time at all. It's actually a rather compressed time period. And I'm concerned that it's not enough time and that it may require for added development, added flexibility on the part of the developer, and see that for whatever additional time is needed for a full discussion to get this deal done. I mentioned earlier that I believe the city plays a critical role in seeing this project to a successful fruition. And by that I referred to the need for traffic mitigation measures that will address whatever increases in density come with the projects, as well as regulation of the construction process so that neighbors are protected from unnecessary noise, pollutants and traffic along the way. My experience on council thus far is that our agencies frequently show a greater understanding of the needs of the developer than the residents in these situations, and that's not going to work moving forward. I look forward to working with the community and the developer to do what's right for Virginia Village and for Denver. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. We Councilman Cashman does not want to take action on these. So this concludes all the items that need to be called out. All other bills for interdiction are ordered published. We are now ready for the block votes. Council members. This is. This is a consent or block vote. And you will need to vote. Otherwise, it's your last chance to call it an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman, can you please put the resolutions for adoption in the bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items all 2017 unless otherwise noted. 14, 11, 14, 12, 14, 13, 14, 14, 14, 15, 14, 31, 1436, 1437, 1438, 1439, 1440 1441, 1442 1443 1328 1372 1408 1445 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1410 1432 1389 1348.
Speaker 3: All right, Madam Secretary, do you concur?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay, great. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 0: Raquel Black.
Speaker 7: I right.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Flynn.
Speaker 2: I Herndon.
Speaker 5: I Cashman.
Speaker 0: I can each new.
Speaker 5: Ortega by session. Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I please. I was wondering, as the results.
Speaker 5: In ICE.
Speaker 3: Denies resolutions have been adopted, bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. All right. Tonight there will be require a public hearing council bill 1266 changes on the classification of 1521 to 1535 West 34th Avenue and 34 and 3400 Osage Street in Highland.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the State of Colorado, by and through its Department of Transportation, to purchase property located at 4201 E. Arkansas Avenue.
Approves a purchase and sale agreement with the State of Colorado for $651,250 to purchase property located at 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, and work with an identified buyer to ensure ensuing development is consistent with existing neighborhood, area plans, and economic and job development in Council District 6. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-22-18. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-12-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022018_17-1266
|
Speaker 3: Speakers will stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman, can each what you put council bill 1266 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes. And if I may, Mr. President, may I acknowledge our former colleague, Councilwoman Cathy Donohue, who's in the house tonight, as we try to have was in the house for a moment, but we try to always acknowledge our former colleagues.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council bill 1266 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 3: It has been moved. And second it the public hearing for Council Bill 26 is open and we have a staff report. Scott Robinson.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Council President Brooks and members of Council Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 1521 to 1535 West 34th Avenue and 3400 Osage Street from YouTube to deal for. To you and X to x. Property is located in Council District one in the highland neighborhood at the northeast corner of 34th Avenue and Osage Street. The property is about 9300 square feet. It's currently a mixed use building on the property, including the Korean Japanese restaurant and several residential units. The applicant has stated they're requesting the rezoning to match the zoning to the existing uses and so that they can more easily maintain the existing uses on the property. So the request is to rezone from YouTube to dial for which is urban neighborhood context to unit residential. The B2 is about 4500 square foot minimal lot size, and the deal for is a design overlay that allows for reduced side setbacks on narrow lots. To resound to you and x to x, which is also in the urban neighborhood. Context mixed use two storey maximum height. The property is surrounded by the same YouTube to deal for zoning. For about a block in each direction with some other zoning further out. As stated, the site currently is mixed use with a restaurant and residential units on it, surrounded by a wide mix of uses, single unit to unit and multi-unit residential as well as some commercial, industrial and other mixed use properties in the neighborhood. You can see the subject property there in the center on the right. And a sampling of the types of residential surrounding it in the other pictures. This went to the planning board on November 1st where they unanimously, unanimously recommended approval, went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on November 21st, where they moved it forward. The only public comment previously we have received is a letter of conditional support from the Highland United neighbors that you'll find in your pocket. In order to approve a zoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property, first being comprehensive plan 2000 as described in the staff report to see that staff has found the process first rezoning is consistent with these six strategies from complaint to housing, mostly relating to encouraging infill and mixed use development. The second plan is Blueprint Denver. From 2000 to Blueprint, Denver designates the future land concept land use for this property as single family duplex, which calls for moderately dense residential areas with some complimentary, small scale commercial uses, such as what would be allowed in the U.S. next to X. It's also an area of stability which calls for, in some cases, rezoning. To align the zoning with the existing uses was, which is what this proposal would do. Both West 34th Avenue and Osage Street are on designated locals. The Highland Neighborhood Plan is from 1986, so an older plan, but it still applies. It recommends increasing neighborhood employment opportunities, stabilizing the housing market by encouraging a variety of residential and mixed use projects, and encouraging small infill developments such as mom and pop shops and low to low density multi-family housing, such as those that would be allowed under the EULEX two acts. It also includes specific recommendations for the small shopping district along a 34th Avenue at Osage and Navajo, such as sprucing up but maintaining the the small shopping district there. The subject property is also within so barrier 13 of the plan. It calls for improving and stabilizing residential areas, encouraging reuse of vacant or abandoned commercial structures. Likely this one isn't vacant, abandoned or vacant yet, but the rezoning would allow it to continue and discouraging further industrial and commercial encroachment. This is an existing commercial structure, so it's not additional encroachment, just maintaining the existing use. So staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the U.N. text to Zone District. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and facilitating reinvestment in an existing business and an existing structure. The fourth criterion is a justifying circumstance that finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the change in changing conditions in the Highland neighborhood. There's been a significant amount of redevelopment in the area, an increase in population. That's increased demand for commercial uses, such as what is on the property and residential uses. So aligning the zoning with the existing uses so that they can be maintained was justified by the changes in the neighborhood. And the fifth criterion is consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district, purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed new annex to EX would facilitate development that is consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the intent of the Annex two zone district. So Steph finds that all five criteria have been met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Scott. We have two speakers this evening. Ask them to come to the front. Alex Johnson and Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 10: Hi. My name is Alex Johnson. I understand representative of the property owner looking to request the zoning change from here for any questions.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. All right, Chairman Sekou, you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 6: Yes. Good evening.
Speaker 2: My name is Chairman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense Resident City County in Denver, 65 years representing poor, working, poor and homeless people. We support this zoning change.
Speaker 3: For all the outlined reasons.
Speaker 2: Plus, this represents an opportunity for economic development for poor, working poor folk. And we would implore the. Folks as you go about doing this thing. To employ local folks and utilize some of the labor forces that are there so that. We as a city. Can come up with this project. Now part of the deal that we experience over and over again is that we are positioned. In the growth of the city and the planned developments of this city were, in fact, that were part of the labor force who helped build the city. And from that, we don't have the resources to have so that we can be vibrant, productive members. Of what's going on. So we need these jobs and we need them badly. And so I would implore folks as they go about their processes of development to. Get in contact with those resources that you have. Also a joint partnership with the union so that we develop the skilled labor in the process of doing this thing. And as we rush toward getting these projects completed, let's see if we can get some plumbers out of this deal for poor people trained and some painters trained. And not just people who stand on the corner holding the sign for traffic. We're actually skilled labor so that that labor can be transformed into a permanent position. So that basically we evolved from being poor and we advance ourselves up the scale. So the history of the city has been a top down organization in terms of how they go about doing things, and the trickle down process just doesn't work. And so by the time it trickles down, there's nothing left for us to do or that we're in training programs that last longer than the project. So then we're trained to be unemployed. And so we must bridge the gap on this thing. And in the time, lies have to be organized. And I salute you, Councilman Brooks, for being on top of this kind of thing, because I know you've been doing a lot of work in the community to get the laborers skills and whatnot being boosted up through community organizations like the Urban League and whatnot. So as we continue on this process of. I just want to again say. Thank you for taking on the task and to stay consistent with the process. And that's about all I got to say. So I'm gonna cut this short because I know you all really want to go to the big show. Everybody here for the big show. So I'm through. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Sekou. All right. This concludes our speakers for Council Bill 1266 questions. Members of Council Council Mauritania.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask the applicants, Representative. I don't see anybody here from the honey neighborhood. If there is, maybe they could raise their hand and come forward. What I'm trying to find out is the letter from the neighborhood association, which looks more like a resolution than a letter, speaks to a number of conditions. And I'm trying to find out if there is if there were covenants filed or is this just, you know, a gentlemen's agreement between the neighborhood and the applicant who is proposing the rezoning?
Speaker 10: So yeah, with the the meeting with honey, one of their conditions is that when you file a deed restriction for any future development of the property to not exceed the building or any kind of characteristics of the building that's already there. To my knowledge, it was a negotiation that I'm assuming has been recorded already or is going to be recorded shortly. I was not a part of that process. Okay. Yeah, I was just speaking to the characteristics of any future redevelopment, which we don't have any plan right now.
Speaker 8: Okay. So the conditions that speak to noise hours of operation are related to the existing operation that's there or any proposal.
Speaker 10: That they talked about. The good the good neighbor agreement or the deed restriction.
Speaker 8: The good neighbor agreement.
Speaker 10: Okay. So in the U.S., the good neighbor agreement is a couple of years ago for the existing business. They were there, Kobe and the restaurant.
Speaker 8: Okay. But what, if any, of that changes? That's where the deed restriction comes in related to a potential re-use on the site and whatnot.
Speaker 10: Correct? Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
Speaker 8: I think that answers all my questions. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Okay, we have Councilman Flynn. You're up.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to follow on because Councilwoman Ortega actually asked almost answer both of my questions. But the condition, the conditional support Scott or the applicant could answer from honey was basically predicated on the filing of this deed restriction. Is that correct? Were there any other conditions on Honey's support of this?
Speaker 10: No, that's my knowledge. It was the conditions outlined in the letter in the packet to be recorded in a deed restriction. Again, I'm not 100% sure where it is in the process, whether it's already been filed.
Speaker 6: Or will be done. But that was the condition and there were no others. That is what I was doing. Okay. And in the staff report, it said that is it. I'm sorry. Maybe you could answer was the owner does not intend to redevelop the property. Does the owner intend to rehabilitate the building? He already has. Okay. I haven't been up there since it was little Pilipinas broke my heart. I really did. If you bring back a little bit Pinas, I go to every day. But so the intent is to keep the building as it is. And this deed restriction would require preservation or would it require, if it were to be replaced or what?
Speaker 3: I'm going to ask you to come to the mike, because we're kind of having this side conversation here.
Speaker 10: So which one?
Speaker 6: So the deed restriction would require that if the building somehow were damaged, were were destroyed, had to be replaced, it would have to be replicated or the same character or the exterior.
Speaker 10: Same character, the setbacks, the height restrictions, the amount of residential units that would be allowed the, I guess, greenspace in there, the parking access, everything that is existing now would have to be replicated with any new building. The only reason right now that we're trying to get this rezoning is actually from another building of ours that had the same issue where it was used and was not the zoning did not match use. Right. And the building actually fell in on itself. And so that's when we realized we should probably go ahead and look at everything else.
Speaker 6: Because that up in the same neighborhood.
Speaker 10: It is.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I remember that.
Speaker 10: Yeah. So that's when we started evaluating all the other properties that would kind of fit this criteria and this was kind of the best fit. Thank you for any of your sound.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I want to thank you for for doing that. For going that extra measure. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 11: So I'm personally in sort of distress right now. So what is your role again with the project?
Speaker 10: I work for the property owner.
Speaker 11: But the property owner doesn't give you didn't give you any authority to speak on their behalf or you do.
Speaker 10: All I do. And they told me to be here. They're both out of the country right now.
Speaker 11: Never mind. Just got the confirmation. I was like, Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because there was some tense moments in the community conversation with the property owner leading up to this. And it's and I'm talking about things that aren't actually technically part of what we're supposed to be considering among our criteria. But it is fundamentally frustrating. And this sort of sounds like comment.
Speaker 3: Never mind. Okay. We'll we'll get you a comment. Thank you, sir. All right. Seeing no other questions public here for council Bill 26 is closed. Comments by members of council councilmen as one of them.
Speaker 11: So. So you you start to sort of started to see me sort of speaking to my sort of process or what have you. One of my frustrations in the zoning code, if you've been watching for any number of times over the last two and a half years since we adopted this new zoning code in 2010, it has had the provisions, just like the prior zoning code, to use incorporate waivers and conditions, which is customized zoning. You can modify any base zone district to accommodate certain things, but then we have these policies that are not law ordinances, laws, zoning code is law policies, not law. Those are rules. We can change them. We can deviate. But, you know, then all hell breaks loose if we don't follow our policy so we can amend our policy regardless of the thing I'm rambling about is when we rezoning the entire city, we re zoned it one size fits all. You know, we try to do the best we can, but we recognize that it is a huge area and it's got a lot of different things in our zoning code. Sort of tries to capture everything, but we recognize that there are differences. There are differences between Southeast Denver differences and Green Valley Ranch and Highland between South Broadway and Walsh Park or, you know, there's there's just a lot of variety, which is what's probably what's really great about the fabric of Denver. And in order to address concerns from one neighborhood to another, you could use waivers and conditions, or you can use any number of tools. But because of the impact, the lack of us willing to use our legal tools based on policy, yes, we've had to work with other tools that are essentially tacitly supported by our director of community planning development. I mean, Brad Buchanan has come to me and said, look, I, I prefer private party, third party agreements, developer agreements over codifying in zoning. The difference there is who enforces that when you codify it and zoning the city enforces that when you do it through a third party agreement that's between a neighborhood or whoever signs it versus the developer or whoever owns it. And so. But regardless. One thing that we we've seen repeatedly in northwest Denver, where we're experiencing sort of a rash of redevelopment pressures, gentrification and other issues, and some character altering new projects is when we have a rezoning that allows something that is very, very, very, very much by the book can be sort of, you know, if you're familiar with the Denver Fugly website, that is a that is a thing that's out there where you can go and you can see some of Denver's worst architecture. Those are used by right. Developments generally. And there is no constraint in or or or nothing in our zoning code that necessarily dictates esthetics or orientation to the degree that it, you know, should fenestration and what have you. So I'm rambling, but my point is, is that there is a a serious disconnect that we have as a community, work together on time and time again to bring forward tools, work with developers, because the reality is, is where the community is and the where the developer is are typically not as far apart as we might think. The developer, you know, but the the problem is, is the zoning code that one size fits all tool allows a whole bunch of other things that may not capture the community's desires or the developers desires. And so we have successfully used these third party agreements, these developer agreements to address those outliers and to bring both parties closer together and to an area where what would might be a contentious situation, not be a contentious situation. And so I've actually talked more than all of those presentations just in this thing, because what I was stressing about was all that the fact that we have all these balls that we have to juggle just to get everybody who's actually all rowing in the same direction in community, to sort of work around the fact that our zoning code actually would in fact allow something that was community disruptive and and potentially detrimental if we just went in a straight use by right situation. And there was good conversations between owner and community to address these concerns and to the to to my colleagues point, Councilwoman Ortega mentioned there was an October letter in here from a planning board hearing. So that's to hearing two public meetings before this one that where that had been discussed, but it had never been executed. And so that was what was concerning is that, you know, did we get to this point where everyone was in agreement, but we didn't have any written documents? And the problem is, again, that is not. Substantive to our decision making because our criteria remains the same, whether that third party agreement exists or not. But I can tell you that there are tools in the zoning code that could address these very same things. We just choose as a city, as a matter of policy that comes from the administration. To not do this. At that level where the city can enforce that. And so that is something that I wish would change. It could change. It should change. But until then, we have this thing. And so all that said, I want to thank you for and, your Honor, the person that you work for. I thank the city for sort of recognizing that it's there, but not and my my constituents and honey who aren't here because they actually support this measure for all coming to the table and agreeing on a way forward that works now and for the future. And and that is a lot of work that we've been doing time and time again in my district, sort of super normal. Hopefully, I've never overstepped my bounds, but I just I was in a bit of panic because I didn't feel like that had been executed. And the good faith, I didn't have any acknowledgment up until right now that the good faith of all that communication had had come to fruition. So I do feel relieved to know that development is going to exist in the way that it. It's already been moving forward. The community has assurances that things in the future would also be consistent with with the owners wishes and the community's wishes. And with that I will with all that rambling, I will be supporting this measure but having nothing to do with that and purely do with the criteria because it does in fact meet its criteria. And I should acknowledge that that this is our least intense. This is to X, right? This is our least intensive zone district designed specifically for incorporation in area, in neighborhoods, existing single family to unit fabric. So it is consistent with our adopted plans and all the criteria that we would normally meet with. And with that, I'll be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. See no other comments. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Raquel Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 2: Flynn, I.
Speaker 0: Herndon. I Cashman. Hi. Can each new Ortega Sussman. Black clerk. All right.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I please close voting in US results.
Speaker 5: 11 eyes.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes. Counsel Will 1266 has passed. Congratulations. All right, Councilwoman Kinch, will you please put Council Bill 1396 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1521-1535 West 34th Avenue and 3400 Osage Street in Highland.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone land at 1521-1535 West 34th Avenue and 3400 Osage Street from U-TU-B2 DO-4 to U-MX-2x (urban, two-unit to urban, mixed-use), in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-21-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022018_17-1396
|
Speaker 3: Okay. Now we're going back to 1396 city council members.
Speaker 6: Good evening, council members. I'm Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of real estate for the city in Kenya. Denver, good transition timing, Councilman Brooks. So the Land Acquisition.
Speaker 11: Ordinance.
Speaker 6: Is a common tool that the city uses for acquiring property and property interests to construct public projects. Recent scenarios where we've done this is for the National Western Center, for South Broadway, for federal and for the 39th Avenue Greenway portion of this project. It's the first step in allowing the city to work with the property owners to access land for the purpose of the detention project. The city intends to follow the Uniform Relocation Act as a guideline. There aren't federal moneys in this project, so we're not required to, but that's what we have been using and will continue to use . It includes a process to ensure that the property owners and leasehold interests are fairly compensated and that will all be part of the upcoming negotiation process. The process will consist of the property itself has one legal address, so the property will be noticed. The detention area that is anticipated will be required is somewhere between 25 and 35 acres for the permanent easement aspect and then an additional 55 to 65 acres for temporary easement. So provided that the ordinance is passed, we will send the notice of intent to the property owner, engage an appraiser to come up with the values of each of the respective easements that are required. The entire golf course is going to be closed down for the duration of the project, which is anticipated to commence January of 19 and last basically to the end of the year and then go on. We see March 2020 as the anticipated completion and that is also looking at the timing of the reconstruction of the project to bring it back to a playable golf course. So the benefits this is relocation benefits, and that's ultimately the benefits that are going to be paid to bring the property back to being a playable golf course , will engage a golf course architect, will obtain bids to reestablish it as a golf course, develop a timeline for construction, and then determine what the damages is to all interested owners of the project.
Speaker 12: That's what we had for you today. And we're available for questions.
Speaker 3: Okay. No other material. Okay. All right. We have 26 speakers today. I'm going to call if you guys can go find another place to sit. Great. I'm going to call the first five speakers to keep us running pretty quickly. We are going to just ask these five speakers to come up. And as soon as they're done, we're going to ask the next five. So thank you. All right. Maggie Price, Deborah Montoya, Trina Moyer, Justin Feeder. And Jeff Rome. Romeo. Believe that's five. All right, Miss Price, you're a first.
Speaker 0: My name is Maggie Price and I live at 1465 Fillmore Street. Thank you for this courtesy, hearing and the opportunity to speak. In April of 2017, the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation Delegates voted for a resolution to encourage the city to acquire Park IL Golf Course if it became available and called upon the public officials of the city and county of Denver, quote, to commit to the preservation of Park Hill golf course and thereby prevent all or any part of it from being developed other than for Parkland. In November of 2017, and after an announcement of acquisition of the course, the IMC delegation again approved a second resolution that in part called upon the public officials of the city and county of Denver, one, to amend the proposed contract between Denver and Clayton regarding the Park Hill golf course so as to remove Clayton from being the lead of the visioning master plan. Process and to delete from the proposed contract reimbursement to Clayton for any participation it may choose chose to undertake in the planning process and to to commit again to the preservation of Park Hill golf course property as parkland open space. If the opportunity arises again to purchase this property, I urge you to keep this land is open space park land as an investment in the health of our city and a rare gift to its citizens. Many people have commented that the land's close proximity to rapid transit make it an ideal for development. However, its closeness to transit also provides a speedy means for our citizens to enjoy a large urban open space without having to go to the mountains. Please allow this land to remain cement free and to do what it can do best to provide green space for people to recreate, to absorb and filter water, and to assist in the mitigation of flooding. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Price. And I wanted to point out to folks speaking, just make sure you specify what Bill you're speaking on. So 1395, 1396 to park or the 39th Avenue Channel. Okay. And if you're speaking on both, you can say both. Ms.. Deborah Montoya.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Community. My name is Deborah Montoya. I live at 3924 William Street. I'm a lifelong resident of Curtis Park Call Community. My home immediately borders the proposed 39th channel slash Greenway. I was able to have myself appointed to the Community Working Group for planning and design on this greenway. The infrastructure change in our neighborhood was necessary to avoid flooding during massive storms, of which I have experienced many times. On the north side of 39th Street in designing, my emphasis was to secure that construction would mitigate any toxicity in the earth left behind by industry. And to secure that, the channel would be a beautifying, natural and serene addition to our community. I believe wholeheartedly that our working group accomplished this and that this Greenway will enhance our community with a beautiful natural environment, active amenities for all age groups to enjoy and create an infrastructure that will protect the neighborhood from flooding in the future. I fully support the construction of this greenway. Although I may not be able to enjoy it. The process as expected. Over time, the return of the angel population to the inner city has been met with new city investment. For myself, since December of 2015, my home has been threatened with eminent domain blight, blight designation and height rezoning that now invites high power developers and realtors to manipulate the market and homeowners to their advantage. This leaves me and others like me not knowing what the future holds. Even if I could get the best market price, I could never afford another home in my community. If I stay, could I pay the taxes? If I don't sell at the most opportune moment, might I end up this small home surrounded by high rises that would overshadow me and swallow me up as if I have gone through the process of finding my bearings in all of this and observing how the city planning committees work. Denver City Planning has no human component. Our council members seem disinterested and even dismissive in providing any help to residents or even listening to our concerns. Yet they seem very concerned with what is in the best interest of business and development and not the residential community, especially those who are poor, elderly and of course, people of color. There is no city agency. Or Council on Homeowners Rights and Protections from Abuse. Denver Planning works with numerous private businesses to accomplish their goals. They all get a piece of the pie, either payment directly from the city contracts, incentives or other compensation. Yet Denver Planning sees no need to address this human factor. If the city of Denver can pay bazillions of dollars to uplift every business partner in their plans, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to pay for at least a central help line. Is that too much to ask? No, it's not. So let me ask for more. Give us tax breaks so we can stay in our homes and continue to be the upstanding, contributing residents of our lifelong communities. And or supplement us like you supplement businesses so that we don't end up displaced and in poverty. Be accountable, Denver. Be accountable. Denver Planning. Be accountable, Mayor Hancock. Be accountable. Council. People must never tell you. How will you help this man? We cannot stop progress, Ms..
Speaker 3: Montague.
Speaker 0: We will. Your time is a guarantee that this movement. Thank you with dignity.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Montoya.
Speaker 0: Keepers, preservers. Ms.. Montoya, of this community. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Montoya. All right, Mr. Niemeyer.
Speaker 1: My name is Trina Moya. I'm a resident of the whole neighborhood. I'm speaking on 1396, I think the 33/9 Avenue Ditch. I just want to clarify, although I'm a member of the Neighborhood Association Board, the following comments are my own opinions. Well, I've been a resident of the Denver metro area for 32 years. I've only lived in coal for six years. I recognize I'm a part of the gentrification of coal and surrounding areas, and I stand here today and what I see as taking responsibility for my indirect role in bringing the type of development to the area that has resulted in projects like Plat to Park Hill. I was one of the community.
Speaker 0: Members who spoke to you.
Speaker 1: On December 18th about our concerns with potential environmental.
Speaker 0: Hazards along 39th Avenue, which has brought us to this courtesy hearing.
Speaker 1: I subsequently met with my neighbors to discuss which of the many points we wanted to stress tonight in our allotted 3 minutes that might persuade you all to hear us and grant our request to delay the approval of the SEMA contract until a full environmental risk analysis can be completed. The city has thousands of paid employees and contractors to call upon to defend their decisions. People who spend 40 or more hours a week preparing reports full.
Speaker 0: Of specialized data to justify those decisions. People whom the city can.
Speaker 1: Call forward as experts because they're paid as experts. Meanwhile, we, the citizens, must.
Speaker 0: Use the few hours we have free.
Speaker 1: Each week to wade through and decipher the technical information from those reports to do research and to attend a myriad of related meetings just to figure out what exactly is planned for our neighborhoods and how we may be impacted. It really feels like a David and Goliath scenario, but as one of my neighbors rightfully pointed out, the burden should not be on us to prove to you why this project should be put on hold until a full analysis is completed. The burden should be on you, the city representatives, to prove to us that we will be safe. Not to assure.
Speaker 0: Us with platitudes of we'll deal with any.
Speaker 1: Hazards as they arise, but to be able to say confidently with documented proof there is no risk. The ditch runs through the middle of a former Superfund site, but because it was paved over at the time of earlier remediation of nearby properties, we don't know for certain what lies below. And it has been omitted from the EPA's operating unit, one that surrounds it. The Opinion Soil Investigation Report states the number of samples collected in their analysis is representative of a small proportion of the material that will be included in the Plat Park Hill project and is a potential data gap. I've been aware of this project since it was first presented to us at the Kohl Neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Association meeting.
Speaker 1: In November 2015. Even though discussions and planning began months earlier, since then we have raised numerous concerns about the project, including the excavation of the 39th Avenue Ditch. As a resident of Cole, I feel like an afterthought at best. Or that I'm seen as a senior hysterical conspiracy theorist at worst. Our concerns and protests are a byproduct of a process that is being literally bulldozed through by an administration that appears beholden to developers before any others. So I ask you once again to please listen to us, to actually hear us, and to fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe. Thank you. Agree. Would you please stand?
Speaker 3: All right, Justin. Peter.
Speaker 6: Hi. My name is Justin Fighter. I live at.
Speaker 11: 1777 East.
Speaker 6: 39th Avenue.
Speaker 8: You pull your mike up so he can better hear you.
Speaker 3: You hear me now? Yep.
Speaker 6: I'm a board member of the Rock Drill Lofts. And pending everything this more I just said. And that the design of the 39th channel happens per the design that's been shown thus far that we approve the park and think it would be a great amenity for Cole.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Jeff Ramil.
Speaker 10: I ask anyone who is for saving the Park Hill golf course to please stand right now? My name is Jeff Romey. I'm a resident of the Overlook at Park Hill and I currently sit on our board. My wife and I have led the mass migration to Denver some five years ago in search of greater opportunity. We are blessed to call Denver our home and couldn't be happier with their choice to buy our first house in the north end of Dexter Court overlooking the Port Hill Golf Course. While it's clear we will be directly affected by any development of the park golf course, including the water detention plan on the northeast end of the property. I'm not here to talk about me. I'm not here to tell you. I'd like to continue to see the Rocky Mountains from my house or how I've been involved in a car accident on the corner of 35th and Colorado. Like many before me, due to the awful traffic conditions that already sit there. I'm here, though, to address a bigger issue that affects not just my neighborhood, but the community and the nation that surrounds it. And that is the issue of our physical and our mental health and the lack of spaces that allow adults to play. We already know that exercise is scientifically proven to reduce anxiety, stress and depression. We also know that being in nature leads to many physical and mental benefits. I don't need to throw those statistics out, but what you don't hear often is how adults, especially those living in big cities, lack access to spaces that provide opportunity for play . With City Park Golf Course. Closing Denver is slowly eliminating spaces for play. Not everyone can afford skiing and biking in the mountain. This amazing city, known for its outdoor beauty and active lifestyle, is the valuing how significant spaces that provide joy, energy and competition for adults really are. Play is more than about having fun. The state of social play brings us sanity. Play allows us to problem, solve, decompress and unplug from the screens and the stresses of our daily lives. It leads to higher productivity, lower anxiety, and simply are having a happier life. It enhances creative thinking and innovation. The Denver metro area has plenty of space for development, but not for open space. The Park Hill golf course is a direct reflection of the wonderful, diverse community that is Park Hill. While the golf course and banquet centers certainly need a major facelift and to be pulling in more money each year , the potential to make it a thriving community space is huge. It is a priceless sanctuary where people come to relax, vent, celebrate, practice, compete with themselves and strive to be better. Take away that space and you're taking away something sacred. We're quickly losing our connection with the Earth, the community, and the importance of play spaces to calm or busy minds and to let go in the warm sun to enjoy stunning snow, peak mountain views, crisp, fresh air, year round spaces that teach vision, confidence, action and follow through and consistency. Currently, I have a signed petitions circulating along with a nonscientific survey gathering all nearby residents that are simply against the development of this space. I'm proud to say that we've already already nearing about a thousand people against the development, and this is just after a month of circulation. The people want to be heard and they don't feel they are. This is my small way of providing a platform for them to voice their opinion without opening a can of worms with 100 different ideas of what to turn that land into. I'm on the front lines. I'm talking with the neighbors directly. I see the relief from the community gets from being out in the fresh air on real grass, not artificial. Mr. Roland, please keep one last outdoor playgrounds alive, because in this crazy, stressful world we live in, so buried in our phones.
Speaker 3: Your time for your time as.
Speaker 10: Never before has been more important for serve.
Speaker 3: Your Time is.
Speaker 10: I thank you for your time.
Speaker 3: Hey. So. So, listen, we're going to extend the time to make sure everybody gets in, but you got to at least be within the time monitors, right? So 3 minutes, please. Okay. We want to respect everybody's time. I'm respecting your time. We're going to call the next five up. Charlotte Brantley. Janet Feder, Pastor Dale Phillips. Becca Tur, Tallow. Sorry if I mispronounce your name. And Garrett Sullivan. All right. Ms.. Brantley, you're up.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Council President Brooks and members of the council. I'm Charlotte Brantley, President and CEO of Clayton Early Learning and I'm here to speak on 1396. The nonprofit that I lead helps ensure quality and effective early learning and care experience for some of the most vulnerable children in Denver. We are also the trustee of the George W Clayton Trust. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight about the L.A. Four, a portion of the property currently occupied by the Park Hill Golf Course. As you are aware, this this land has been an asset of the Clayton Trust since Mr. Clayton's death in 1899, and its use was changed from agriculture to golf. The city as then trustee of the trust in about 1930. At that time, golf play was seen as the best use of the land to generate revenue in support of the young children who are the beneficiaries of Mr. Clayton's trust. We have partnered with the city for many years, both in providing services to vulnerable children through the Head Start program and in managing this property to ensure it contributes to to ensure it continues to be leveraged in support of the beneficiaries of the trust, as Mr. Clayton envisioned. His assets would be used after his death. For several years, we have been aware of the city's need for land to solve the flooding that occurs in the Park Hill Basin. We and some of the families we serve have witnessed this flooding firsthand. In addition, we are aware that the northeast corner of the property is a natural low spot and water pools there every time the summer rains come. Therefore, we support this land acquisition ordinance. As the city moves forward with design of the stormwater facility. We ask that you keep in mind that the purpose of this property is to support the beneficiaries of Mr. Clayton's trust. As you know, we have been and will continue to be engaged in a community visioning process for potential future uses of this property. While the exact timing of any potential future alternative uses of the property is not presently known, we hope that the stormwater planning process will be such that future considerations of the highest and best use of the property as a trust asset will be kept in mind. We'd also like to ask that you continue that we continue to be involved in the input process for the stormwater planning. Thank you very much and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Brindley. Janet Feder.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Janet. I am speaking on Bill 1396. I live on Gilman Street, about two feet away from the proposed 39th Avenue Open Channel. Since I last spoke to you two weeks ago, I discovered that old maps of my neighborhood at the Denver Public Library reveal the empty paved lot paved over a lot. Next to my home there once stood a duplex built sometime around the year of construction of my own home in the 1890s when digging for the 39th Avenue Greenway begins and the pavement comes up. The Stone Foundation to that duplex and whatever else was paved over will need to be excavated one block to the east of me . The lot at the end of Williams there stood as my neighbor, Mr. Ed Armijo has repeatedly said, a gasoline filling station. Absent any evidence of its removal, the pavement comes up there. We expect to find a leaky leaded holding tank. Please hear me. It's not the presence of these things that trouble me. It's the absence of curiosity, investigation and transparency on the part of the EPA and the attendant unwillingness to advocate for the well-being of the coal community. That has me so concerned. What would that advocacy look like? It would look like the EPA reclassifying these lots as part of the new one or creating a new force specifically for these parcels along 39th Avenue that previously went unclassified and need to be treated as the paved over industrial and residential lots. They are they need to be tested for contaminants. Now their designation has changed and that land is going to become the 39th Avenue Greenway. The EPA needs to treat them with the same care they showed to residential yards and parks, quite simply because, as we're told, 39th Avenue is going to become a park. There is a shell game happening here. We can see it and we're trying to stop it because we all know who wins at Shell games. So who are we? We are citizens with careers in a broad variety of fields. We are parents and retired folk. We are the self-employed and people who work for other people. We have both growing and aging families who need us first. It took us a while to get up to speed with the reams of data pertaining to soil and water and chemical contamination and the processes of city and federal government. We made our discoveries in fits and starts. We forged our acquaintances with each other as we shared and pondered the information spooned out to us at monthly meetings. We stayed in touch. We grew stronger and smarter. Many of us now communicate several times a day. The people in my community are being treated disrespectfully. We are not a sleepy, impoverished community, happy for handouts. We are a coalesced group of concerned citizens who have found each other. We found experts themselves concerned and also experienced to advise us. All of us spend hours upon hours to understand what is happening around us, not paying a penny while we face off against omnipotent acting planners and powerbrokers, representatives of government and a Goliath sized project. We've concluded that absent a full environmental risk analysis of this project as required by federal law, neither US nor SEMA nor anyone else can know what we're in for continuing to proceed as both fiscally and environmentally irresponsible, we are asking that you protect us and make decisions in our best interest. We've caught you not doing that. We are here to hold you accountable to the people who elected you to office, who pay your salaries, who you promised to serve this better. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. Pastor Dale Phillips.
Speaker 7: Councilman Brooks and to all the council persons present. Pastor Dale Phillips. I am the chairman of the Colorado Black Leadership Caucus, an organization that comprises about 15 major community organizations that are part of the African-American community. In the brief 2 minutes and 42 seconds that I have, I want to try to review three important points that I want to make in regards to support for Bill 1396. The first is I do have an affinity and support for what the Clayton College Project is trying to do and harnessing the best resources from this property to continue their work with the constituents in that community, namely families from impoverished families that are given an opportunity for early childhood education. As much as I am in support of that, that venue, I have even a greater ideal that concerns me even about the conversation that's taking place today. Which leads to my second point, and that's the argument regarding open space versus residential space, very easy for people who have a home to make a decision for people who don't have homes, to not have the opportunity to find residents in that particular part of our community, to be able to talk about open space versus residential space, I think is a a great overlook of one of the greatest challenges we have in the Denver community, and that's providing housing for people who need it. We don't need more open space. We need residential space so that those who are having to live in open space because they don't have a home can potentially find residences. So I think that's important for the council to consider. One of the opportunities engaging with the project with Clayton gives us at least the possibility of creating residential affordable housing for people in that community. Which leads to my last point. There have been conversations or even concerns about whether or not Clayton should be engaged with the city and trying to create this kind of partnership, which would only lead the other alternative to bring in an outside developer to try to coordinate what's what would be best placed there in that area. I want to be on record saying that if we have to choose between a partnership from.
Speaker 2: An outside developer or.
Speaker 7: The city, I am on board for working with the city because I feel as we are doing here tonight, we can hold you accountable for what we want to see happen in that quadrant of our city, to be able to bring what's needed a balance of residential property, a balance of open space, a balance of business space in that community. And we thank you for your support.
Speaker 3: All right, thank you, Pastor Doug Phillips. All right, Becca TARULLO. Oh, I'm sorry if I misspoke.
Speaker 1: It's very close and everybody makes this look really easy.
Speaker 8: So I'm just going to own.
Speaker 1: That. This is terrifying to me. So my name is Becca Turlough and I live in the Clayton neighborhood. I'm the vice president of the Clayton Registered Neighborhood Association. I also serve on the Park Hill Citizens Advisory Committee. So I'm speaking about both issues. The first one being with 13, she's me 1396. Clayton has been actively involved in that process with sorry Clayton neighborhood has been actively involved with the Clayton early learning process for over a year. We are very much in support of the build the city utilizing approximately 25 acres for permanent detention with the remaining area needed for temporary construction purposes. I really want to take an opportunity to note that Clayton Neighborhood is excited about the opportunity to partner on the prospect for how this land will be used strategically. I'm confident that early she's being Clayton early learning is providing a much needed high quality service to families in our neighborhood, but also to families outside of it. Are we doing her? I do encourage and ask for yes and support on that. 1395 is trickier. It's two things. Oh, I am nervous. I am so sorry. But so we do. We. I do want to say that we have definitely been invited to be a part of the process and the planning process with that from the get go. And the Stormwater Systems team has presented at Clayton meetings on multiple occasions and included our feedback as far as the stakeholder working group goes and we've been able to share our priorities for the new space. We also know that there's been intentions to build relationships with the affected businesses in the community. That said, our neighbors have done.
Speaker 8: So much work.
Speaker 1: Put in so much time and energy in researching this piece around the EPA, the safety and the security and the fact that we have neighbors who go to work every day, come home and take care of their kids, and are spending hours advocating, seeking data, seeking information to make sure this is safe, is something that should be should be paid attention to. And so while we really appreciate the process that's happened so far, I definitely agree that we need more data and more evidence and a better analysis to say that what's about to happen in coal is safe for the families and for the children who live in that neighborhood. And that's it. Thank you. Everyone's all right. All right.
Speaker 3: Great job. And to allow. All right, Garrett Sullivan.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. My name is Garrett Sullivan. I am a member of the Park Hill Overlook Overlook at Park Hill Ichi Association, and I am speaking regarding the preservation of open space, or at least the concept of open space in that area. If it's not returned to a golf course, I believe that we will be losing an important resource. Mr. Romero spoke to all the health benefits of open space. And I just want to second that, that the remainder of the property that is not used for water mitigation and storage of stormwater be returned as efficiently as possible to a golf course or an alternative use of open space, not to development. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Okay. Thank you all. I'm going to call the next five up. Kimberley Morse, Mike Matheson, Kevin Doyle and Rex Kandi. And Ed our Mehul. Miss Morse, Europe first.
Speaker 0: My name's Kimberly.
Speaker 1: Morse. I live in the coal neighborhood, and I have a question for you. Has there been a misuse of taxpayer dollars or possibly an environmental cover up? And what might this mean for other environmentally compromised areas of Denver? There are pre excavation testing at global reported. 1% of one sample contained asbestos. The project budget allocated $255,000 for an asbestos inspector to be on site and $2 million for the removal of regulated asbestos contaminated soil, a much more costly disposal designation than ordinary soil. Through October, more than 80,000 cubic yards of asbestos contaminated soil has been removed. So our taxpayer dollars being misused for the soil removal, whereas the asbestos label being used as a pretext for other nasty debris and contamination at the Globeville site. Now, what precedent might this set for the 39th Avenue segment of the project? An ambitious drainage project is set to get underway inside of an area in northeast Denver. That. Although designated a highly contaminated Superfund site in 1999, has yet to be fully studied nor cleaned up. My own multiple direct requests to representatives of the EPA and Denver starting in 2016 to press the pause button and conduct a full environmental study, particularly for the 39th Avenue segment of the Park Project, have been met with silence or no's. Some agency employees will dismiss my environmental concerns as unrealistic because Northeast Denver has been an urban area for more than a century. But Denver City Council, you should not accept this as our legacy or our heritage. And what about that Swansea smelter on the map I just gave to you? I found it on an 1880s map of Denver, but I haven't seen any environmental documentation on the impacts the smelter may have had on Swansea, a coal or other close by neighborhoods. So before you sign that $78 million contract to authorize work in an area full of unknowns, I urge you to exercise your fiscal responsibility for ensuring taxpayer dollars are wisely spent. Cost overruns are avoided, and that you ensure environmental protections for your constituents by requiring a full environmental study of the 39th Avenue Channel with only. I have something important. So there are three borings done. That's the extent of the testing that was done by your contractors in the coal segment. Three borings in coal. That's it. And as we learned, Janet's fence is going to be taken down. That's how close is going to be. So with only three borings, lots of unanswered questions by Denver and local agencies, significant discrepancies in Globeville. I don't feel comfortable nor safe knowing this project is about to get underway so close to my home and that of my neighbors. Taxpayers and residents alike are on the hook for this very expensive project, and some have more on the line than just our tax dollars. We have our health and our property values. So council members, if I if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Ms.. Morris. Mike Matheson. Hi City Council. My name is Mike Matheson.
Speaker 2: I did want to say I love the Western wear tonight. I, uh, I recall not too long ago the stock show was very close to go into Aurora. And I'm very proud that it's still here in Denver. It's within a mile or so of my house and that that took all of you to be able to do that. And I'm very appreciative of that. So I want to bring that up first. As far as as far as the Council Bill 1395 and 1396, I am in support of that. I live in the 80216 zip.
Speaker 10: Code and I own land.
Speaker 2: Over in this area as well. And I think you guys have read reports that it's one of the most contaminated zip codes in the country. And so I'm very happy that this area is going to be cleaned up. I view it as additional parkland that we're gaining in this area versus losing parkland. And plus, we're getting the golf course redone. So removing contamination from an area that I live in, an area I go to every day, and we'll have a park that I can ride my bike, go with my daughter, I think is a great benefit. In addition, I've had experience with contaminated sites and cleaning up contaminated sites and finding additional contamination and getting no further action letter from the state. It does create work, but you unless you dig that stuff up. It does leak down to the ground groundwater. It's very hard to remove. And this these types of projects is what cleans up zip codes like the one that I live in. And so I'm very happy to see that that occurring. I love the additional open space. The CEO for Clayton Trust supports this project. And it's I know because I've been involved with some of the neighborhood outreach and involvement that the city has been doing this for a couple of years, and I'm very appreciative to be involved and informed. And, you know, thank you for putting.
Speaker 10: This project together and helping clean up our city.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. Kevin Doyle.
Speaker 2: Thanks for the opportunity. My name is Kevin Doyle. I bought an overlook at Park Hill in 2002 with my wife, and we started our family there. Kaufman and Broad Holmes. Katie Holmes bought that land from the Clayton Foundation at the time. And they did it because the conservation.
Speaker 10: And conservation.
Speaker 3: Easement was put in place without that easement that we're talking about dismantling.
Speaker 2: My neighborhood wouldn't even be there. And we're one of the most unique and best neighborhoods in Denver. We're an owner occupied neighborhood, so we don't have a deed restriction. But we do have a covenant put in place by Clayton, by the city of Denver and by Coffman of Road Homes. To make sure we were different. You have to sign a waiver that says you're going to be owner occupied when you move into my neighborhood. Our values are not the same.
Speaker 13: Kauffman and Rowe did that show that people earning 70 to 80% of the area.
Speaker 2: Median income could afford in my neighborhood. And they did. I did. And that's still today. Right now, average.
Speaker 13: Single family home in my neighborhood goes for 254 to $268 a square foot. If you jump on the other side of Martin Luther King, you're looking at 300 bucks, 350 bucks a square foot.
Speaker 3: We are affordable housing. That was what we had.
Speaker 13: To be put.
Speaker 2: In for. I want you guys to know that as people talk about the need for affordable housing. I want to reiterate the need for open space and remind everyone that.
Speaker 13: City of Kansas City, Denver, was involved in.
Speaker 2: This. And the last time that the city of Denver and Clayton were free to range.
Speaker 3: In the eighties, the attorney general had to get involved and stop this.
Speaker 13: I'm not sure Clayton should be involved. I'm not sure any development should happen whatsoever. And I'm not in favor of the land acquisition ordinance at all. I'm not in favor of our conservation easement going away. I just learned last month that our conservation easement is in serious jeopardy. That was not the case when I bought our entire neighborhood was.
Speaker 2: Sold based on that.
Speaker 0: Up.
Speaker 2: We've reached out and we've done our own surveys. As Geoff Romeo has told you, we have almost 2000 signatures that are opposed to the, you know, the development of Park.
Speaker 6: Hill golf course.
Speaker 2: My counterpart, David Martin, over at Parkhill Village, he represents three different ways. He couldn't be here today, but I'm sure he'd be saying the same thing if he could. They're going to close down the golf course. Where are you going? To put all the equipment behind my house. My easement that I paid for along with the rest of my residence. We have over.
Speaker 13: $430,000 into maintaining an easement that we put in place. I have been trying to find out what's going to happen to easement since day one.
Speaker 2: No one has been able to tell me that. No one. And I've.
Speaker 0: Got an email here that I sent to you guys.
Speaker 3: City of Denver.
Speaker 0: In 2015.
Speaker 13: Saying, We are deeply, gravely concerned about the future of our community. That's in.
Speaker 0: 2015.
Speaker 13: And we were the last to get involved in this. We were the last to be a part of Clayton's peak committee. That's fine.
Speaker 2: And we are, you know, blessed to have the opportunity to be involved in this. But you guys need to realize that we've been trying to get in front of this. And.
Speaker 3: Mr. Dawson on this, it it's disappointing. And I urge you.
Speaker 11: To vote both these measures down.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Okay. Rex Kennedy. I'm sorry. If you just cancel this.
Speaker 6: Rex Kennedy. Kennedy. And I'm very honored to speak to each one of you individuals here. I'm a long time resident of Denver and city of Denver. I've been here since 1972. I'm a licensed architect and a parent of two children at Clayton. And I'm also the chair of Clayton's Parent Policy Council. I represent hundreds of children and hundreds of parents. I would ask them to stand, but, you know, they're the city's working poor. They can't attend these type of events. But I am talking for them. We want to say that we do. We do support the city's land acquisition of the Park Hill Golf Course. It's a golf course. It's an area that's owned by by Clayton. And it's used to fund the mission of Clayton. And the mission of Clayton is, of course, as you know, to serve Denver's working families and Denver's zero to age children that can't afford proper daycare. It does a fantastic job. My child has been there since the age of nine months and now she is thriving and ready for kindergarten. I have a two year old foster to adopt son who's been there for for a year now and he has so far has fantastic has adjusted fantastically because of Clayton. So I would like you to know that the the family members and the children of Clayton would like to support you as you move forward with the purchase of your land acquisition at Park Hill for storm water planning. As long as you know that the area as long as special interests. Want to keep it. 100% open space. That type of development is probably not going to be able to support the true mission of Clayton, the trust of Clayton, and also the children of Clayton. If it's left open space and we have no, no, no resources to to to to raise funds to support Clayton, that mission that was that was created by Mr. Clayton in 1899, who will die. So I just wanted to let you know that is what's on our mind and what is our greatest concern. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. Editorial.
Speaker 13: Good evening, Councilman. Councilwoman. My name's it. Ami Ho, 3647 High Street. Instead of me ranting and raving and I put my thoughts together because evidently the majority of you do not listen, please pay attention. It is all hand in hand. Good evening. I am very concerned about the 39th Avenue project. Both bills. There has been many poisonous chemicals released in the area for more than a century. I was poisoned in Vietnam with Agent Orange. Poisoned. Poisoned. I did not find out until 2006. I have a miserable lifestyle now in Danang, Vietnam. To this day, there are thousands of children that are so many from their families abandoned because they were poisoned. The air base in Danang has been covered with concrete to stop the spread of Agent Orange. It was in the water and it still is. And the food supply chain, it was too late to poison. Most of the Vietnam veterans were exposed. They carry the poison in their DNA. It is passed on to our children. My sons have DNA. I carry. My eldest son has a child that is affected. He is mentally slow. And his brain his brain is bigger than his skull to fit in. I have nothing. I have a non-biological grandson I raised since birth. He is 25 now. He's got the mentality of a seven year old and he's got medical issues. His real grandfather died of cancer due to Agent Orange poisoning. Pay attention. Poisoning. His grandson is also affected. That's the grandson I am raising. Think about the earth you are going to disturb. No telling what is going to be released. You have kids. You have grandkids. Some of you have probably have great grandkids. Put yourself in our shoes that are fighting this. Think. How would you feel if you knew your kids were exposed to poison and you knew you could have you knew you should have stopped it. Think with your heart, not with your pocket, not hanging around with all these developers, because I have seen a number of you after some of these meetings wouldn't talk to me. But George, buddy, buddy with the developers. Here is one resolution.
Speaker 3: Mr. Armijo. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 13: Let me read my resolution because this is very important to the audience or I'll just pass it on.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry. We got more folks right behind you. Thank you, sir. All right. The next five, Debi James, Jason Janz, Jay Morse, and Maria Flora. Lastly, Brad Cameron. Jason. Oh, Debbie Chance, you're up first. Deborah James. Ms.. James, you're first.
Speaker 0: Hi, I'm Debbie James. I live on the Sixth Avenue Parkway in Mayfair Park neighborhood, which is adjacent to Lowry. A few years ago, I looked out my front window and saw a man standing in my yard. I went outside and asked what they were doing. They said they were from Denver Wastewater Management, and they were looking at my property as a place to run through with a concrete ditch which would drain all of Mayfair parks. Large storm events. These large storms have been flooding my neighbors, my three neighbors homes to the south for years. Alarmed, I mentioned that Mayfair Park had never had a comprehensive stormwater plan. And why didn't we deserve storm drains, pipes and the rest of the infrastructure that most of the rest of the neighborhoods in Denver enjoyed? I was told that the concrete ditch was what wastewater was going to do to solve the problem of flooding in Mayfair Park. I told them to budget extra money to cover the lawsuit I intended to file. This is what I learned to do after working for nine years on the redevelopment of the Lowry Air Force Base. When the wealthy and developers colluded with the city to make lives of citizens in the adjacent affected neighborhoods miserable. We citizens of Mayfair Park fought back. And as a result, I was told by Jim Meadows, director of our Redevelopment Authority, that the LRA board thought you people in Mayfair Park were too poor and then educated to give us any trouble. A short time after the wastewater man's visit, my husband and our neighbors to the west and I were invited to a meeting where advisor the project was going forward. It would entail a ten foot wide, three foot deep, concrete ditch running window. Well, two window well between our two homes. My neighbor demanded to know what would happen when the ditch overflowed. He was rebuffed. My husband and I were advised that we would have to, at our own expense, cut down 50 year old trees and shrubs, tear at our redwood privacy fence, and demolish an art studio which all stood in the way of where the city would put its concrete ditch. Since we had dared place these amenities on our own property over an easement, despite improvements being done following Denver City Code, we were given site maps and later I noticed that the easement was for sanitary sewer, not waste water. My neighbor, who's an attorney, drafted a letter and so did my husband and I. The end of the story is that all of the sudden the city found money to install comprehensive wastewater infrastructure in Mayfair Park, which includes immense underground cisterns that hold big flood events until they can disperse onward. How this happened is still a mystery, but now an even worse plan for a ditch is being forced on other neighborhoods because we citizens are left in the dark until unwanted projects are about to unfold in our communities. And then we are traded for being too late to respond and further on told that our responses are inadequate. But tonight, members of City Council, you have a chance to set things right. We are the oppressed and trampled on. Citizens of Denver appealed to your hearts and compassion to do the right thing by calling a halt to the travesty of the 39th Avenue ditch. We citizens are being treated, can speak contemptuous of judges who handsome salaries we pay. I urge you to vote.
Speaker 3: No. Thank you, Miss James. Jason Janse.
Speaker 7: My name is Jason Jantz. I am a resident at 2938 Humboldt Street. I've lived in Northeast Denver for the past ten years and I'm the CEO of Cross Purpose, which is a career and community development program that helps 100 families, mainly in northeast Denver, move out of poverty and get a middle class income within 12 months. We also are one of the largest tenants on the current Clayton campus and I'm a member of the Peacock Park Advisory Council.
Speaker 6: Regarding 1396.
Speaker 7: My request is simply that the decision that is made in the land be used to further the mission of Clayton. For these children, Clayton must thrive. They educate hundreds of children. And early childhood, we know, is essential to the children in our city, especially those who are most vulnerable to get a great education. And I believe Clayton, after working with been on the campus for the last six years, that they invest serious effort and finances to do whatever it takes to get kids especially from vulnerable backgrounds, kindergarten ready. And so I my heart goes out to them and I just want to make sure that that mission goes forward. We are currently working with them to pilot a two generation approach to poverty, whereas even some of our adults that we are working with dropped their kids off at their learning center, and then the parents walk across the yard and they join a career development program. And we're seeing generational poverty being changed on that campus. Many. If not all of us in the neighborhood would like to preserve a good portion of the property for parks and open space. The extent of how much is probably the rub, and we look forward to a continued strong collaborative process to figure that out. And this is a complicated issue that many of us have a hard time keeping up with, as many of my neighbors have testified here to tonight. But I would just ask that in the decision you make that you really are at the forefront of the mission of Clayton as a serve the kids in the forefront of your mind. And by protecting their mission, you protect and provide for families that are vulnerable in our neighborhood.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chance. Jay Morse. Good evening, counsel. My name is Jay Morse, coal resident. And I just want to express my support for the Cole neighbors in requesting the council hold back its vote on the $78 million CMA contract until a thorough environmental study has been conducted. This is a Superfund site. EPA's EPA does not throw around Superfund site lightly, so please consider that when you start.
Speaker 11: Looking at these contracts.
Speaker 3: Three borings. As Kimberly said, that's it. Only three borings. There's a lot of poison out there.
Speaker 11: So I ask that you take that in consideration.
Speaker 3: And put a pause.
Speaker 11: On this vote until a full environmental impact study can be done.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morse. Maria Flora.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name's Mario Flora. I live at 26 Albion Street. I'm here just to oppose 17, 13, 96. I'm an open space advocate. I'm opposed because of my concern for the effect of this ordinance on that open space conservation easement that the city acquired in 1997 for $2 million. I don't believe that council has been adequately informed. As to the effect that this ordinance is going to potentially have on that conservation easement and the resulting loss of open space. Now, each of you council members received an email from Woody Guernsey on December 16 of this year or last year, rather, about the legal issues surrounding the conservation easement and the condemnation clause in the conservation easement itself. Mr. Guernsey warned of the Council's inadvertent termination of that conservation easement by exercising the right of eminent domain on that property and the concomitant loss of the $2 million investment that the city has made in that conservation easement and the loss of any opportunity potentially to preserve that as open space. By starting this condemnation process. I ask council to be advocates for the citizens of Denver in preserving this conservation easement, at least for the present time. Now, in the conservation easement itself, there is what we call a condemnation clause. And I don't know if you all have read the agency agreement, the conservation easement.
Speaker 4: All of these documents over the years that have come forward in this mess over the Park Hill golf course and the.
Speaker 0: Relationship with Clayton College in the city of Denver, it's an embarrassing mess, but there is a condemnation clause in the easement and it says that if there is a taking to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the city. So that the golf course is no longer physically capable of being operated as a Regulation 18 hole golf course and driving range on that land. Then Clayton College has the right to terminate the conservation easement period. Now, this clause doesn't say, Well, it's okay if it's only for two years, it's okay if it's only a temporary easement on this part and a permanent easement on the rest. That's all left to interpretation. I was. Unsettled when I watched.
Speaker 4: The video of the.
Speaker 0: December 18. It's called the Finance and Government House floor. Does this floor five.
Speaker 3: As floor your time?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Brad Cameron.
Speaker 6: I'm here to talk about Park Hill golf course, and I thank you for that opportunity. My name is Brad Cameron. I reside at 1200 Humboldt Street, which is immediately adjacent to Cheesman Park. I've lived there for over 20 years and during that time I have seen the public's use of Cheesman Park increased dramatically. And Cheesman Park is not the is is not alone in that regard. All of Denver's large regional parks have seen similar increases. I'm not complaining. It's wonderful to see so many people using and enjoying Denver's park system, and especially so many young people. But Denver continues to grow in population. We are on track to add 100,000 new residents this decade, with downtown alone expected to have 20,000 housing units added between 2010 and 2020. And this is an exaggeration, but sometimes it does feel like on a summer weekend they're all in Cheesman Park. Now, that's why preservation of open space, such as Park Hill golf course is so important to continue to be an attractive city for existing residents. It's imperative that Denver maintain and protect the open space that we already have. That certainly was the vision of Mayor Wellington Webb, who, with the help of city council back in 1997, led the city in its purchase of a conservation easement to protect in perpetuity the open space of park old golf course from development. That conservation easement cost the citizens of Denver 2 million, which at that time was its fair market value, and that was an arm's length transaction that Clayton knowingly entered into. Now, today, the benefits of that conservation easement are more important than ever. The Land Acquisition Ordinance before you today, most likely, in my opinion, will not in and of itself threaten the open space of the golf course. But there are few who think that this will be the final chapter of the story. A return to talk of developing Park Hill golf course is clearly in the wind. Now, finally, I want to echo the comments made by Councilwoman Kennish back in early December, when this matter was before the Finance and Governance Committee. Her request was that in the future, there be more transparency on the part of the Hancock administration when dealing with Park Hill golf course matters. Obviously, that is not entirely within the power of city council. But hopefully all of you will join Councilwoman Canete in requesting that from Mayor Hancock. Thank you.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. Cameron.
Speaker 3: All right. We're going to call the next. Let's see here. Next five. All right. We'll call the next five people up. Kathleen Wells. Eris Shiner Shiner. Woody Guernsey. Georgia. Guernsey. Chairman say. And the last person I'm going to call up is Lois Dahl. These are our last six here. Ms.. Wells, you are first.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Kathleen Wells. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm speaking tonight about the golf course. The Denver mayor is among the 388 U.S. mayors who have pledged to adopt the Paris climate accord. These mayors agreed in June of this past year they would refuse to endorse any executive order that rolled back policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because to enforce such policies would threaten every American community's health and safety. Now the city of Denver recognizes climate change as a defining issue of the 21st century. And the city is committed to facing the challenges of a changing climate through preparedness. These facts have everything to do with tonight's discussion of the preservation or demolition of the 155 acre Park Hill golf course. Why? Because trees, grass and natural vegetation absorb carbon dioxide and therefore reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that contributes to global warming. The more open green space we have, the better able we are to mitigate and to adapt to climate change. Why should we care? Colorado will warm four degrees by 2050, causing loss of vegetation, reduced water quality, enhance ground level ozone concentrations and human health problems. If you think climate change is real but will occur some time in the very distant future. Talk to me after this hearing and I'll tell you about my sister who's moving from rural southern Arizona, a place she loathes due to the threat that increasingly severe heat, wildfire, smoke and dust pose not only to her way of life , but also to her ability to breathe. We have to meet the climate change challenge challenges seems simply incredible. A city that is landlocked would waste a golden opportunity to maintain a golf course or to create a regional park in light of the serious climate problems we face. A decision to develop rather than to preserve or expand greenspace would be an example of a seemingly innocuous or even positive public policy decision that in the end is at odds with our community's best interest in the most fundamental sense. Our growing population of young people, most of whom want more open greenspace, love the outdoors or committed to environmental, including climate related causes. Understand this issue better than any other demographic. Perhaps it's not there for us as well. Thank you so much.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Next up, artist Shiner.
Speaker 2: Uh, good evening.
Speaker 3: My name is Eric Shiner, and I'd like to lend my support to Council Resolution 1395.
Speaker 2: I've lived in central Denver for my entire life, and although I am a new resident of Cole.
Speaker 11: My wife Charlotte and I now own and live at 3846 Gilpin the house on the southeast corner of 39th and Gilpin directly.
Speaker 2: Adjacent to the planned Greenway. I believe that the Greenway and Open Channel is an excellent use of the land along 39th Avenue. While I do share some of the current concerns here expressed by some of my neighbors, especially concerning environmental hazards occurring during.
Speaker 11: And after the construction of what will eventually become the park space where people and families will gather. That said, especially having seen the planned steps presented earlier, I have full confidence in the city of Denver to proceed responsibly, knowing that it is accountable to its citizens.
Speaker 2: In the oversight of the project.
Speaker 11: And to mitigate any hazards as they may arise. I look forward to the construction of this. I look forward to the start of the construction and to a beautiful new greenway along the stretch of 39th Avenue in desperate need of renewal.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Next up, Woody Guernsey.
Speaker 6: Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 11: Mary Guernsey and 46 year Park Hill resident and a retired attorney. And I've had the pleasure of meeting with many of you over the past several months and I've sent emails to all of you.
Speaker 6: In November and December regarding.
Speaker 11: The issues that are in front of council tonight. Tonight I urge you to vote no, or at least to table the proposed Parkhill Golf Course Condemnation Ordinance until the city administration.
Speaker 6: Guarantees you.
Speaker 11: That a condemnation action will not jeopardize the open space conservation easement that was purchased by the city in 1997 for $2 million. Under the agency agreement between the Clayton Trust and the City, the Trust now holds title and.
Speaker 2: Quote as agent.
Speaker 11: Of the city to hold for the benefit of the citizens of the city and the general public. The trust under the existing agreement has the unilateral.
Speaker 2: Legal right to.
Speaker 11: Terminate the agency agreement and thereby reacquire full title to the property. But at that time, the termination of that would result in the conservation easement coming back into place immediately. It's critical to the council's decision tonight that it knows that the trust has the legal right to terminate the conservation easement in the event the land is taken through exercise of eminent domain. The Clayton Trust could arguably terminate the easement in connection with this.
Speaker 6: Proposed.
Speaker 11: Condemnation action by the city. The golf course operator AQIS has until June 30th to exercise its five year lease extension option. In the meantime, number one, the city Clayton and Arcus can hopefully resolve critical issues related to the city's plan to install the stormwater detention facility on this land and thereby eliminate the need for filing any condemnation action. And number two, there's no present need for the city to initiate a condemnation action that could jeopardize the conservation easement. Having never practiced condemnation. I recently consulted with a very experienced condemnation lawyer in Denver. She advised me that the city can easily secure an immediate.
Speaker 2: Possession.
Speaker 11: Order in no more, in no more than, and likely fewer than 120 days from the filing of an action. Therefore, the city can easily wait until after June 30th to file a condemnation action if necessary, and still begin construction of the stormwater detention facility after December 31st. The city created this problem when it decided to install the stormwater detention in the Park Hill Golf Course under the Park Hill, the Platt to Park Hill Project. Now it must do whatever is necessary to guarantee that that conservation easement does not go away as a result of that action. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Georgia Guernsey.
Speaker 0: Hello. My name is Stuart to Guernsey. I'm a Park Hill resident. I am a member of City Park Friends and Neighbors, a park advocacy group, and I am also serving on the park. I'm here to support the conservation of the Park Hill Golf Course as open land. I love the way this meeting started because you addressed what I love so much about Denver. It's history. When I came here 40 years ago, I fell in love with the light. First off, I'd never seen anything like it. And I knew I'd found my place. And I loved the sheer guts and vitality of this place. It's such a young city. It was founded in 1856. The history and the people that work so hard to shape it and lead it are so vivid and accessible to me. The city's early commitment to open space particularly has astonished me as I've studied Denver history. And you have to wonder when all of these traders and cowboys and farmers and whatnot came here, it was empty. It was sand and tumbleweed and jackrabbits and cottonwoods and not much of anything. And they came and invest their hopes and their dreams and their love of this area and to make something to shape something wonderful, which is what we're experiencing today. In 1882, May or so for us, this is 25 years after the founding of the city, led an effort to purchase 320 acres of land in a square city park. Besides today. And it was out in the boondocks. There was nothing out there. What inspired them? They they knew that they wanted Denver to be something special. The 320 acres was not incidental. It's half what Central Park is. And that was intentional. They saw Denver as being competing with New York City and San Francisco. It was to be the Paris of the of the plains in. 18. At the turn of the 20th century, Mayor Robert Speer came forward and he'd been inspired by the City Beautiful Movement. And he implemented, again, another vision for open space of parklands connected by beautiful boulevards and parkways.
Speaker 3: Currency. I hate to interrupt you because you're on a roll, but.
Speaker 0: Well, I hope I've inspired you as the next leaders of shaping this this beautiful city to think about the open space.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 2: Yes, sir. Mosaku Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. You know, I don't want to be redundant.
Speaker 6: And repeat a lot of stuff that's.
Speaker 2: Been said. But I heard one.
Speaker 6: Thing that was very.
Speaker 2: Disturbing. The people don't trust government. They don't trust. Now for some of you that are new, that's a. Serious caveat that.
Speaker 6: You've got to carry because of.
Speaker 2: Previous decisions and experiences that people have had with previous administrations, the city council. And. I was talking to a former. Council member. And Paul, you know who I'm talking about. She said one of the issues that she had by serving 12 years on council was that she was very naive. And that she accepted things on face value. That was not true. And in the process, as she reviews her term, she made a decision to come down and lobby.
Speaker 6: City council members who were known to share with them. You need to do your homework. You need to see the context.
Speaker 2: And you need to pay attention as to what is being said within the historical context. Now we have a strong mayor position and a not so strong city council. In terms of how decisions are made. So many times decisions are weighed down and they're convoluted because people actually in city council and we've all seen it, both are things that they're not necessarily for. Just on the strength of. They want to get some stuff done. But now we've got a serious situation here. All right. And that is city council. And I beseech you, must restore the confidence that the everyday people have in this body. And in the process of doing that, you're going to have to vote for some things. That you don't care for. And yet, at the same time, I'm suggesting to you, if you don't build it, don't vote for it, don't vote for it. Don't vote for this. Don't do that. Because in the process, you will continue on the legacy of destroying the people's confidence in this very institution. And this institution means more to the people than the people who come and go as elected officials. I've seen many come and go.
Speaker 13: But the people are always still here.
Speaker 6: They still.
Speaker 2: Come. And I've never in my life or 65 years of living in this city, and I've lived all of my life on the east side from five points to park, you must say, never seen an administration that would pit neighborhoods against one another and have people arguing about stuff.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Cook. All right. Is Lois doll here? Okay. You are the last one.
Speaker 1: At least.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 0: Last but not least.
Speaker 3: Last but not least, Mr..
Speaker 12: I am not going to try to speed, speed, torque or read or anything. I have some.
Speaker 0: Information that I could say, but everybody else has said it already. I'm talking about the 39th Avenue Ditch. I live four blocks from there. And so I'm here as a selfish person, but selfish for my whole community. My daughter and her husband and my two grandchildren live a block from the ditch proposal. I am very concerned that or not enough testing has been done, not enough EPA backing and interest in the situation of digging up a Superfund site and letting the stuff fly all over the place while is being done. We are told I started helping work on this in 2015. We're told I've been to many, many meetings, were told that, well, we're going to wet it down when we dig it up. I don't feel like that's going to be the solution. That might help. I just saw them wedding down the tram building as they were tearing it down on one end of it. The dust was flying everywhere, including in my house. My grandsons are six years old and almost four. I have an interest in keeping their lungs pink and healthy. And as I said, you don't know what's going to happen 20 years down the road when.
Speaker 12: Your.
Speaker 0: Children, your grandchildren and so forth are exposed to this kind of thing flying in the air when it's dug up and scattered around. You don't know 20 years from now if they're going to have lung cancer or what else. I think it's really important for people who have the opportunity to safeguard our neighborhood to do it. You can put a hold on this until this testing is really done. Right. And so that we know that when it's dug up, if it's dug up, I hope it isn't. But if it is, if it's going to be done right so that it is not polluting our neighborhood people have been living there for a lot longer than I have. They have children and grandchildren and stuff living in the neighborhood also. And we're very worried about this. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Thank you. All right. I want to thank everyone who stayed the entire time and spoke. We have we got to all of our speakers and thanks for paying for parking, coming through security, sitting on those hard benches. You did a great job. All right. We are now going into questions for 1396. And first up, we have Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Now, these are questions just on 1396. Yes, sir. Let me ask. Charlotte Brantley is still here. Correct. Thank you. And maybe Jeff also. Do we know if the forced shut down of golf for the 2019 season will trigger the right of Clayton to terminate the agency agreement? The way I've read it is similar to the way Woody Garnsey read it, which is that if golf cannot be conducted, that and I know the intention is to restore it at some point, I guess for the 2020 season perhaps. But if it's not played for that season. Hi, John. You're also going to backstop this. Would that trigger Charlotte? Would that trigger Clayton's right to terminate the agency agreement, in your view?
Speaker 0: So, Councilman, if I may. I also have my attorney here today. Yes. I believe James and I would really prefer that he answer that question, if that's all right with you.
Speaker 6: Oh, okay. That means we're really in trouble. Good evening, Bruce James, attorney for Clayton Trust. I think Brad Cameron really said it correctly. Okay. Which is it defers the question. It is a factual question whether or not following the condemnation, the course can be restored to an 18 hole regulation, golf course and driving range. The city staff today believes it can be. Clayton is neither agreed or disagreed with that assessment in part because what we recognize is if arcus, the operator, renews its lease. Clayton is perfectly happy. This whole process started was because Clayton was concerned about losing its income in at the end of the lease in 2019. And if in fact Arcus doesn't renew the lease, we will have a future community discussion around the future of the golf course, much like Clayton has already initiated in cooperation with the city. So it defers the question to a later day. And of course, if ultimately there was a decision by the community with many of these same people in the room to move forward, this council again would have the chance to look at it. So the council's not waiving any rights tonight if it proceeds with 96. Nor is Clayton. But we will defer it to a future community conversation if the golf course operator does not renew the lease. Thank you. And that leases that options for five years? Correct. They have two five year options to five year. And it was correct. It stated they have to July one to decide whether or not to renew. Right. And one more question, Mr. President, on 96, and that is remind me, and I guess any one of you out there might know the answer. How will the Clayton Trust replace the income from ARX from the golf concessionaire for the 2019 season? I ask. The golf concessionaire certainly isn't obligated to make payments if it's not permitted to conduct golf. No, that would be part of the compensation. It would be paid as part of the reason. Yeah, exactly. The easement and part of the relocation, which is the restoration during the restoration, they would be compensated for loss of income. Great. All right. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President, on this one.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Sitting next to Councilman Flynn has clearly had an impact on the two of us. So I want to follow up on his same question. I'm going to ask it a little more narrowly, Bruce or Charlotte, which is not so much deferring the question of can the golf course be replaced? But the fear that's being communicated by the public is that even a temporary disruption in golf. You all could or might pursue action then. And so I'm asking if today you can clearly state that you would not. Proceed with any action, triggering that clause of the contract about condemnation based on a temporary loss of golf access. And I think this is less of a legal question and more of where is Clayton at morally? You've come forward today in support of this ordinance. You've taken a position and you've said this ordinance should pass. I would consider it incredible, bad faith that if you then said, oh, and by the way, now that you've passed it , I'm going to use this temporary disruption to trigger this clause. I mean, that would be extraordinary. So I think you've probably contemplated this question already. So I'm asking you just about your intentions with regard to temporary disruption of the golf course, if you can please answer on that and that point.
Speaker 0: I'm going to start until he pulls my coat and says, wait. So you've asked a really interesting question, and particularly when you you talk about morally and sort of where are we and what are we thinking? I guess the best answer I can give you to that at the moment is that we as the trustees of the trust, are legally bound to ensure that we are leveraging the assets of that trust on behalf of the beneficiaries of Mr. Clinton's trust. What he envisioned was that his assets upon his death would be used to ensure that vulnerable children in Denver primarily was what he was thinking at that time, that vulnerable children would be given a great start in life and would become his will, even speaks to becoming, you know, wonderful citizens based on the services that they were given. And so when you talk about where are we sort of morally speaking on this, I have to say that's where we are as the Clayton Trust in as the operator of the programing that we do. You know, what happens down the road here. We are intending to be a partner with the city in this transaction. That's been clear for a long time. We have been talking for, I would say six years now maybe about the fact that storm water naturally flows to that northeast corner. We've been talking about some way of using that as a as a way to mitigate storm water damage, flooding. So our you know, our position is that we intend to be a partner with the city in this transaction. And that's why we're here to support this this ordinance.
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you may want to confer with Mr. James and I'll ask a different question, but you didn't really answer my question. So I and this is really important. My vote may depend on it. You have come forward supporting this ordinance. Would you possibly use this ordinance to trigger the condemnation clause that you're you're supporting this ordinance? Would you use that clause based on this ordinance, based on temporary disruption of golf? And if you if you know the answer to that question and again, if you guys want to confer, that's fair. But it's a really important question.
Speaker 6: Councilman if councilwoman, if I understand the question to make sure I get it correctly because I know how important it is to you is if the question is solely whether the temporary taking. The answer is I do not believe under the temporary taking that we would have the right to terminate the lease. Excuse me? Terminate the conservation easement.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: If, on the other hand.
Speaker 6: We determine at Clayton if the golf course leases were not was not renewed, I actually believe we'll end up in the same collaborative process we started a long time ago. As Charlotte said, we've had these conversations for five, six years. But certainly Clayton's not waiving any rights regarding the permanent taking and whether or not it interferes with the ability to operate an 18 hole regulation golf course and driving range. And certainly we can't waive those rights, as Charlotte explained. We are here on behalf of the kids that Clayton represents and we can't give up those rights. But in terms of the temporary, the temporary itself know that that would not lead to the termination you've asked.
Speaker 1: Okay. I appreciate you putting that on the record. And I think the more we can separate out questions and to really distinct parts, it's going to be helpful for our debate here on the floor. So that's why I'm asking such narrow questions. So we heard a community concern. Could it be, you know, triggered based on the temporary loss we're hearing? No. And then the question about the permanent loss is one we can debate based on the many golf courses. So I would just like to pull up someone from the team. Can you confirm for me the number of golf courses you have researched that have included detention as part of a golf course design? Give me some sense of, you know, regionally what you've looked at just and really, you know, 2 minutes, don't give me don't give me 10 minutes. But just really quickly, there is a precedent for using a golf course for drainage.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Jason wrote with the PDP project team, you know, we're doing this in City Park Golf course right now. So there's one just adjacent to it where we've been able to do this.
Speaker 1: So it's not done yet though. So let's choose one that's done.
Speaker 10: One that's done. I mean, let me do this. There's there's a number in Arizona that we've researched. There's actually this is something that is done outside of Colorado quite a bit. Arizona is a place that has a climate, much like Denver, where they get large rainstorms and they use public assets like golf courses for detention. So this is something that we've seen in a number of locations and we've done research. We currently are in the process of looking at how that golf course would lay out with that detention, and there's ways to shape the detention to make the golf course work.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you for that. And this is my last question.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Mr.. I think.
Speaker 1: Oh, yes, happy, happy.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman. Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. We did some research on this topic, and I don't have the paper in front of me, but we have seven golf courses in. At least five of those golf courses contain some amount of storm drainage.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I appreciate it. So one more question, if I may, and this one's for John, the attorney. The other question I heard from members of the the testimony was about development. And I think I understand where their confusion comes from because this conversation changed so quickly in the course of a month. We were talking about the potential development. I want to take us back to the ordinance that we're on tonight, which is about the purchase. And so I want to just ask you if you can read. Do you have that agreement in front of you?
Speaker 3: Which agreement is.
Speaker 1: The land acquisition ordinance?
Speaker 2: I don't have the ordinance. Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, can you refer to the limitations in the land acquisition ordinance? For what purposes are we authorizing, if this past May, for what purposes would we be authorizing any acquisition of any land on this golf course?
Speaker 3: Right. It's storm drainage, detention and conveyance.
Speaker 1: And when asked the question, I usually don't ask an open forum, but I'm going to ask you to answer it anyway. If the city acquired land under this ordinance and then used it for development, sold it to developer, did something, what were the potential consequences the city could face?
Speaker 3: And I'd have to research what the consequences would be. But the purposes for the acquisition would need to be tied to the detention and conveyance of storm water.
Speaker 1: Let's just say this if we acquired the land and conveyed it to a developer or conducted development on the land, would it be legal under the way this ordinance is drafted?
Speaker 3: I think not. It is not uncommon for an acquisition under a land.
Speaker 11: Acquisition ordinance to allow.
Speaker 3: For certain remnants of property to be conveyed to third parties. But by and large, that could not be done. Okay.
Speaker 1: So there would be legal risk to the city? Yes. If we were to proceed with this ordinance and then somehow sneakily give the land away at some point based on how it's written. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 11: Councilwoman. I can appreciate the questions, but they sort of don't they sort of miss some intrinsic facts, but sort of they touch on them. And I think it's worth getting those facts out. Currently, the the agreement with Clayton and the golf course provider provides how much money per year to Clayton.
Speaker 0: So the legal lease contract between us and Orcas Gulf is as it pardon me, it's a flat 700,000 a year.
Speaker 11: And then if they do exercise their extension, does that amount change or remain the same?
Speaker 0: They have the right to re-up that lease under the exact same terms that are in it now.
Speaker 11: So we're looking at 700,000 times six is the sort of maximum amount of money that Clayton could have coming to it.
Speaker 0: They have they actually have the option to re up for two, five year periods so that we ten years.
Speaker 11: So a total of 11 years this year, the last remaining year plus the two five year extension. So 11 years. So $7.7 million is what is essentially. You know, already agreed to if they re-upped.
Speaker 0: Twice, only if they re-up. Yes.
Speaker 11: The question your attorney seemed to imply that, you know, you would defer that question of development to a later date. I believe that the question of development is already deferred to a very date specific in the future. When does the agency agreement, the conservation needs of the agency agreement and the conservation easement and that that would be in place if the agency agreement were in place. When does that terminate?
Speaker 0: There is no termination. It's a contract between the two parties that could be amended or changed.
Speaker 11: No, there's a date of October of 2099 is a 99 year conservation. He's not a 99 year conservation, but it goes until 2099. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: That is correct, yes.
Speaker 11: So if if all the terms of the agreement that you have with us and Clayton entered into for the $2 million that was paid in 20 in 1994, were met and honored. We would not be having a discussion about development on there until 2099. Is that correct?
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. I need to confer with my attorney. I don't quite even understand the question, so.
Speaker 11: I mean, there's an agreement in place if we honor all the terms of the agreement and we don't do anything to disrupt the actual resulting in any sort of termination or cancelation of the easement, that that easement would be I mean, the land would be subject to either golf use or open space. Until the year 2099?
Speaker 6: Not necessarily.
Speaker 11: Okay. So what are the other options?
Speaker 6: In part, the the term conservation easement is a little misleading to folks because normally they think of conservation easements, they think of agricultural conservation easements that have certain IRS tax benefits and those truly run in perpetuity and extremely difficult to unwind a conservation easement for which all parties obtain tax benefits. When people ask me what this agreement really is, I explain to them it's a use restriction. It's a use restriction between two parties, the city and Clayton. And so at any time between now and 2099, even if we didn't have the condemnation action, Clayton could come forward to the city and ask permission to have that easement released in order to sustain the goals of serving the children that it protects. And so it is a contract between the city and Clayton. Like any other contract that the city has that can be amended. It can only be amended, though. Importantly, assuming taking for your question, moving the condemnation question to the side, absent a condemnation, it can only be amended by an action by this city council. So that's why I was suggesting you are deferring this decision to another day, because not only would if there was never a condemnation action, it would take an action by this city council to to release it, and further another action by the City Council to approve whatever development plan might be proposed by Clayton. And so to me, no, the question would likely always come up because I think what people tend to forget is when this was put in place in 1999, the golf industry was far different. I don't think anyone on the sitting on the council at that time realized that the possibility that for the last ten years our golf course operator has lost money. This is not a sustainable economic operation. And so if this ordinance 1396 never came forward, we would still be coming to this council at some point to explain that the golf course, you know, the golf course operators always told us they don't intend to renew. And we've been told in the marketplace that that 700,000 will dwindle if we have to go out and find a new golf course operator. In 2019.
Speaker 11: That conservation easement came in consideration of $2 million for the city and county of Denver. Do you then intend, if you ever were to really, you know, to to negotiate terms to remove the conservation easement, would that come with money back to the city and county of Denver? And in exchange for the the read of the development rights that you're trying to reacquire.
Speaker 6: I think what you're talking about is a sliver of what a Kintyre community conversation would be. And we've started that community conversation and we have engaged the community. Have you and so have.
Speaker 11: You have you engaged the community in earnest because the land is currently zoned for West, is it not? Yes. And what development rights exist on OSA today?
Speaker 6: No. Present development rights exist on the property.
Speaker 11: So if you've been clear that there is conservation easement and protections that actually that are reflected in that current zone district, that so that you're limited in development rights today due to an agreement that you made with the city and county in Denver in consideration for money from the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 6: We have been very open with the community. We have shared copies of the agency agreement on the conservation easement. We've explained the right of the golf course operator to renew. We've explained their right of first refusal to match an offer we've given through all that with the community and the Peacock is the acronym they use has been very engaged in the process. And so to ask the question with the money come back from the conservation easement, I think is just the start of the question. The question really is what does this community want? What would a future development do to serve the needs of Clayton and the community? And that's a conversation that will come back before this council many times with.
Speaker 11: The real struggle I have with that answer is that it's not to the Councilwoman Canisius point, we're in a very different place than where this came to us back in September, where we were not talking at all in these terms. Well, we were talking about as a quitclaim transaction that basically granted the the development, the ability to remove this conservation easement and then buyback this land for considerably higher value without any discussion about the fact that there were all these other encumbrances and things that we were jumping over, we were doing all these things to sort of circumvent a lot of things. And so the concern that you hear here is legitimate, which is did we just find another way to get the same outcome? But using sort of legal parlance and nuance of rules in a way to sort of get the same outcome. And what I'm struggling with is that one document that I shouldn't have had, that appraisal that shows that the value of that land as golf course land is $3 million in that value of that land, his development rate is $24 million. And somewhere in there in the 7.7 that this developer might me and golf course operator might pay you over the course of 11 years is probably a number that makes them comfortable with leaving that operation. And then you having the excuse to basically say our our operator left. It is no longer functional as a as an 18 hole golf course. And now we want to exercise this right, because we lost the land. And so we will then by by voting this as is without the guarantees that were simply asked and we could ask it of the city, we could ask of Clayton right now, will you guarantee that this we will not alter and do anything that alters the conservation easement that we have in place until this project is done and we have a much more public negotiation and dialog about the future of that land and the real value of Clayton to this community and what we're going to invest in it as a community and that land is open space. Councilman, is that a question? So I or you guys are willing to make that commitment, the guarantee that was asked for by Mr. Guernsey.
Speaker 6: Well, we answered councilman conditions answer a question by saying that we would not assert that the temporary taking triggers a termination of the conservation easement on behalf of the kids that Clayton represents. No, it cannot stand here today and say that the permanent condemnation does not create that right, because to do that would really put in jeopardy everything that Mrs. Brantley described to you about the purpose of the trust, what they do in the community. We've heard lots of conversation about that tonight and that would be really a breach of the fiduciary duty of the board if they agreed to that tonight.
Speaker 11: To be honest, I actually wonder if I'm even concerned if I if I share these concerns. And the reason being is this, that the conservation easement actually isn't in place today. Is that correct?
Speaker 6: That's correct. It's only triggered if Clayton comes forward and asked to reacquire the property.
Speaker 11: Right. And so that step has to happen first. Right. I mean, so so is the even any concern about a conservation easement not being enforced? I mean, there's other actions that have to occur because of the conservation easement that we're talking about. Doesn't even apply to the land today as we know it. So I mean, correct Hitler.
Speaker 3: Okay. Is that. Are you done counseling?
Speaker 11: Um, I do have some questions for our own staff about contamination, but I'll wait.
Speaker 3: That's for third 39th Avenue. Yeah. Okay. That's at the next bill. This is 1396. I got Councilwoman Ortega up.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to shift the discussion a little bit and kind of hone in on the budget. And I'm looking at an old notification that I was cleaning out some boxes and dumping out files, and this was in my water bill. And, you know, sometimes you get your wastewater bill with your water bill. And this was in 2011. There was it went into effect in July. So the council that departed before some of us came on in 2011 made the decisions about a rate increase to the wastewater fees. So in 2011, it went up 20%. In 2012, it went up 2%. And in 2013, it went up 2%. And one of the projects on here was Park Hill. This project was initiated following the August 17, 2000 Drowning of Fireman Bob Crumb. Some of you may remember that he went through a culvert trying to save someone, a woman who had slipped into that culvert. And so, you know, it was important for the city to begin to address this. But what is not clear to me is exactly how much money was spent and what exactly did that cover. With this, as is today and this is again going back to 2011, 17 million of storm drainage improvements and retention pond have been installed in this area. And this was around 50th and Colorado generally. But there were some other improvements in that, that sort of quadrant of the city. So I'm not sure who's the right person that can answer my question about what did the 2011 rate increase that followed with the next three consecutive years, which was before the wastewater increase that was approved by some of the folks on this on this dais when we did the rate increase to the tune of $300 million.
Speaker 10: Bruce Janek with Denver Public Works Long Range Storm Planning. I'll try to answer your question first. Happy New Year. I don't think anyone said that yet. So you're right, Councilwoman. The Park Hill project has been on our radar since about 2000.
Speaker 11: With the tragedy at 50th.
Speaker 10: In Colorado. We build build these systems from downstream. Upstream. So we started with the Park Hill Pond, which is at the.
Speaker 6: Northernmost.
Speaker 10: Point. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think it was around 2 to $3 million back in the day. And then we started to build the pipe system upstream.
Speaker 2: I think there.
Speaker 10: Has been.
Speaker 11: Three or.
Speaker 10: Four phases. The third phase got us.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 11: About 40 and.
Speaker 10: Colorado.
Speaker 6: And now then the fourth phase was along.
Speaker 11: 40th from Colorado to Dahlia and that's where we are today. And the fifth phase, which we want to start.
Speaker 10: Construction now is going to take us in dollar.
Speaker 11: From 48. So the RTD tracks.
Speaker 10: So all.
Speaker 2: Told, between the Park Hill Pond and the pipes.
Speaker 10: That have got.
Speaker 11: Us up to about 48 then dollar, it's been about $20 million.
Speaker 10: So that was funds.
Speaker 6: That.
Speaker 11: Were even predated the 2011 rate increase.
Speaker 10: But the 2011 rate increase allowed us to do, I believe, the phase four construction.
Speaker 8: Okay. So as we look at the budget now for Park Hill golf course, it's it's a $78 million. That's what we have in our contract to make sure I'm not confusing the two bills here. Okay. So 95 has the $78 million, but that includes acquisition for both the 39th Avenue Channel as well as the Park Hill Golf Course. Correct that at least that's what I understood from a meeting I had today with city staff.
Speaker 6: The $78 million, which would be 1395. And we'll talk about that later in detail. But that's for the construction of the channel and the budget that we're talking about for the Park Hill golf course is contained within the real estate budget, which would cover the cost of the permanent easement, temporary easement, and reconstructing it back to a playable golf course.
Speaker 8: Okay. That's that's not consistent with what I thought I heard today. So, yes, I was told 60,500,000 was part of real estate. But I was also told that the. $78 million budget included part of the acquisition for Park Hill. And then I later asked tried to get clarification on separating out the acquisition for Park Hill versus what we were acquiring for the 39th Avenue Channel. And you shared with me that 21 million is what we're looking at for the construction for Park Hill. Correct. And then we're looking at 10.7 million for the real estate for Park Hill.
Speaker 10: Yeah. So so what we are talking about today is we have the 78 million, which is for the SEMA contract. Right. And that is purely for the construction and implementation of 39th Avenue Greenway as well as Park Hill Golf Course. So you remember the document that we were looking at. We had one on line, the one line item, and then at the bottom we had the the line item for the real estate. And that's what Jeff was referring to. So so the real estate budget is separate from that CMA contract, and that's been used for the acquisition and relocation of the properties along the 39th Avenue as well as Park Hill.
Speaker 8: So the total cost that's going to be spent on the golf course improvements, which is construction and then re restoration.
Speaker 10: Right.
Speaker 8: Is in excess of the 21 million because part of that is built into the 78 million. Is that correct?
Speaker 10: So the 21 million covers the portion of Park Hill, which isn't just the golf course. It's also the pipes that are connecting to the outfall and connecting the Holly Pond to the golf course detention. So there's that portion. So that's all included in the 21.6 million. So that's all. What Seymour will be constructing and with Jeff was saying is he has that separate budget, which is the 10.7 million, which covers the acquisition costs for the temporary easement, the permanent easement, as well as the restoration costs for the golf course.
Speaker 8: So we're acquiring both a temporary and permanent easement for the golf course.
Speaker 10: If that's correct.
Speaker 8: Okay. So so one of the things I'm looking at and the reason I wanted to look at the the entirety of the budget of the plot to Park Hill, which originally we were told was the Twin Basin Drainage Project with the name changed later, was to really just kind of do a comparison. So when you look at the total cost of what we're going to spend on City Park Golf course, that is basically $45 million.
Speaker 10: Correct.
Speaker 8: And I know that's a complete redo. What's not clear to me is how how much of a. Complete renovation we're doing of Park Hill golf course to return it back to Clayton in a usable format that continues to make it marketable to the current vendor or anybody else in the future.
Speaker 10: So so the intent would be it's much different than City Park Golf Course because you're correct, City Park Golf Course, we are redoing the entire golf course. So this would be the holes that would be impacted by the detention. And there may be some relocation of those holes, but it's not covering the entire golf course. It's really just in that detention area.
Speaker 8: Which is primarily that far northeast corner of the golf course. Okay. And so we have been told over and over, we're looking at anywhere from 20 to 25 acres, the language that is in the contract. And I'm not finding the page number that speaks to 90 acres. I just want to be clear that that is specific to the golf course and that doesn't include the 39th Avenue Channel as well.
Speaker 6: Yeah, that's correct. The amount that is proposed for the golf course is between 25 and 35 acres of permitted easement between 55 and 65 acres of temporary easement. And that comprises the 90 acres that you're referring to.
Speaker 8: Okay. I have one other question that I want to ask of the folks from Clayton and either one of you can come up. So in let me just find my note here for a minute. So in at the time that the easement was placed on that property, the conservation easement, that was a $2 million revenue to the Clayton Trust. Right. And was the land that was developed on where there's new housing at that far north end of the golf course. Was that done before or after that easement was put into place? Was that sold after?
Speaker 0: There's actually two areas of land that used to all be part of the golf course. You just spoke to the north. And if you're talking about what's at 40th in Colorado on up to Smith Road. Yes, that area was actually sold off by the city of Denver when the city was the trustee of the Clayton Trust. Before Clayton Early Learning was even incorporated as a501 C3 that we are today. The other area that was sold off by Clayton Early Learning after it was incorporated we were incorporated in the mid-eighties, became an institution in the mid-eighties in the nineties, the area that is now the overlook at Park Hill that was sold off to KB Homes by the institution that I currently run today as President. CEO okay. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 8: Yeah, it does. That's helpful. And at that time, are you are you able to share what that was was sold for at that point in time?
Speaker 0: I do not know. I would have to find that out for you. It was long before my time there, but I am sure we could find that.
Speaker 8: Was done in the nineties. Okay. At this point, I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you back up two questions.
Speaker 11: One for Maria Flora and one for Mr. Armijo. Is Maria Flora still here?
Speaker 3: Yes, she is coming in the back here.
Speaker 11: Maria, what were your observations of 1218? That you.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Who's talking about?
Speaker 11: What were you thinking of on 1218.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: Observations or your observations of think of the committee meeting of December 18th.
Speaker 0: Well, I was concerned. Let me take that out, because. Councilman Flynn. Asked. Uh, let's see, Mr. Feinberg, by saying that, Rick Steinberg, what the effect of the permanent easement part of this is a permanent easement, which is why I'm still concerned. Part of it's a temporary easing, as I understand the permanent easement is the part that the detention is going to be on. So that. So he was asked what effect that had on the conservation easement and the city said there's a provision in the conservation easement that says if there's something that's done that precludes us from being a regulation golf course, that the conservation easement can be terminated. As a result, we looked at it and said, okay, we need to bring this back to a playable golf course. So from the onset, we worked with public works and let them know that we have to do that. And that was what desire and intent is. And by virtue of bringing it back to being a playable golf course, the conservation easement. Councilman Flynn said stays in effect and the answer was yet yes. My concern remains that. I don't think we've nailed down Clayton College. And if it's a permanent easement, does what they said tonight still apply?
Speaker 4: And if you look at the letter of.
Speaker 0: The conservation easement, it can be terminated.
Speaker 11: And is at the committee meeting. Did you see even a schematic diagram of what was being proposed as far as the detention location? I can't remember if it was one presented.
Speaker 6: I don't know that it was a specific schematic. I think that there was the general area that was identified as the northeast portion where one already detains.
Speaker 11: And just as a reminder for for everyone. I don't I don't think it's confidential. I saw a schematic design layout. Very. Not even preliminary. Right. Because there's no design yet. That is part of the transaction that would have to occur in the contracts. But one thing that I can say comfortably is between the current depression in the golf course and the planned. I mean, where there's already a low spot. I am convinced that that, you know, the detention could be captured in an 18 hole golf course. And you confirmed that last at the last hearing. But could you confirm again that the the amount of storm water that that needs to be detained on on site can still be captured in an 18 hole golf course regulation golf course can still be maintained.
Speaker 6: I'm a real estate guy. I think that an engineer needs to answer that.
Speaker 11: Is there somebody. Yeah, we have an engineer. He's in the back or he's over there.
Speaker 0: If I can answer the part of your question, maybe what was said is that there would be 25 to 35 acres for the permanent construction easement.
Speaker 8: You might use.
Speaker 3: Your mike right here.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. What was said was there would be 25 to 35 acres for the permanent construction easement for the detention, and then a 55 to 65 acres for the temporary construction easement.
Speaker 11: For the rest of the golf course. And this is this is. Maybe you can answer both of these, because I think the first question is, can you guys confirm that we can, in fact, design the required stormwater detention, capture the amount of acreage, I mean, water that we want to capture and still maintain an 18 hole regulation golf course. And then can you address the fact that I believe that even if there's a permanent easement, we can still make it so that it's playable? Correct.
Speaker 10: Yeah. So the so the first question on on the golf course being restored with the detention incorporated. Obviously, we're not to a point where we have 100% design, but we're confident that we can get to that point just based on what we were talking about earlier, that there's a lot of precedents around the country where where that's incorporated. And we're working with our partners at SEMA to make sure that the detention gets designed and incorporated into that golf course. The permanent easement. And just interrupt me if I'm wrong, but from the permanent easement standpoint, it would not interfere interfere with the golf course play now.
Speaker 11: And so I want people to sort of separate the project from this transaction because there there are to me, legitimate concerns about the sort of viability in this whole deal about the viability of the conservation easement. But what I am fairly certain been convinced of, and I think you guys have proven capable, is delivering an 18 hole golf course. Now, whether that's viable for the operator to sustain months or years without full play abilities. And you know, but that gets to my last question for Jeff is how do you determine the amount of compensation that is needed to sort of lost revenue?
Speaker 6: It'll be a combination of negotiations. I mean, what we first have to do is bring in an appraiser to come up with the valuation of what the value of of the permitted easement is on the 25 to 35 acres. And then the same thing on the temporary construction easement and then as we get to design. So there's a couple of aspects there. It'll be June or July 1st when when design of the detention in and of itself is, is put on the table and finalized. So there'll be a construction timeline associated with that. And at the same time, we'll be working with the golf course architect that will look at how we bring the golf course back to a playable golf course. So between the two, I think what we had in the presentation was from January of 19 until March of 20 would be the period of time that the golf course would be out of operation. I would imagine that with seeding and bringing it back to use, it would probably take it into a junior of 20 before it could be operated as a golf course. So that would be the period that would be looked at for replacement income.
Speaker 11: So then again, for my own understanding of the timeline. If you now know the approximate window that the course would be down and the duration, what is preventing you from doing an appraisal and coming up with that number so that we knew that going into it to sort of find out where the where the, you know, why why do we have to actually execute all this now? Is this because of some deliverable to see DOT on detention and the idea or not? No. I mean.
Speaker 6: As we sit today, we don't have the right to go negotiate or to do an appraisal on somebody else's property in the properties owned by the Clayton Trust. And what we would need to do, and that's what we're seeking for in the land acquisition ordinance, is the right to send a notice of intent letter saying that we plan on acquiring the easements.
Speaker 11: That we need to understand how we can be in negotiations with Clayton for six years under the pretense that they they might lose their operator and not be, you know, in such a collegial environment that we couldn't actually sort of work together on that and.
Speaker 6: So we haven't been in negotiations with them for six years. We've been in discussions with them because this has been a topic where we've looked at and again, as we had back in September, there was the potential where we could potentially have looked at buying a portion of the golf course. But we have to respect the contracts that are in place. And the contract that's in place is with the golf course operator. That goes to the end of this year, but it also goes until the end of June 30th or until June 30th, when they have to come up with the decision of whether or not they're going to extend their option. So we have to have all those things in place and can't take them out of order.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, what was your proclamation?
Speaker 13: Thank you. I'm hard of hearing. So could you please kind of speak up? And the hearing aids they gave me.
Speaker 11: What was your proclamation?
Speaker 13: DNA test, two citizens living within two miles radius of the 39th project. If any citizen tests positive for levels of benzo, a brain lead or spinsters, arsenic or eccentric because we know what's in that property 1/10 of a percent above normal EPA standards. The project will come to a complete halt and full EPA testing of the soil and clean up will begin and the 39th Avenue Project area every three months. After the clean up has been done, or if they said they were fine every three months or six months, don't eat or do a DNA test for the next ten years if they would have done DNA tests on us. I wouldn't be in the situation I am today. There would are number two. I'm concerned about all the kids because a majority of people have moved into that neighborhood that I've talked to. Even the ones living there, they moved there because they got tired of New York City. Live in San Francisco. They found their sweet little bungalows. Now they are barely finding out they're going to destroy all of northeast Denver in the name of the almighty dollar. Now, the reason I know about DNA testing, cause I was on a top secret island in the South Pacific. They didn't tell us what was on there, but I got everything from Vietnam to Johnson Atoll. These kids in their study said the Mexicans, which are Mexicanos from Mexico, were not intelligent enough to know English. At the same time, their kids were slower learners because of lead paint and whatever else the highway produces. If you do a DNA test based on the existing Campos, we as resident have either read about or know about. You would be able to have a chart for these families and have the families a to have the city of Denver. All the contractors like they did with Rocky Flats to pay for any medical issues. I've lived in that neighborhood since 1960. I lived in East Denver since the day I was born. Every time the city wants to do something, I help him clean it up in the nineties and 2000 and they promised hours. They're going to clean up the area. They're going to put us apart. None of that ever happened. But now all of a sudden they're saying, Oh, we need the land. And I've worked hard for the city for free as a volunteer from cleaning up the drugs, prostitution. I bought my mother's house for $18,000 with no intentions of ever moving out of there or having a monetary value on it all alone. Neighbors know me as either Grandpa Ed or the Mayor of coal where I live because I know so much about that neighborhood. I know. I've been on the Internet. I've been federal government, the EPA. Nobody can produce a physical record of Gardner Denver, which is the rock drill we take. Gardner Denver. Each one of them are parking facilities that all belong to Gardner. Denver. I used to work for Gardner Denver in the eighties. We use petroleum products to. Call the metal. That's poison now. I could not find documentation on 39th Avenue where Roman Church told me there's gas tanks buried there, etc..
Speaker 11: So not to be rude, but you you are in fact opening up Pandora's box.
Speaker 13: My point is, and this box from my experiment with government, that I'm just anybody but you and you on that city council. Could you reason with people? Albert She's always trying to cut me off.
Speaker 11: But. But I'll just be. Be honest. There are we have verifiable, documented, all different.
Speaker 13: I don't believe that I worked at the refinery for 26 years because of my illness. I had to take a medical retirement. But they said the refinery was cleaned up, but we had a big old benzene taper in. Some of the guys already died.
Speaker 11: Exposures can happen so many different ways, and I don't deny that that is in fact, there is a definite history in certain parts of North Denver and East Denver, and populations long, prolonged, with long, prolonged exposures had definitely had health impacts and and generational health impacts over there.
Speaker 3: But Councilman, I got Ortega, okay.
Speaker 11: So I just wanted you to know.
Speaker 3: They offered the Yeah.
Speaker 11: Park heal that that it's not. You know, I'd be happy to talk to you.
Speaker 13: After we've shared if you talk to me, because I could tell you stuff. If you listen to reason. You would put this project on a screeching halt. I'm not dumb. I know a lot about chemicals in the refining naval nuclear industry with all my work. I work for Gardner, Denver in the Machine Shop, working at the refinery as an industrial mechanic. They even found this third.
Speaker 3: I mean.
Speaker 13: Nobody was there.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 3: We're going to Mr. Mrs. Councilwoman Ortega. This is my neighbor, by the way. So I have heard all these stories, but. Councilwoman Ortega, thank you.
Speaker 8: I just have two more quick questions. So the first one is for is Happy Haines to hear. Have you would you mind coming forward? My question is, I know we went through this whole process when shortly after the first. I can't even think of the name of the Park Inn in far southeastern, but that drew attention to the fact that we had a number of on dedicated parks, and then we learned that there were certain parks we couldn't dedicate because we had conservation easement on there. So do you have a ballpark idea of how many parks or park land that we own that have conservation easements on them?
Speaker 4: No, I don't. Councilwoman Ortega not off the top of my head. And those those would be owned by someone else other than the city with a conservation easement but for for public access. So. Trying to think of.
Speaker 8: I know we have one up at it's next to Harry Potter and that little purchased with natural resource damage.
Speaker 4: So that's a great example. That's a state owned facility and there's a conservation easement on.
Speaker 8: So we're required to keep that as open space. It's part of our master planning. That's right.
Speaker 4: And it's not owned by it's owned by another government inside the city.
Speaker 8: Yeah. Okay. So it would be helpful at some point to just know that because we.
Speaker 4: Would be we do have that. I just don't have it in.
Speaker 8: Front of me. And I didn't expect you to answer that exact number tonight, but the fact that there are other easements on their owned by other entities means that we, the city, cannot turn around and try to dispose of that land that has an easement that we have no control of.
Speaker 4: I think every easement is different. So would yeah, I mean, generally that would be true, but every easement is different. So we would have to look at each one to determine what the conditions are.
Speaker 8: And I know you've been in northeast Denver for as long as you and I have known each other.
Speaker 4: But don't say please.
Speaker 8: Do you recall? And I'm going to ask Clayton to answer this question why the easement was put on the Park Hill golf course. It's my recollection I could be wrong about this, that it was because of the revenue that they were generating that they would have been taxed on. But by putting the conservation easement on there, it precluded them from being taxed for that revenue that was coming in from the private operators then.
Speaker 4: No, I, I, I don't recall. I mean, there were obviously I don't know if it was the conservation easement, the, uh, address, the tax issues or not. And, um, I, um. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Okay. Let me ask Clayton to just address that. Yeah. Because it's it's it's an easement that the city acquired, but it's not clear what that easement currently does. What? But access that gives.
Speaker 0: Us, if I may, council and that I'll start and then if I get in trouble, I'm going to have Bruce come back up here. So they're actually two different things at work here. One was the contract between the city and Clayton Moore. The $2 million was was exchanged. And at that point in time, as as Bruce had mentioned earlier, golf was a a good economic use of that property. And so it made a lot of sense to have it remain golf. That was 20 some odd years ago. Now that that was was looked at in that way. The agency agreement which is a separate it's a it's a contract between us and the city that came along a few years later. The agency agreement is what addresses the tax issue, the property tax issue. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.
Speaker 8: Okay, Councilman. Council president. I have no further questions. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other questions on 1396. We're now going to move into the comment portion and closed 1396. So comments by members accounts. So, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. You're going to do comments before questions on 95, correct? Thank you. The two weeks ago, when we had this on first reading, I offered an amendment to clarify the authority of this of the administration to go ahead and and acquire permanent and temporary easements and as necessary for random parcels around those easements to acquire by fiat. Simple because fee simple acquisition was included in there. And we understood that that's not the intent. But I was very concerned that by including the authority to acquire up to 90 acres for stormwater drainage, detention, etc. in fee simple that we were putting a foot in the door. Camel's nose in the tent. Whatever you want to call, whatever you want to call it without having to come back to the city council. If in fact the decision was to acquire by a fee simple rather than easement. And because of that, Mr. President, I can't vote. I can't vote yes on on. The Syrians have to vote now. The other reason is that I believe 90 acres is is much more than we talked about in the beginning. We were talking initially about a 25 acre detention area and whatever might be needed for temporary construction easements. 90 acres is just much, much too much for me to approve. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Herndon, would you like to go at the end or.
Speaker 6: No, Mr. President, I'm. I'm no comment.
Speaker 3: Okay, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I referenced in my my common question. We have good at mushing them together here. The fact that this has been a messy process. And I think I just think the city does actually have to take responsibility for, you know, entering into a legal negotiation without adequate information about the operator as well as Clayton . We should not have had an agreement on the verge of council adoption without that clarified much more definitively, and it has created so much confusion and fear. This would have been a totally different conversation had we not ended up there. So I think both parties bear responsibility for that. And I think part of what we all need to do in public service or in community service is take that responsibility. So that is unfortunate. And I really do understand why the community has the concerns it has, because that is the conversation we were having just a couple of months ago. And if that agreement were before me, I'm not sure that I would have been able to support it. But I am trying hard in spite of that mess and in spite of our failure to do our proper due diligence to really separate out just this particular proposal before me. And, you know, based on really a very clear ordinance that really limits the use of this land for the drainage purpose, that is the only thing we can acquire for. And and I respect in some way is Councilman Flynn's, you know, desire to not have this simple versus an easement. But the effect is the same, really, whether the city, for some legal quirk, has to acquire it in fee simple or for legal quirk has to do it as an easement. If in the end it's only for drainage and if the end it has to be put back as a golf course, that it's just a distinction without a difference. It's not something I hear from the community that you all care about. So. So I think I've tried to zero my questions in on the things that I have heard that people care about, because I think those things are really important. And so I appreciate Clayton being very firm about the fact that they are not using this agreement or I'm sorry, this ordinance as a as an excuse to to trigger, you know, a condemnation clause for a temporary loss of the golf course. I'm sure there will be all kinds of interesting and heated debates about how to protect the kids's interest in revenue and the value of land. But that's you know, that's all governed by a really strict process. So so I feel like I've done the due diligence that the community has asked me to do, that this land will be used for open space and only for open space. And so or I'm sorry, actions that we use for drainage. I'm sorry we use for drainage. It's late. I'm sorry. I'm getting a little muddled and so and that and that we have the protections in place for the next phase. It is incumbent upon the city to deliver land that can be used as a golf course. Right. And so and I feel like I have gotten enough, you know, and this is where, you know, Councilman Espinosa and I seem to be in agreement that there is ample evidence that this can be done. And so because of that ample evidence, there should never, ever be a triggering of the condemnation clause. If it can be built as a golf course, the condemnation clause never gets triggered. So the two are linked. And because there is ample evidence that it can. Be restored to a golf course. I feel confident moving this forward. And, you know, I appreciate the speaker who, you know. Echoed my words from committee, but I'll just do it in my own words tonight. Which is that. Let's not do this again with bad process. So if and when you hear from Argus or who you're if I'm saying the name properly of your of your golf course operator, we need really good communication with the community and with this council about how design is proceeding and how it's impacting decisions that you're making and things like that. I would ask that council get briefings on the confidential negotiations that are occurring. We seriously underuse executive sessions as this body. We should get a committee executive session to understand how negotiations are going on this discussion about this acquisition as it proceeds. It's highly public interest oriented and we it's just not appropriate for you to negotiate an entire agreement and then tell us about it at the end when there is so much confusion and challenge. So I would ask that you give us briefings. So with all of those, you know, kind of due diligence is and all of those requests to make sure that we stay a part of this conversation in an ongoing way. I appreciate that my questions have been answered and I will be voting to move this forward. Thank you.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Espinosa, you're up?
Speaker 11: Yeah, I. I wish I could go there because it's a good stormwater project and a good way to incorporate this at relatively minimal impact. The problem is, is that we have this history of sort of protracted discussion about developing land that is not developable by design. It is a fallacy to sort of sit here and opine that that, you know, we chose a golf course because that was a good sort of revenue generator back then, and no longer is it. And now we need to change because that decision to make a golf course was in part because of the outcry for the open space. And so that was the sort of compromise that we were going to. We will we will do this in exchange. We will use this open space like a revenue generator in exchange for not losing a complete development opportunity here. You know, it was sort of I mean, it wasn't that it was, but it was a negotiation with the community at that time that basically said, look, here's a good compromise, a way you guys can have open space or at least that that that natural element, and we could generate revenue. And to sort of say that we're going to use whatever mechanism now to sort of to to throw away those ideas, those agreements of the past. And no one's sort of saying that. But what we are doing is creating a clear, clear path for that because of what we talked about. There is no easement in place today. But what there is, is an agency agreement, and that agency agreement allows them to terminate that agreement in writing at any point in time, at any time. They could have done it two years ago. They could have done it five years ago. They could do it tomorrow. But they'll probably if they're smart, they'll wait. They'll wait until it's clear that there's going to be some sort of agreement with their operator. And so when you do, they'll file the termination. And then the next action is they have to put the conservation easement in place. That is a requirement of their agency agreement. So when they terminate, they have to put it in the agency agreement. I mean, the conservation easement. And now because their golf course operator says that we can't use it and the amount of money that the city not going to give us isn't enough for us to endure two years and go on. They have the conditions to, to, to, to get rid of the conservation easement. And now, lo and behold, the development rights are there. Well, the cities already they had made very clear by virtue of the action back in September that we've got a deal, we've got a way to sort of promise upwards of $24 million to purchase that land with development rights. It's not good for us to buy open space for the cheap. We want to buy land that is developable open space that city of Denver residents fought for, earned and got this agreement and paid for. His, you know, 20 years ago, 20 plus years ago. And so what I've always maintained, and I'll be transparent with you all, is I might be okay with that if we could sort of create a win win for Clayton and a win for open space and a win for community, because there's definite needs and desires for certain uses there. It's definite infrastructure investment that we've made as a as as people in the city and state over there. And so there might be opportunity, but if you're going to have that much open space and capture that much value, I want a commitment that that money that goes to redevelopment of open space goes back into purchase and acquisition of even more open space in the city. You know, this is in why that and that might disturb some people going well wait a sec you're going to sell Park Hill. That's at a time when we're going to build the 39th Avenue Channel next to our biggest park in the city. You know, we have a equity issue on open space. And I think there's a way to sort of to do it more thoughtfully. But that's not what's happening here. All to to to Councilwoman Canisius Point. This happens so opaquely. That Council does not know until it's time to go. Six years of negotiation. I don't know how many members of council knew that this was going on for six years. You know, this council is asked for real estate updates in an executive session, a master plan, some sort of knowledge about what it is that we have as assets, what we're playing with, what we're exploring, and why. But we don't. The only way to know that is is is is in a stronger government to have that seat on the third floor. And we the best we can do is is what you're seeing here. And fortunately, this is a situation where the community knew better. I, Nancy, came out with facts and people came out in droves and so took two German speakers comments. I've been on that site just two and a half years ago. Right. And I have been right on that side. And this is a situation where, once again, you guys know better than we do. And so I'm mindful of that. We have oversight authority. That is our job as our lone, strong power as counsel is to prove or deny these sorts of deals. There's stronger provisions that we could be making for the health and safety environment. And I'm sort of spilling into my 39th Avenue channel, things that they apply here because we're talking about open space and that is so critical to well-being and that is so much why we live in Denver is the quality of life. And to that community that that that low income in the affordable community that is restricted next to this asset. I mean, that is an incredible asset. Not many low income communities next to a golf course, you know. And so we did that. Clayton did that willfully, and now we're doing this sort of deal to get out of it, sort of, you know, leveraging people, getting people riled up for what the potential is when that potential doesn't exist unless we do a whole bunch of other machinations to make it happen. And so let's be transparent about that and say here's what it's going to take. Here's what we're asking you. City of Denver. Do you guys want your assets, your money, your fees in storm water, your tax dollars in general revenue funds to go to this level of investment to support one organization, which is very worthwhile. And if so, to what degree? And then what do you want to do with your open space? You know, that is that is that the city's doing that. But we're not doing that. That's Clayton doing that. And that's that's just disingenuous. And that is not how we should be operating. As far as I'm concerned. So because that is in fact the narrative that I'm throwing out and I could be totally wrong in three years time. Four years time. I'm willing to be that. But if I'm totally right, you've got this point to remember. I thanks. I'll be voting no.
Speaker 3: All right, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting yes. This bill is not going to. And in the development of the golf course, it's actually a practical solution with an environmental benefit. One of the speakers talked about the importance of green space while the park, how a golf course will still be a green space. And under this bill.
Speaker 0: The green space will also be a green.
Speaker 1: Solution for a major flooding problem. And we've been talking about this for a year. And I know the common ground golf course is an example of drainage. The Lake World Golf Course is an example of drainage. We've asked about that in committee meetings is a green way to deal with drainage issues. So as Councilwoman Kennish brought up this bill is.
Speaker 0: Not going to result in all of the.
Speaker 1: Things that a lot of people are worried about. It's really.
Speaker 0: Just going to allow.
Speaker 1: For this drainage to be built and it will remain open space in the future. I'm confident that Charlotte Brantley and the Clinton Trust in partnership with the city and the community, will then work toward a community vision. I have the utmost confidence in Charlotte Brantley. I know she cares passionately about her community so I will be supporting this.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman Black, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Now, you can include me on the. A team that feels this is it's a little bit too muddled for my taste. Starting back with is, as Councilwoman Kenny pointed out, how how in the name of all that is holy and sacred, we get a contract that we're getting ready to vote on and nobody's talked to the golf course operator. It just feels like there's too much. I don't believe everything's on the table. I don't think council has been given the entire truth about what the plans are either by Clayton and I have great respect for the work that Clayton does for the kids in the community and the families. I have no problem with that, but I just don't believe either the administration or Clayton has presented the plans that already exist on their tables for our consideration. Another thing that that concerns me greatly well, I heard the most definite from all the speakers tonight was was from the attorney for Clayton, and that their responsibility is to their fiduciary responsibility to the Clayton trust and that that's fine. I understand that. But that's what I hear a lot more firmly than any commitment to preservation of open space. The another thing that bothers me is. I believe that the timeline for all of this is not driven by. Concerns for the community, but by the need to build this drainage project in agreement with dates that we've committed to, with, with the Department of Transportation to not hold up the I-70 project. And I think. I think that's affecting issues relating to both of the projects that we're considering tonight, that both could do with being cooked a little bit longer. So I will not be supporting this this evening. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we know that we have some drainage problems in this area of town. And you've heard people, you know, in the audience talk about them. I've heard Councilman Brooks talk about, you know, his very neighborhood being flooded. But this has been a very messy process going back to when this body was asked to approve a proclamation. In support of the preferred alternative for I-70 way before the supplemental draft was even released. And I caution my colleagues to not vote for a preferred alternative before the actual supplemental draft of the EIC had been released, because we didn't know all the details of what was in that document. It was then later followed up with an idea that directly tied all the drainage in this area to the I-70 project. So much so that.
Speaker 2: We're.
Speaker 8: Responsible for maintaining the lid over the Hyde Highway, which is supposed to be the mitigation for the project. So I challenge why we we the city of Denver, number one, should have ever agreed to be on the hook for the maintenance of that lid. But then, number two, that you know, it it ended up in the idea. And then you look at the funny math that happened. We ended up swap swapping land that's underneath I-70. With see dot that became part of the budget of how we then fund part of the drainage they put their 40 million in and if it exceeded a certain threshold, which it already has, then they're on the hook for more money. But. The public process on the 39th Avenue Channel happened way after all of that approval processes had come before this body of city council. So when the neighborhood started coming to public meetings and learning about this 39th Avenue channel, and I remember being told we're either going to do City Park golf course or we're going to do 39th Avenue channel. But at no point was there a discussion that we would do both. But here we are. We're doing both, and we're doing the Park Hill Golf Course. So all of this and that's why I wanted to see the big picture budget of what was brought to us as one project, the Twin Basin Drainage Project, again now called the Platte to Park Hill. Project. And I guess one of my concerns is we're going to have a city park golf course, overland golf course, and now Park Hill Golf Course all down at the same time. Yes, we don't own Park Hill, but for people who golf and like to keep their revenue in our city and not go play in in neighboring jurisdictions. We're going to lose that revenue. Yes, will be compensated by the music festival for the lack of use, the lack of play, you know, at Oberlin. But we're going to have these three golf courses down at the same time. And, you know, that's on top of all the rest of the other construction that's going to be happening because of the geo on that past. We're going to have lots of projects underway at the same time all over the city. But I guess my just to get back to this particular bill here tonight, I want to first say that for those people who have raised concerns about the environmental impact, we just learned today that the materials management plan has been received by the city. They've got to review it. It'll probably be about three weeks before that document is public for everybody to see what the material management plan will be as they identify various materials or products that are in the soils that require action levels. You know, based on what what. What they have identified. And in the information that I received today, I was told that there were about 70 borings that took place on the 39th Avenue Channel. Somebody mentioned there were only three.
Speaker 3: So, Councilwoman, that's on the next bill.
Speaker 8: Okay. Yeah, sorry. We're still on part of alluding it all because in my mind I see it all as one project because that's how it was brought forward to us. Okay, so I'm sorry and I'll make my comments now and not make them on the next bill, but I'm just a little frustrated at how, unless we're asking the right questions and demanding information, that helps us understand the big picture of what we're dealing with. We see these things piecemeal and it's it's hard. It's hard enough for us to be able to keep it together. I can imagine how challenging and difficult it is for the community who's seen piecemeal as well. And and this is not to. Say anything disparaging against our folks in the city who have worked really hard to bring these projects forward, knowing full well we do have some challenges and issues that we're trying to address in this city. I'm just I'm just frustrated at our process in how we have roll this out to the community. And, you know, we've we've got a. A need that we're trying to address. But at the same time, it's not the what we're doing, it's how we've done it that hasn't felt so transparent and and upfront in in the information sharing that is is not only being shared with the public, but but oftentimes with us. And so I'm not sure how I'm going to vote tonight, but I'm just sharing some of my some of my concerns and frustrations with kind of where we've been with this. And, you know, some have had more history than others with this project from the very beginning, but I'm probably leaning more towards not supporting it in in in large part because, you know, we were told we only needed 20 acres initially. Now it's 25, but we're now up to 90 acres in Park Hill Golf Course. And and I'm not convinced that that is not in itself going to throw this budget completely on its head. So again, we went from $40 million with see not spending money to do drainage to the IGA that was later in excess of 150 . Then we were at 300 million when we did the wastewater rate increase. And I'm hoping that if we can. Do this without having to do 90 acres. We stay within that budget, but if we end up needing up to 90 acres, I'm concerned that there's going to be another ask to put more money into covering all of these costs for these four projects that make up this flat to Park Hill drainage project. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 11: Herndon High.
Speaker 5: Cashman.
Speaker 0: Can each new.
Speaker 5: Ortega.
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 5: Sussman.
Speaker 0: My black eye. Clark, I.
Speaker 5: Espinoza.
Speaker 6: Flynn Now.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I. Please for the voting in US results.
Speaker 5: I think we're missing somebody, said Sandra.
Speaker 3: Ortega.
Speaker 5: Seven ice, four days.
Speaker 3: Seven ice, four days, 1396 has passed. All right, Councilwoman, can you please put 1395 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project.
Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed for the construction of a detention area as part of the Platte to Park Hill 39th Avenue Greenway Stormwater Systems project including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, contract rights, permits, and other appurtenances located at 4141 East 35th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-5-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_01022018_17-1395
|
Speaker 3: Seven ice, four days, 1396 has passed. All right, Councilwoman, can you please put 1395 on the floor?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution 1395 be adopted.
Speaker 3: All right. It has been moved and second it. All right. Questions for 1395. And I'll go first on this and we'll need the whole team working on 1395 to the to the dies here. So there's a lot of discrepancy on the number of bores. Well, let me just start back. When did the EPA come through? Coal Clayton Global area Swansea and do soil samples. What year was that. Was that 2013. Do.
Speaker 6: So I'm Andrew Ross with Denver Department of Environment, Public Health and Environment. Yeah. So EPA came through and did the soil testing of residential soils between about 2000 and 2007, sort of a staggered approach.
Speaker 3: But they did it again in 2012 and 13. Correct.
Speaker 6: And they did do some follow up sampling in 2012. 2013, correct.
Speaker 3: Okay. And what was that for?
Speaker 6: That was just confirmation sampling of properties that hadn't been remediated. Okay.
Speaker 3: My understanding and for those properties that were refused, what what was the what did the EPA do?
Speaker 6: Oh, I don't have the numbers in front of me. How many people refused? But EPA went through their Superfund process recently. They called it a finding of significant differences, is the terminology. And they've decided that those properties will just not be cleaned up because those homeowners have refused to clean up. Okay. We'll leave it in the neighborhood of 10 to 12 residences.
Speaker 3: Okay. So it's gone down quite a bit. So we had a number of residents talk about the testing. Talk about the soil. And I wanted to hone in on the three borings along the 39th Avenue Channel that Kim Morse, Jennifer Eder kind of talked about. But I know that there's been a discrepancy from the administration. So can you talk about the number of borings that you have tested along the 39th Avenue Channel?
Speaker 6: Sure. So keep in mind, we can only test properties that we have legal access to. So starting in 2016, we took 33 samples along the entire project through city owned right away. And we followed that up last summer. Same right away with 38 more samples. So we've taken 71 total in city owned right away properties. In terms of the private parcels that the city is now acquiring. We're doing environmental due diligence sampling on all those properties. The city didn't start acquiring those properties until November. Mm hmm. And so we've been working through those properties as the city acquires them, and we haven't gotten any of that data back yet.
Speaker 3: Of the 71 samples. Can you tell us your analysis of those 71 samples which were hot, which, you know, did not meet the EPA standard?
Speaker 6: Sure. So we did find in terms of two lead, arsenic and then other things. So for lead, we did find a lead detection above the EPA action level at 39th and high. In one boring. And that was it for the for the entire project.
Speaker 3: Let me just correct you real quick. How many borings did you do along 39th Avenue?
Speaker 6: 39 from Franklin to High. The whole the whole thing is 71. Okay.
Speaker 3: Just wanted to make sure.
Speaker 6: Okay. So we did have to.
Speaker 3: I did hear you. Right. I just wanted to. Just for the record. Okay. So you found one.
Speaker 6: I need to correct myself. So out of the 71 samples, there was a lead detect above the EPA levels at 39th and high and one near still street behind the Coca-Cola building. The rest were all below the action, but just one. To 39th and high and behind the Coca-Cola bill.
Speaker 3: So, too. So. When you found this information, how quickly did you release it to the community?
Speaker 6: I don't know. I was with Citi at the time, so it's been up on our website since last summer. So it's been on our website for about a year.
Speaker 3: Okay. I can. Can. Can we get confirmation of that? I think. Sure. Didn't help Gin. Hillhouse was on the team. Gin. When these samples were taken, were they immediately released to the community?
Speaker 12: We're thinking, you know, Celia was really involved in. Okay.
Speaker 3: Is she not here?
Speaker 6: She's not.
Speaker 3: Here. Okay.
Speaker 6: So those were taken in the summer of 2016. And I believe that they were up on our website, the fall of 2016.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 12: Let's try to get it up as soon as we possibly can.
Speaker 3: Speaking to the mic with.
Speaker 12: Me, we try we work hard to get it up as soon as we can. And being transparent, we'll continue to do that and and report out to the community. We can. I can look back.
Speaker 3: There was an email there was an email that I received that was requesting that the sample soils be made public because they were not public.
Speaker 12: And now they are public. They are on our website.
Speaker 3: Okay. So they were never. There was always been transparency with those 71 samples.
Speaker 6: So, yes, I believe they've all been on our website for a long time now. Granted, it's not the easiest place to navigate to on our website. Okay. I've tried to share the link with folks that have asked me.
Speaker 3: Okay. I'll come back. We have several others in the queue. Councilman, New.
Speaker 7: York. Thank you, Mr. President. From the last comments we had about the soil contamination issues. I was waiting for the consultant reports and I finally received those reports this morning after I asked for them. And I can understand after reading and looking at it in the recommendations, I can understand some of the community concerns about what's going on here. And the thing that concerns me is something that Councilwoman Ortega started to talk about is the materials management plan. It's you know and if you look in the this in the first report, which is 2016, it just starts off by saying it is recommended that a space project specific materials management plan be developed for the entire project corridor. The MMP or the plan can be used to assist field operations is particularly construction. In preparing for the identification and management of impact of soil and allow for informed decisions with regard to re-use options of excavated soil that results from construction very clear as in the the report last year says the same thing about the May materials management plan. And I can't imagine why we wouldn't have that all of a sudden. All of a sudden, when I questioned about this plan, all of a sudden this draft sort of mysteriously was appearing today and saying it wouldn't be ready for three weeks now. Can you explain to me what's going on with this material management plan? Because I look at this is is almost like a hazardous waste plan. The city or a hospital that I'm familiar with would have and is much public concern there is about the the soil and what's going to happen with the soil. Why would we not have this material management plan in this ordinance tonight?
Speaker 6: So we try to get the materials management plan done prior to actual any dirt moving activities. And we try not to do it too far out in advance in case we find more information in the meantime. Excuse me. So we're on track with what we thought, where we'd be with the materials management plan. Purely coincidental that we got a draft from our contractor today and we'll have a final in about three weeks and we'll get it up on our website.
Speaker 7: Why is it not in the ordinance? I cannot find it. Mentioned a single word in the ordinance itself. I've looked through there and I don't see it anything at all. I don't see where SEMA is held responsible for this materials management plan at all. Why is it not in the ordinance?
Speaker 6: I'll defer to my attorney on that. But the materials management plan is a significant part of the contract with SEMA.
Speaker 7: It's not listed in the contract. I looked in the contract and it's not mentioned whatsoever.
Speaker 11: Yes. Good evening, Steve Coggins with the P2P team for the Materials Management Plan. There's actually two versions of that. There is one that is required per the contract. But given the unknowns associated with the environmental and to control the cost more properly, we made the decision to hold the materials management plans and the environmental risk is retained by the city. So the city is doing the material management plan to for whatever may be found as the construction is taking place during the project.
Speaker 7: Well, that's just not acceptable. How is it going to be held legally liable for the work it does with this soil? If if the materials major plant is not in their contract.
Speaker 11: It is in their contract. They do have.
Speaker 7: It in the contract we have in front of us tonight that we're actually being asked to approve the.
Speaker 11: Are the RFP, which is the the request for proposal has a deliverable in Section five of the environmental, which is the part of the contract.
Speaker 7: That's what we have here. It does not mention that whatsoever. I look through all those documents. It's not.
Speaker 11: It's in the RFP and it's a reference document to the contracts of the requirements of the contract are in the RFP, technical requirements of which the materials management plan is included in Section five.
Speaker 6: Environmental.
Speaker 7: Well, it's not in the contract with SEMA.
Speaker 11: It's part of the contract is a reference document.
Speaker 7: But is but.
Speaker 3: Is there is there.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Jessica Brody, Assistant City Attorney. So I think Steve's representation is accurate. Also, keep in mind that the materials management plan is is really focused on work practices that the contractor and its subcontractors are going to implement to comply with environmental laws and requirements, which are also part of the contract. The materials management plan, which is something we do on any soil disturbing project is is the how and you know the work practices to accomplish the compliance with environmental laws. But irrespective, the contractor still holds a compliance with all laws, including environmental laws.
Speaker 7: I understand what you're saying, but it's just not you know, the consulting report just says real clearly. We need to have that plan in place. And and, you know, and who's going to monitor the plan? Who when the construction goes along, who is is somebody being hired to monitor what's going to be happening with the soil and and the testing this required in their actual specific things being required in the consulting report.
Speaker 6: Excuse me. Yes. So we will have a materials management plan supervisor on site every day. That person will be hired by the city and county. And on top of that, we'll have city staff out there on a frequent basis. I plan to walk the site myself at least once a week.
Speaker 7: How often? When the soil be tested.
Speaker 6: So. There's two answers to that. So we'll both test the soil prior to the to the soil disturbing activities. That's what we're doing right now as we acquire the properties. If through that process, the soil is considered to be below EPA action levels, then we'll test the soil every 500 cubic yards of material that's removed. 500 cubic yards is about 20 dump trucks, roughly? Mm hmm.
Speaker 7: Okay. And then if something is found, who has the authority to stop construction?
Speaker 6: The materials management plans supervisor has the authority to stop.
Speaker 7: So that's in the plan that will will begin. Will council be getting a copy of this plan to review three weeks?
Speaker 6: We generally don't provide a copy for review because it's a sort of a standard document that we do on all sorts of projects.
Speaker 7: But well, I'd request that we do get a copy of this plan, appreciate it. And also think that this plan needs to be posted for the public to see. This is a very important document, so I think it needs to have some public comment.
Speaker 6: We'll get it posted to the website as soon as we have it finalized.
Speaker 7: And I don't I'm still uncomfortable with how can we proceed with this ordinance tonight without some kind of assurance that that management materials management plan is actually in place is going to be in place? I have seen nothing in the documents we have here that even mention this materials management plan. We're just going to take your word for it. Is this there? Right.
Speaker 11: Yes, sir. Councilman Nu. I mean, it's clearly in the in the requirements of the project. So it is a requirement of the contract that both SEMA creates, the materials management plan that they it's part of their contract. They have to produce that. It's a technical requirement of their contract. Again, the RFP is a reference documents and maybe review in the contract. It's a little bit layered in the back of the contract, if you will. And then also the city is doing a materials management plan as well for this particular project. So there'll be one that will be citywide materials management for these scopes of work, and they'll also be responsibilities of the contractor. And they do it is an approval document of the contract that the city has to approve the same materials management plan.
Speaker 7: What what hardship would it cause if we delayed this for two months until we got the materials management plan developed and written and approved and looked at and and then we pass on this SEMA contract.
Speaker 11: What typically the materials management plan is like a health and safety plan and it's a public information plan and it's a project management plan. All these plans and a design build type of delivery method are typically produced by the engineer of record design builder who is hired. So a lot of these plans are produced as part of the design phase of the contract. So that's that's where.
Speaker 7: I think we're going round and around. What car shape would it cause if we delay this contract tonight for two months until we got this plan written and.
Speaker 11: The main thing would be cost because we have a current price and contractual schedule from our SEMA design build team. So if we continue to delay the contract and so potential solutions could go up.
Speaker 3: Let me get our attorney in on this one, because I don't I don't think as we read it in, council secretary just said that if we delay, we'll be past the 30 day shot clock. Correct.
Speaker 1: Kirsten Crawford Legislative Council. You know what? Let me let me look. We can't until you pass the 30 days, Kelly. Missiles. Do you know if we.
Speaker 5: My understanding. Okay. Otherwise, it passes.
Speaker 1: But what is the 30 day date?
Speaker 5: The date is January 8th next week.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. So we would be past the 30 day delay next week?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I think you're on the right line of questioning, though. And can I just can you provide the wording in the contract that you're talking about? Because we we can access it. And I think I think what Councilman New is saying is I'm voting on something tonight and I'm taking your word for it. But I don't have I don't have clarity in front of me.
Speaker 11: Yes, sir. We can't provide it. And it is in the again, in the RFP, which is a public document. So it is available and has been the RFP. So but we can absolutely provide it.
Speaker 7: You have a you have a signed document from CMA that they can apply to this plan.
Speaker 11: Well, the contract that they've signed, is there is there a compliance with it?
Speaker 7: Yes. Two copies of all. I'm sorry. Give us copies of that.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman and I just had one more question before I jump to Councilman Flynn. I asked if you can come back. What's your name?
Speaker 6: I'm sorry. Andrew.
Speaker 3: Andrew. You're new, so I just. Sorry about that. I've been working with Celia Vandersloot, and she is. She is now a consultant. Okay, so quick question, the boring question again along 39th. So you mentioned 71 and but you also mentioned every five cubic feet. You will be doing testing.
Speaker 6: Sorry, every 500 cubic feet. This is when we're moving soil. So we're gonna bring soil. Got it tested as we go along.
Speaker 3: You know, some of the some of the fear, as I'm looking at the map here in coal, which I'm very familiar with, is that some of these, you know. Between Franklin. And. And see, man.
Speaker 11: I. Hi.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Between Franklin and High is where we have the most residential properties, where we've. We've not dug up this kind of soil near residential properties. So I'm really concerned about those. How many borings have we tested in those streets?
Speaker 6: So, again, we're we're still acquiring the properties. Yeah.
Speaker 3: And as of today.
Speaker 6: As of today, as of today, I think we've done about seven. But we're we're actually doing trenches because we've learned that we find we get better information out of a trench.
Speaker 3: So four of those seven, how many are contaminated?
Speaker 6: We don't have any of the data back yet. We did find building debris and quite a few of them. So when Janet Feder was talking about old houses on on Gilpin Street. That's correct. There was houses there at one point in time. The common construction technique back in the day when you removed a house was to collapse it into the basement or the crawl space.
Speaker 2: When you have.
Speaker 3: The contamination record back.
Speaker 6: Hopefully in the next couple of weeks. Okay. Labs are kind of slow right now with all the construction going on in Denver. Okay.
Speaker 3: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't know who in the team might want to take these questions. Jason or Steve or Jen, have we potholed 39th Avenue? What have we found, Andrew? What have we found? Yes, those. Those 71 samples are right. And what do you know? But what have we found? Well, we found lead, arsenic and poly aromatic hydrocarbons. In what quantities? So arsenic is ubiquitous in the environment in Denver. So pretty much every sample has arsenic. None of them were above the EPA action level, except for one. I believe I'd have to check my notes. But the vast majority of them were below EPA action levels. Same with lead. We we found lead in a few places, but only had it above those action levels in a couple of places. And then the aromatic hydrocarbons, which was which is a byproduct of combustion. We found that throughout the the site, which is typical in Denver because people used to burn trash in their backyards. So we find that sort of everywhere we look. Do you would you find if you went to if you went to Eastman Avenue in southeast Denver and Councilwoman Black's district, just let me pick on her for a second. If you potholed Eastman Avenue, would you find arsenic? Most likely, yes. There's arsenic in native soils, uncontaminated soils. And. Okay, I've heard that before, Jen, maybe you're the best person to answer this, but if you're not, dish it off. What are just broadly speaking, what measures? What measures are in place in this contract and in our practices to ensure the safety of the neighborhoods? What steps will we follow to ensure the safety? I've heard about the eight foot fence. I've heard about dust control, etc.. Can you outline if there are any more? What do we.
Speaker 12: Need to do? There are several and steve as the contract admin would probably be best.
Speaker 6: For.
Speaker 12: Me out here, Steve. But you know, to start off is you have a lot of permits someplace, right? So they have to maintain and achieve all those permits and there are requirements within the contract such as this MMP. And they also have the noise and dust, fencing, erosion control. So the list of regulations that we have that they must meet is fairly long. And Steve, maybe you can I'm.
Speaker 11: Sure that's very accurate. Jan, there's a multiple of requirements that is required by the SEMA team per the contract. So there's air quality plans, fugitive dust plans, depending on the scope. First and foremost, I'd like to say that they have to comply with all codes, regulatory requirements and laws. But in addition to that, we require them to submit various plans for all these types of environmental concerns. And each one of those plans are approval documents.
Speaker 6: For the city to approve.
Speaker 11: Before they become part of the contract. The deliverable is currently part of the contract. The finalized plan will be as part of the design phase evolves to turn that into a final deliverable. So air quality dust, all kinds of environmental plans. Again, things dealing with endangered species.
Speaker 6: Where there's.
Speaker 11: Raptors or prairie dogs and all those types of things are all covered in the environmental requirements. Section five of the RFP that I was speaking of earlier has a complete list of all the different deliverables just from the environmental standpoint that is required.
Speaker 6: By the contract. Just for the record, there's no prairie dogs out there either. I hope not really. Okay. Yeah. We saved a prairie dog colony when I worked at RTD. So it's a quite it takes a lot of work, quite an ordeal.
Speaker 11: Those plans are a little thicker than you might think.
Speaker 6: Yes. And they're very tasty at the gym. Maybe you could explain, because we've heard a lot about global landing outfall and how the testing beforehand showed one thing. But then we took out a lot more. And Jason, actually, you were talking today earlier about what that actually represented, so maybe you could explain that or Andrew.
Speaker 3: He's the expert.
Speaker 6: So glows a little bit. Interesting story. So we did do a lot of environmental testing before the excavation started. Most of that was done with boring. And what we've learned through that is boring. We don't get good information on asbestos in soils and that's why we're doing the trenching instead of borings along 39th Avenue. So in Globeville landing as the excavation went along, we uncovered a lot more asbestos in soils than we expected. We made the decision to treat all of the excavation as contaminated with asbestos, which we've done in other projects in the city. So the numbers look like there's a lot of asbestos, but it's the numbers are a little bit elevated because we decided to treat it all as asbestos contaminated. So you're saying that any soil you took out of global landing outfall was treated as though it had asbestos? Whether you verified that or not, did you not bother it? We did verify it. We did okay. Yes. Okay. And so you're doing trenching at 39th rather than pothole ing? Yes. For on the new properties that the city is acquiring so that we get better information on asbestos as we go along. Have you done any of that yet or is that part of this contract? We don't have any of that data back yet. We did find building materials in some of the lots that the city has acquired our experiences. When you find building material, it's you know, it's about 5050, whether there's asbestos there or not. So we'll get that analytical data back in the next few weeks and let folks know as soon as we get it. All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Black, I'm going to pop to Councilwoman Kimmich to enter into this discourse between councilman knew in his line of questioning.
Speaker 1: Councilman Cohen Yeah, I'm not quite sure why no one from the team has a copy of the contract and found these pages, but I went through to try to find them. So here are the references for your question, Councilman, to the first reference incorporating the RFP requirements is on page five. Then if you go to Exhibit A, it once again requires the contractor to follow all of the technical specifications from the RFP. The third reference is exhibit one, and that's actually where the proposer signs a document that says they will comply with everything that was in the RFP as well as within their RFP response. So that's exhibit one and then Exhibit J makes a similar reference. And then there's a special. Anthrax conditions. And if you go to the it's towards the end and in that section, it's all the there's no page numbers in our system. So I can't give you the PDF page number, but in the special contract provisions, it has specific paragraphs about regulations related to hazardous materials. So that's on page six, I believe, of that particular attachment. And it talks about all the hazardous materials, including all the things we've been talking about, asbestos, petroleum, etc.. And so, so anyway, so.
Speaker 7: These are these are the documents.
Speaker 1: This is right in front of us. Yes. And again.
Speaker 7: I looked through it.
Speaker 1: Yes. Well, it's because they don't use the word materials management, but it is just when you said it incorporates the RFP, but you can't provide us with a page reference or a section. It's very difficult. So going through and then finding where all of those requirements are actually in. So so there are six references that I've counted that incorporate the RFP. Plus there is this paragraph specifically about handling of hazardous waste and following all environmental regulations, including asbestos and all these chemicals. So so the contractor clearly has, in what I'm reading, signed all this. And if I'm getting any of this wrong again, this is your job, not mine. But this is what I found.
Speaker 11: If it's at all helpful, we do have the vice president, senior construction.
Speaker 2: Larry Walsh in the room.
Speaker 11: And if it's helpful, he can come up and also reinforce the fact that this is a contractual deliverable that he is required to produce. Is that helpful?
Speaker 3: I think I think we have got what you need. I think we got what we need. All right. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 6: I'm going to go. Mr. President, I would like to hear it because the reference to the RFP is in the contract. Correct. But they are we don't have the RFP in front of us. So I would like to know that the RFP does require and I know that it does, but it would be nice if we had a link to it.
Speaker 3: Okay. It's reference and he signed it. But come on up here, Mr. Vice President. Sorry, Councilwoman Blackwell, your right to you.
Speaker 7: Well, thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 6: Everything you heard from staff tonight is true. This will be our third design build contract with the city and county of Denver. We did your first to the Central Park Boulevard Project and I-70 and the Peoria Crossing Project. They were both design build. They both had material management plans that we will submit for approval. And yes, everything that was cited that is in the RFP and referenced in the contract we're accountable for. That's part of our contract. We understand that.
Speaker 8: You tell us your name.
Speaker 6: I'm Larry Walsh. Thank you. I'm with SEMA Construction.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 7: So you will be you will send us copies of the RFP, which that shows there shows there's a signed documents you've you've signed off on, right?
Speaker 6: Yes, we've signed the contract. We don't have an executed contract that is pending City Council's approval.
Speaker 7: You signed the RFP?
Speaker 6: Yes. What? We signed the contract for issued the RFP. And that's how we prepared our proposal and what it's based on.
Speaker 11: Yeah, it was. The city should have that.
Speaker 12: Yes, but but there is. Yes, absolutely. We will look at that. And it's referenced in all the the work that Councilman Kenny did. Thank you. To recite those references. We can highlight where the sections are in section five now.
Speaker 7: You'll be helpful. We've since we can't see that so be nice to.
Speaker 12: Yes, thank you. Absolutely. We will send that your way.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Sorry.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Most of my questions were answered, but I just had one. So I think the real issue for neighbors is they need some reassurance that it's going to be cleaned up properly and safely. So I just was thinking of other. CITES as a Denver native that I know are now developed that once were industrial, like Lowry, Air Force Base Stapleton, the South Platte River used to really be a terrible place, right, John and Brighton Boulevard. So it seems to me that you all probably have standard operating procedures and I know we now know about amps, but whatever kind of assurances you can give to the people who live near there that they are going to be safe. And I understand their concerns. I also have confidence in all of you and in SEMA, but I think that's what everyone is mostly concerned about.
Speaker 12: Yeah, no, I think is really good comment and we've heard it through our process. And so, you know, safety to our community is the number one priority. We're going to do everything we can to ensure that they are safe. We've showed how we've gone over and beyond in our contract language to to make sure that that's the case. And every detail that we have, we're going to be transparent. We're going to share it. It's not our standard practice to do that, and we understand the concerns and we're willing to do that. So, I mean, I hope that's enough to just say it is our priority. We will do everything we can to ensure safety. And as you mentioned, we have lots of experience. We we work in an urban environment every day. We have a lot of experience and public works working on things like this as is not anything new. The fuel tanks you learned about the the landfills, arsenic lead, these are all things we run into on every one of our projects. So we're confident that we'll be all handle in a safe way. I don't know if you have other things.
Speaker 6: I'd just like to add that the Globeville Landing Outfall Project, we've had air monitoring the entire time and not had a single detection of contaminants from the site. And so we feel we can do this project similarly without having any air deposition or anything that's going to cause harm to the residency. If we felt that we were going to cause harm to the residents, we wouldn't be doing this project.
Speaker 3: How often are you at Globeville?
Speaker 6: For air monitoring you yourself. I'm not there very often, to tell you the truth. This project will be different. I'll be out there quite a bit. Okay.
Speaker 3: Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 11: What is the LED action level that you're using in the soils?
Speaker 6: We're using the the EPA, Vasquez Boulevard, a 70 Superfund site number, which is 400 milligrams per kg.
Speaker 11: So. In the soils. The summary that we got mentions borings. But you said that you did pothole. So is it pothole or is boring?
Speaker 6: Well, we use those terms interchangeably. So they were borings done in the right of way.
Speaker 11: So to me, a boring involves a, you know, a soil sample a drill that you.
Speaker 6: Know, they were done that group that way.
Speaker 11: So not partly correct. He's just really literally digging up some dirt.
Speaker 6: Yes. They were done with a physical, boring machine, a drill.
Speaker 11: Okay. At what depths were the soils taken, the samples taken from?
Speaker 6: I'd have to check to be accurate because we did two rounds and they were done differently. But we were trying to characterize sort of the top 12 inches and then below 12 inches. So I don't have the exact numbers. Right.
Speaker 11: I just I get frustrated when we ask for soil samples and we get a summary that just says we took 70 borings and we found two hot spots. And that I much would rather just you hear, give me give me the executive summary.
Speaker 6: But also I'm sure you get that too.
Speaker 11: Because that sort of matters because at 400 a 400 is is, is, is, you know, you couldn't use that soil to put on top of the lid that we're going to build. You couldn't stockpile 400, microgram soil, stockpile it, and then put it on the lid. That is going to be the playground for the elementary school. That is that is an action level. Correct. Is it not?
Speaker 6: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 11: So and then this. Area. It gets keeps getting marketed as a park sort of space. Is that play area or not?
Speaker 6: So those soils that have elevated lead will be removed and taken to a landfill and replaced with clean fill.
Speaker 11: But so what happens with the soils that don't have elevated lead? And are we talking what is elevated lead story? This is sort of the problem with not having an MP and sort of moving forward without knowing what it is that we're dealing with and how we're going to deal with it is and which is why I actually don't see any problem with saying, let's kill this thing and wait two months while you guys wrap it up, at least an MP, because now I'm confused that we have to amend piece, you know, one that the city is doing and we're going to somehow manage and one that the contractor is going to do and they're going to manage. You know. So I will ask more questions on that. Sure. What is what is the real danger to our community and constituents with with completing your testing, completing your MP before proceeding with a contract? So what is the danger in doing that to.
Speaker 6: Continue what we're doing right now? There's no danger from my perspective.
Speaker 11: I didn't think so. So it now comes down to just dollars, right? Is that the concern from public works that it's going to cost more money or might cost more money? We've got the SEMA guy here. How much more can it cost for you guys to wait two months?
Speaker 12: You'd be surprised, though, those delays do add up. And it's also a risk that he's going.
Speaker 11: To eat a whole bunch of unknowns.
Speaker 12: But a risk on our contract, right. Delays in those costs. And really, this is just the standard way that we do business. We do an maybe we will make sure that that's in place before we move any dirt. And MMP is a process that's not going to give you the levels of the lead. And an arsenic is what we do is the process in place. It's very a standard document that comes along with any project.
Speaker 11: I'm talking about the sort of standard operating procedure of, of, of, of, of. So one of my problems in prior government work that I had done was the lack of due diligence on things that we could know before we entered into any agreement, not saying that we couldn't mitigate anything that we found because we certainly have enough resources and technology and skills to do that. But we could know the problem in the right away and land and we're acquiring and all this thing we could be testing, testing, testing and come up with a full report and say this is to the best of our knowledge, the totality of what we might find. And even this tells us, I mean, has huge question marks on it because we never truly know what we find until we find until we start digging. And what you're simply saying is, well, we're we're just comfortable starting that now, even though we have people that live in immediate proximity to this operation going, we want to know more. So what is the real danger if it's just simply some some dollars to simmer for us doing that extra due diligence and getting people, you know, familiar with this is the level of of of of of lead we have in the soil. Arsenic is is consistent with other samplings that we've taken at other projects that we've completed with no health hazards or what. You know, in doing that.
Speaker 12: You know, I think it's a great concern. We want to do as much due diligence as we can to minimize our risk as an owner. I think an Andrew can come up here, but I think he would agree that we feel like we have done the due diligence that we need to understand what the risk is and we will continue as we acquire these properties. So we've done everything we can. We've made Swiss cheese of our right away those 71 warnings. Now as we obtain and acquire additional.
Speaker 11: Say that when the samples haven't even been.
Speaker 0: Know we.
Speaker 12: Have we've gotten results on a right away. What he was mentioning is we don't have the results from the private property.
Speaker 11: Right.
Speaker 12: So that's what will be coming in in a week's time. Right. So we'll continue to get better and better data. But again, it's just our this is the normal process. And in our normal procedures of when an MP comes into place, you need to move in and understand your procedures a little bit better and move in.
Speaker 11: What I'm trying to articulate to you isn't, is I get it that that's your normal procedure, but it's not every day. Well, it is sort of every day that we go into sort of toxic, hazardous conditions. But it is not every day that we go in at this magnitude, this scale. And and what is the real danger in fully completing our takedown of land, doing all the, you know, testing that we would normally want to do to sort of ascertain the scope, the level of the best of you know, I know that you're comfortable because that's what you do for a living. But what about the layperson that is like, hey, you're digging up, you're kicking up dust. Some guys are going to go maybe have a hose on it, might be working on a weekend and might not have a hose on it, might be doing it on a holiday. What should I be concerned about and when? Who am I going to report to and why? You know, what in what should I do with my kids during this period of time, you know, is because I can tell you that 400 micrograms of lead is an action level in a play area. And even though it's the limit for the rest of the soil is three times that amount, somewhere between 412 hundred is a lot of lead to be kicking around. And so that's what doing all this testing, knowing the totality of where it's at. Getting it into the cities MP would be beneficial to the public and I don't see what the danger is in that. If it's dollars, I mean we're talking about health and environment and health concerns and stress.
Speaker 1: So. All right. So if I may, I just wanted to chime in because it is every day that the city does projects in contaminated areas. Carl in Madison Rec Center, which is opening this week, we acquired a gas station. We found a leaking underground storage tank as part of that acquisition. We manage that contamination as part of the Project Lavillenie outfall. We're doing a massive excavation through a Superfund site, through landfill material. This is what Public Works does. Yeah, I'm going to.
Speaker 11: Tell you the problem with that charge ahead attitude, which is, what, just a few months ago.
Speaker 3: Questions. Questions. All right.
Speaker 11: Well, okay. How much did the Shoemaker Plaza was it supposed to cost initially?
Speaker 1: I think the original budget was around $4 million.
Speaker 11: It was only 1 to $2 million, actually.
Speaker 3: Okay. I mean.
Speaker 11: All right. So how much.
Speaker 1: Did it vary from the Budget Office? I think the amount was somewhere north of 3.
Speaker 3: Million on topic, though.
Speaker 1: Close to 4 million. Well.
Speaker 11: Well, she's the one that brought up this everyday problem. And here's what we need to fundamentally understand about that. Go at it, go rogue and hope for the best. And we have unlimited funds to do what it is that we're setting out to do because we don't. How much does Shoemaker Plaza end up costing it?
Speaker 1: It ended up costing close to it, I think was an additional $4 million because of the culture we found.
Speaker 11: Exactly. That is something we could have tested for. That is something we could have set up a drill rig on top of that plasma that existed there that day and drilled down and found coal tar and got off. I don't know that we have enough money to do this right now because there's a contamination problem. Let's find out the extent of this. Is it everywhere underneath here?
Speaker 1: Well, first of all, we did test and you didn't find it in the Shoemaker Plaza project. But as is often the case, when you're dealing with old industrial areas or non homogenous areas like low sampling gives you an idea, but it's never going to give you the full picture. But again, sampling is one of the ways we mitigate risk. We also have contingency to address environmental concerns and environmental risks that are not anticipated at the time that we do the testing and develop the plans. But now we're holding contingency.
Speaker 11: As a city council and approving these things and fiduciary oversight and whatnot. The when we do that and we allow you to sort of take your best guess and march on things that we could actually learn. Just because we want to save a few million dollars and it is costing us more millions of dollars that comes from other projects that we're trying to get funded. And that doesn't help our case when we continue to go down that road, which is, well, our standard operating procedures sort of act with some degree of blindness, and we know that we're blind. You know, when all I'm saying is, what's two more months waiting for these soils tests in developing a better picture?
Speaker 1: Even with those additional soil tests, we will not have perfect knowledge of what we're going to find when we go out there. We're never going to have perfect knowledge until you actually do the excavation. But we think we have enough information at this point to move forward with a contract. We have budget to deal with the environmental issues that we're anticipating and we have contingency to deal with those conditions that we haven't yet discovered in the event that we run into. Okay.
Speaker 11: So then that's the difference between where you are as an attorney and where I am as a counselor, because I don't feel like I have enough information. And I think Wayne clearly doesn't even know me. He hasn't seen the map that because it's attached to some I mean, that requirement is attached to an RFP that was issued only to the contractors and never shared with counsel.
Speaker 12: Well, and it is on your website. We just sent a link to everybody and so it has been on the website and now you have a link that will direct you exactly there.
Speaker 3: Councilman, can I go to Cashman and you can come back. Okay. You still got some more questions?
Speaker 11: No, I will look for that. Okay.
Speaker 3: Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Andrew Please remember, his name is new to me. I remember.
Speaker 6: His name.
Speaker 9: Andrew So it is 71 borings. I think you got results from half of those. Is that about right?
Speaker 6: I know we have results from all those, but it was added to the boards. So no, we have data from all 71 samples.
Speaker 9: What's the data you said you're waiting for?
Speaker 6: That's that's information or data that we collected on private parcels that the city has acquired since November 2017.
Speaker 9: And those are coming up in the near future. You said.
Speaker 6: Yes. So we started those as soon as the we acquired those in late November. And generally speaking, it takes about six weeks to get analytical results back. And with the holiday and.
Speaker 9: About, how many borings, approximately, are we waiting for?
Speaker 6: I believe it's around seven trenches that we did. The trenches is a little bit bigger than a boring.
Speaker 9: I understand. And so I'm sorry. I just sure if I can add to the question. So we've begun to explore private properties, correct, that we're acquiring. How much more of that are we looking at? Another ten bore trenches, another hundred trenches as we go down the corridor? Where about are we at?
Speaker 6: So we will do trenches on every parcel we acquire and. And it's about 30, approximately 30 parcels total. And so we're just at the very beginning stages.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilman Castro. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. So we all received the pinion report information today. So this tells us exactly where certain properties were tested. And these were these were public properties, correct?
Speaker 6: Yes. Those were properties that were owned by the city and county in 2016.
Speaker 8: Okay. And who is it that is doing the materials management plan? Is that being done by SEMA? Is that a separate contract? Are we environmental health doing that?
Speaker 6: So it gets a little confusing because there's two different elements in this.
Speaker 8: One, the one that was referenced earlier that we just got it today will see the.
Speaker 6: That.
Speaker 8: Be released in three weeks.
Speaker 6: Yes, that is one that we had Pinon as our contractor. Right, for us. And so it will actually be Department of Public Health and Environment document and that will be for the environmental work that will happen before SEMA comes in to do the excavation.
Speaker 8: Okay. So just to be clear, though. The. The borings that were done that were part of this report is is what the materials management plan is based off of knowing what contaminants we've found in the soil, sort of generally where we've found them. We know we need to do more borings on the private property that we're acquiring because we haven't had access to that, correct?
Speaker 6: That's correct. But we also did sort of desktop evaluations of the private properties so that we have ideas where there's potentially building debris, potentially underground storage tanks. So those are things that we we think we know from looking at old maps are important.
Speaker 8: So based on that data, that helps you determine where on the properties to do those borings.
Speaker 6: Correct?
Speaker 8: Okay. And typically, how many borings on each property would I assume that that's based on how much land each parcel entails?
Speaker 6: Yeah, it depends upon that.
Speaker 10: Tabletop exercise of.
Speaker 6: Looking at older documents in older, older city documents of what was the land use, you know, going back to the founding of the city. So if if we think that there's only one house, it might have been on a parcel and it's now gone. We might just do one trench. But if we think that there was multiple things going on that property, we might do multiple trenches.
Speaker 8: So just to kind of put this into perspective, Andrew, the work that's been happening on GLOW and that's what this this document is all about. Because of what was on that site. Is it safe to say that we knew that? Well, first of all, it was a it's an EPA operable unit. So the minute you get in there and start tinkering around with the soils, it it throws you into that EPA oversight, which is different from the 39th Avenue Channel because we're talking about. Parcels that were not residential unless they were some of those where property owners chose not to have work done on them. But so is it safe to say that? That site was far more contaminated. Not to discount the concerns that community folks have raised along the 39th Avenue Channel, but having it been a former operating lead smelter and a landfill that we anticipated finding a lot more nasty stuff in those soils than we think we might over here.
Speaker 6: I was definitely in the big difference is the landfill. So we knew that we'd be opening up the landfill global and we just didn't know what we'd find. When you open up a landfill, you never know what you're going to find, even no matter how many borings you do prior to that.
Speaker 8: So. Have we encountered any methane at all?
Speaker 6: Surprisingly, no. So methane has not been a problem at global landing.
Speaker 8: Okay. So just the last thing. The federal law, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act really is what ensures that we have some of these various procedures in our contracts to ensure that we're not just making the contractor follow what we tell them, but it's what the feds mandate that we do under and to recruit. Correct?
Speaker 6: Correct. Okay. And the materials management plan is really a reflection of environmental law and regulations. So all of that is built into the MMP.
Speaker 8: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, I'm going to ask a question. To my engineer fled. What, Bruce? Yes. In the back. Thank you, sir. So. So. I have a question for you around. You know, we're talking about this issue came up to me in 2018 when the EPA came and said that we had hundreds of homes who they hadn't tested yet. And so the fear came up to me is what's happening on our current environment when flooding occurs in the dirt like. Can some of these arson addicts lead and issues get you know on a flood traveled through our neighborhood in our houses with our kids. How at risk are we in this neighborhood of coal?
Speaker 10: Council President Honestly, I'm not the right person to answer that question. I deal with the stormwater that kind of can't get into the pipes and runs on the streets and gets pretty deep and goes in across spaces. So I have.
Speaker 11: To defer.
Speaker 6: To the EPA and the people on.
Speaker 3: That. Okay. Can anybody answer that question? My question is, are we at risk? I had this question come from a community member of if nothing is dug up, are we at risk anyway in our own yards and things like that, especially during in May when it's it's the rainy season and it's flooding and things like that?
Speaker 6: Well, there's always a potential that there could be a problem if there was enough rainfall to wash that dirt into a receiving water and go on downstream. But you have to have an exposure for for there to be a problem in your body. So you have to. Drink that water, which I wouldn't advise him really to be drinking out of the gutters. So, you know, as long as it's, you know, normal processes, it is going to end up in the South Platte and go downstream. But that's going to take a really extreme storm event for that to happen.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then quick question before I go to Councilman Espinosa and then you can probably answer this. The number of you know, I did get a chance to talk to some of the folks who were a part of the the group that you had of of neighbors, what you call group design work group. How many times did you guys meet?
Speaker 12: In the past we met. You know, it really was topic driven, but it was basically about every three months.
Speaker 3: Okay. And how many times monthly?
Speaker 12: You know, as information came in, if we had that amount of information. But consistently we met about every three months.
Speaker 3: How many people were in the design work group?
Speaker 12: It varied. I think what we have on our list is about 17 people and that would vary in attendance anywhere from, you know, seven to the full amount of people.
Speaker 3: And those were all folks who were in the impact zone, which I call right on 39th, between 39th and 38th, where they all folks who lived in. Right in that area or all around Cole.
Speaker 12: Yes. I mean, really, you also had R.A. President. We have the pride representative. So it was broader than just the residents. But there were probably, you know, Debra montoya and folks that you heard from tonight were on our design work group. So a lot of them were residents, right, between Franklin and High.
Speaker 3: Or was there anybody in the design work group? And I don't know, because I know a lot of folks have left because it's late at night. But who spoke in opposition? Do we know anybody from?
Speaker 12: No, not that. SAT on our design work group. He you know, and would come as a guest and he would speak. And so we had opportunity for that and they could listen. But that was actually on the design work group. So.
Speaker 3: Mr.. Romney. Okay. Uh. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 11: Yeah. So I followed the link. There are eight attachments there. There is not a single RFP. The closest we get is a reference in the contract exhibit I, the RFP response, which says incorporated herein by reference as amended and supplemented by exhibit, I mean a one sorry which is not attached. There's simply exhibit I, so I don't have a copy of the RFP.
Speaker 0: You never get them.
Speaker 12: Okay, well, we thought Angela said that she sent you a link. Did you click on the link that Angela has sent?
Speaker 11: And so I immediately had responded back to her and said that we what we are looking for is the RFP submitted to the company and issued to the contractors. She sent me a link to the.
Speaker 3: Hold on real quick. Councilman. Councilman knew that you. Did you see it?
Speaker 7: I looked through the same. I didn't see the RFP at all. I looked through every one of the documents to see, like a thousand pages, but I didn't see anything. The RFP.
Speaker 3: Yeah, we just. John McGrath City Attorney's Office. The RFP is a reference document that's incorporated.
Speaker 7: By reference.
Speaker 3: And is a part of, of the contract documents.
Speaker 11: And is binding on the.
Speaker 7: Contractor.
Speaker 3: So we can point you to the Met.
Speaker 7: To the exhibit or to the reference.
Speaker 3: The RFP is a lengthy document, including the technical.
Speaker 7: Specifications and technical.
Speaker 3: Requirements is.
Speaker 2: Probably over.
Speaker 3: 300 pages. So physically attaching it to the document that you see in front of you hasn't been done, but it's incorporated by reference in various places.
Speaker 7: In the contract.
Speaker 3: And unfortunately I didn't come with.
Speaker 7: A hard copy of the contract with me.
Speaker 3: But we're happy to get you the references to the various places.
Speaker 11: And this is not you didn't do anything wrong, trust me. You didn't do anything wrong. This is sort of normal, right? The RFP is something that gets issued very early in the process and the contract sort of as a result of that. But we're talking about about these hazardous materials and how we're going to treat them. And to Wayne's point, when it brought up this question and then we ended up in this cross talk where it sort of revolved, you know, it also has its genesis in the RFP. And all I'm saying is, at this point in time, we do not have that and we didn't have that. And so we wouldn't have been able to even connect that, Don, until this very conversation, which is, again, why I'm sitting here sort of going, well, what is the danger in us taking a little more time and trying to understand? Because now we now we learn that there is not one but two management plans in place, one that is going to be managed in within the contractors purview, and one that is going to be in the city's purview. And and I don't understand that division of work, to be honest. And so there's there's a lot there that is and that is the crux of the concern that we've heard is about hazardous materials and the impacts that it has. And so what it's done is it's raised more questions and it's answered for for for somebody like myself. And so I'm looking for the source documents and the follow up sort of drafts. If we don't have the one we have today, at least a sort of example of what we might do on a similar project, maybe the gold landing for an example, to sort of see how we merge these two overlapping seemingly management requirement. I mean, management plans, you know, well, I think as has been described.
Speaker 3: This is a design build project. That's the delivery.
Speaker 7: Method we've chosen. And in a.
Speaker 3: Design build project, it's really an evolving process. You you start from where we are today and we're at a limited level of design right now. And I think, as Jessica mentioned, that as the process evolves, you get more and more information and then you act on that information. So material management plans will evolve as more information is revealed.
Speaker 7: During the course of the of the project, of the project. And so what we have in the.
Speaker 3: Contract is the requirements. The requirement is for the contractor to deliver a material management plan. The city then has the right to review it and approve it.
Speaker 7: And it's a again, it's an evolving.
Speaker 3: Give and take process, so to say, well, let's wait until we get two weeks or two months or some number of days further. We won't get any further in design during that period of time or we.
Speaker 2: Won't get any further with our.
Speaker 3: Onsite work. And so we'll be pretty much in the same place two months from now as we are today, because that information.
Speaker 7: Will not.
Speaker 2: Be evolving and we will not be learning more about what it is.
Speaker 3: We need to deal with. We know a certain level. We have done due diligence that tells us what's on our radar. And then as the process evolves, both.
Speaker 7: In design and on site, work.
Speaker 3: Will continue to.
Speaker 11: Fine tune that. So maybe my confusion is actually maybe it's the wrong term. Maybe it's the fact that we've been sort of treating this as to my piece is the way it was discussed. So what is based on what you were just saying, I get a different understanding, which is as we take down land, we are performing , sampling and testing and providing environmental reports that the contractor is then required to do the management plan. We're and then we will review it. We don't actually have or we don't produce our own.
Speaker 3: Well, in this case, on the land that we take down, we are doing our own analysis.
Speaker 11: And that will be.
Speaker 2: As a city, responsibility.
Speaker 7: For those.
Speaker 2: Properties. Then as the project evolves and we're disturbing soils.
Speaker 7: There'll be a.
Speaker 2: Contractor generated materials management plan that we will then review, approve.
Speaker 3: And administer.
Speaker 11: Through separate testing or through. And you doing your further testing. Okay. Thank you. Real quick if if it's helpful councilman new in Espinosa that mishap. Haynes did email the technical requirements to all you guys and it's about 200 pages and on page 45 is the beginning of section number 5.0 of an environmental and on page 52 shows a deliverable in the Contract for Materials Management Plan as well as the other environmental deliverables required per the contract. And one of the things that that may help to clarify just a little bit in typical business that we do a lot of design bid build right in typically the materials management plan is a function of the design . Under the design build. We can't do those types of plans until we've hired the engineer of record and that's who Sema now is. So as they develop the design under the design build delivery method, the materials management plans and all the things you typically would.
Speaker 6: See in a design bid build will be produced.
Speaker 11: And approved by the city as part of the design phase.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I think that got to some of my questions. Just some some simple. Yes. In those materials management plan is not a document that tells us what's in the ground. It tells us how we're going to handle what we find in the ground. Correct?
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 6: Yes or no? That's that's correct. Thank you. So Sema can't develop the map until it has a contract, is that correct? Yes, Mr. Walsh. And not going to do that for free? I suppose that is correct. That's okay. That's an unusual concept. People didn't wanting to be paid for their work. So so the map will be developed by SEMA after they have the contract and there will be a plan review by the city and they won't move a shovel full of dirt until you approve that. Is that correct? That is 100% correct, sir. All right. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Okay not to beat this dead horse. So we also have our own material management plan that's been done. My opinion, based on the borings that we've had them do for us on the properties that we've already tested and we're starting to do that on properties were acquiring, which is per the contract that we just approved, right? Correct. And so that that's our own guide for what we know is in the soils. Our management plan tells us how we believe they should be handled and then the contractor will go do that as well. And hopefully they're not going in the same boreholes. They're looking at other locations on the on the parcels that they're going to be doing, any of the sampling?
Speaker 6: Correct. So the MLP that we're developing will be for any remediation work that we do prior to SEMA taking over a property. So if we find something.
Speaker 8: We're doing that cleanup.
Speaker 6: We'll do the cleanup under the under the city's MMP.
Speaker 8: Okay. So where is that covered in the costs? If we're doing that clean up initially. I mean, I, I just assume that was part of the work the contractor would be doing.
Speaker 10: Yeah. So within the contract we just have what, what's already been in the RFP documents and that's what SEMA has agreed to as part of the RFP. We do have an environmental bucket where we will budget a bucket budget, a budget where that additional cleanup will come out of. So we do have some things set aside outside of seeing this contract for that cleanup for those private properties.
Speaker 8: So just to be clear, getting back to the big picture budget, do we have a contingency in each of the budgets and then an overall contingency left in the total?
Speaker 10: We do.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 10: So the way we developed all the projects is every project has its own contingency. So City Park Golf Course has one below 39th Avenue and Park Hill all have their own contingencies. And then we have an overall what we're calling a program contingency. So the program contingency is kind of for those unknown unknowns, and we would expand our project contingency before we would go into that program contingency.
Speaker 8: Okay. And not to convoluted this, but we have a separate budgetary appropriation that will come to us next week to committee. Right. That will come out of wastewater that will actually cover these costs. So this is the contract with the contractor, but we will be seeing a separate bill come to council that will transfer monies from wastewater into the project that will cover part of these costs.
Speaker 10: So there will be a another action that we'll ask you to take for issuance of bond money. Right. So as part of the rate increase, there was a bond issuance in 2016. Right. And that was for about 130 million and more is coming up. So I don't say around numbers. And then this will be for the additional amount to get us up to the 206, which made the 206 for the bond part of the 298.
Speaker 8: Okay. I just thought it was important to mention that. So it doesn't come as a surprise to you when that part of this project moves forward. So, Laura, is there anything else you wanted to add?
Speaker 0: I just want to clarify.
Speaker 1: There were two actions that was introduced by the floor Perry Capital Program Manager in the Department of Finance. When we brought for the rate increase to City Council in July of 2016, as part of that six year program, there were two revenue bond issuances that were attributed to the Part two Park Hill project.
Speaker 0: 115 million were fully.
Speaker 1: Brought forward to council late last year. The second issuance is planned for to come forward to council in the next couple of weeks, and that is planned to be $77 million.
Speaker 8: Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Just want to take. It tells me. Cashman. No. Okay. I think we finished our questions. See no other questions. 1395 hearing. 439 five is not close. Comments by members of Council. I'll go first. This being District nine in my neighborhood and in a long, long, long conversation with the community and the city. So in Denver. Correct. 2015 or 2016? 2015. January. I'll never forget it. We're in Jake's and there are over a hundred neighbors in there because they're being told that many homes are going to be taken out because of a drainage project. And, you know, and Jennifer and I and the team have gone over this that downtime is probably one of the worst starts to a process that I've seen when folks who were super supportive of what the city had done prior to were all of a sudden skeptical, did not believe, did not believe in the process and all of those things. I will say that the process really improved and it really improved. Getting that group together, that was around the 39th Avenue Channel. The steering committee is what I really call them, 17 members that you heard here. And I think that really was really helpful for the community to really walk with the city to see what was going on around this project. This is this has been a tough one because for whatever it whatever reason at the city, we can never get our process right. We struggle with our outreach. But here I would say that we improved our outreach of the 17 members of the committee. One my neighbor here, Mr. Eddie Armijo, is in opposition and a lot of those neighbors live right there on 39th. And you heard from one of them earlier tonight. Let me let me tell you something. In 2013. And people have always asked me in the community, you know, we feel like this is tied to I-70. We feel like there are all these other issues going on. Why can you why do you see yourself supportive of this? How do you support a drainage project like this? 20 1300 year flood in Boulder. I don't know if you guys remember that 100 year storm, if that same storm would have happened, not just in my neighborhood, Councilwoman Ortega, but in the Mark Moncler Basin, which has proven to be the worst basin in the city of Denver before I-70 was an issue. Everything else that was the worst basin. You know why? Because everybody was calling me and emailed me in 2011 to fix that. Way before. CityLab. I don't know if many people have heard CityLab. With our recent climate change issues going on globally, CityLab just came out with two articles. And CityLab is for folks who are urbanist and folks who are city dwellers to think about best practices across the country. CityLab came out with an article saying. If cities do not start investing in drainage now, they will pay for it in the future. They came up with another article after everything that happened in Houston, after everything that happened in and in Florida, saying that make the proper investments now. This is this is best practices. This is why I am supportive of this project. I'm not supportive of bad processes. I'm not supportive of individuals in my community not having a clear understanding about contaminants. And we must get much better at that. You guys, this description that I've heard tonight has been a good description. But for whatever reason, there are people in my community who do not feel like it's transparent. They do not feel like they have a good understanding of it. And so we've got to improve our process. And that's why you have folks sitting here in opposition. Some of the major issues that I needed to solve tonight for me to be in favor was I've heard from three individuals in my community that we only had testing of three borings. And I think you made that very clear. We had over 71 testing and two contaminants. And so that was incredibly important. Another another important factor for me was that entire steering committee that was around the 39th Avenue Channel. And the specific comments that they made to me of saying why they were supportive when they weren't supportive originally and what got them there. So tonight, you know, I'm going to be supporting this this whole and Councilwoman Ortega said we have to look at the entire the macro program of all of this, the macro of the plans of Parkview for folks in my district. 3500 households have greater flood protection than they would have if we did not do this. 3500 households. So. For folks to understand my reasoning. That's it. At the end of the day. You know, Councilman Espinosa said, how are you going to look back three years from now for for him? He wanted to look back three years from now, three years from now, if anything happened. And I can't look at those constituents and say I voted no because I was scared. That this wasn't the right move. 3500 households. You don't have to be proud of me, I'm telling you. I've looked at the data and that data I have in front of me today, I feel confident in that. And so that's why I'll be supporting. Yes. Counsel Mark Taylor.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. So as I said earlier, you know, this project started looking at how we would address the problem in the neighborhood. And I actually advocated with Diane Barrett that we go to see that and say instead of spent spending the $40 million on I-70, let's address this problem in the cool neighborhood. That's what we started out addressing. It became a much bigger problem than that or project, I should say. So I am supportive of this tonight in working forward to address the problem. I only wish that when all of this came forward, we would have solved the problem for the Globeville neighborhood, because the Globeville neighborhood is still going to see flooding happen on the west side of the riverbank. And, you know, I challenged our our manager of public works at the time that we needed to include money in this budget to solve that problem concurrently with solving the problems that we're doing for this area. I also wish we would have been as focused and concerned about the health impacts to the Globeville, Swansea and neighborhoods with the I-70 project. That is also going to upset what we know are heavy metals in those soils because that's where all the Asarco contamination spread to. And as they were getting to the end of the cleanup in the Globeville neighborhood, part of the settlement was they had to keep testing beyond Globeville. They went to Elyria, they went to Swansea and they went into coal, went into Clayton. That's why this is now the Vasquez I-70 Superfund site. And again, many of those properties were cleaned up. I have a map right here showing which ones had which contaminants. We also know that arsenic was something that was found in neighborhoods all around the city and in the Globeville neighborhood. They used to have a yellow front store that sold fertilizer. That's one of the things that that has arsenic. And so there was argument back and forth between Asarco and CDB at the time as to whether or not that contamination came from yellow for it or whether it actually came from Asarco. And so, you know, that's kind of irrelevant to this conversation right now, but I think it's important to to know some of that history of how it was argued that we saw arsenic throughout these neighborhoods and then they compared these neighborhoods to neighborhoods across the city and found similar contaminants of arsenic. So I think this is a project that needs to happen in terms of solving the flooding problem for this area of the city. And I will be supporting this tonight. I also want to just say thank you to all of the city folks who have met with me on multiple occasions regarding this drainage issue, because I've had many questions and many concerns and just appreciate the time you all have taken to to sit down with me and answer my questions.
Speaker 3: Yes, Councilman Ortega, it's been a labor of love for the city team. Well done, Councilwoman and Councilman Cashman. I apologize.
Speaker 9: I don't even go there. Thank you, Mr. President. So I'll be thrilled when 3500 homes get get added flood protection. But I just don't believe in the staff knows this. I don't believe this program's cooked long enough. I truly don't it I don't believe we're worried about delaying for two months because of costs. Other than that, we've got to get this going again because we have an intergovernmental agreement that the previous council signed that has dates where we need to get this done so it doesn't hold up the I-70 project or we pay at least $5,000 a day. And this is this is part of that, with all deference to to this being stock show celebration night, this is not my first rodeo when it comes to Superfund style hazards. I have familiarity with agencies who are charged with protecting the public health but failed to carry out their charge. I cut my teeth environmentally. As a journalist covering the remediation remediation of hazardous waste created by decades of radium process at Shattuck Chemical Company on South Bannock Street, also known as operable unit number eight, and in that case, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment spent a few years telling the neighborhood , this is safe, we're not going to dig this garbage up and carted out of town. We're going to mix it with cement and bury it on site. And they did that. They created this huge monolith in the overland neighborhood until Senator Wayne Allard arranged for Senate hearings that were held at the Washington Park Community Center and John Collins Church. And evidence finally came up after years of looking out at city staff that was frustrated and wondering why the neighborhood neighbors kept complaining. And they dug it all up and they finally carted away in the case of the 39th Avenue Channel. There is no distance from from the homes to the project. That's. That's. A painful truth. And we're looking at the beginnings of getting the information that we need that would make me more comfortable supporting this. We've got part of the borings trenches done. We've got this materials management plan that's going to get done. And I understand that it's going to cook along with the project. It's a dynamic document, but I haven't seen it yet. And like I say, I mean, I've had good people, good, honest people think they had the right, right deal here. If I'm living next to that that channel, I'm not dealing with promises. I want all the information possible before I'm going to say that this is something that I'm going to declare safe. Because like I said, I've heard it before. I've heard it before. So I definitely am not going to support this tonight. And like I say it, it's moving too fast for the wrong reasons. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. Councilman Castro comes to this one was first happy.
Speaker 11: And Angela, thank you for working to get this document. I love this RFP. This is this is all the data. I mean, all the information. I, I, I wish we were getting. I get why we don't, but don't be surprised if I ask for these in the future because it's all here. And I could have known it back in April of this year or last year. Actually, the the the so something I don't know that, you know, I sort of wish the whole room were still here. So something that I think staff may know or maybe may not, but I don't know that the general public knows is that of all of these two basic drainage projects, this is the only one that I actually genuinely love. I like this project. I don't like that. It's a it's a you know, it's a stormwater project for CDOT. I do like the project is a stormwater project for North Denver and East Denver and everything north of 39th Avenue. I do wish we were piping from.
Speaker 6: The city park.
Speaker 11: And more from Park Hill golf course over to this because it certainly has the capacity, given those ginormous conduits that we put over at Globeville. But then I don't like what we're doing to Globeville and the Platte River there, because I do think. But I mean, this is. This has got the potential to be a better version of our Lakewood Gulch. You know something? If it were if we were to take better advantage of the development opportunities along the north edge of this, something akin to Speer Boulevard, you know, the Cherry Creek thing. And so you're sort of accommodating multiple. You're creating a good public amenity. You're creating a, you know, a healthy environment. You're cleaning up toxins in the process. And you're you're.
Speaker 2: You're you're you're.
Speaker 11: Far exceeding any sort of stormwater needs that we had established in our 2014 master plan buy, buy, buy, buy huge amounts of acre feet. So if it were B and C, that wasn't part of this damn picture. This is the one project, the opportunity we should be taking and we should be funneling everything into this. And but we should also be doing it right. This is our AP lays out an acquisition timetable that goes all the way until mid mid next year or this year. So June of this year. And so to me, there's nothing. It's prudent. It's. Yeah, it's dollars. But hell, this. The market might change and Trump might do something stupid and everything. Like all the things that we do we love and hope and dream for are are, you know, something? The market is is vulnerable. It always has been and always will be. And it's our decisions that sort of help support good things and bad things. And and so what's tough is at a time when we have record high prices in construction and we just leveraged multiple hundreds of millions of dollars in the National Lessner Center and the FAA, the airport and the storm water thing, and now bonds. There's no shortage of work here. There's shortage of workers. There's no shortage of housing. There's a shortage of affordable housing. And this level of investment can be captured, whether it's now or six months from now. That's a job that Semur would be glad to take whenever Denver offers it. And if the only reason is, is again, you know, we have an IGA, we have a commitment and you know, you, the councilmen have a fiduciary responsibility to to rubber stamp this stuff, even with a bunch of unknowns. And that could be knowable and a bunch of information that we could provide the public, but we just don't have it yet is that's not my idea. I'm sorry. Yeah, I adopted it, but I you know, the people of Northwest Denver put me here. You guys timed it such that I didn't have a say in that idea. And and but I do now. And there is if see that's a real partner with us in is concerned about people the way we are they should be willing to amend that ACA if this is somehow a deal breaker because guess what, their own timetable, their own commitments to their parties have not been met. They're missing their deadlines. They're you know, their promises are not on the timetable that they've been throwing out. There might be for a whole host of reasons. Some of them we all know about because I'm going to talk about them right now. Because that's what it boils down to. If we learned anything from the city park decision, is that the lack there, the lack the decision or lack thereof? Because it really wasn't a decision. It was just a ceding of that responsibility to us. Is that the power and responsibility to look after the health and safety concerns of citizens and the environment of Denver lies here in the legislative branch. It's using our charter authority to exercise oversight over the executive branch. The judge basically said that. You know, it's like, you know, I see problems in what we're doing, what's being proposed here, but it's not the judicial job to do this. That's what you have a legislative body for. And that legislative body paved the way through that IGA. And that legislative body needs to sort of correct course. This is a good project. I like this project, don't get me wrong, but I don't like the way we we steamroll and force it down our public's throat. We've done it too many times to too much this recently. And even though this is probably the best of these projects, this is also the one that's going through the most toxic soil in the whole adventure. And it's the one that we can we're requiring all this land that we can know more about, what it is that we're about to undertake, and we can be more transparent and let people know. And make it make a clear case that there's nothing better for for North Denver, even though it does have this seed component. You know, in a perfect world, that sucker would go away and we'd have all this great development and opportunity. And this would dry up the boulevard for for redevelopment and it would be riverfront on steroids. Except for if we do that. I want tools. And I've been fighting them for over for two and a half years here. Tools to address displacement and gentrification. When you bring it, when you put that much opportunity in an area, people are going to get pushed. And that's no different, actually, with this amenity. To be honest with you, people like and who've been there for 60 years. You know, once they start, if you've been there for 60 years, he probably went from a sort of a a life of sort of expanding income to now a point in his life where he's probably on a fixed income. And when we do this sort of level of investment and we his property values continue to go through the roof and his fixed is a fixed income, but it means cost of living in life. Expenses. Expenses go up. That's who gets pushed out. We still don't have tools for that. But it's been stated time and time again that we care about the citizens. You know, it's going to be in the home plan. So I'm going in a whole bunch of areas. But these decision, these investments in infrastructure matter and we're we're blindly going into the dirt here and readily chalking up to the fact that, yeah, we know that there's millions of dollars worth of unknowns there, and that's okay. But that's millions of dollars that could be doing other things for this city. And why not look at this? Because I was just told three weeks ago. That. Yes, that that that that water that is being detained in City Park could actually be put into this 39th Avenue channel. And all the capacity that she needs is it would be maintained. That's a first it's the first time I was hearing that after being essentially acknowledged that that was not the case, that these two components were needed in order to preserve 100 year storm water mitigation for for the highway. So if that's the case, we just squandered another $100 million in in in that effort. And and that is money that could have been done for affordable housing by, you know, granted, this is a completely different thing. But it's an ask of our citizens for a long period of time. And so rather than helping people citywide, we're helping we're doing this one thing for what? So I'm rambling my point. I mean, it's just you can see that I'm frustrated because I want if we if plan support if this 39th Avenue channel is the only project to come forward. I would be working hard to try and make sure that the public was comfortable with what we were doing and making sure that it happened. And but but we're doing this. There's this the thing that, you know, everyone's going to laugh because I'm referencing Chairman Sekou that the thing about he and him talking about the trust issue is because of what happened on that sales job. You know, oh, these things have nothing to do with the highway when they had everything to do with the highway. Had nothing to do with the highway. Had everything to do with the IGA. The only reason we fast tracked those things versus this. You know, and so. So I'm just it's a message to everybody. It is our responsibility on council. We can't rely on people raising their voice, putting their own money and time into suing the city to try and get us to do the right thing when it's just a matter of us going, you know what? What is too much? What is what is going till June 30th when we have them almost the entirety of the soil testing done? We have a very good understanding of what's what's to come, what's wrong? The cost of borings. The cost of these tests are cheap. To get a better profile of what's there. But I can, you know, so it's just, you know, I. So, again, I don't I'm not opposing this because I don't like the project. I am opposing this because I don't think it has to happen right now today. I think it can happen in the first two quarters of this year and we would be better for it and the community would be better for it. And I think if we just started to acknowledge what it is that we're doing and why and we're more transparent and honest with people, they wouldn't they wouldn't feel like we were hiding something. You know, the reference to shell games. And so. Just trust. Trust people that they get it. They support and love this city the way you do. And yeah, there'll still be disagreement. Like, I'm a freaking counselor. I get it. You're not going to please everybody all the time. But I found that, you know, meeting them in a place where they need to be met and being honest with your responses goes a really long way and not trying to sort of obfuscate and obscure what the real motives are in certain situations. Yeah, or in all situations, actually. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Okay, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just wanted to say that I will be supporting this for three reasons.
Speaker 0: One.
Speaker 1: It's helping solve a drainage problem, too. It's cleaning up contaminated part of town. And three, it's creating an incredible 12 acre park, which is a huge amenity for the community. I've said it at every meeting. I regularly.
Speaker 0: Like run ride my.
Speaker 1: Bike on the Goldsmith Gulch trail, which is a drainage ditch that is I don't even know.
Speaker 0: How many.
Speaker 1: Miles it is. It goes all the way to Douglas County through beautiful parks in my district.
Speaker 0: The Harvard Gulch Trail, which is.
Speaker 1: In Councilman Cashman's district, but close to my house. I use it regularly. Beautiful opportunity to create a recreation space when we're solving a drainage issue. Also, the Highline Canal, which is not a drainage ditch, it's a different kind of ditch, but it was for a water conveyance and was turned into a recreational trail. And I'm telling you, that 12 acre park is going to be a great thing for that community.
Speaker 3: I think you can say in black and white New Year.
Speaker 7: Real quick. I guess I'm against this tonight because just the the situation, the way it was handled, you know, I got so little information today all at the last second, I had to find out what was going on. And then all of a sudden tonight, we get so much different information. And I don't know how serious how the public thinks that what you've said tonight helps them understand the situation. I don't think it does. I don't think a 200 page RFP is going to tell our citizens anything about what's going to go up. But those contaminated souls, I don't know what would seem is going to do to develop this this materials management plan that's going to help them. Is just seems to me is so different than the first ordinance that we did where, you know, I can understand that because city council will have another shot coming at it if something goes wrong here. We don't we approve this. And it's going to go ahead and and we'll hope for the best, especially when something is so sensitive. It's so much concern to our residents like this project compared to the the golf course project. I mean, it's just it's like night and day to me and to be treated so insensitively like this and and it to me, it's just sort of rude to the public. I just I just sort of agree with my colleagues about process. It's just it's not that I don't believe in storm drainage. I've voted for storm drains all the way along for the last two years, you know, but this is different to what way this was handled. And it's just sort of arrogant. And I just I just can't stand that kind of attitude that our city would have with our citizens. So all of I said, enough, and thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you, Councilman. I did want to say one other piece about green drainage that I'm excited that we're headed in that direction. And it's not just pipes that we're focusing on. In one of the city labs, they talked about drainage. They talked about learning from the Dutch. And I feel like in certain ways, we have especially with this with this project here, the other piece I want to say is I've had cancer and I have two kids who live two blocks away from this, and I'm very supportive of this project. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Clark Espinosa. No.
Speaker 2: Flynn, i.
Speaker 5: Herndon, i. Cashin. Can each new or. Ortega.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Susman.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 3: I have three kids.
Speaker 4: I'm tired.
Speaker 8: I was going to ask you about that.
Speaker 3: My wife just reminded me very hard.
Speaker 2: Please close the.
Speaker 3: Voting. Announce the results at almost midnight.
Speaker 5: Eight days. Three days.
Speaker 3: Eight, eight, three nays. 1395 has passed. Thank you, everyone, for spending time. We stand adjourned.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Sema Construction, Inc. for the design and construction of the 39th Avenue Greenway and Park Hill Detention project.
Approves a $78,214,454 three-year contract with Sema Construction, Inc. for the design and construction of the 39th Avenue Greenway and Park Hill Detention project to protect against flooding while improving water quality, multi-modal mobility access opportunities, and creating and enhancing park and public spaces in Council Districts 8 and 9 (201738462). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-8-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 12-5-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, December 18, 2017 Council meeting for a postponement to Tuesday, January 2, 2018.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12182017_17-1166
|
Speaker 2: So I just want to make sure that as we move forward, I just want to make sure that the right. Okay. We have somebody from Parks. Yes. Once you come up and help explain this, Sir Michael Bouchard.
Speaker 0: Assistant director for designing construction for Denver Parks.
Speaker 9: For some reason, I'm not entirely clear.
Speaker 0: The original resolution address was incorrect. The 1290 North Knox Court.
Speaker 7: Is the correct.
Speaker 0: Address.
Speaker 9: And I worked with staff on Friday.
Speaker 2: To make sure that.
Speaker 7: That got updated.
Speaker 2: Okay. I just want to make sure, Mr. President, I don't know what the action is here.
Speaker 4: If it's fine.
Speaker 2: To move forward, as long as that's reflected at the end of the minutes here, it's 80. 80 still. Got it. Got it. So I want to thank you for for for making that clear. I want to go to Kristin Crawford, our action here. I just want to make sure that this is correct. It seems like we have a lag in system right before us. It's incorrect of what he just said. So what should we do?
Speaker 1: It appears as if that. Excuse me. It appears as if the title is correct. So I think you're okay to move forward tonight.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Um, is that all, Constable Lopez? Yeah.
Speaker 8: I just wanted to make sure. I mean.
Speaker 2: I love eagle to elementary. Okay? But, you know. You got parked down. All right. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing that up. But as our counsel did say, the title is correct so we can move forward. All right. Let's bring up 352 Council Resolution 352. Councilman Ortega has a question here.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Dig Studio, Inc. for architecture and engineering design services at Paco Sanchez Park.
Amends a contract with Dig Studio by adding $379,605 for a new total amount of $987,956 and one year for a new end date of 11-1-19 for phase 2 of the Re-Imagine Play at Paco Sanchez Park playground project including design development of the remaining play pods and construction documents for the Play Loop, Community Plaza, Kiosk Building, Fitness Loop, and the remainder of the Phase 2 area located at 1290 North Knox Court in Council District 3 (201524291). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-8-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 10-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12182017_17-1341
|
Speaker 2: That's next. I'm sorry, 1341. I said 341 1341 for a vote. And Councilman Cashman, can you put this on the floor, please?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I moved that council resolution 1341 be adopted.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. All right. Comments by members of council. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I just, you know, this came to committee and there were a lot of comments and we got very thorough response back from Rocky Mountain Human Services that said, under normal circumstances, I would be asking for this to be postponed as a matter of privilege. I am not asking that primarily because if we did, it would postpone it into into January. And services to developmentally disabled children and people actually would be would would this would terminate December 31st and there would be a time where they would go without services. But I do want to comment on that, which is this habit, again, from the administration and people responsible for these bills, for giving them to council in a timeline that doesn't allow that that sort of forces us to act faster than our normal response at mean time. I mean, it is listed on there that we have to act by January 8th, when in fact, we have to act before December 31st. And because this is the last meeting in this year, we have to act today. And that is that to me continues to be unacceptable. And and for that reason, I know my colleagues will move this forward, but I am going to vote in opposition to this bill. And that's why I have called it out for because I actually still have pending questions that I would like to be answered and I'm sure will be answered, but not but because I still have those questions. I can't vote in support of this at this point in time. And I lament the fact that I can't have a chance to review it without jeopardizing services to children. Thanks. Okay. Any other comments by members of the Council? Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilman Nu and I had been meeting with our Department of Human Services in Rocky Mountain over the last year and recently plugged in Councilman Cashman, who is the new chair of the committee, to look at some of the changes that will happen in the new contract. And so it's important that we extend this contract, continue the services that are being provided not only by Rocky Mountain, but by the other providers that they are contracting with. I don't think everyone is aware that there was a federal mandate that we go to a case free management system, which means the provider cannot both provide services and administer all of the services. And so the state is in the middle of setting regulations for how that will move forward. I'm not sure all of that work will be done by the end of the six month time frame. But we can certainly be ensuring that Denver is plugged into that conversation with the state and helps kind of guide some of the changes that will happen in the new contract. There are some things that the Department of Human Services is looking at as some additional things they want to see done differently into that contract that we will see next year. But in the interim, it is important that we move this forward. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. I concur. See no further comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Espinosa.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 5: Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Herndon High. Cashman, I can eat.
Speaker 2: Lopez All right.
Speaker 5: New Ortega. High Assessment Black Clarke. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please those voting announce results.
Speaker 5: 12 days, one day.
Speaker 2: 12 hours, one night, 1341 has been adopted. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Let's bring up 1395. This is for a comment and a vote. And Councilman Cashman, please put this on the floor.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Options, Inc., for services and supports for intellectually and developmentally disabled individuals.
Amends a contract with Denver Options, Inc., doing business as Rocky Mountain Human Services (RMHS), by changing the maximum amount not to exceed to $7.5 million and to add six months for a new end date of 6-30-18 to provide services and distribute funds to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities citywide (SOCSV-201209022-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-8-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 12-13-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12182017_17-1395
|
Speaker 2: 12 hours, one night, 1341 has been adopted. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Let's bring up 1395. This is for a comment and a vote. And Councilman Cashman, please put this on the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Resolution 1395 be adopted.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary. Sorry. Yeah.
Speaker 1: He's going to.
Speaker 2: Oh, okay.
Speaker 5: According to 3.2.6 to the rules of procedure.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 5: So no vote is required.
Speaker 2: Why don't why don't you. Why don't you hold your hold your movement? Councilman Espinosa, why don't you go ahead and make a comment? Yeah. Yeah. Consistent with 3.2.6. I'd like to postpone this to the next regularly scheduled meeting. In light of the comments that we heard, you know, particularly right before this meeting, I think there is an appetite for a public comment as well. So I'll leave that up to, you know, your discretion on whether we do that or not. But I do think that I would still like to exercise my right to postpone this to the next regularly scheduled meeting. Okay. And accordance with our rules, it is postponed. We do not need a vote for that. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: So I was going to ask for some information. So between now and next week, when it comes back, I would like to get information on where we are in the spin of the overall plant to park you Twin Basin Drainage Project. I'm not asking for that right at this moment, but we'd like to get the big picture on where we are with our full spend. Are we anticipating we are on budget? Do we think that we will be over budget? I know these are all broken out into different projects. We've got the Globe, the landing outfall, the 39th Avenue Channel, we have the Park Hill Golf Course in the City Park Golf Course, which were all brought forward as one big project. They've all been separated out. But I think it's important to know that with the wastewater fees, that is the primary funding source, whether we're on budget or anticipate and I know some of the construction hasn't started yet, but it would be helpful to know where we are in that big picture.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 6: So I'm looking for that as well as information on who the BWB is. I saw that we've got a 23% goal, but would like to know who the contractor is.
Speaker 2: So thank you and.
Speaker 6: Have somebody get back to me.
Speaker 2: It looks like everyone on the team is nodding. A lot of team members here working on this. And I would also like to bring up you all. We kind of talked about this in committee, just the standards. This is the this is especially when it comes to the 39th Avenue Greenway. It's the closest to any residential. We had some folks in the neighborhood talking about how close this is to their homes and and that the protections and the standards that we will up in this location from any other location. I know we talked about there's some. Fencing. There are some, you know, mitigation around the dirt that we're going to be doing. There's some air monitor monitoring we're going to be doing. So, I mean, folks are really concerned about the contamination in the ground. And so if we can just have all that ready, that'd be great. All right. Sometimes. That's when I. Yeah. The reason why I was hesitant is I didn't run it by it, didn't check the calendar on on what we have for, for January 2nd and both January 2nd and January 8th fall within the time frame to act . But I would like to request a public comment and if for some reason the second is is too congested, maybe one of my colleagues would offer up another postponement to the eighth, but between either the second or the eighth, have a public comment, if it's possible. One. Okay. So, you know, at some point at some point, we we start to back up on on onto the 30 day shot clock. And I don't think we can only have more than one. But Councilwoman Ortega, are you up on this?
Speaker 6: Well, I asked my questions, but I think what's important is to.
Speaker 2: Show you the.
Speaker 6: Action tonight rather than think that we're going to deal with it when it comes back next week. So we should determine if if it's the second or the eighth is when it should come back with that public comment.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 7: Mr.. Mr. President, you can only postpone it one time, so it would have to be on the second. You can't postpone it again to the eighth.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just point out that I thought we had that provision where another council member made sure I would recommend time.
Speaker 6: You could also postpone it.
Speaker 2: Okay, well, come on. We got to keep moving. I would like to request a public comment on January 2nd. Okay. And Madam Secretary, do you have have the schedule for January 2nd?
Speaker 5: There's one required public hearing and it's my understanding, another courtesy, public hearing on January 2nd that will be offered by Councilman Flynn in a few minutes.
Speaker 2: Okay. So it looks like we'll have this action on January 2nd.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: All right. All right. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to 1396. And Councilman Flynn, I want you to put this on the floor as well. I'm sorry. Councilman Cashman, please put us on the floor.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Sema Construction, Inc. for the design and construction of the 39th Avenue Greenway and Park Hill Detention project.
Approves a $78,214,454 three-year contract with Sema Construction, Inc. for the design and construction of the 39th Avenue Greenway and Park Hill Detention project to protect against flooding while improving water quality, multi-modal mobility access opportunities, and creating and enhancing park and public spaces in Council Districts 8 and 9 (201738462). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-8-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 12-5-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, December 18, 2017 Council meeting for a postponement to Tuesday, January 2, 2018.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12182017_17-1396
|
Speaker 2: All right. All right. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to 1396. And Councilman Flynn, I want you to put this on the floor as well. I'm sorry. Councilman Cashman, please put us on the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1396 be ordered published.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Flynn, your comments.
Speaker 7: Several. Mr. President, thank you. First of all, as we discussed at committee, I wanted to request a one hour courtesy hearing on this council bill, which is the Land Acquisition Ordinance. I related to the plant to Park Hill Project in the Park Hill Golf Course and seeing as how it's related to 1395, I don't know what you're as president. I don't know what your direction might be or what your decision might be, but it might be possible to do them combined and allow people to, since they're related projects, to entertain comments on both of them.
Speaker 2: I think that's an excellent suggestion.
Speaker 7: That's why I made it make only excellent suggestions.
Speaker 2: Calm down, calm down, Councilman land until I know this is the last this is the last one or 17. Madam Secretary, will you will you please put these together for one combined public hearing?
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right. And Councilman Flynn, do you want to offer an amendment?
Speaker 7: Yes. In relation to the land acquisition ordinance. I wanted to I wanted to propose an amendment. And some of you might not think this is the most excellent suggestion, but I hope that you duly consider it in reading the draft of the ordinance. It struck me as being somewhat different than the impressions that we got out of Finance Committee in that several weeks back. A month or more ago, the administration gave up on the on the notion of acquiring the Park Hill golf course, 75 acres and then lease purchase the remaining 75 because of some complications and many complicated issues that arose because of the ownership and the conservation easement. And just so many questions with the concessionaire that runs the golf course. So the administration decided to to procure the property needed for the drainage project through a system of permanent easements where the where the the detention would be and then temporary construction easements of up to 90 acres. And and that passed unanimously out of the committee. And when I read the draft ordinance, it contains a language that's pretty boilerplate and probably necessary, but I think needs to be clarified. And that is that if the administration is not going to acquire in fee simple title the actual full ownership rights of the golf course, only the easements, the the ordinance as it's written gives the administration the authority nevertheless to go ahead and acquire at least up to 90 acres in fee title, which is not what we intended, not what the administration intends to be frank, but in the interest of transparency and in the interest of of being very, very open and transparent about what is a truly probably one of the more controversial projects going on in our city right now. I think we should I think I would like to offer this amendment that clarifies that any acquisition of fee interest fee title interest is only for those portions that are that come up in relation to the acquisition of the easements and not the full 90 acres. And so I if you would entertain the motion now, I'd like to make them put on the floor.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I moved to a man accountable 17 Dash 1396 in the following particulars on page two, Line 40, insert the following new sentence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City Council does not hereby authorize the Mayor or his duly appointed representatives to acquire the entire property in fee. Simple title from any third party, not including interest currently owned by the city, provided that authority is hereby given to acquire lesser portions of the property in fee. Simple title as may be necessary or desirable to provide for the project. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. It's been moved and seconded now. Comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Councilman Sussman.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Mr. President, I would like to have somebody from the administration come and speak to this because it's the first that I've heard of it. And so I'm not I'm not sure whether what effects this might have on their ability to go forward with this project.
Speaker 2: Are you and Councilman Sussman, are you asking for the legal team that's working around this?
Speaker 1: Sure. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman, I'm John McGrath with the City Attorney's Office. Mm hmm. So this request came up recently and is. Something that is not typical in a land acquisition ordinance to be seeking to acquire rights lesser than for title. It is correct that we currently anticipate a need for permanent and temporary easements on the property. But this is this particular piece of property has a fairly complicated history and the ownership structure. And so we felt that it was the prudent course to include kind of a full slate of potential acquisition interests to protect the city. Because as we currently sit here today, we don't know the particular boundaries of the property we may be acquiring. We know we have committed to it being less than 90.
Speaker 8: Acres in total. It could be significantly less.
Speaker 2: We have not designed the project beyond just a very preliminary design and we have not done an appraisal of the properties. So there are a lot of unknowns. We also have not examined title to the property, so we don't know here today what we might encounter when this process unfolds. And so it would be our preference. And what is included.
Speaker 8: In the original draft of the agreement was.
Speaker 2: Fee title and any lesser interest, which is very.
Speaker 8: Typical for a land acquisition ordinance.
Speaker 2: In the city. So that's the reason it was drafted that way. And again, I agree with Councilman Flynn that. Sitting here today, we anticipate it being interest in the nature of an easement permanent and temporary, but we don't want to impose that limitation on ourselves, only to find six or seven months from now that we don't have all of the rights we need to be able to deliver the site to our design build team and have to go back to Council for additional rights that could introduce a risk of delay and potential damages to the city if if it unfolds in that way.
Speaker 1: Damages in what way? I mean, liability damages.
Speaker 2: Damages for delay under our contract with SEMA. And there are other potential damages for see that is expecting us to deliver pieces of this infrastructure at certain times. And so the city has made commitments there to deliver this.
Speaker 8: Program according to that schedule.
Speaker 1: So this kind of amendment you've never seen before when you're trying to do this sort of acquisition, is this an unusual amendment that is being asked for?
Speaker 2: It's my opinion that this would be an unusual amendment.
Speaker 1: To our regular process.
Speaker 2: And unusual limitation on the.
Speaker 8: Scope of.
Speaker 2: Rights that we would typically seek to to have as we go into the process of negotiating for an acquisition.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you very much. I think I have only heard about this as I was walking to my chair this evening, and I think it bears a lot more discussion and thought by the committee or someone before I would be able to vote on this. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Castro.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President, sir. So if we end up with the feed, simple option, we don't take ownership of that land. When we're done with the project for to create the the drainage element. What happens to the title to that land as it would then stay with the city? Because as I understand it, we need to return the course to Regulation 18 hole golf course to protect the conservation easement, correct?
Speaker 2: Correct. And so the answer to your question depends on what type of interest we acquire. If we acquire as anticipated easements, then the remaining interest would remain with Clayton. And if it was a temporary easement after the duration of our temporary easement expires, full title would revert to Clayton. As to the permanent easement, we would have permanent rights there and Clayton would retain the underlying rights.
Speaker 4: But what happens to the conservation easement.
Speaker 2: Unless something else happens to impact the conservation easement which is currently actually incorporated into the agency agreement? But assuming nothing changes from the status quo today, the agency agreement and the use restrictions would continue in place throughout the project. Regardless of whether we took fee title or some lesser interest.
Speaker 4: So the intention remains to return the golf course to playable condition, which is what's needed to protect that easement. Is that correct? Correct. Don't want to get too far into the weeds, but is there any scenario by which we lose control over the conservation easement? If we in what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: We believe not. It will depend on our ability to return the golf course to a playable 18 hole golf course. And we've taken.
Speaker 8: Steps throughout the process.
Speaker 2: To ensure that we have that ability based upon design, etc., and as we move forward, will continue to ensure that we have that ability and the budget in dollars to.
Speaker 4: Deliver it. Thank you. And the last question I have is so we're facing a deadline set out implode imposed deadline in the IJA? Correct. Yes. Okay. And if we missed that deadline, what penalties do we face?
Speaker 2: I believe the penalties under the current C9 agreement are $5,000 a day.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman Katherine. Councilwoman Ortega believe is next.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I'd like to ask you to come back. I have two questions for you. The first one, going back to the six penalties, I thought those were specific in terms of timelines were tied to having the Globeville landing outfall in place by certain deadlines, that it wasn't as much tied to the Park Hill golf course acquisition and improvements that are needed there, because we're not going to even begin to get to the improvements until some time, I'm assuming, in 2018 or so. So correct me if I'm wrong there.
Speaker 2: I believe that there are more than one deadline that are set forth in that agreement, but it's been a while.
Speaker 8: Since I've.
Speaker 2: Reviewed it, and so I would have to get back to you. But my understanding is there are dates into 2019 and potentially beyond for certain elements of the program.
Speaker 6: But acquiring what we need for the. Drainage that needs to be done at that far northeast corner of the Park Hill golf course. I guess I'm struggling with the fact that we had identified somewhere in the ballpark of 20 acres when this overall project was brought to us back, what, two and a half years ago. So I don't understand how it is that we now need 90 acres. That doesn't make sense to me. We should be looking at what we actually need. And I'm just questioning whether this is, you know, kind of getting back and tying us into the conversation about the acquisition of the golf course from Clinton Land Trust. And this is just the first phase of that. So, you know, I mean, in the interest of transparency, it's why I asked for the budget of the overall project of all four of these to ensure that, you know, because if we're buying 90 acres versus 20 acres, doesn't that put our budget out of kilter? I mean, so I appreciate the fact that Councilman Espinosa has postponed that other one for a week so we could try to get that budget information. But help me understand whether or not we actually received the information on the title when we did the conservation easement back in the 2000. Did we not get that? How would that have been have changed since then?
Speaker 2: Well, stats and I want to change on a daily basis. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to let you know that Steinberg is right behind you, too, as well, because I know you guys are probably yeah, you guys are a team. But but certainly there was a title there was a title examination that happened back in the year 2000. And there have been examinations that have happened since then. The city doesn't control the day to day happenings on that course it's that's those rights are owned by Clayton and so what might have happened to title between 2000 and today is unknown.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 2: All right. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And and Jeff, I saw you want to jump in there? Is there anything that you wanted to say to that exchange? Before I go to Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 7: If there's further clarification, I'm happy to give it. If the answer satisfactory, then. Okay.
Speaker 6: Great. I'm good. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just going to point out that this census bill for introduction.
Speaker 7: We're going to have the opportunity to hear from.
Speaker 2: The public and go through questions and comments in two weeks. So I felt as if it was a little redundant to kind of dove into that now. But I was just going to speak on the amendment that Councilman Flynn offered.
Speaker 7: I walked up here and I see this sheet of paper on my desk without having any understanding behind it or any conversations with Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: So this is not.
Speaker 7: Something that I'm comfortable doing right now. I certainly think there are unintended consequences when we try to get involved in the weeds. And so I would hope that my colleagues.
Speaker 2: Would vote down the amendment so when we could have the opportunity to hear a little bit more of the reasons behind it on second.
Speaker 7: Reading next year. Thank you, President.
Speaker 2: All right. Next year. That is correct. All right. Councilman Herndon, Councilman Flynn, I'm going to skip you and get to some of the folks who have not gotten a go yet. Councilman Espinosa, have you gone yet? No. Okay. Councilman Espinosa. So to me, it seems pretty self-evident that the per the intent behind the the amendment was to continue to keep council somewhere somewhat engaged in the process of land, take down acquisition over in the golf course the Park Hill golf course in. So I a why would you ever want to remove council when council is asking for that? I don't understand it because we're that much closer to the constituents that we all serve. I would I would like you to confirm what I was shown in the briefing, though. I was presented a a layout that shows a restoration of a fully regulation compliant 18 hole golf course. Is that true?
Speaker 7: That is true.
Speaker 2: Okay. So I want it on record that we can in fact accommodate the storm water needs that we're attempting to put in and restore a fully regulation compliant 18 hole golf course. That's correct. Okay. So then what is the delay? How many hell how long does it take for a bill to be filing for you guys to file something for council consideration and it of approved. I'm not sure. What type of bill are you referring to? A land acquisition ordinance bill or. Correct. So the process from the decision to acquire a real estate interest. No, I'm not talking about the decision to acquire. Once you finally decided announcement. Just when the sky's right here. I mean, it's got I don't know if you can just real quick so I don't not interested in the process. I want to know exactly once you decide to go to council. When we how long does it take from the time you file to us taking action?
Speaker 1: Well, a lot of that depends on the action. Sky Stuart Mayor's office. A lot of that depends on the actions you take. If everything goes on a normal course of action, it take five weeks.
Speaker 2: Five weeks? Well, we could do it in as fast as two weeks. Is that not correct? Or three?
Speaker 1: That would assume filing things out of order and taking actions that are not the normal process.
Speaker 2: Okay. But when you say up to five weeks, you're including the entire 30 day or. No.
Speaker 3: No, I'm not.
Speaker 2: It's seven week or an eight week delay. Correct. So my point is, is that I actually have a ton of confidence in the team that is working on this. Both yourselves, Jeff's office and every and public works that they're looking at this very comprehensively and have a very stout understanding, especially at the seam a contract goes through . I think there's also ample time for everyone to proceed with design and recognize any sort of concerns about land use issues. The process that you would have to undertake to acquire land and to do all that, most of that would occur regardless of whether you actually filed something for council or not. That is the same process. Legal process that you have to do to acquire land doesn't change just because you have to go to council. The only difference that results from this amendment is that it does come to council. And yes, does that create a pocket of uncertainty because council then could in fact deny the request? Yes, but I think that I think that you either have a I have the confidence that you're either making that decision and you won't come to that point where council would be in a situation where they wouldn't approve it. And so I don't think there's any real risk because we're ultimately all on the same team here regarding stormwater needs and open space needs.
Speaker 7: So, Councilman, the risk would come back to this if there had to be a new filing of a land acquisition ordinance. It would start the entire process over again in terms of providing notifications of intent to the operator or the owner of the golf course. It would entail acquiring a new appraisal. And generally speaking, from the point that a land acquisition is put into place until the complete acquisition process is completed is 12 months. So if there were a delay and let's say it was three, five, six months into the process when design was further along and there was an anticipated outcome of what exactly was needed, in addition to a determination of how was to be taken, if we had to go back and file land acquisition ordinance, we'd have to start the entire process over again. And it would add between a six and nine month delay to the construction of this aspect of the project.
Speaker 2: So just the thing that I struggle with in your response is this is this sort of concerns that are being addressed by such an amendment are in fact, in part due to the original land acquisition deal that was being struck with with Clayton regarding the entirety of the property. And at that time at Safe House, I asked you specifically if if you had seen the if you had either performed, had an appraisal performed or seen the appraisal that Clayton had done. And you confirmed in that meeting that you had not and you did not. And so this is sort.
Speaker 7: Of not conducted an.
Speaker 2: Appraisal, right? So it's difficult for me that you would be willing to move forward on that deal and then now here say that it would be it would be prohibitive for us to put in this thing, because you'd have to go through that entire process to to acquire land. My expectation is that you would be doing that on any land that we're looking to acquire. And so I now I'm even more in of the opinion that we should be we should be putting this in here so that we actually go through the full vetting process on whether or not we should take down additional land as it comes up in this situation. So, you know, I just it is a very complicated bit of moving parts. And so I'm glad that we're actually postponing it for a public hearing till next year. Thanks.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, can I offer a clarification? You got not a comment or question just to clarify some of the discussion.
Speaker 2: Okay. Very quickly.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Two people. My amendment includes the provision provided that the authority is hereby given to acquire lesser portions of the property in fee, simple as may be necessary or desirable to provide for the project. So a lot of the answers that are being offered here about having to start all over are not entirely accurate. And I'm afraid that the answers are kind of poisoning the intent of my. Okay, my amendment.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Well, let's make sure we get to all the members of council and you can go back and clarify that. Councilwoman Black, you're up.
Speaker 1: Thank you. A lot of my questions were just answered. So thank you. For those of you who came up to the microphone. Like others have said, I'd really like to have a full discussion about that. I don't feel comfortable with that, really delving into any unintended consequences that might be associated with this so we can learn more about it the next few weeks. That would be my preference.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately, we are in the weeds, so I'm just going to stay there for a moment. John, I'm going to ask you so if I understand the premise of Councilman Flynn's amendment. The premise is he's trying to protect against the city, purchasing the entire property, exceeding what is needed for the drainage project. I don't read the ordinance as me allowing for that as written, so I just want to go to section three of the ordinance. Do you have it in front of you?
Speaker 2: No, but I'm familiar with that.
Speaker 1: Okay. So it says that they they determine that the interest in the property is required for the following public uses and purposes to construct, locate. And it's all about the drainage projects. So I just want to clarify under that language of the section three of this bill. Could the city legally acquire anything beyond what's needed for that section three anyway?
Speaker 2: Not under that language of the ordinance?
Speaker 1: No. Okay. And then I just want to ask Kirsten. I don't know if you have the language in front of you, whether you concur or if you haven't had time to review it. That's an understandable answer as well. But just do you concur that Section three operates as a limitation on what the city can buy? Excuse me. So in talking with Mr. McGrath and I have to defer to him on this, that that section was added specifically to address that concern. But my understanding from also speaking with Councilman Flynn is he just wanted to make it more transparent and clear. So I have to defer to Mr. McGrath on this. So, yeah, and I apologize. I try to use a light touch when I when I'm thinking with my lawyer brain because I don't practice law in the same way that you do. But I think this is one of those areas that when you're writing policy and you're writing something like you're regulating the public, I think it's okay to sometimes dumb down the language and try to make it even doubly clear for the public to understand what you're doing, even if you're legally covered with the language that you have that's drafted by a lawyer. I don't feel that way about contracts. Right. So here's the thing. And this is this is why. So if we somehow fail to pass this amendment or there is some problem, the fact that we had done so might make someone interpret this agreement more broadly than it was written. Right? So you can actually change the interpretation of other sections of the agreement once you start tinkering with the language. And so I just I believe that the current language currently limits the city. And so I don't think it's a good practice to dumb down language. And I don't mean that as a pejorative. I just meant putting it in plainer words. Right. To just be clear, I don't mean that as a pejorative term, but I just that is that in my mind is not good, you know, contractual writing that if the ordinance has already limited my repeating it in different language only creates the potential for more confusion and a potential for a court or someone down the road. And clearly, we do have challenges floating around in this environment, so I don't want there to be any confusion. So I'm going to go on the record and say this current bill, as written, already completely prohibits the city from buying any land that isn't needed for drainage period. And so I stand by that language. I assert it in there. You know, in the record, the attorneys have now asserted it on the record, which makes the amendment risky and creating confusion. That's that's my so I think I share Councilman Flynn's good intentions and his intent, but I fear the unintended consequences of duplicating, but with different words, something that's already covered under the way. The whole agreement is structured. So I will be voting no on that basis tonight, but I understand the good intentions. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Each new passes. Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. I thought I thought Councilman New was in. There are some other unintended consequences. And one of them is. And first of all, I apologize to all my colleagues I wasn't able to reach yet. But when I. I saw I was reading this on Friday night, we had some weekend email exchanges and the amendment was actually only drafted at about 3:00 or 330 this afternoon. And I didn't have a chance to talk to everybody, but I was told that if we were going to act on the amendment, it would be better to act on it tonight. Because if we were to adopt an amendment on final, it would cause us to have to do republication and delay it by yet another week, which had its own consequences. That's the reason I was pushing it tonight, and for no other reason I would gladly take it on. On January 2nd, after the public hearing, if it were more clear that we wouldn't have to republish it and take it up again a week later. The unintended consequence that I'm trying to avoid is that we told the public a couple of weeks back or a couple of maybe a month and a half ago that we were not going to buy the Park Hill golf course. And in this ordinance, it allows us to buy up to 90 acres as long as it's needed for the drainage project. That was always true, but we were told in committee that we were going to do this by permanent easement and buy temporary construction easement and not by purchasing . But we still, nevertheless, in the amendment, leave in the provision that we may acquire by fee. Simple if that is the necessary way of acquiring the land for the smaller pieces and parcels, lesser portions if they are needed to provide for the project. So I believe that it is that the objections that were noted by the folks who say they're going to vote no is addressed right in that last that last clause of the amendment, Mr. President. So I would ask for support for this in order to keep faith with what the public has been understanding that we were not going to buy the Park Hill golf course at this point. We were just going to get easements. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. The amendment is on the floor right now. We're going to vote on the amendment. Or what? Would you like us to vote on the amendment? Okay, great. Council members, given the debate we are voting. It has been moved in second it. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 5: Flynn I. Gilmore No. Herndon No.
Speaker 3: Cashman I don't know.
Speaker 5: Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 1: Sussman No.
Speaker 5: Black No. Clark No. Espinosa.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: No. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: People haven't voted. Yep.
Speaker 2: We have another vote. Hanging fire. Couple voting power. Okay.
Speaker 5: Great. 67 days.
Speaker 2: Okay. 67 days. The amendment fails. Let's pull up 1396. We are. But this is actually going on to the floor for a publication. A publication? So do we need to. Madam Secretary, do we need a vote on this?
Speaker 5: We can vote on the motion that was put on the floor by Cashman and Herndon.
Speaker 2: Okay, great. So voting on the on the floor here at Home Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Flynn No. Gillmor, I. Herndon, I. Cashman No can.
Speaker 2: Lopez No.
Speaker 5: New Ortega. Sussman I black Clark? Espinosa No. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 5: Eight eyes, five nays.
Speaker 2: All right, ayes. Five nays. 1396 moves on and will be at a public hearing on the second. All right. I think this is this concludes all the items I need to be called out. All of the items for introduction have been ordered published, were now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote or you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption on the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, I move that the following resolutions be adopted and bills be published and placed upon final consideration and do pass, including all series of 2017. 1141. 1371. 1381. 1386. 1387. 1388. 1361 1362, 1363, 1374, 1375, 1377, 1378, 1391, 1392, 13, 93, 13, 98, 1399, 14, 1814, 2014, 51, 1166, 1277, 1298, 1352, 1376, 1379 1380 1385 1406 1407 1424 1401 1397 1340 1365 1366 1333 1335 1269 1350 1351 feel like I'm in training to be a council secretary here.
Speaker 2: I'll see you in 2017. Yes, sir. Madam Secretary, you try and take your job.
Speaker 5: You can have.
Speaker 2: It's been moved into China. Please tell me you did not get that. You did not get that. It's been moved. And second man Secretary Roll call black.
Speaker 5: All right. CLERK All right. Espinosa. Flynn All right. Gilmore I. Herndon. Cashman. I can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please call of voting. And as a result.
Speaker 5: 3939.
Speaker 2: Resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be a required public hearing in council about 12 to intensity zoning classification at 3944 North High Street in Cole. And there will be a one hour courtesy public hearing regarding minority and women owned business enterprises and small business enterprise legislation . Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must see the council secretary, receiver, speaker, card and fill it out and return to her during the recess of council. Madam Secretary, 10 minutes. 15.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project.
Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed for the construction of a detention area as part of the Platte to Park Hill 39th Avenue Greenway Stormwater Systems project including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, contract rights, permits, and other appurtenances located at 4141 East 35th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-5-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12182017_17-1324
|
Speaker 2: 13 eyes. 1210 has been approved. Congratulations. All right. We have another public hearing this evening. Councilman Castro, will you please put 1324 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Once you put your speaker. Can you turn your. Yeah. There you go.
Speaker 4: Thank you. I moved the council bill 1324 to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for Council Bill 1324 is now open. May we have the staff report from the diocese? All right, Councilman. New.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I look forward to presenting this today. And I first want to start by just thanking Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Ortega with helping me with this ordinance who was there. We worked on this for over a year, looking at all the issues with the construction prices and talking to the many participants in the process . And and I especially want to thank everyone who brought this initial issue to our attention and and the organizations Helga, Gertrude, Joslyn Robinson and MAXINE Prior, all representing majority and MAXINE with Artie's formal process. So thank you for your support, especially with Frank. Thank Diane Durfee, who's really the city attorney, sister city attorney who helped us guide us through this process and the many city departments that we talked to and and the, you know, city auditor, mayor, staff and so everyone so really appreciate all their their participation and support through this process. The best this is a best practices bill about the subcontractor. And it all goes back to the 2014 revised ordinance on the minority women in Small Business Enterprise Construction Contracting Ordinance. This ordinance addressed the many years of discrimination for the minority small businesses in construction and really provides the the growth and assistance to the growth and development for these organizations, allows the participation in city contracts and certifies their participation as individual companies, and also sets a percentage of goal a goal percentage of city construction contract value. So and most importantly establishes the division of small business opportunity here is to assist, help train and and participate with the the maybe with business small business looking at their payment practices and monitoring their activities. So a great ordinance, no great framework for development. And so we were proud to use that as the basis for our amendment. The how this all began is began again about a year ago. And we again heard testimony from many subcontractors about issues with problems of payment of payment irregularities. We heard issues about change orders that weren't properly paid or lumped together in a percentage of payment made, as well as there is work done on proposals that really wasn't compensated, especially when a contract was awarded. So and a lot of discussion too about the lack of support of dispo in the education and training. So we heard a lot of issues that we wanted to address in addressing in this ordinance. And the thing that disturbed us the most is the real difficulty that all the minority subcontractors of small business had about coming forward and talking to us and and being able to publicly testify. They were really scared to do that. They were felt threatened. And because of this issue and they met with us individually, but because of their lack of willingness to be candid publicly, we put a retaliation, a part of this ordinance, which we'll talk about in a minute . We interviewed all the subcontractors and the mayor, and we'd also interviewed subcontractors to get to validate their issues and concerns over. This is made up of five major portions as a billing and payment tracking process. And I'm going to go through each one of these. We have an early completed work routine, a retainer payment program, the linkage of letters of intent and construction utilization, the retaliation issue that I spoke of and the evaluation of the Division of Small Business Opportunity. The first one is the billing and payment tracking process. This came to our attention because the data on all of the billing requests and payments really wasn't transparent to to the city officials. Our city payment people were doing a good job. But what was done outside of the payment system of the city could not be seen. And so it sort of promoted bad behavior on a few small contractors with these subcontractors. So we really developed this payment, a tracking system. We model it after our system is gone and have the I'll go over the list of information in a minute. But almost 70 to 80% of the information we're talking about is already being collected by the Division of Small Business Opportunity and put it in their system. So we feel good that it's not going to cause a great deal of work on data collection. Our city attorney is counseling us all the time to stay separate away from the management of the construction projects. So this is strictly a process between this the minority subcontractors and small business and dispo. It's all about compliance. It's not about the management of a construction projects. So the contractors will not. We need to be involved and we'll be tracking it separately for billing system. This list I just showed you of the items we'll be collecting, just wanted to put in red those items that are presently being collected already. Just to give you an idea that we're not going to be collecting a lot of new information, but we what we what we want to do is try to automate it with the BTG system, compliance system. And we want to have a lot of discussion about how to make sure this is easy and is efficient for all of the minority subcontractors and for dispo and and promote that support and assistance to them. I included a clear copy of the this is the RTD form that they use. They developed this about seven or eight years ago, had the same problems with payment irregularities, with subcontractors by contractors and and by making this information transparent, it corrected those problems. It is really clear that this system worked very well, and we think that it will be working very well for us. Just to show emphasize again, the separate of the way we're handling this is strictly by compliance with the subcontractor submitting reports and information to dispo in a communication process versus the billing process where they submit billing requests. To the contractors, totally separate processes and maintain it that way. That's the tracking system. The second issue is the early completed work or changed payments. We had some concerns about this from subcontractors who were doing work early in a construction projects early the first month, and then all of a sudden the retainers, which is 5% of the billing request, is withheld by the city to the end of the project is being withheld like, you know, 24 to 48 months to the end of the construction project, even though their work was completed in the first month of the project. So what we're asking to do is allow the sort of the adopt the state policy on that and allow at the request of this contractor, if he suggests to the city is the work was done, fine allowed. That subcontractor has completed his work to be reimbursed for his work change. The next letters of intent and construction utilization. There's a part of the 2014 ordinance that talks about when the project's specific proposals are accepted by the city, letters of intent by the contractor or to the subcontractors are submitted, telling the city who is going to be performing the work. Also, as part of the ordinance, five days after construction begins, the contractor is to submit a report to to the way to division small business opportunity, confirming who's doing which subcontractors are doing the work. And so both those reports are just need to be matched up. If you don't if they do not match for some reason, then dispo would be responsible for asking the questions. Why not? Retaliation. I don't need to describe this any further with it was the talk, the subcontractors talk to us. But it was just very disheartening that that they were so scared to be able to talk directly in public. So I thought this provision of our ordinance will help them. If there's any kind of retaliation issue that is reported, it will be followed up on for correction. And the last is the most important is the evaluation of the Division of Small Business Opportunity, where we have good people in our Dispo office, they want to do a good job. And we've had some staffing issues. And and is this is going to give us an opportunity to really improve the department and improve the process and improve the support to the to the subcontractors and make sure that they're that our efforts to for them to grow and develop are really enhanced. So I've listed several things of assistance and education and training and following up, especially following up on any kind of irregularity as they find out. Those are the five parts of the ordinance, but there are three other areas. I just want to mention that we're going to be tracking and it's the next slide and these are this all relate to existing policy procedures. All about that payment for approved completed work ordinances says we do pay for that and we'll be tracking that and that'll be part of our tracking system. The timing for a completed work, our property system that the city construction folks have is works very well. And so we're going to again be part of our tracking system and the end of project routine is payment. That's been an issue of making sure that the subcontractors are paid promptly for retainers at the end of a project. The present policy is that when 95% of the construction project is complete, then the amount of retainers that's over in excess of two times the uncompleted work is can be released to the subcontractors. So as an example, if there's $500,000 in retained retainers, there's $200,000 in uncompleted work to be finished, then two times that before 100,000. So you can release $100,000. The difference between the 500,000 and the 400,000 this day, that process have been working well. We just need to monitor it to make sure it happens in a timely manner. In the last year, we want to focus on three really critical items. You know, this is all about the 2014 ordinance. This is all about the growth and development and eliminating discrimination and and helping our small business and minority firms prosper. That 2014 ordinance was well crafted, well written, and it's an excellent document. And all we're doing is adding just a few little implementation tools to to make sure that the intent of that audience is carried out. It's all about the small business and the minority firms. It's not about the management of a construction project. Data, data, data. We hear that so much. And this is critical that our process that we're going to be tracking all elements of the payment request and processing of payment. So to make sure that we see all activities within that process and be able to ask any questions if we find irregularities and all the data in the world can't help you if you don't have a department is following up actively. And we're we're looking forward to this division of small business opportunity. Having the staffing, the resources to support our small businesses and minority firms, help them grow and develop and help them educate and be trained. And and we really think that through the tracking system and the data that we're going to have and the the efforts of our division of small business, we're going to make a real difference. And it's going to help our small businesses grow and develop like we want. So that's not our fault. Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, so thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Nu will now hear from the public. We have a one hour courtesy public hearing, but we have actually eight speakers signed up. Madam Secretary added one more. And so we will be moving on and I'm going to call the first five speakers to come up just to save a little time to that front row here. So, Helga Gruner, you will be first and Bennett, Jocelyn Robinson, MAXINE Prior and Keller Hays. Come on up and we'll get Ms.. Helga up first.
Speaker 10: Good evening. I'm Helga Grunwald. I'm the.
Speaker 1: Newly retired.
Speaker 10: Executive director of Hispanic Contractors of Colorado, where I was for 17 years. So I wanted to say that I've been involved with the Mwb ordinance since then. Mayor Hickenlooper launched the first committee in 2004, and when that first ordinance was was launched in 2007, we were very, very hopeful about all of the growth and progress we'd see with the small contracting community. And it didn't happen. What's happened over those years is that DSB has gotten buried further and further within the bowels of the city. It used to be the Mayor's Office of Contract Compliance. Another thing that's never happened is the education portion. It's astounding to me that you hand someone a certification and you give them absolutely no training on key tools like LCP, Tracker B, two G, now tech store. These small businesses need to know how to use the tools to get themselves paid. Another big problem has been as council and you mentioned, that there just isn't the staff to do the certification and training and monitoring that's required for all of the work that's coming up in the city and county of Denver. You're going to need these contractors. And another part of the program that's never really been implemented is your SB defined selection pool that was created to build capacity. The city was going to put projects into that pool that only small businesses could bid on, and it has almost not happened. We've seen very little of it. You also have an SB pool, emerging small business pool, and we've seen almost no work put into that. And yet the ordinance recommendation said create these programs, SBA, CSP, where the small contractor can work directly with the city. And in that way you will grow these businesses. And so I would encourage the city to look at that also. And finally, I'd like to say, with all the construction you have coming up in the city, you are going to need every single contractor that you can find. And not only will workforce be a problem, but finding contractors to do the work will become an equally big problem. And you're competing with a lot of other agencies that have a lot of work, and I think you need to put yourself in the best position. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Grant. All right, Ms.. And Bennett.
Speaker 1: Hi.
Speaker 6: I see.
Speaker 5: I mean, I've been and I'm in councilman news territory. I'm a citizen of the city county of Denver. I'd like to thank the council members for their collaboration over the last 14 months and also your assistance in the validation.
Speaker 6: Of my.
Speaker 5: Observations and experiences during the period of 2014 to 2000, 15, 16, 2016. And also your due diligence. I mean, I've met with all of you. We've gone over this, and I think it's fairly apparent what's happening. But I, I firmly believe this implemented properly, Denver can be a model in Denver has been a model for a lot of things. And I think Denver can be it's a perfect model. We have the workforce. We have the development. I mean, it's waiting to happen. I would like to personally thank Councilman, new Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman Cashman for their 14 months for meetings and working with me. Unfortunately, over the 14 months, there has been some collateral damage in the construction industry as a result of my coming forward. And I'm I'm very sorry about that. And I'm hoping in the future, as you put together your programs, this can be corrected. As an entrepreneur of small business, both in mechanical contracting and I.T. and by the way, I had 100 people in lower downtown when the viaduct was still there. So I've been there, and I understand the benefit that I had was for years. It was many years at Big for accounting firms. These small business do not have that benefit. And I noticed that there's training here. And there's training here. And there's training here. If. We could combine all the training and also do a questionnaire. Are we training what they want to be trained on? I think we're missing it. And the mentor program is not happening. They're not being mentored. Mentored means you get out of your chair, you go to the job site that they're working on and you find out what their problems are. That's true. Mentoring, and that's not happening. Two. And I think some of this is already happening. So I might be repeating. But the office maybe we the office has got to be a director position within the top organization of the mayor's office. Period. It needs to be reported frequently to the city council and to the auditor. The data you develop on the B to G software must be which will not take three months.
Speaker 1: Meaning take a.
Speaker 0: Minute.
Speaker 5: Your data.
Speaker 2: Your money, your time, your time.
Speaker 5: Time's up. Thank you very.
Speaker 2: Much. No problem. Thank you. Thanks for your work on this. Okay. Miss Jocelyn Robinson.
Speaker 10: She could have had another minute of my time. I am the facilitator for the Black Construction Group and we are out there to support and provide resources for small businesses. I also have been a of I'm a former employee of Dispo, so I know the difficulties that they are facing right now with the staff shortages and the work just continuing to increase. The only thing I would like to say, I do absolutely agree with Helga and and but I want to stress the importance of not adding more work to a department that is already struggling with the workload. So making sure that we have a BTG system and it's not a manual system is going to be essential. And making sure that we provide the kinds of resources and educational opportunities for our small businesses to build capacity is absolutely important. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Ms.. Robinson. MAXINE.
Speaker 1: A minute.
Speaker 2: MAXINE Pryor.
Speaker 1: Good evening, everyone. I am the Colorado State Chapter President for Comfortable, which stands for the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials.
Speaker 2: Ms.. Prior, would you introduce yourself, your name, just for the record? Sure.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us my first time? MAXINE Prior Chapter President four Come to Colorado. I must say, I'm very pleased that Councilman New and Councilman Cushman and Councilwoman Debbie Ortega have taken this on. This is a very critical time in our city. We've got some explosive growth taking place and building our foundation and our infrastructure. From a complaints and monitoring standpoint is incredibly important. Similar to Helga, I also serve on the CII Committee Construction Empowerment Initiatives Subcommittee, in particular for the Disparity Study Slash Ordinance Review. So we're going through line by line to see how we can help make an improvement and add to it. Actually, we started about the same time and were made aware earlier this year of the councilman's efforts. So we're very pleased to be able to take part in this historic activity. I'm very optimistic about the increased compliance and monitoring aspect of what this is going to bring. The orientation training for the subs. I am a stickler for training. I believe in setting expectations upfront and making sure that you have an education. You have the tools. You're aware of what your rights and responsibilities are so that further down the line and into the projects, there's no question. And we can have an intelligent discussion as to how to move forward. Capacity building and supportive services. Those things are also key. And I think, again, this ordinance is going to help launch us in that direction to make sure that that's going to take place. So thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Ms.. Pryor. Keller Hayes.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Keller Hayes. I work with the U.S. Department of Transportation and their Small Business Transportation Resource Center. And I really want to thank the entire council for discussing this tonight and looking at this. I have worked with the our clients. We have 560 clients. I've also worked with the Utah Department of Transportation, the North Dakota Department of Transportation. I've also worked with the Utah Transit Authority and with the both airports in Salt Lake City and here. And I also worked on the Minority Women Chambers Coalition, which had 3000 people. And the reason I tell you all of that is because I know that there aren't contractors here. We have heard so many of them, and I understand why they're not here. We counsel people on business, and quite frankly, it's not a great thing for you. Be here with your business, with who you want to do business with. So what has been talked about this entire year is so true. Subcontractors are out there struggling. They're struggling with some of the things that you just want to go well, in common sense, we wouldn't do that. Right. So having retained each go for two years, I mean, who here could wait for their paycheck for two years? Not me. And that's what we're asking the subs to do. So this ordinance is actually going to make a difference on that. We also talk to people that their bond has been required to go for three years while your bond determines how much work you can do. So if it's being held for three years, one of the things that Councilwoman Black mentioned was change orders. Your change orders, if you don't have those documented correctly, you can kiss that money goodbye. So there's a lot of things that this ordinance can really impact. The other thing that's important is the implementation of it. And once you have the implementation, that training, that education and really understanding how to work, the things like transfer, like change orders, retain age payment, that's so important. And I know that this council, one of your goals is to really help with this ordinance to grow minority women, small businesses. And this ordinance can help you to do that. And I really appreciate you taking our community that seriously. So thank you very much. And I really hope you pass this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss Hayes. All right. I'll call you. Five can go back to your seats and I'll call the next three of the final three. Joseph Serna, Chairman Sekou and Barbara Myrick. Mr. Cernan, you were first.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Joseph Stern. I'm with you as Dottie West, southwest region, west central region. I'm the program director and I work with Keller Hayes. And the what we do is work with small businesses in our region, construction infrastructure, really, to help them better prepare so they can do the kinds of works that Denver is doing. I was at an event last week where Mayor Hancock got an award from the other mayors. I guess that partners for all the work that he's done and a champion he's been for small business and it's small business a term that we throw around pretty, pretty easily construction and we build. Ebbs and Bibi's and the DBS, all of that gets thrown around pretty easy. And it's hard to keep track of all of that. But at the end of the day, Denver has an opportunity here with everything going on, looking at the goals and the prime contractors that are telling you your goals are set to high, you're set to steep. We don't have capacity. We can't do what you're asking us to do too much. I think you're being fed a line. There's plenty of small businesses. There's a lot of them out here. But what we don't need to do is we don't need to take these small businesses all the way down to the ten yard line and then blindfold them and then take their blockers away and then take their support away and then say, oh, well, we couldn't hit our goals. Let's not do that. This ordinance, along with the people that have supported it and are standing behind it, have done all of the hard work behind it. Small businesses. None of them. None of them are asking for a handout. None of them are asking you to give it to them. All they're asking is just don't take it away from me. I work behind and off for you. I did my best for you. I hired the people that I know could do it. You got a quality job. Please stand behind me when it comes time for me to get paid. So the next project. We can do it again. And we can be that model. Denver has the opportunity to do it. There is no other city in the Rocky Mountain region. You got to go 400 miles in any direction to find any other city with capacity like this and with all the work that's going on here. It's a magnet to everybody else is trying to come here and do work. Let's make sure that the home team here can do some work. Just make sure that they get paid and let's not leave them out there and you have an opportunity to do that. But we can't put this together and not put training there. You've got to have training. We've got to have capacity at the top so that people can take care of it. And so the small businesses are left again short. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Mr. Sana, chairman of.
Speaker 7: Yeah. Chairman Sekou Blackstar is a movement representing poor, working, poor homeless people, senior citizens. Okay. Pray for me on this one, Stacey. This one might get me in trouble. I'm not going to do it. What we are faced with. There's something my grandfather told me when I told him that I wanted to be. A lawyer asked me, What do you want to do when you grow up? And I want to be a lawyer like Perry Mason. You know, because we grew up in that generation. And he said, well, let me tell you something about lawyers. The law. Is not worth and this is, quote, the law is not worth a bucket of spit if it's not enforced. When we look at this whole process and everything everybody said is true. And as a former executive director for the Baby Highest Point Community Development Corporation, I had the opportunity to rehab in the Navy shipyards in Hunters Point back in the seventies. And what I discovered was that there was a cultural process, a way people did, things that was ingrained over years and years, years. And in the process of doing this project. I couldn't change that overnight. Folks were stubborn. I mean, they were stuck on stupid Jack. Even the law said it didn't matter because it was corrupted. I'm talking about for real. And when you look at this process, we've had laws on top of laws. On top of laws. We didn't created DSB oaths and all of that. And yet they still don't do the work. Because it's corrupted at the top in the mayor's office, where you choose to look the other way because you have other things happening that influence your decision. Call em all in e. Y. And we're all stuck with that. Because that's the nature of the society that we live in is about the money and we have big projects coming on with a corrupted entity already in existence that hasn't done this job ever. And so as we was going through the subcommittee, I mean, I remember one of the guys who came in was a contractor that had the courage to stand up with it. He said the key to this whole process of minority business people, small business, is how do we grow them out of being small businesses and compete on equal level with the rest of the industry. And he said that's the issue. Where are the graduates of the program who are now out there competing? Well, there ain't gonna be none if you got what you going on. So what we need in this process is an independent monitor that can monitor this project with the current.
Speaker 2: Cycle.
Speaker 7: To this cycle. Mayor accountable for this cycle.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Barbara Myrick. You are last.
Speaker 10: Well, good evening. Excuse my voice. My name is Barbara Mark. I am the president of being M Construction. And so we perform electrical interior, build out space planning and design. And we've been a mwb since 2011. Two years ago, I encountered said, it's time for us to move on our strategic plan and city and county of Denver was part of it. So I must thank the city and county of Denver first for having a minority woman business enterprise certification. I come from Colorado Springs and so we're so far behind. So I applaud you for being ahead and entertaining small businesses and trying to help small businesses grow. But with that, we've had some challenges here. We grew up in the federal arena, so I think we do business very well. When I started with Denver, my bonding capacity was single ten and my aggregate was 20. But because of some of the complications of the policies and people, different agencies and how they do things as cause the hurdle for us where we now have 50,000,005 million single and 15 million aggregate. My, my, my concern is the change orders in the real world, work stops. You don't move forward. Well, here, work continues. And they want negotiated end. And right now I have a claim in with the city and county of Denver, and I probably will be going to litigations with the city and county of Denver. I think some people do the processes correctly. I think if they everyone uses text, Terra is very transparent. But when you have one agency that you know, one does it and the other one doesn't, that creates problems. And so right now, we have a job with the public works. Some things were in text era, but one contract isn't. And so for us to be taking is December. Now going into January and we haven't been paid from August. I think there are some issues there. I think people change the processes. I think there's this is a process issue with me, with the city and county of Denver and the people on the other side. We're talking about the subcontractors and the contractors being trained, but the people within the city that are handling these procurements need to be trained. My my daughter used to work for the city and county of Denver. Now she works for me because I'm transitioning out. And one thing she said to me that I want to share, she said, public servants, when you become when you work for the public, you become a public servant. And that is to help everyone within the community. Which means if we're going to if you're going to impose these here ordinances, then everyone needs to comply. The people that work for the city and county of Denver, also the subcontractors. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. It's my right on time. Okay. This concludes our speakers questions for members of council. See. That's when it's another. Just a quick question for you, Barbara. And forgive me. I just don't know. I never worked for the city, but only indirectly on contract. Do we. Do we allow provision or have any provisions when we do projects where there is a sort of fallback that you would be covered for time and materials? You know, if and when you performed work at that, you were directed and otherwise, you know, shouldn't because it's a change order situation and you need approval and whatnot that there's sort of this tacit approval that you would actually be allowed to sort of proceed with the time and materials sort of basis. Do we have any sort of thing like that?
Speaker 10: I don't believe so. So funny you would ask that because our change request was for delay and the city caused the delay. But now the city says our documentation was correct, but they're not going to pay the change order. So I put in a claim the other day.
Speaker 2: You were smart to do that.
Speaker 10: I'm I'm one of those. I'm not a rebel, but I will stand up. And if I'm the lonely wolf. In the wilderness by myself doing it to make sure that is aware is brought to the attention of others. I will be the lonely wolf in the wilderness. And so I just like I said, I just think the process is. Everyone in the city and county of Denver does not comply with your ordinances. They make the contractors and they make the subcontractors. But I don't think the project managers comply with the city ordinances. That's my concern.
Speaker 2: Any suggestion to us? So one of my concerns about the way we conduct business these days is we do we do a lot of task order contracts with different with the agencies which give them a little latitude. And so they'll go in, find out, you know, find a half dozen, five, three, two, 5 to 6 people that work in a certain in certain form or provide a certain discipline. And they'll give them essentially all the same task order contract. And then, of course, then they have their mini bid process and to let out contracts based on the task force. So we never really see who they're contracting with to what level sort of until all the accounting is done. Is there any concern that our process of sort of deferring all those decisions strictly to the agencies that they're they're they're they're not. I mean, is there any concern about transparency or how they're letting those contracts out?
Speaker 10: So I understand they're I understand why they do it is shortens the playing field. The RFP doesn't have to go out. The federal government, they don't they do it all the time. They have their May talks, their sabers, their I.D. cues and things like that. So to to have a task order driven contract, I, I think it's good because it does shorten the playing field. But what it doesn't do is you can have three contractors and they might only go to one. So they might have rules in place if you don't respond. Like we I have a on call with the city and county of Denver electrical. I have SB on call with Denver Airport and we just want to be DPS. But if you don't respond then eventually they won't invite you. So I do understand the process. My my concern is the transparency of it. If, if you don't know what your bid is, so they don't share that information. If you want to know Where did I fall in the process? They really don't have to share that. The city and county of Denver do debriefs. I have an experienced debrief so I can know how do I bid next time? What did I file fail on? Where was my number at? Was it too high here? Not without giving out the information, but sharing something so that small businesses can be more prepared to bid your work and to understand your processes.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Last question is Oh, here we go. Commentary is to me, yes, there's always a danger that an industry or particular industry or a group of players sort of have a corner on a market, could collude and raise prices. But to me, if the city were to actually have a, you know, clay, you know, make it very clear that their bids are open and will be shared upon request. Don't you think that actually would net benefit the city? Because then you guys would sort of know what everyone's competing with and what money, what dollars they're asking for, for for a particular work or not.
Speaker 10: So when. We, we, we, we've experienced some of the open bids and some people lowball to get a job and then they're change orders. I'm not a change to company when when we submit numbers, just a true number. That's what we think is going to cost. But if someone comes in lower than that, you go, Oh, that I really missed something or did a little bit. And now they're going to have a bunch of change orders. So then you question that as well. Sometimes low bid is not the best bid is what's the best value. You know, when you incorporate grain, when you incorporate let's do some value engineering on electrical when you look at those things. That's where the true dollars are, is not in the low bid in change orders. It really isn't because if they don't get it upfront, they're going to come and get you in the back.
Speaker 2: Yeah. And I think that's where some of this monitoring can can benefit is that we can actually, you know, we should be able to sort of discern where is it that our scope was deficient? Where or is it that the the bid I mean, the the change order process was essentially being taken advantage of. Councilman, you want to say those for your comments? That's true. But thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for what is this now? 1324 is not close. We have comments by members of council. We'll start with councilman new being his bill.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. president. Really proud of what the work we did this this year to develop this ordinance. It's just payment is so critical to the small businesses is just for their growth and development. We've got to make sure we have efficient, timely and accurate payment processes. And the enforcement issue is very important. We've got to make sure that dispose followed up helping train and develop. We've got to make sure that our payment practices are accurate and do whatever we can to assist the growth and development of the minorities in small firms. And that independent spirit of this bill is critical. We've got to be able to be able to represent their constituents, which are these minority firms and small businesses without any outside influence and pressure. So I'm really proud that we worked on this. I think we're going to really make a difference with this bill. And and I'm also proud that the mayor is supporting our ordinance if it if we're fortunate enough to pass it tonight. So I just encourage my colleagues to support this ordinance. And thank you very much.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman, and thank you for your leadership. Next up, co-sponsor Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I last year, last I guess it was earlier this year, had the honor of participating in the council team and in the marathon. And I had the shortest leg and I was the slowest on the team. And I did what I could. And I kind of feel like that was my participation in this event. Hopefully I learned something along the way, but I also wanted to take my hat off to the four brilliant women who were with this process pretty much from the beginning, and Bennet, Helga Grunwald, Joslin Robinson and MAXINE Prior. These people understand this topic inside and out and were absolutely essential. And I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega has been involved in this for years and has been a champion for the small business and maybe we be community. But for me, you know, we we talk a lot on the dais and when someone is a point person for a topic about leadership and in my time on council, I have never seen more direct and persistent leadership on a topic than a councilman new put forth. In this case, I'm just relentless on so sure of the importance of what we were doing. He met with everybody. I mean, I know Councilman Ortega and I were in a bunch of meetings. Councilman knew was in a way more. There was not a stone left unturned. And it's such an important topic. I mean, it's a shame that we didn't have more of the subs here today, but we heard from sub after sub about losing hundreds of thousands of dollars, getting negotiated out a big dollars at the end of a long job as has been shared, large dollars retained for months, if not years. And it just became. Clear to me early on how important this is. So obviously, I would urge my colleagues to support this. And again, thank Councilman Nu for his clear leadership on this issue.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Next co-sponsor. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thanks, Mr. President. So I first want to thank all of the folks from the contracting community that really took the time to sit down and meet with us and help us understand the breadth and the depth of the issues that they were dealing with. Because had it not been for that, we wouldn't have really been able to get to the heart of some of the details. And obviously, Helga and Anne and Jocelyn and MAXINE were were critical in bringing a lot of those people to the table to talk with us and share their stories. And, I mean, some of these stories are just break your heart. And when we have an ordinance that's supposed to be growing companies, but yet we're putting companies out of business that were going in the wrong direction. So, Councilman, New, you have been such a an incredible leader in this process to just move this along. And as Councilman Cashman said, there was no stone left unturned. Everybody that needed to be engaged was involved in this process and had input from, you know, the city attorney's office, public works, you name it. Every city agency that touches this was involved in one way or the other, including a number of folks from the DSB office who were very helpful and giving good input and assisting us in in shaping this, including the auditor's office. So, you know, for for everybody that's been involved, it's been a long haul. I want to thank my colleagues who have taken the time to sit down with with folks from the community and with those of us who met with you to to hear what these issues were all about and the importance of making these changes to this ordinance now and not waiting for the current disparity study to be completed and a new ordinance to be written. But to deal with this now, when we have all of the construction projects that are going to be moving forward as early as next year, that will ensure that women and minority businesses who do work on these projects are getting paid for the work they do that's been approved. And if we do that, then we're doing our job in growing these businesses and making sure that the the the outreach that needs to be happening from the SBA to recruit businesses to do the certifications for those new businesses, that education and training is vital to their success and survival. The compliance and the enforcement that that agency is all about per the ordinance. We need to do more ensuring that up in this ordinance will help in a significant way. And I know that the SBA added people to their staff, but in the 2018 budget. But I'm not convinced that's going to be enough. I think with the volume of work that we have, they need to be. And, you know, to their credit, they engaged a consultant to help them look at the agency. But I think they may find that they need to add more people to handle the volume of work that we're going to be dealing with over the next, you know, 5 to 7 years in this city. So I am a staunch supporter and just want to thank also my colleague, Councilman Cashman, who was a big part of this process as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lupe Espinosa is up first. Thank you, Mr. President. Or. I just want to say when I first came, called me in to sort of introduce what he was what they were tackling. You know, it was clear that there was a need here that needed to be addressed. And. But. You know, where where it was at and the sort of the size of the lift and the approach was was. I just didn't see how how you could possibly get to this point. And, you know, one thing I didn't do was doubt Wayne's resolve at that point. And it was it was self-evident. And somehow 14 months with now, I can see every every face that was involved in getting this. But I just I don't know how to say it enough, but every time I was presented with with updates on it, I was always amazed and impressed by how well considered and the resolution of of open items was was addressed. And so to to to you, councilman, new for for leading it, you've given a lot of credit to others. So to all the people that he's given credit, including my colleagues, Ortega and Cashman, thank you for getting, Wayne, the support that he needed and the clarity that he needed and the people in the room that he needed to get to this final bit of legislation, because it does so much of the things that that were trying to be addressed early, early on. And it does so in a way that to me can be readily captured and done and performed and get the outcomes that that were strived for from the get go. And so I just really wanted to give you kudos to you and your team for taking on this very important piece of legislation and making it happen. So thank you. All right. Jennifer Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 7: I want to extend my thanks to Councilman Cashman, Ortega and.
Speaker 2: Councilman Newman, especially to the group that was so persistent. I remember sitting in the in the first.
Speaker 0: Meeting and scratching my head and how do we fix that?
Speaker 2: When I sat in this meeting with Councilman New, it perplexed me.
Speaker 7: Because I knew.
Speaker 2: This was happening. I saw it happen.
Speaker 8: It wasn't the first time I heard it.
Speaker 2: And really didn't have a solution.
Speaker 7: For it.
Speaker 8: Right.
Speaker 7: And it's hard. It's it's a.
Speaker 2: Really tough environment.
Speaker 7: Because if you say.
Speaker 2: Something, you're blacklisted.
Speaker 7: Right. They they you know, the squeaky wheel gets replaced.
Speaker 2: And that's that's kind of. The dog.
Speaker 0: Eat dog.
Speaker 7: World in the industry.
Speaker 2: And that's how that.
Speaker 7: I understood it and that's how I got the perception I had from folks. And I saw it. It was real. And these issues are real.
Speaker 8: And so.
Speaker 2: That meeting was important for me.
Speaker 7: But more more importantly, and not surprisingly, it never ceases to surprise him. But this this is really not surprising, knowing that we knew. Had a solution. And we knew the council member from Cherry Creek.
Speaker 8: Was going to address.
Speaker 7: Once and for all this issue that our mwb is have been facing for a long time. And I thought, man, what a. What a great opportunity. If we can get this moving forward and to see.
Speaker 2: It become ordinance. And so, you know, I definitely think this is.
Speaker 7: A step in the right direction.
Speaker 2: There's a lot of other things that we need to address in this industry. There's a lot of other disparities, a lot of other disadvantages that we have, so to speak. You know, as a as a minority community, woman community, I really want to see a minority of more people of color who are in business, women who are in business.
Speaker 8: But I'm just internally grateful. I am eternally.
Speaker 2: Grateful. I'm sorry, Councilman, for your work, your expertize that you lent. And I've been long, long enough. And I've been on this council long enough that I'd be.
Speaker 0: Surprised now any more. At this man from.
Speaker 8: Cherry Creek.
Speaker 7: Is.
Speaker 2: Was our greatest ally in this this particular issue.
Speaker 7: So thank you, Councilman. We appreciate your.
Speaker 2: Your work on our behalf. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. This concludes our comments by members of council. I'll just say that this is a great day for small businesses in Denver. So thank you, Councilman. Council people who have all gathered upon and thank you guys for sitting in this city council chambers and going through security, paying for parking. But you have helped an enormous amount of people. I do want to say that having worked on large legislation before, the real work starts now. Quarterly During the checkups, making sure compliance is working. I really hope that and I know that councilman who's going to be on that, but I hope the community really stays on that as well. Okay. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: New Ortega Assessment. Black Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore, I. Herndon. Catherine Canete. Lopez.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please those voting announce the results.
Speaker 5: 13 Ice.
Speaker 2: 13 ice. 13 eyes, 1324 has passed. Congratulations. Congratulate everybody for working so hard on this. I do have a pre German announcement on Monday, January eight, 2018. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 14, 2021, changing zoning classification for 14 2038 Street in the Five Points neighborhood.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Sections 28-34(a), 28-71, 28-72(d), 28-74, 28-75(a)(4) and 28-222(d) of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver regarding the Construction Bid and Proposal Process, Payment Documentation and Timing Process, Prompt Payment and Release of Retainage to Minority/Women Business Enterprises and Small Business Enterprises, and the Evaluation of the Division of Small Business Opportunity related to the Minority/Women Business Enterprise Program and the Small Business Enterprise Program.
Amends Sections 28-34(a), 28-71, 28-72(d), 28-74, 28-75(a)(4) and 28-222(d) of the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver regarding the Construction Bid and Proposal Process, Payment Documentation and Timing Process, Prompt Payment and Release of Retainage to Minority/Women Business Enterprises and Small Business Enterprises, and the Evaluation of the Division of Small Business Opportunity related to the Minority/Women Business Enterprise Program and the Small Business Enterprise Program. The Committee approved filing this bill at its mee
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12112017_17-1313
|
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Councilwoman Kinney each has called out for a vote Council Bill 1319 regarding the Affordable Housing Property Tax Revenue Fund. Under pending, no bills have been caught out that I get everything. I just want to make sure. Okay, great. Let's pull up 13, 13. And actually, Councilwoman Black, why don't you put 13 on floor 13, 13.
Speaker 5: Until I move that council bill?
Speaker 8: 1313 adopted.
Speaker 7: Resolution.
Speaker 1: All right. See it has been moved in second it. Go ahead, Councilman Fuller.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is similar to last week when we killed a resolution for a contract that had the wrong amount in the contract document. It was correct in the description that we were given. But the dollar amount is is wrong in the contract. And I found this yesterday afternoon. I find it it's easier to read our contracts for Monday night than it is. It's less painful than watching the Broncos. So that's. That's how I spend my Sundays.
Speaker 1: Except that they want less. I heard yesterday. I heard. I just want to make sure.
Speaker 7: Probably because I wasn't watching keys. But this is this is a very important contract for the operation and maintenance of our 911 system with CenturyLink. And so I'm sure that the, the new version will be brought forward and you know, we can file that right away and get it done. But the difference was about $54,000. And but it needs to be correct. Otherwise the auditor would catch it and send it back to us. So I would I thank Councilwoman Black for putting this on the floor, and I ask that we vote no and the administration resubmitted.
Speaker 1: Okay. Um, any other questions? All right, Madam Secretary, it's been over the second it roll call.
Speaker 7: Flynn No.
Speaker 6: Gilmore no. Herndon, no. Cashman, no. Kenny Lopez No. New, no. Ortega No. Susman No. Black. Clarke. No. Espinosa.
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 6: Mr. President?
Speaker 1: No. Police was voting and thus results 13 days. All right. 13 days. 13. 13 has failed. All right. Can you please put 1324 up, Madam Secretary and Councilman, who what would you like to do with 1324?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Eighth Amendatory Agreement by and between the City and County of Denver and CenturyLink Communications, LLC f/k/a Qwest Communications Company, LLC to increase maximum contract amount and extend the term to cover maintenance and technical support to the City’s 911 phone switches and supporting systems.
Adds $500,000 and one year to a contract with CenturyLink, LLC for a new total of $3,471,588.50 through 12-31-18 for maintenance and repair of Denver 911 telephony systems at 303 West Colfax Avenue and 950 Josephine Street in Council Districts 9 and 10 (TECHS - CE76017). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 1-2-18. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-21-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12112017_17-1319
|
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Nu, if there are no objections for members of council. We'll go ahead with this one hour public hearing on Monday, December 18th. This is for Council Bill 1324 regarding minority and women business enterprises and small business enterprise legislation. So that is done. Thank you, Councilman. New Madam Secretary, can you please put up 1319 and Councilwoman Black, will you please put 1319 on the floor?
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 1319 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of council council and can each.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Council Bill 1319 is a bill that accepts funds from the Lodgers Tax and allocates a portion to the housing fund. It takes the right source and it dedicates a portion of it to the right overall use, which is affordable housing. The majority of these funds backfill linkage fee dollars, and the majority are going to expenditures that were already planned. However, a portion of these funds are not yet for planned or allocated uses over the course of the past several months. I have done my best to ask very specific questions about some of the ways that we are doing on allocated housing, funding, decisions and processes. And I have been unable to get answers to some of those questions in order to be consistent with the votes of conscience. I have taken the past several times. These things have come before me because these things are still unanswered. I can't vote for these funds tonight. I expect that the bill will probably pass anyway and I highly respect my colleagues. I don't take issue with your decision, but for me, when questions go unanswered, I can't then vote for the bill to move forward. So with that, I'll be voting no tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman take.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. As you all know, we are waiting for a housing plan to come before us. And that plan is supposed to be a guide for how we spend our housing funds in this city. Not just the $15 million fund that was created a year and a half ago, but all of our housing funds. And I attended a housing advisory committee meeting last week where there was discussion about various aspects of the plan. And I became very concerned about the appearance that we are making decisions before the Housing Advisory Committee has even had an opportunity to adopt the plan to ensure that their voice, their input is very much a part of what that plan needs to contain to ensure that we are targeting those dollars where our greatest need exists. And you all probably read the article about a an expectation that there would be city dollars allocated to a community land trust. I commend our foundation community for wanting to do that and for stepping up to the plate. We have a community, the Globeville, Luria, Swansea community that's been working on a community land trust. And this presentation last week sort of presumed that the community efforts would be negated by a citywide effort. And in my experience, you know, over the last 30 plus years, I've been on council and have seen development opportunities happen, not just here in our city, but in other cities across the country. It's when you have community buy in and you've got a bottom up, as well as a top down commitment to funding to make things happen. And in this case, it didn't appear as though there was any commitment whatsoever to the community component of this land trust. And so I am sharing some of the same concerns that Councilwoman Kenney is sharing. She and I have been tracking and following what's happening with our housing programs. And I know when I had asked some questions early on about the $15 million that we had for 2017 and learned that it had all been allocated to various projects. Decisions are being made and, you know, the need exists. I don't question that we shouldn't be looking at where those needs are, but I don't know that any of that is taking into account the recommendations that are coming out of the draft plan for the housing fund, for the housing plan that ensures that we're prioritizing where those dollars need to be spent the greatest. So I'm not sure if I'm going to vote for this bill tonight, but I am expressing my concerns about how decisions are being made before we have clear guidance on where we're prioritizing those dollars. So I think it's critically important that we follow the lead of. For roots in our community. You have been doing housing in this city for years and years that have been sitting on this housing advisory committee and giving guidance and recommendation to the city. And so I'm just sharing the same frustration and concerns.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Councilwoman Kennedy, for calling this out for a separate vote, sort of people who can see the the why do you see me scrambling here and highlighting things? This was the bill that sort of got me going, not sitting in. Think of any more. I don't scrutinize these things in real time the way I was accustomed to. And so this one called out I mean, raised some alarm bells for me. So I'm glad you guys bought Councilwoman Commission. Ortega put some additional light on it. Because of that, I will be abstaining from this vote because I'm not comfortable on either side. It's not lost on me that on night where we're going to be approving, and rightly so, 1349, which puts $2.6 million into building 180 affordable units out in Stapleton, this is $4 million without without that specificity and specificity specifically to, you know, with no specificity in the plans to address some glaring affordable housing and gentrification pressures that we are putting by pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Globeville or Swansea. I have been consistent in my message to the administration, to Eric at the the Director of Office of Hope that without specificity for that community, where we are making this much investment in everything but the people that are there and have to endure the pressures that come with this level of investment would be a failure of that plan. So with that, I won't vote no, but I will be abstaining from this vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. As well as Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that council members can each and Ortega put forward, but I would still urge my colleagues to approve this appropriation. It is the money. The funds are unexpected funds that came from a settlement with the online booking agencies that were not collecting the full lodgers taxes on the on their on their online bookings. And so we have this sudden influx of money. And what this ordinance does essentially is it appropriates it into the housing fund and it doesn't speak to how eventually it might be spent. But I think it's still prudent to park the money there for the time being. My heart is with is with the arguments that the two council members on my on either side made. But I would still ask us to approve the appropriation pending other decisions as to how it's spent. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Councilman Espinosa Yeah, I just want to say I agree wholeheartedly with that investment in affordable housing and putting that money towards this. But just because this money would go to the you know, otherwise, my understanding is this would go to the general fund, which we can appropriate at a later date. You know, once we have that plan in place with the specificity and actions that the community has been calling out for, this is sort of a just a a straightforward push back as far as I'm concerned with the the the the lack of specificity and solutions. And for me, in in the in the plan thus far. So with that, I think at some point, just like we can say no to correct errors, I think we need to learn to say no to specific requests without clear direction on how that's going to be utilized things.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thanks. You know, I'll be supporting this. You know, obviously we're no longer in an affordable housing need. We're in a desperate crisis, and we need to get funds any way that we can. However, Councilwoman Kenny Rogers has brought up some points, obviously, that need to be addressed. And I would just look to the administration to hear the concerns that are going on in city council to begin to meet with some of these council members to help us figure out how we can agree on some of the specificity needs to be happening around the use of these funds or else every bill that comes before us, this is what's going to happen. So I'll be supporting this, Madam Secretary. It's been moved. The second roll call can each.
Speaker 0: Lopez I.
Speaker 6: Knew.
Speaker 5: ORTEGA No.
Speaker 6: Sussman I black.
Speaker 5: Eye.
Speaker 6: Clark All right, Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 6: Gilmore i Herndon. I Cashman.
Speaker 9: Reluctantly, I Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I closed voting results tonight.
Speaker 6: Two nays. One abstention.
Speaker 1: Tonight, as soon as one abstention, 319 passes. All right. I believe these are all the items that need to be called out. All of the bills for introduction to Order publish. We're not ready for the block votes. A resolution that bills for final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call on an item. On a separate vote, though, tonight, Councilwoman Black is making the motions. I'm going to ask Haslam and Gilmore to offer the block vote so that computer technology experts can continue to access the computer issues she is experiencing. Is that all right, Councilwoman Gilmore?
Speaker 5: Yes. President Brooks. Okay.
Speaker 1: And Councilman, we did just please put the resolution for adoption in the bills for final consideration, for final passage on the floor.
Speaker 5: Well, do I move that resolutions be adopted in bills and final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. 1355 1327 1336 1137 1329 1337 1338 1342 1354, 1184, 1278, 1330 1331, 1332, 1343, 1344, 1345, 1346, 1347, 1349, 1422, 1353, 1296, 1297, 1301, 13, 15, 13, 16, 13, 17 1318 1309, 13, ten, 13, 11, 13, 12. 1196 1211 1264.
Speaker 1: All right. I think she got it. Madam Secretary, do you concur? Yes. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roco.
Speaker 6: Black eye. Clark Espinosa, Flynn, I. Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman can eat Lopez. All right, new Ortega I. Assessment I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please salsa following announced results.
Speaker 6: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have in place a full and final consideration and do pass. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing when Council Bill 1076 Changes on reclassification classification of 1400 1404 1408 West 37th Avenue and Highlands and require a public hearing on Constable 1143.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a transfer of cash from the Excise Tax Base Account for an increase in appropriation to the 2017 General Fund Contingency and subsequent supplemental appropriations to the Affordable Housing Property Tax Revenue Fund and the City Attorney.
Appropriates $9,451,397 to the 2017 General Fund Contingency due to excess revenue derived from the recent settlement surrounding hotel lodgers tax revenue; appropriates $4,058,171 to the Affordable Housing Property Tax Revenue Fund; and appropriates $5,393,226 to the City Attorney’s Office for legal fees associated with the settlement. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-21-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12112017_17-1076
|
Speaker 1: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to council members. Please refrain from profane, profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Black. Will you please put Council Council Bill 1076 on the floor?
Speaker 5: I move that council bill 1076 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved in second in the public here for 1076 is now open. We have the staff report. You're not, Scott.
Speaker 11: I'm not. I am Sarah White with CPD. And I'm actually going to be filling in for Scott on this first hearing. So I'm going to do the best I can.
Speaker 1: All right. Thanks, Sarah.
Speaker 11: So tonight, the request is at 1400 1404 and 1408 West 37th Avenue to go from YouTube to with the DEO for overlay to um, x to x. We are in district one in the Highland neighborhood. We're generally at the southwest corner of 37th Avenue and Mariposa Street, near the Navajo Arts District, a block south of 38th Avenue . The property is a little over 6000 square feet, currently has a collapsed building on it. That was formerly a restaurant use and the applicant is requesting rezoning to allow them to redevelop the site. So the current zoning is the urban two unit zoned district with the Geo four overlay and the requests to go to the urban mixed use to ex district. Like I said, the subject site is YouTube too with the video for overlay to the north, south and east are that matching YouTube to zoning and immediately to the west is the um x three with the you are one and you are two overlays that generally aligns with the Navajo Arts District. This site. This map currently shows the site as mixed use, but it is currently vacant after the building had collapsed. To the north is generally a mix of residential uses as well as to the south and the east and to the west. Along Navajo is a mix of residential and entertainment and cultural commercial uses. These are some pictures of the surrounding building form and scale. So you can get a sense of the type of residential that's in the area and as well the kind of character that exists on the Navajo Arts District, a block to the West. The process so far. Planning Board heard this item September 20th with a90 vote recommendation of approval where three people spoke in favor land use. Transportation Infrastructure Committee moved it forward on October 31st. Public Comment. So far, we did receive a letter of support from the Highland United Neighborhood Association and an additional 23 letters of support from the public on this matter. So moving into our five review criteria for rezoning. The first consistency with adopted plans will be reviewing comp plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Highland Neighborhood Plan and the 41st and Fox stationary plan for consistency here. The request generally aligns with several strategies that are outlined in the comprehensive plan related to infill and environmental sustainability. And those are detailed further in your staff report. Blueprint. Denver designates this parcel as neighborhood center in an area of change. However, you can see that the mapping here from Blueprint Denver probably there was an error in mapping that we didn't catch so that that neighborhood center area of change probably should extend actually on either side of Navajo instead of the full block between Navajo and Mariposa. So the argument could be made that this site is actually supposed to be designated as single family duplex area of stability. Either way, though, the request is going to be consistent with the recommendations. So if we were evaluating it under the neighborhood center area of change that's requested to serve everyday shopping service entertainment needs of neighborhoods and allows a mix of uses which the are IMAX two X does do and then for single family duplex, the description calls for moderately dense areas that's primarily residential but with some complementary small scale commercial uses. And generally the you're max two X District is our least intensive mixed use district. The X on the end indicates that there are some additional use restrictions and the intent of this district is to be applied embedded in residential neighborhoods. Given that that sensitivity to the intensive uses. So either way, especially given that there was an existing commercial use on the parcel, the request would be consistent with Blueprint Denver. Additionally Blueprint. Denver has our street classifications. Both streets Mariposa and 37th Avenue are local streets, which is consistent with the intent of where you are. Max two X is to be applied. The Highland Neighborhood Plan, which is from 1986, has various strategies for the neighborhood. One is to promote infill development on vacant land or abandoned structures which this zone district would allow to happen. Encourage a mixture of residential types and costs. Promote development. Infill development should be compatible and character providing appropriate buffering below traffic generators so that you a mixed two district two x district generally will provide those character defining features . And additionally, there is some language about the adjacent 13th Navajo and strategies to reinforce and strengthen the retail area and encourage new compatible uses. This is also part of Sub Area 13 in the Highland Area plan, which generally talks about improving, stabilizing the residential areas, encouraging the re-use of vacant or abandoned commercial structures which the rezoning is intending to do, and discourage further industrial and commercial encroachment. So once again, applying a mixed use district where we already have an established or previously established commercial use. So it is not a further encroachment of commercial. And then this site is outlined in red on your side. So it's at the very, very edge of the 44 x 41st and Fox station area plan. So this does call for single family or single family duplex. And again, for the reasons that it was consistent with the blueprint single family duplex recommendation. Given that the intent of this Mike's district is to be applied in these areas, would you find that the request is consistent with the 41st and Fox stationary plan? The second criteria uniformity of district regulations. The request would result in the uniform application of the annex to zone district. It would further the public health, safety and welfare one to the implementation of adopted plans and also would facilitate redevelopment of a abandoned and crumbling site. The identified justifying circumstance is changed or changing conditions. They've identified redevelopment in the Highland area and the Navajo Arts District and the collapse of the structure on the site all as the changed or changing conditions that would encourage redevelopment here. And the request is generally consistent with the, um x two zone district purpose and intent to promote embedded mixed use within neighborhoods. So given that the request complies with all five review criteria, staff does recommend approval. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, sir. We have two speakers this evening called the first two speakers up to the front row, Paul, Stan and Chairman Sekou. Mr. Stan, your first.
Speaker 0: Thank you. My name is Paul Stan. I live at 1444 Massey Street in Denver, and I'm here to answer any questions council may have regarding the rezoning. I'm the applicant for the project.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. You can have a Caesar. The chairman say coup.
Speaker 10: Good evening. My name is Chairman Sekou. I represent the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense Advocacy Group for poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. We support this change in zoning for a couple of reasons and based on experiences recently. There is a component part that we may want to consider when we talk about this region rezoning changes and rebuilding neighborhoods and whatnot. And that becomes a question of public safety. And in that, as we go about developing these areas and people are more inclusive in these vacant areas, areas we need to talk about and think about how these plans are consistent with the manpower base for the police department to do a safe job and make sure these areas are secure. Because as more people come in to develop areas. Also you have the element of desperation of people who, quote unquote, in the category of criminals. They come in, do things that you normally wouldn't do when you have a building. Nobody there. So we need to think about that and make that a part of the zoning changes to make sure that we're able to, as we do this development stuff, is planned so that the things that people need to make this thing work are in place so that we don't develop areas that are unprotected. So that's one, too. We support this rezoning because what it represents for poor, working, poor and homeless people, it's an opportunity to go to work. And as we go about doing these things in a neighborhood plan. But the godmother suggested Debby Ortega We be consistent in making sure that this not only develops the area, but also the people in the area so that poor people can come up with a job with economic benefits so that they can afford the development and be a part of the development as a vibrant member of the community and then not left behind so that they're actually a part of how this thing works. So I see the time is running out. So I would be remiss if I didn't mention this in relationship to tying this together. So work with me. I got this. Thank you, all of you. Who participating in making that situation happen at the Dice Square situation. Outstanding job. Outstanding job. Those phone calls got the attention of Chief White and the commander there. And the person who was doing that stuff is gone because there was overwhelming force by the police department interviewing every person in that building and now is secure. We thank you very much for your participation. Outstanding. Outstanding. And this. You taught me this. I keep it out of the press.
Speaker 1: I gave it out to press. Could we got to stay on the hunt?
Speaker 10: Great job topic. Great job.
Speaker 0: You smile enough to work with me. Thank you, Mr. Cooper.
Speaker 1: Okay. We that ends our speakers for the evening for this public hearing. Are there any questions for members of council? Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. Stan, the applicant. Just a quick question. You purchased this property earlier this year. And just if you could briefly describe what your intent is.
Speaker 0: Our intention is to finish removing the structure that's on the site and to create five townhomes.
Speaker 7: Hmm. Okay. Thank you. Mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 8: So townhomes can be either for sale or for rent. Can you just clarify if the expectation is for them to be for sale or for.
Speaker 0: Where they're going to be for sale? The price range is probably going to be in the 4 to $500000 range.
Speaker 8: Great. That's affordable for that neighborhood, which is ironic to say.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 8: Thank you for.
Speaker 1: Okay. Oh. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah.
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm sorry. I wasn't going to ask any questions, but I. I feel like I probably should, just based on the two questions, ask you a few to sort of get some context for my colleagues. So you you actually purchase this from a developer that was proposing the different projects, is that correct?
Speaker 0: Yeah, I think he was proposing a high end restaurant, I think Parisian. And I think that the owners were from Aspen or something else.
Speaker 4: And then you actually heard some concerns from the community about that transition and ended up in a dialog with the neighborhood as well.
Speaker 0: Yeah, I could explain a little bit. We worked extensively with with the neighborhood groups, with the honey group for that negotiation happen over a ten month period of time. We had several meetings together, architect shared various plans, various concepts with them, and we finally arrived at a resolution that everybody was happy with. I think it will be memorialized in a member event. It is memorialized in a member memorandum of understanding. And once the Council bill is signed, we will deed restrict the property for 25 years based on our negotiations with the local neighborhood.
Speaker 4: So that was really I appreciate those answers to just provide my colleagues some context because all the some very hard work that you did and some and I appreciate you entering into that dialog and coming to that sort of conclusion is part of why, you know, you can stand here today with the support of honey in 23 letters of support and not a single voice in opposition to the project. None of that would have been even known if we had just sort of followed our normal protocol. So thank you for answering those questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you for your kind words. We believe in working very close to the neighborhood and making sure it fits within the context of the neighborhood, and that we've listened to the concerns that everyone in the neighborhood. Great.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Okay. See no other speakers this. This concludes the public for 1076 is now closed. Now comments from members of council. Councilwoman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: So that was it. I'm glad I got to ask the questions of the applicant. I just want to reiterate that this is this was a very robust dialog that occurred over some period of time. And I just want to thank the developer for engaging in that conversation and and in getting to the terms that you entered with the community. I think that creates the win win that makes this application more appropriate and consistent with the adopted plans than the even the base zone district does. So thank you for that. And with that, I'll be voting in support of it.
Speaker 1: All right. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This is in my neighborhood. It's just a few blocks away from where I live. And Honey is a very active neighborhood association. So if there was any contention, this room would be filled. So the fact that there aren't any residents here really is a testament to Mr. Stand's work in the community. And I just want to share with you all that Mr. Stan worked with Ray Super, who is one of our downtown developers that did one of our first housing projects that actually included affordable units. This was a for sale development at 15th and Blake before the inclusionary housing ordinance was adopted. And they, you know, just recognized the importance of just stepping to the plate and figuring out how to how to fold that in. And later, the inclusionary housing ordinance followed. And as you know, we had 10% at 80% of the Amari for anybody doing more than 30 units, which I'm sorry to say, no longer exists for new development in this city. I think it was one tool in our toolbox that would have been great to keep along with what we've recently adopted. But I just want to speak to the character of Mr. Stan in the work that he has continued to do in our community. So good job. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. I take it, Councilman Espinosa, you back?
Speaker 4: I just wanted to add one one bit of the. One bit of the ammo you mean the covenants that that I think matter the the covenant will mean the deed restrictions will require that the units face both Mariposa and 37. And those are sort of sort of logics that are consistent with where we're heading with on the side home task force. So the neighborhood and the developer came to an agreement that actually sort of starts to address many of the concerns that we get in other more use by right situations. So thank you again for for that.
Speaker 1: All right. Excellent. It has been moved in second. There's no speakers. Madam Secretary Roca.
Speaker 6: Espinosa. I. Flynn. II. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Canete. Lopez. New Ortega by Sussman assessment black Clark. All right. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Police was worrying us results.
Speaker 6: Sorry.
Speaker 5: There's one missing.
Speaker 1: This should be just 112 voice. All right, 12 eyes can spell. 1076 has passed. Congratulations. All right, on to the last public hearing of the evening. Councilman Black, will you please put Council Bill 1143 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 1400, 1404 and 1408 West 37th Avenue in Highland.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 1400, 1404, and 1408 West 37th Avenue from TU-B2 DO-4 to U-MX-2x (urban, two-unit to urban neighborhood, mixed-use) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-31-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12112017_17-1143
|
Speaker 1: This should be just 112 voice. All right, 12 eyes can spell. 1076 has passed. Congratulations. All right, on to the last public hearing of the evening. Councilman Black, will you please put Council Bill 1143 on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, I move that council bill 1143 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. Looking for a second. Great. It's been moved and seconded. Public hearing for council and for three is open. We have the staff report. Sarah FuckUp.
Speaker 11: So tonight I am here to present 28, 12, 28, 14, 2016, 28, 21, 28, 28, 28, 30, 28, 36, 28, 40 and 28, 42 West 25th Avenue. The proposal is to reason from GMU three, Euro three to James three with waivers. This application is sponsored by Councilman Espinosa. Again. We are in District one, this time in the Jefferson Park neighborhood. You can see the map here. We are just east of the 25th and intersection and commercial node and we're about two blocks east of federal. And just some context here on the north side of the block, immediately to the west of that one parcel was a recent rezoning, which was very similar. And we'll see that on the zoning map as well. So the property in total is a little over 30,000 square feet, has single family and duplex structures and associated accessory structures , and the request is to rezone to allow neighborhood mixed use. So again, rezoning from GMU through with you three overlay, two gyms, three with waivers. A reminder that the Gems three zone district is the general urban context Main Street with a three storey maximum height, and there are several waivers that are part of this request. So one, the request is to wave out the drive thru forms which generally would be allowed in the GMC Zone districts and also to waive in the urban house and duplex forms with the appropriate residential use restrictions. And the reasoning for this being some of the street level active use waivers are waiving out residential we'll still talk about in a second. And waiving in the urban house and duplex forms would mean that the existing houses and duplex would not become non-conforming. So that's the purpose for waiving in those use forms. So the rest of the waivers are all applicable to the street level active use requirement. So this is generally the front of the building for 75% of the width of the lot and then for a minimum depth of 15 feet. So these following waivers are only going to apply to that 75% of the width, 15 foot depth. So to waive out certain incompatible primary uses from our street level active use requirements. So right now, those are those are pretty broad. All that you can't do is a carwash parking and mini storage. So the request is to waive out residential and then some other kind of higher intensity uses like utilities, automobile services and others, and also waiving out some incompatible accessory uses. So the zoning in the area, the subject site and surrounding to the northeast and south is all GMU you three and directly to the west along the the whole kind of grouping is G three and again those two properties immediately to the west on the north side were recently rezoned from GMU three to GM's three. Earlier this year. So the site is currently a mix of single family and two family residential generally, as is with Jefferson Park, the surrounding is a mix of single family two unit low skill multifamily, and then to the west is the commercial node at 25th and Elliott. So you can see here the top picture is an example of one of the houses on the subject property. The bottom picture is an example of the character that you see at 25th and Elliott. The top picture is an example of some of the multi-family that is being built in the neighborhood. That example is further north on 26th. And again, another example, excuse me, of the 25th and Elliott commercial note. So the process so far, planning board heard this matter on October 4th and voted unanimously, unanimously to recommend approval. We also had several speakers in favor. The committee moved this forward on October 31st. All of the appropriate notification has been done and a letter of support from the Jefferson Park United Neighbors. R.A. was submitted with the application. And then onto our five review criteria. So we have three plans to consider consistency with your comprehensive plan 2000 Blueprint Denver and the Jefferson Park Neighborhood Plan. The request is consistent with several strategies and comp plan related to quality infill development. Focal points in neighborhoods promoting mixed use development. Blueprint. Denver calls this out as a single family residential area of stability. But we are proximate to the neighborhood center that is surrounding Elliot and 25th. Additionally, Blueprint Denver has language in it that says the boundaries of our land use. Building blocks are not fixed and some areas are in a strict state of transition. So in areas where you're on a border, there may be some wiggle room. And in this case, we do find it appropriate to evaluate the request under the neighborhood center area of change recommendation. For our waivers that are requested here. You may be familiar with CPD's waiver policy of only supporting waivers of conditions when they are a bridge to a future text amendment. And that policy comes out of this language from Blueprint Denver, which was before our current code and had kind of called for the abolishment of waivers and conditions in general, or to gradually reduce how much we use them. So that policy came out of Blueprint Denver here. And usually when we have waivers and waivers that CPD is supporting, again, it's a bridge to a future text moment and we like to get as close to the future solution as possible. And a reminder, when we say bridge to future text amendment, it means that we have acknowledged that there's a problem. There will be a text amendment in the future to solve that problem. But in the meantime, before we get to that, we can add waivers or conditions to rezoning to kind of take care of that in the meantime. And so what we're talking about here is kind of it's a conversation that's happening in the city at a lot of different levels and that's related to street level, active uses and mixed use buildings. Currently, even in our mixed use zone districts where we have street level active uses, you can have a 100% residential building and the thought is that maybe there is a need to have some sort of zoned district or overlay or something to account for these neighborhood skilled areas that probably were the planned direction calls for mixed use. And we want to have a way to at least require some of that ground floor residential to provide that character that the plans are calling for. Now, this case is a little unique because we know it's a really big question. It's a city wide question, and it's not ideal to evaluate these waivers on a case by case basis, because we know it affects different areas in the city differently. But in this case, the we've figure that the waivers do a good job to tackle the issue now and knowing that this will be a much larger conversation as we move forward with NPI, with Blueprint Denver and the kind of policies that might come out of those planning process to help us guide how we might solve this problem in the future. So at this time, we do think that the waivers proposed are appropriate to address this issue and it is consistent with the blueprint. Denver Plain Language regarding waivers and conditions. Looking to the Jefferson Park neighborhood plan. The plan has some overall framework, goals and recommendations about maintaining enhancing the character of Jefferson Park, creating focal points within the neighborhood, calling out West 25th and Elliott as a focal point and also calling out West 25th Avenue, generally as a principal neighborhood corridor. So acknowledging that properties along 25th are special, they should maybe should have a different character. And then we do have sub areas in the Jefferson Park plan. Again, we have language here that specifically says that boundaries between the sub areas are not absolute and that characteristics overlap subquery boundaries. So we do have the properties on the boundary between the 25th and Elliott Sub area and the core residential sub areas. And given this language and the support that we've received from the neighborhood, we do find it appropriate to evaluate the request under the 25th and Elliott Sub Area recommendations. Which include recommendations that neighborhood commercial Siberia should include older buildings that will be carefully restored and vacant lots developed in a manner that reinforces the historic character of the neighborhood commercial district. Strengthen the neighborhood retail center to support the neighborhood, encourage new construction to be mixed use with residential and retail. So again, we have plain language here specifically calling for mixed use and that new buildings in this area should be compatible in scale and character with the existing buildings. So the proposed GM's three zone district does have transparency build to requirements that do help to maintain the character of the existing 25th Elliot commercial node and again, the three storey height limit. So given all of that, we do find that the request is consistent with adopted plans. It will result in the uniform application of the GMC three zone district with the exception of the proposed waivers. But given that the waivers are consistent with CPD's waivers policy, we do find it meets this criteria. It furthers the public health, safety and welfare by allowing additional mixed use development that is pedestrian in nature. Encourage people in the neighborhood to have more neighborhoods serving retail. So we do find that it is consistent with the furthering public health, safety and welfare criteria. The identified justifying circumstances is that the land or its surrounding environs has changed or is changing to such a degree that redevelopment should be encouraged. We know that there's been a significant amount of redevelopment in Jefferson Park and a lot of new residential units. And so that means there are more residents, which means that there is a strain on the existing neighborhood serving commercial. So allowing some more area to redevelop into neighborhoods serving commercial would be in the benefit of the neighborhood. So we do find that this criteria has been met. And the request would be consistent with the purpose and intent of the GMES three zone district. So given that we find all five criteria have been met, would you recommend approval of the proposal?
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Sarah. We have five speakers this evening. I'm going to ask all the speakers to come on that front row there. Justin Potter, Jay Edwards, chairman, say COO. I'm sorry all of you guys still come up, but unless Nathan Johnson, you're first. Actually, Mr. Johnson and then Sean Booker is last. All right, Mr. Johnson, Nathan Johnson's first.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I am the owner of the piece of property. That's the slice of land on the north side of West 25th Avenue. I'm in support of the new zoning. For the simple reason that the balance of the block is basically being transformed in this process. And I'm also in support of the concept of live, work and play. We are looking for environments where we can combine those uses, have a holistic neighborhood that allows for both residential uses, commercial uses and recreational or retail type uses. And I think the zoning will provide that enhancement to the neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Justin Potter.
Speaker 4: I thank you for taking this under consideration. I'm speaking on behalf of Jefferson Park, United Neighbors, the R.A. for the neighborhood. We started this process probably about a year ago. The developers came to us and expressed interest of potential rezoning going to commercial. Similarly to what happened on the north side and the neighborhood at the time was open to it. We definitely feel that there's a need for expand and commercial in the neighborhood. And we've we're seeing a lot of the slot homes go in. And we kind of felt that we would rather work with a developer to get something that we wanted instead of having additional slot homes built that could have been built there. As I mentioned, we we worked on this for about a year. We've had multiple meetings in the community outreach, the newsletter and whatever else, and solicited a lot of feedback from from the neighbors and ultimately decided to take a vote to have Councilman Espinosa file for the his own request on our behalf.
Speaker 1: So thank you, Mr. Potter. Jay Edwards.
Speaker 7: Thank you, counsel. My name is Jay Edwards with Dublin Development. We have contracted an assemblage within the proposed new block here. And originally, you know, at the JMU three zoning, we were planning on 12 to 14 townhomes and then the discussions with the neighborhood. We've been very active in Jefferson Park. We've office in Jefferson Park and love the neighborhood and talking with John and other members of the neighborhood. We all felt it would be better to go with a mixed use type project where we can bring more affordable, more attainable condos. So we're looking at, you know, right now 28 to 30 condos with approximately 5000 square feet of retail on the ground floor to bring, you know, strengthen the retail presence in the neighborhood. Obviously, with the added density in the last few years in Jefferson Park, there's not enough retail to support the neighborhood. So we're in support of the zoning change. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Edwards. All right, Chairman Sekou. But to say chairman looks different.
Speaker 10: Okay. Terrorist who likes our action movement. Self-defense. Poor, working, poor, homeless people starting to talk like Kelly. We support this for same reason as we support the last one key component include the police in this in terms of manpower. What they're going to do is security's there. This one's bigger than the last one. And this, this. What she was talking about with all these layers of stuff that folks got to do in order to get this thing done. That last person I just talked to my son before he could put a shovel in the ground. This thing started in February and it took him $25,000 before he even got started. Hear me now in terms of development, that's crazy. All right. When it takes 5 minutes to approve this stuff. A rezoning thing. $25,000. Eight months later. Are you kidding me? Now, of course, I'm not a very patient guy. I'm a revolutionary. I believe in this. Doing things immediately. Get it done, be finished with it, and be efficient. And do the things we need to do to protect the community interests. So we have to learn and find some process. Think outside the box, because I don't know how long it took you to get this. You said you start a year. I don't know how much money is spent do this, but it's going to take five, 10 minutes to prove this. That's crazy. They don't make the system. All right. So somewhere along the line, we've got to tweak this process, all right. To make it more effective and cost less so that even a small developer can get involved in this kind of process. A mom and pops kind of develop, you know what I'm talking about doing. You know what I'm saying on the construction thing. So I understand Paul and folks of his doing the social development and then the combination with the commercial economic development and we combine the two into socio economic development, then we make this thing work in a better way so that we can move this thing on down the road and have a community that's moving effectively so that we can provide the housing that's necessary not only for the middle class, but also for poor, working poor people, because we need a hurry up kind of process to tell for our needs because we are under bridges. We in cardboard boxes. So if you can't do this for middle class people, you know it's going to take us forever. So this top down thing, bottom up thing, trickle down whoop to do what they know. That's got to stop. That's got to stop because it's not working for the people. And that means everybody, regardless of what station you in, with you on the top to bottom. Low to middle. Cut the red tape. Cut the layers. Not deregulate, but cut the unnecessary stuff that she's talking about. Because this is crazy. I mean, for real. Well, maybe not. Maybe I'm just crazy. That's all I got.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss. Miss Siku. All right, Shun. Book. Book out. Did I say that right?
Speaker 4: Yes, sir. All right. I don't know how.
Speaker 0: I follow that, Mr. Sekou. Thank you, counsel. Thank you for. Let me speak. My name is Shawn.
Speaker 4: Book out on the co-owner of Double in Development with Jay Edwards.
Speaker 0: We're here in support.
Speaker 4: Of the reason we're very active in Jumpstart. We've built 36 townhomes.
Speaker 0: We have a condo project at Pershing right now, and we'd like to.
Speaker 4: Do this project as well. It's going to bring smaller, more affordable units in Jefferson Park, as well as retail, which is which is much needed. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Berger. All right. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 7: Thank you, sir. Sir, could you talk me through again when Blueprint says that we ought to eliminate waivers and conditions? What are the criteria under which CPD would nevertheless find this in conformance with something that seems to be directly opposed to using waivers and conditions? And how do you evaluate that against any other situation?
Speaker 11: So we get requests from from you guys, from the public, from our internal departments for things that did to amend the zoning code, as you all know. And when we get a request, we we talk about it internally. We talk through it with the requesting party to understand it. And then as long as everyone agrees that it's a worthwhile endeavor in the future, it gets put on our list of future text amendments. That is a long list. And so we have we're always constantly trying to evaluate our work program to decide how to tackle those. And it is because of that long list that that we get to this recommendation on waivers. So even though Blueprint said eliminate them, we know realistically right now that that probably isn't isn't going to happen. But we do have this policy to to have a better, more strategic way to approach them, because in the past, when we've done waivers and conditions, they're they're very, very specific. They they vary widely across the city. They're very difficult and time consuming for our development services to administer, especially over time as things change. Then you have more rezonings just to get out of very restrictive waivers that were maybe applicable 20 years ago but aren't now. So it's kind of this whole world. And with this one, like I said, it's a little tougher to evaluate the specifics of this waiver because we know it's a really big question, but it's a question that keeps coming up again and again. It keeps coming up in 30th. And Blake, it comes up in Berkeley, it comes up in Jefferson Park, all in slightly different context, with slightly different requests. But we know it's going to be something that we're going to have to address. And like I said, we don't know how that may be. We don't know if it maybe new zone districts overlays, combination amending or current zone districts. So all of that is TBD. And so the waivers that are proposed by Councilman Espinosa, we think, are a really rational way to approach it right now for a site specific neighborhood serving retail. Mm hmm. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 7: Yeah, it does. And I'm very happy to hear that, because, frankly, I, I, I favor more use of waivers and conditions. I know it makes more work. It's harder to enforce, but. But that's your job. And a city is a messy place. A city is a place that needs flexibility. And and sometimes I cringe at the need for uniformity when specificity and flexibility and site specific conditions are are required. So I'm very happy to hear that explanation. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flint, councilman as well. You have a question on your own, Bill?
Speaker 4: Not really. I should I was just going to offer myself I should probably gone out there and just signed up to offer myself up to answer any questions because I did author of the waivers that you're considering today.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. All right. Seeing no other speakers, the public hearing for Council Bill 1143 is now closed and now we'll open up with that comes from the council sponsor himself, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 4: I don't know where to start. It was it was a long process. It started with three properties. It's now seven properties and completes the totality of of of properties between our central business district at 25th and Eliot and the remaining properties on the blocks that haven't been developed. This is an area that has undergone radical sort of deviation from the plan recommendation. And, you know, in Sarah's presentation she had a mapped so sub area that was white that was supposed to be single unit to unit scale development. And that's where you see the lion's share of slot home flavors that we're coming up with in Denver. And so when you're faced with that, which is more of the same, which is getting a wholesale different I mean, getting an address citywide through the slot home task force because the nature of the outcomes that you're getting, you know, is there a way to, you know, the community basically asked, is there any way to to to to get an improved outcome? And this is a situation where, fortunately, the developer and the community and the business district basically put their heads together, having seen what was previously zoned across the street and said, that's something we can we can adapt to. And getting getting all those people and the additional property owners sort of to the same place took some heavy lifting. But I think everybody that was involved to the patients, the conversations you had, the patients you had and sort of the the community sort of emphasis and, you know, pushing me in the direction with you. And so my hope is that, you know, you know but and that I should acknowledge Sarah was was this is this is this was tough sledding. You know, she talked about the whole landscape of the nature of these sorts of the nature of this sort of these sort of waivers that we're putting on the the . For active use requirements. You know, that was you know, that was not you know, I went in there just like any other developer making this request and trying to to to make make it very clear how consistent this was in all the parameters that they that were required to, to, to consider. And I think that she she did a very, very professional job when maybe I wasn't the most professional individual in in maintaining the city's position. And because of that, the waivers that that that we finally authored and put I finally authored and put forward, I was really pleasantly surprised at how well-received that was by the planning board and the comments that were made there. You know, that sort of made it very clear the need for the city to to carry on that conversation about appropriate uses and appropriate restrictions and limitations on ground floor. So yeah, so long, long story short, I'll wrap it up. The real impetus for these waivers was when the prior rezoning across the street occurred that one had an M.O. you in covenant, much like the prior rezoning tonight, which put these similar limitations on on redevelopment of those properties. And it put it gets you in a weird gray area, which is if the community is is in support of the recognizing the change of conditions in the development pressures that exist, and they're trying to get different outcomes in their central business district through a zoning change. But the zoning change actually allows the exact same form that they're trying to, to, to, to address the only way to, to, to reconcile the two, which is that the change is appropriate because it can capture these other things. But the change also allows the one thing that they're trying to avoid is to actually put constraints. And I don't think it's appropriate necessarily in that situation to put it on a developer agreement, especially when we're talking about a significant area. And waivers were in fact the right way to address the growth and redevelopment of that area. To that point, though, I did share with my colleagues a couple of images and and one of them is a slot home in Jay. It is one of your projects. So I'm not a I'm only sharing it with you because it's a recent slide home. But it is my concern. It touches on it's the the one on Eliot Street. And. And then a project at the corner of 44th and Tennyson, which is a is a mixed use zone district. I don't know if it's Main Street or not, is it? The good news about the one at 44th and Tennyson is that you're not allowed to do that kind of development. That ground floor activation rules have changed substantially, and now this one goes one step further. So my point is, is that throughout this conversation with the community, is that they or they have high expectations that that the nature of your development, your redevelopment of this area not only has the sort of mixed use components and the in the affordability that you're trying, you know, the units that you're the project that you're you're proposing in, you're working on the architecturally that it resonates with the human scale. And these are things that zoning can't, can't do, but it is sort of beholden to mean it is your responsibility as developer and architect and your team. And so it's fine to do projects that that net profit. But please, this neighborhood has been good. Very good for your bottom line. Maybe this project has been a little bit challenging in that regard. But but you know, my to the degree that you can please continue to have that dialog that you've already had with the neighborhood on the design side and voluntarily commit yourself to sort of getting the best sort of outcome that you can physically. And and it's not just to you, it will apply to anybody that develops in that area as well if it goes through. But so my comments my my the whole point of my commentary, though, is that this was this was wrought by the community. I'm happy to be in a position to have used my prior background as an architect to sort of articulate how we might shape that and bring it forward, because this is a community derived solution where it's a win win win between developer bid and neighborhood. And once again, just like the prior rezoning, the reason we're not here with sort of massive opposition at the scale of this re rezoning and they noting the close proximity to even single family residential is because everyone's rowing in the same direction and let's just keep up that momentum. With that, I'm going to support this rezoning because I have faith in everybody involved. Thanks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman. And, you know, I just want to just let the public know we do have legislative rezonings where council members will support a rezoning for the larger community that is a not a quasi judicial matter. So a councilmember supporting the rezoning can actually vote on it and obviously comment it. We've received a couple of comments about that. So I just wanted to let folks know that. All right. So see, no other comments has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Espinosa. I Flynn.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 6: Gilmore, i. Herndon, Cashman.
Speaker 5: I can eat new Ortega.
Speaker 6: Sussman Clark. Clark All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please cause very nice results.
Speaker 5: I see. Sorry.
Speaker 6: There's a.
Speaker 5: Couple.
Speaker 1: One missing, one hanging fire. Oh, we got it. 12. There it is. 12 eyes. Council Bill 1143 has passed. Congratulations, everyone. Thanks for the hard work and seeing no other business before this incredible body that we have here extended your.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2812, 2814, 2816, 2821, 2828, 2830, 2836, 2840 and 2842 West 25th Avenue in Jefferson Park.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 2812, 2814, 2816, 2821, 2828, 2830, 2836, 2840 and 2842 West 25th Avenue from G-MU-3 UO-3 to G-MS-3 (general urban, multi-unit to general urban, main street) with waivers in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-31-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12042017_17-1404
|
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Let's go on to presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations?
Speaker 3: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. How about communications?
Speaker 3: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. We have one proclamation this evening. Councilwoman Black, will you please read this proclamation?
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. Proclamation number 17, Dash 1404, supporting reauthorization of the Colorado Lottery Division by the General Assembly in 2018. Whereas Colorado voters provided for a statewide lottery and in a subsequent election, adopted the great outdoor Colorado Amendment to the state constitution, which directs that lottery profits be used for parks, open space, wildlife and outdoor recreation purposes. And. Whereas, following the voters approval of a lottery, the General Assembly created a lottery division in the State Department of Revenue to administer the lottery. And. Whereas, as provided in the go COA amendment, lottery profits are allocated to the great outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, the Conservation Trust Fund and to the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. And. Whereas, since 1992, the Coast Trust Fund has distributed approximately $1 billion in grants for projects to improve communities. In all of Colorado's 64 counties, funds have helped connect families to the outdoors, improved local trails and parks, built out outdoor recreation facilities, preserved ranch lands, water resources and view corridors, improved river access and quality and conserved wildlife habitat. And. Whereas, the Go Go Trust Fund has distributed over 22.5 million directly to the city and county of Denver for these purposes. And. WHEREAS, since 1983, the Conservation Trust Fund has distributed approximately $1 billion in grants to counties, municipalities and special districts for acquisition, development and maintenance of new conservation sites, capital improvements and maintenance for recreational purposes on public sites. And. Whereas, the Conservation Trust Fund has distributed over 152.5 million directly to the city and county of Denver for these purposes. And. Whereas. Since 1992, the Cocoa Trust Fund has distributed approximately 215 million of lottery proceeds in support of Colorado's 42 state parks funding park, land acquisition, park development and Operations, Trail construction and Maintenance, environmental education. Youth and volunteer programs and stewardship and natural resource management. And. Whereas, the Colorado Lottery Division is critical to the administration of the entire Gboko program, and the division is set to expire unless extended by the General Assembly, which, during its 2018 session will consider legislation to extend the division to 2039. Now. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that this Denver City Council strongly urges the General Assembly to approve legislation during its 2018 session to reauthorize the Colorado Lottery Division until 2039.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation. 1404 be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by members of council. Can someone black?
Speaker 2: Why, thank you. Senator Williams, I'm glad you're here. I hope you will support this. So the great outdoors, Colorado, if you were listening to that long, boring proclamation, has done amazing things in our state, funding over $1,000,000,000 for parks and open spaces all across our state. The city and county of Denver has benefited quite a lot. I have a few projects in my own district that I was involved with. They've increased the number of parks in our city and all around the state and improved trails for all of our citizens to enjoy. It was under the leadership of Roy Romer, who was our governor, and Ken Salazar who worked for him. And you will recall that Ken Salazar later became our senator and secretary of the interior. And it really showed the kind of thinking that he was involved with and how important he thought open space was and why he was such a good secretary of the interior. And anyway, the the voters of Colorado in 1992 made it an amendment to our Constitution. But what we didn't do was create sort of the management agency that operates it. And this proclamation is just in support of our state legislature reauthorizing that department so that they can continue to run the great outdoors Colorado and fund open space in our entire state. So I hope that everyone will support it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And that was a nice shout out to our senator over there. Okay, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to thank Councilwoman Black for bringing this word. Go CO is an amazing organization and we are all in the debt of the work that's been done. I said in committee, you can't throw a rock in any direction in Denver and not hit a park that Gogo has helped with in some way, and maybe nowhere more so than along the 10.3 miles of the South Platte River, including the birthplace of Denver, as it flows through our city. And if you haven't been down to the river lately, go down there. There's millions and millions of dollars of improvements to a river that in the seventies was completely dead. There are no parks, no trails, nothing living in the river and go down and experience that today. And none of that is possible without Gold Coast. So I think this is critical for our parks, critical for our city. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. And I'm very excited to support this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just also wanted to chime in. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, for bringing this proclamation forward. Hopefully this is reauthorized. I don't know if there would if there is any trouble in doing it, but I think it's awesome that that to us as a council, you know, when when session is underway, they get to see that the city and county of Denver, at least the council, is supportive of the reauthorization. I could tell you one story and that sits on Alameda and Osceola over in the struggling Westwood and Barnum, and that's quite an event. Those four Winds Park and Quadra event. This park is Westwood's first park in 30 years. And that park was an empty, empty trailer, former trailer homes. And they're just old bar chop shop. It's really it's a blighted parcel of land in a recession. In a recession, the Great Recession, we were able to build this park partly with with the trust for public land, some money in the 28 bond that it was able to move around. I'm good at that and move that money around into the park and then also go. And if it wasn't for Google, we wouldn't have that park. And I you know, we have a lot of parks in Denver and I'm bragging because this is my district and this is my whole where I was born and raised in four crews over the quarter and those take your kids on a and it's best in the summer because the little water fountains going on. But this park is pound for pound, I think the coolest park in Denver. And it was designed by the people in the community, designed by the folks in middle and elementary school over a nap. They when they were in kindergarten or kindergarten or first grade, if we wanted a park, we want to help design it. Now, I visited him as a fifth graders just last week, and they love that park. And that was because of go call. And that's exactly what that money does is, you know, I'm. I'm horrible at the lottery. I think I'm one of those people that don't play because I think it's just people who play the lottery don't go. I'm not I'm not trying to offend anybody, but I think it's just attacks for those of us who are bad at math. Right. And so but the lottery is awesome. And it's awesome because even if you don't win, the community wins. Right. And even all those little scratch tickets that I didn't win anything up, at least we have a park in the West Side and we got something out of it, so I can tell you that. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, for bringing that proclamation to.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, I think. Okay, Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 5: Thank you, President Brooks. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, for bringing forth this proclamation. My I started out working for the Colorado Department of Natural Resources when Governor Romer was in office and Ken Salazar was the director of the Department of Natural Resources. And so great outdoors. Colorado has not only addressed statewide issues, but community wide issues as well. And so not in my council district, but in Councilman Herndon's council district in the Monticello community. Great outdoors. Colorado helped purchase five and a half acres of raw, undeveloped land at the front side of Mont Bello off of Albrecht Drive in Peoria. And that land will be maintained. Four and a half acres as an open space outdoor area for the community to come and learn and environmental, education, science and technology, careers. And the final acre will be a holistic wraparound service education center right in the Montebello community. So, you know, projects in Grand Junction Brush, Colorado all over the state, but right close to home in the Mount Velo community, great outdoors. Colorado is also making an impact. And so thank you, Councilwoman Black. And I hope we can continue and get the support to make sure that go continues on its important work. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. All right. It has been moved. The second see no other comments, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. Clark II. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. Can each i. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Susman, i. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Proclamation 1404 has been adopted. It's unanimous, Senator. Unanimous. Okay, Councilman Black, is there anyone you want to bring up?
Speaker 2: Yes. I would like to ask Chris Castilian, who is the director of Great Outdoors Colorado, to say a few words.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. I really don't know what to say after all that. I show up and I get to hand out money for all these great projects that you all bring forward to to go CO and our other partners with the Conservation Trust Fund and State Parks. We're very lucky in Colorado to have an organization like Gboko, as you all have articulated. We've had a tremendous impact throughout the city and as a Denver native, I've seen the impact myself and the communities that I've grown up in around Denver, and I'm grateful for it. And I'm just the last guy in line here to hopefully carry on a longer term vision for this state and appreciate your support for the reauthorization of the lottery division so that we can continue doing great things in all of your districts and working with great partners throughout the state of Colorado.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Congratulations, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Right. All right. Thank you, Councilman Black, for bringing that forward. Madam Secretary, please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation supporting the reauthorization of the Colorado Lottery Division by the General Assembly in 2018.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12042017_17-1292
|
Speaker 1: Yes, ma'am. 1319 1196. Is that right? Councilman Flynn. 1196. So. Right? Yes, it is. Okay, great. All right. Under bills for consideration, nothing has been called out. Under pending. Nothing has been caught up. So, Madam Secretary, thank you. Please bring 1292 onto our screen. And, Councilman Flynn, ask your question.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just had a question as to how the the rules work with regard to contracts, because I think the description that is on the public agenda is incorrect. And I think in the past we've had to refile. If I'm correct. But this approves a contract with softball in Denver for $750,000 and for three years. But in the contract itself, the maximum amount is actually $2,250,000 that we're being asked to approve. And I don't know if that's a just an error because it's that slope. That's the single year amount that's listed in the description. And because it's listed in the description incorrectly, do we have to refile it? So I don't know if maybe Kirsten can answer that for us or Sky.
Speaker 1: So we're going to have Sky.
Speaker 5: Sure. Sorry. Sky Stuart. Mayor's office. The descriptions that are provided aren't legal descriptions. So as long as the contract is correct and the legal title is correct, it should be okay. And I don't have a copy of the contract in front of me.
Speaker 6: No, the title does not have the amount in it. The description is, as you can see there. The $750,000 is not the three year amount. It is the single year amount for each of three years. The total maximum is 2,250,000.
Speaker 5: It sounds like just for clarity sake, it probably would not hurt to go back and refile that with the correct information associated with it. Is that okay with you happy.
Speaker 6: That that doesn't handicapped? Happy Haines executive director of Parks and Rec. That doesn't delay any execution or cause any issue with the with the vendor or the or the program. We're not playing baseball over Christmas.
Speaker 1: Well, some of us may not be canceled.
Speaker 6: No, I don't play baseball.
Speaker 5: Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation, thank you for the question. No.
Speaker 1: And if that helps to clarify for the council and to make sure that the language is we're fine with that, I think I'm going to just do it. All right. In the next meeting. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay. So we're going to we're going to refile.
Speaker 6: Should we pull it out? Yeah, we're.
Speaker 1: Going to refile this. Madam Secretary, how would you like us to.
Speaker 3: Put it on the floor and just ask that it be killed?
Speaker 1: Okay. All right, councilman. Clerk, will you please put Councilor up to 92 on the floor?
Speaker 4: And this is a resolution? Yeah.
Speaker 1: This is a 1292.
Speaker 4: Vote resolution 1290 to be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded members of council. We are going to kill this for purpose of refiling it again next week. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Flynn?
Speaker 4: No.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, no. Herndon, no. Cashman, no. Kenny Lopez no new Ortega? Sussman. No. Black no. Clark. No. Espinosa. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: No. Please close voting on the results.
Speaker 3: 13.
Speaker 1: 13 nays 22 has failed. Thanks for catching that, Councilman Flynn. All right, Councilwoman Quinn, each 319 is up, and you had a question.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Professional Services Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Softball in Denver, Inc. to provide sports officials and referees for adult softball and youth baseball programs.
Approves a contract with Softball In Denver for $750,000 and for three years for sports official and umpire services at 12 recreation centers and 20 sports fields citywide (201737177). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-18-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-21-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12042017_17-1319
|
Speaker 1: 13 nays 22 has failed. Thanks for catching that, Councilman Flynn. All right, Councilwoman Quinn, each 319 is up, and you had a question.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. It's 1319. I know the correct bill is up, and it is actually to request that it be put on the floor for a vote. This bill transfers funds from a settlement into several different funds, including the housing fund, which is a great place for the funds to go. But due to some timing and questions that are unresolved, I'm going to abstain tonight.
Speaker 1: All right. Any other any other comments? Members of council. Councilman Clark, will you please put 1319 on the floor to Bill for induction?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1319 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: And I can say. Can each Epstein. Lopez I knew. Ortega. I. Sussman. My black guy. Clark. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Gillmor, i. Herndon. Cashman. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I was very keen as a result.
Speaker 3: To advise one abstention.
Speaker 1: To advise one abstention. 319 has been adopted. All right. We have one last one, 1196. Please pull that up. Madam Secretary and Councilman Flynn, you had a question for this one.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance authorizing a transfer of cash from the Excise Tax Base Account for an increase in appropriation to the 2017 General Fund Contingency and subsequent supplemental appropriations to the Affordable Housing Property Tax Revenue Fund and the City Attorney.
Appropriates $9,451,397 to the 2017 General Fund Contingency due to excess revenue derived from the recent settlement surrounding hotel lodgers tax revenue; appropriates $4,058,171 to the Affordable Housing Property Tax Revenue Fund; and appropriates $5,393,226 to the City Attorney’s Office for legal fees associated with the settlement. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-21-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_12042017_17-1196
|
Speaker 1: To advise one abstention. 319 has been adopted. All right. We have one last one, 1196. Please pull that up. Madam Secretary and Councilman Flynn, you had a question for this one.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Actually, two questions. And sir, maybe I'll handle the first one. And the second one, I think might be for our city attorney. But in the contract, in Section nine, we have 21 years of payments from Glendale to us, and they escalated 3% per year. And I'm wondering, what was the basis for the 3% escalation? How confident are we in doing a 21 year agreement and locking in a just a 3% increase annually?
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. I'm Sarah Moss, Denver Fire Department.
Speaker 6: I'm sorry, could I interrupt just 1/2, just for people watching? I apologize. This is a 21 year inter-governmental agreement with the city of Glendale for Denver through the Denver Fire Department to provide fire protection services.
Speaker 3: Yes.
Speaker 5: And that 3% is an estimate of what our labor costs will increase by each year.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. And we have confidence in that for the next 21 years.
Speaker 5: We will leave that up to you as you do your collective bargaining.
Speaker 6: Okay. Well, I think the union probably hears that and figures they'll get 3% every year. Okay. And thank you, Mr. President. Sarah. And the other question, Kirsten, is one of the other provisions requires Glendale to adopt and conform to our new building and fire code. And I think the answer is no. But I just want to make sure, because the voters just approved an addition to the building section of our code for to add green roofs. And I want to make sure that we are not obligating the City of Glendale to adopt that part when they adopt the rest of our building code.
Speaker 5: Excuse me. Kirsten Crawford, Legislative Counsel. That's correct. We're not obligated in Glendale today.
Speaker 6: That's a that's a different section of the code. Not not in the building and fire code. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Clarify one thing. Yes, I'm included in that 3% as other associated costs, including benefits and other things we don't have control of like we would in a collective bargaining agreement.
Speaker 6: Okay. So 858 can count on two and a half percent.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Okay, good. We good? Everyone all right? This concludes all the items that need to be called out. All the other bills for introductions are order published. We are now ready for the block votes on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote. You will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call out on a first ever vote. Councilman. Clerk, will you please put the resolution for adoption of the bills and final considerations on the floor for final passage?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. All Series 17 1320 1321 1161 1273 1299 1300. 1225 1326. 1262 and 1263.
Speaker 1: All right, Madam Secretary, did you get them all? Yes. All right. It has been moved to the second Home Secretary. Roll Call.
Speaker 5: Black Eye.
Speaker 3: Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn, I. Gilmore. Herndon. Katherine. I can eat. Lopez. All right, new. Ortega. Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please cause very nice results. 13 Eyes. 13 Eyes resolution. The resolutions have been adopted, and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. We don't have any public hearings, but I do have a pre adjournment announcement tonight on Tuesday, January 2nd, 2018.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement to Provide Fire Protection between the City and County of Denver and the City of Glendale.
Approves a twenty-one-year intergovernmental agreement with the City of Glendale in the amount of $68,482,176 in revenue to provide fire protection service within the municipal boundary of the City of Glendale (FIRES-201103623-01). The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 11-1-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11272017_17-1233
|
Speaker 2: No items have been called out. Madam Secretary, please bring up 1233 for Councilwoman Black's question. Go ahead, Councilman Black.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Is there someone here who can answer a question about this? Oh, okay. Hey. I know this is an important contract. It's for security at some of our venues, like Red Rocks and Coliseum. But I thought originally the contract we were approving was for a longer period, but this is just for a month.
Speaker 5: So this is an extension to the current agreement. It's an extension of one month, but it's really adding capacity to the contract itself because we have a number of payables that are due and we're just trying to play catch up. By the way, my name is Mark Heizer. I'm CEO over our two venues.
Speaker 6: So at the end of this period, which is.
Speaker 5: December.
Speaker 6: Is there going to be another request for proposal for there.
Speaker 5: Is in the pipeline an RFP for these services? Yes, already. But we weren't sure if we were going to meet the deadline before that RFP was awarded. So we decided to have this bridge agreement.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I know that there's someone who submitted a proposal, was protesting. And have you already chosen the contractor for that?
Speaker 5: I wasn't involved in the selection. The selection committee, as far as I know, has awarded the contract. I think they followed. I know I'm confident they followed the procedures laid out by the purchasing folks, but I think that's where it stands.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 2: That it can swing black. All right. Let's see. This concludes all of the items that have been called out. All of the bills for introductions have now been ordered published. We're now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills for fine consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or black vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, we please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr.. Yes, Mr. President. I move that the following resolutions be adopted. Resolution 12 all of 2017 1233, 1274, 1275, 1276, seven, 64, 1267, 1279, 12, 80, 12, 37, 1245, 1246, 1247, oh. Know whenever to build. Sorry. The last the last resolution is 1280, the next four bills. Do you want me to put them on a one time?
Speaker 2: I think we. Yep.
Speaker 6: Yep. Okay. Let me just recap then. 1237 Bill. Bill 1237 Bill 1245 Bill 1246 1247 1248 1250 1251 1232 1255. And I move that all of these be passed.
Speaker 2: All right. It's been moved in second amount. Secretary roll call.
Speaker 4: Black Eye Clark Eye Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 6: Gilmore, I and I.
Speaker 5: Cashman, I can eat.
Speaker 0: Lopez All right.
Speaker 6: Ortega I.
Speaker 4: Assessment.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Mr. president.
Speaker 2: I. Political officers voting in that the results.
Speaker 4: 11 eyes.
Speaker 2: All right. 11 eyes. Resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed on final consideration. Final consideration and do pass. Madam Secretary, you have 12 eyes up there.
Speaker 4: Espinosa left. Yeah. So we're going to have to fix that. Okay. He's not a part of that vote.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Let let the record reflect. Only 11 council members voted, not 12. All right. There are no public hearings tonight, and so we are going to close it down. Thank you, guys, for being here today. And we stand adjourned.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Fourth Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Argus Event Staffing, LLC for extension of the term and funds for additional expenses.
Amends a contract to add one month to the agreement with Argus Event Staffing, LLC and to add $4 million for a new total contract in the amount of $27 million through 12-31-17 for security and safety services in various city venues including the Denver Performing Arts Complex, the Denver Coliseum, and Red Rocks Amphitheatre (THTRS-CE03107 04). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-18-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-15-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11202017_17-1240
|
Speaker 2: And speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to members of Council as a whole. Remain from profane and obscene speech and please refrain from individual or personal attacks. All right. Council is now convened as the board of directors for the Gateway Village General Improvement District Council. When we get more where you please put Resolution 1240 on the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Resolution 1240 be adopted.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved in second at a public hearing for resolution 1240 is open. May we have staff report. Michael Carrigan.
Speaker 6: Yes, good evening. Board members. Michael Kerrigan from Department of Finance, Special District Team. I'm here to give you the staff report and request approval for the Gateway Village General Improvement District 2018 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The district is located in north in the northeast section of the city, northwest of I-70 and Chambers Road intersection. It consists of approximately 243 acres on the eastern border of Montebello. It is completely developed and primarily consists of residential property. Responsibilities include maintaining the landscape in parks within the District City Council approve the formation of the Gateway Village General Improvement District by ordinance number 551 series 1994 and establish City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The creation of the ordinance also created the District Advisory Board made up of property owners within the guide. The ordinance specified that such District Advisory Board should conduct and manage all affairs of the district, as has the authorized agent of the Board of Directors, including its financial and legal affairs. Pursuant to Resolution Number 32 Series 1995, the City Council authorized the District Advisory Board to create a work plan and budget for approval by the Board of Directors annually. The Gateway Village Guide 2018 Budget proposes overall expenditures and fund transfers of $1,764,200, with total revenues of $602,643. The district will assess 20 bills on real property within the district during 2018. The district plans to undertake a major landscaping beautification project. Landscape improvements are anticipated to include tree lines and tree monuments and improvements to the detention and drainage channels. The district expects to spend up to $750,000 for the improvements. Construction is expected to start during 2018, with the possibility of continuing through 2019. City staff has reviewed the 2018 Budget and Work Plan and recommends it for approval.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. We have one speaker this evening. Jeffrey Earp.
Speaker 0: Yes. Good evening. My name is Jeffrey Erb. I'm general counsel for The Guide, and I'm here to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Mr.. Thanks for being here. You can have a seat. Now, any questions by members of council? Seeing none. Public hearing is closed. Comments by members of council. Seeing none. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 3: Black. Hi, Clark.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. Herndon, Cashman Canete. Lopez Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please. I was worried as a result.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes.
Speaker 2: Ten eyes. I'm sorry. This toll for you. Tonight's counsel bill 1240 is passed. Congratulations. All right. We are now a city council convening as the board of directors for the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District. Councilman Gilmore, please put Resolution 1241 on the floor.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Gateway Village General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget and making appropriations for the Budget Year 2018 and approving a Mill Levy.
Approves the 2018 Work Plan and Budget for the Gateway Village General Improvement District in Council District 11. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-7-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11202017_17-1241
|
Speaker 2: Ten eyes. I'm sorry. This toll for you. Tonight's counsel bill 1240 is passed. Congratulations. All right. We are now a city council convening as the board of directors for the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District. Councilman Gilmore, please put Resolution 1241 on the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President, and move that Resolution 1241 be adopted.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Michael Carrigan. You're back up.
Speaker 6: Good evening once again. Board of Directors Michael Carrigan from Department of Finance, Special District Team. I am here to provide the staff report for the 14th Street General Improvement District and request approval for the 2018 budget. And we're planning approval and work plan. The district is located along 14th Street from Market to Colfax and generally includes all parcels along both sides of 14th Street. It was created by council and approved by the electors in response to the 14th Street Initiative to create Denver's downtown Ambassador Street. The initiative began in 2005 and visualized 14th Street as a promenade and a major gateway to the downtown area. The plan contemplate the plan contemplated streetscape improvements and related public infrastructure. Stakeholders included private property owners, public officials and business organizations participated to establish the conceptual design for 14th Street in 2009. The City Council approved the formation of the 14th Street Guide. The district was established to acquire finance, operate and maintain street improvements. The district's creation ordinance calls for the JD to at least annually pass a work plan and budget. The ordinance in 2009 create the J.D. and its companion ordinance created a district advisory board. The District Advisory Board. Also the District Advisory Board, after a notice and hearing, recommends that board of directors, the proposed work plan and budget, including maintenance charges and capital charges before you tonight. During 2018, the district plans to continue maintaining district amenities including but not eliminated, not limited to tree planter and flower pots, landscape maintenance, signage, repairs, trash removal and holiday light installation. The work plan, budget and charges includes total revenues of $565,759, which is comprised of $255,292 in maintenance charges and banner rental rental revenue plus $310,463 in capital charges for the repayment of debt used to finance the capital enhancements along 14th Street. City staff has reviewed the 2018 budget work plan and recommends it for approval.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Mr. Carrion. We have one speaker for this public hearing, Beth Maskey.
Speaker 5: Good evening. I'm Beth Moisi, and I'm with Serve as the executive director for the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District. And I'm here to answer questions.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. You can have a seat. Members of council counts for questions. Councilwoman, can each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. This has been a dramatic transformation, and this street is just amazing to spend time on it compared to ten years ago. How much or does any of this budget include paying back some of those major infrastructure changes? Or is it more just the smaller things like the tree boxes and things that you mentioned that kind of complemented the actual curb gutter, you know, work that was was done.
Speaker 6: So the 14th Street Guide actually issued $4 million of bonds, which put the amenities on top of the major street improvements. So the city of Denver had gone in. Was the 2010. The Better Denver Bonds Program 2000 to.
Speaker 2: 2007 oh four The Better Team.
Speaker 6: Gets Better Denver Bond Program 2007 Before My Time Yeah so city Denver came in and put down the base enhancements and then the guy put the $4 million of of enhanced enhancements on top of those base improvements. So for the 2018 budget that's captured in the capital charges and it is $310,463 is being used to pay back the debt that they installed those improvements.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Kinch. Any other questions? All right. Public hearing of 1241 is now closed. You know, to Councilwoman Keen interest point, I just wanted to say, I represent this district and this was one of the first project bond projects that I got a chance to work on from the better to offer bond. And it was very innovative because we charged different zones along 14th Street, the premium zone, and I mean really took that idea and went along with it on other areas of my district and it is transformed. It's incredible. And so I think we've done an incredible job there. And I want to thank everybody for being a part of it, because one could each.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I just wanted to say, I think it's looking great and I would like to just please share kudos with the advisory board folks who are still working on the management. It's you know, it's amazing. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Great. Okay. This concludes our comments. Madam Secretary. Raquel.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Clarke All right. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Herndon Cashman Canete Lopez. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I police course one witness results. Tonight's ten eyes count about 1241 has passed. Congratulations OC Council is now convene as board of directors for the Reno Denver General Improvement District. Councilman Gilmore, please put Resolution 1242 on the floor.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, and making appropriations for the 2018 Fiscal Year.
Approves the 2018 Work Plan and Budget for the 14th Street General Improvement District (GID) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-7-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11202017_17-1242
|
Speaker 2: I police course one witness results. Tonight's ten eyes count about 1241 has passed. Congratulations OC Council is now convene as board of directors for the Reno Denver General Improvement District. Councilman Gilmore, please put Resolution 1242 on the floor.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I move the Resolution 1240 to be adopted.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved and. We have a second. Let's get a mover first.
Speaker 3: But it's not. Gilmore and Herndon.
Speaker 2: Oh, God. Okay, it's on there. Good. It's the second public hearing for 1242 is now open. Michael. And again, man, you are on a roll.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you. Board members, Michael Kerrigan, again, Department of Finance. And before you tonight to give the staff report and request approval for the Reno Denver General Improvement District 2018 Annual Work Plan and Budget. The district is located northwest of downtown and includes residentially and commercially assessed properties around the Brighton Boulevard corridor. Generally. Generally, the JDI is centered on Brighton Boulevard, stretching from I-70 in the north to 29th Street on the south, bounded east by the Union Pacific Railroad line and to the west by the Burlington Northern Railroad Line. The guide supports infrastructure enhancements and maintenance in the Rhino area, including streetscape enhancements to Brighton Boulevard. City Council approved the formation of the Rhino Denver General Improvement District by ordinance number 309 Series 2015 and establish City Council as the ex-officio board of Directors of the District. The ordinance also created a district advisory board comprised of property owners within the district. The ordinance specified that the advisory board should subject to the approval of Board of directors, conduct and manage all affairs of the of all affairs of the District as the authorized agent for the Board of Directors. The District Advisory Board has created the 2018 Budget before you tonight. The Budget proposes overall expenditures of $787,954 and overall revenues of 770 $770,617. Of these revenues, the district will generate approximately $500,000 through the levy of four mills on real property for general operating purposes. It will also generate approximately $250,000 from the imposition of capital charges assessed on a lineal Fred on a lineal footage basis for properties adjacent to Brighton Boulevard for the repayment of $3 million of debt that were used to fund the capital enhancements along Brighton Boulevard. The city staff has reviewed the 2018 budget work plan and recommends it for approval.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Mr. Carrion. We have one speaker tonight. Jim Local. You're up.
Speaker 5: Good evening, counsel. I'm Jamie Lythgoe. I serve as the manager of the Reno Denver General Improvement District. And I'm just here to answer any questions you have. Great.
Speaker 2: All right. Questions by members of council. Jamie, just one quick question that can just help remind the audience who is listening and council members when you all will start. You know, we know Brighton Boulevard is under construction, but 28th, the 40th will be complete soon. Will you all start the enhancements?
Speaker 5: So the enhancements will be put in starting in the spring. So there right now, actually this week, they're laying the 35th, the 38th section of the concrete roadway, which is a big step. They're getting a lot of the roadway done before the weather turns cold. They will work over the winter to finish the concrete improvements. And then in the spring, the trees and the plantings and the street lights and everything will go in. So it'll all be by the time summer warm weather gets here, it'll be complete.
Speaker 2: So you will be spending money from this year come this time spring or when you execute those contracts and things.
Speaker 5: So the way we did this partnership with the city is we issued $3 million worth of debt. We took out a $3 million loan last summer. It was completed in the end of June in 2016. We took out that debt and we wrote a check to the city for the 3 million, and they're managing that 3 million as part of the overall project. So they'll be expanding their accounting for it separately. But they they're actually contracted to put all those improvements in for us. So that will happen through their contract. And then there's a one year warranty period on the improvements and we start maintenance on them next year. So we've just been building up a reserve knowing that maintenance is coming and we need to be prepared.
Speaker 2: Which is a smart way to do it for coordination of a pretty complex project. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions by members of council? All right. The public hearing is closed. Four 1242 comments by members of council. I will just encourage members of council and even folks in the audience to go take a tour of what's going on on Brighton Boulevard. 100% transfer. Transformation of of Brighton. And I hope you've been on Brighton before. I'm sure many people have. But what's going on is going to be incredible and we're really doing some innovative things out there, so I'll be glad to get a chance to do this and please thank everybody on the board, advisory board for all their hard work. All right. It's been more than a second. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black Eye.
Speaker 0: Clark, I. Flynn, I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman Canete, Lopez Susman.
Speaker 4: I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I am pleased to announce the results tonight. Tonight, Resolution 1242 has passed. All Rights Council is now reconvene on Monday, December 18, 2017. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1210 changes only to have classification for 3944 North High Street in Cole.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution by the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex officio as the Board of Directors of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District, approving a Work Plan, adopting a Budget, imposing Capital Charges and Maintenance Charges, approving a Mill Levy, and making appropriations for the 2018 Fiscal Year.
Approves the 2018 Work Plan and Budget of the RiNo Denver General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 11-7-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11132017_17-1287
|
Speaker 1: Okay. Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 4: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Proclamations. We have three proclamations this evening. Councilwoman, can each we read proclamation 1787 or I'm sorry, 1287.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Proclamation 17 1287. Honoring Transgender Day of Remembrance and celebrating the contributions and resilience of Denver's transgender community. Whereas Transgender Day of Remembrance will be observed on November 20th, 2017, to honor the memory of those whose lives were lost in acts of Anti-Transgender violence, an annual event which began in 1998 with a vigil to honor the memory of Rita Hester, a transgender woman who was killed and which now honors all transgender people lost to violence. And. Whereas, a formal vigil honoring those who were lost and the loved ones they left behind will be hosted by the Gender Identity Center on November 20th at 6:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. with a reception to follow at East High School. 1600 City Park Esplanade, Denver. And. Whereas, our entire community is diminished when we lose the talents and contributions of any member of our community prematurely, whether due to direct anti-transgender violence or due to suicide or other health effects resulting from trauma or discrimination. And. WHEREAS, Denver honors the bravery and resilience of the thousands of transgender individuals who live, work or play in our city in their authentic gender. And although we are proud of the existing protections we have in place for transgender individuals to pursue their lives free from discrimination in Denver and in Colorado, we reaffirm a commitment to ongoing efforts to promote full inclusion of transgender individuals in the city. And. WHEREAS, we honor the outstanding organizations that serve as resources to transgender individuals in Denver, including the Gender Identity Center of Colorado, which specializes in providing critical supports and services to the transgender community. The GLB Community Center of Colorado, which opened in 1976 and has grown to become the largest community center in the Rocky Mountain region and provides social, educational and support programs for the transgender community. One Colorado, a leading advocacy organization for LGBTQ Coloradans and their families, which works to expand health care access for transgender Coloradans and to remove other barriers they face in everyday life and the work of our own LGBTQ commission, which partners with the community to advance social, economic and political equality through their unique position within the city and county of Denver. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the City Council of the City and County of Denver, that section one that the city council, the city and county of Denver solemnly declares November 20th as Transgender Day of Remembrance and Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall a test and a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation, and that a copy be delivered to the LGBT Community Center of Colorado , the Gender Identity Center of Colorado, one Colorado and the Denver LGBTQ Commission.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: I move that proclamation 1287 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second comments by members of Council Council McNeish.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. It is with mixed emotions that we consider this proclamation tonight. According to the Human Rights Campaign funds, there have been 25 murders of transgender individuals in our country so far this year. That's an uptick from last year, which was an uptick from the year before. The vast majority of these victims have been people of color. And even more disturbing disparity of race in the gender identity homicides that have occurred. The loss of these lives, these talents, these contributions is a tragedy for the victims and their loved ones, and it highlights significant failures in our country. The epidemic of transgender violence, unfortunately, begins young. About 16.2% of transgender students experience physical assaults at school, while 32.5% experience physical harassment. But in the midst of all these threats, there is hope. There has been so much this year that has been demonstrating the bravery of our transgender community. Coming on the heels of Veterans Day, we have out transgender service individuals who are fighting and so far winning in the courts to keep fighting for our freedoms. At a time when the civilian leader of the military has tried to kick them out and terminate their careers. They are fighting and they are winning. Danica Roem is poised to be the first transgender individual elected and to serve in a state legislature when she takes office in the Virginia House of Delegates. She defeated a legislator who tried to stoke fear and deprive transgender individuals of the basic right to use a bathroom that matches their gender . Now here in Colorado, we have a long, good history. Demonstrate discrimination based on gender identity or expression has been prohibited since 2008. Brave transgender children, their parents, teens and adults continue to work for greater inclusion in schools and in health care. There are trainings that are happening every day. There are inclusive health care policies available on the exchange right now today because of the work of these families. But what we know is that misunderstanding and fear still exists. We know this because subtle and overt discrimination still occur in our city, in our state. So in addition to the violence the state was founded to bring attention to, yes, this proclamation is a tribute to those who've been lost or harmed. Yes, it's a celebration of the bravery of transgender people who go to.
Speaker 2: Work, go to.
Speaker 3: School, walk down the street, serve in the military, run for office, seek shelter, or do anything they need to do in their daily lives, in their authentic gender. We celebrate that. But it's also a call to action. What are we doing to expand our own understanding of transgender neighbors and coworkers? How do we understand the terminology and use the proper pronouns when we are talking about friends or loved ones? Are we actively supporting the fight of our community to be both? To be able to adjust birth certificates? There are bills at the legislature that have been shut down for several sessions to do the simple thing of changing someone's birth certificate so they can match their gender. The state has not yet passed that legislation. Are we helping? Are we are we writing our legislators? Do we challenge derogatory language or rigid gender expectations when we hear it in our everyday lives? So I'm really proud that our council is not just hosting this proclamation tonight, but we're going to work to educate ourselves better. We're going to hold a training in a few weeks open to all the city council family to learn more about this piece of our community and to understand what their needs are and how we can better serve them. And so all of the organizations that are here today are resources to you. If you think you might want to do some of the same training, I encourage you to reach out. So I think these community serving organizations and I think the brave individuals who live their lives each day in spite of the challenges and give us hope to continue to work towards that future that we all believe in. And with that, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to bring this proclamation forward tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each councilman. Clerk.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I can't say anything better than what the proclamation did or what you just did. Councilwoman Canady. So I just wanted to say thank you so much for bringing this forward, for leading on this. And I'm very proud to sit up here with you today and support this proclamation in this community. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Councilwoman Ortega?
Speaker 6: Well, I want to say ditto to that, but I also want to acknowledge the body of council that sat here and adopted the original ordinance that created equal protection for. Everyone in our community, especially our LGBTQ community. And Kathy Reynolds was the catalyst that brought that legislation forward. Her staff person, Judy Gold, worked very hard with the community to get that legislation passed. As you know, it was challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and we prevailed. And so I just think it's important to always, you know, remember some of the folks that did the heavy lifting on what has been duplicated and replicated across the country, where folks recognize the importance of honoring the contributions of everyone. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilor Lopez.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for bringing this proclamation forward. I think it's a very powerful statement from the council. It's a statement of solidarity and which I am proud to stand in solidarity with the community. I think it's super important that we not only passes, but we communicate this in a way so that other cities may aspire to do the same thing in not just in Colorado, but around the country. I think Denver is a very important regional city. And people people follow our lead when it comes to stuff like this. They're just waiting on some cities to take the first step. You know, we're not the first step, but I think we're an important step. And with this proclamation moving forward, I think, you know, councilman can use this. This is a very strong moment for us. But also, I think I can only think of one word when I think of this struggle and that self-determination and the right to self-determination. Right. There's no human being in this world that should be stripped of that right, of human, of of self-determination, let alone in this country, where we have a constitution that enhances that empowers us self-determination. So here's to that solidarity. Thank you, Councilman Kenny, for the proclamation.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Let the church say amen. Madam Secretary, roll call. Say louder.
Speaker 4: Can each.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Lopez I knew.
Speaker 6: Ortega Hey, man.
Speaker 4: Sussman.
Speaker 2: Sussman My black eye.
Speaker 4: Clark Hi. Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Flynn, I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor. Herndon. Cashman.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Hey, man. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 3913 Eyes Proclamation 1287 has been adopted. Councilman, can each. Is there anyone you want to bring up?
Speaker 3: Yes, Mr. President. The Gender Identity Center of Colorado is going to represent all of the organizations being honored. Is Jesse here or Karen and Julie, do you want to go up?
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: Please. Right to the microphone there. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you council members.
Speaker 8: For the proclamation. Hmm. You know, there's nothing that the transgender community needs more than support from everyone else. If it's the one thing that we lack, we are center can take care of helping people.
Speaker 7: We can give counseling.
Speaker 8: We have support groups. But what we don't.
Speaker 7: Have sometimes is.
Speaker 8: Support of other people in the community. And if there's anything that's really important, that's it. And so this proclamation.
Speaker 7: While it may not seem like a lot.
Speaker 1: Means a real lot to us.
Speaker 2: And if from my.
Speaker 8: Hand because it helps raise the poker public awareness of the violence and discrimination that our community.
Speaker 1: Experiences pretty much every hour of every day, not just here, but also across the world. So thank you so much for.
Speaker 8: Helping us do that. And I also want to mention, and I think you did mention that we're having.
Speaker 0: The Transgender Day of Remembrance at.
Speaker 7: East High School at 630 on Monday the 20th.
Speaker 3: And can you share who the keynote speaker is?
Speaker 8: The keynote speaker is going to be Leyla Ireland. And for those of you who may not know who she is, she's a veteran. That's a trans woman. Her husband is a serving veteran that is a trans masculine person. So he's in jeopardy of losing his job. And they're doing a lot to fight for that.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We got your back. All right. Great. Thank you. Excellent. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right, we're on to the second proclamation. I'm going to have Councilman Ortega please read Proclamation 1290.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation honoring Transgender Day of Remembrance and celebrating the contributions and resilience of Denver's transgender community.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11132017_17-1216
|
Speaker 1: Under. Yes. And Councilman Gilmore has also called out Resolution 1219 for a vote. Is that all correct, everyone? Okay, great. Under bills for introduction, we have nothing called out. Under bills for final consideration. We have nothing called out and under pending. We have nothing caught out. Madam Secretary, please put your 16, 17, 18 on the screen. Councilman Espinosa. Why don't you put the 16, 17, 18 on the floor? Okay. I move that resolutions 12, 16, 12, 17 and 1218 be adopted in a block. Right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilmember as a council councilman. ESPINOSA Actually, originally, I just was going to call it out to explain why I was going to abstain. But I do now have a couple of questions if the airport is here. Yep, I think we have a representative from the airport here. Not that representative, but there you go back there. Aaron Barraza and Aaron. Sorry to do this to you, but I did get a very thorough reply from an email from the airport. And of course, that just tickles my my brain on these matters. So the. This is going to be a cost savings. I mean, it'll come at risk. All the contracts are come at risk, correct?
Speaker 7: Sure. Yes.
Speaker 1: What mean? How much of the fee is the at risk fee?
Speaker 7: Answer. Good question. I'm going to bring up our senior vice president of airport infrastructure management. Mark Baker. He knows this stuff in more detail than I will.
Speaker 1: Know, colleagues, if this came up in committee. I apologize. I won't go very long into this.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Councilmembers and Councilman Espinosa. Thank you for that question. We have worked very diligently with all our contract partners in preparation for this resolution and all of agreed to take a 3% as a part of the work out at the airport to assist us in delivering the gates that are so badly needed by the airlines.
Speaker 1: I assume that the contracts have the normal costs, the contract, the seating law. That's what's confusing me. And the normal cost savings, not just the at risk component, but the normal cost savings. If the construction sort of comes in early and below budget, below the GMP, I should say. Sure. The normal cost savings structures are there that we would normally see in a GMP contract. Is that correct?
Speaker 8: That's correct.
Speaker 1: So in in this arrangement, does the CRM or the GC or do both share in the cost savings?
Speaker 8: Let me yeah. Let me turn to our director or senior director for infrastructure. And he's been working the intimate details. He'd be able to kind of address that more thoroughly. Mr. Adam.
Speaker 1: Thank you for bringing Evan. I'm glad I'm asking, because then you guys were just sitting there in vain.
Speaker 8: I'm Mark Adams, the senior director of development at the airport. And so in the construction manager's contracts, we have.
Speaker 7: A contingency.
Speaker 8: Built in for them to use. At the end of that project, that's an 8020 split. 80% of that comes back to the airport, 20% goes to the contractors. The rest of the contingencies and other costs that are built into the overall program all go back to the airport.
Speaker 7: If it doesn't get spent.
Speaker 1: The contingencies but so the at risk fee is is preserve to always correct but the actual contingencies are split this way or 100% to the airport. But you said the contractors is that so that 20% is that just to the GC or the CRM?
Speaker 8: So the CRM is the GC is correct.
Speaker 1: Great. Because the reason why I'm asking is if we're on time and below budget or early and below budget, that does not happen by accident. But it's not also just a glorious CRM that made that happen. There are a lot of subs involved. Is there some sort of cost sharing structure that I should know about related to the subs that are working on these projects?
Speaker 8: We don't because our relationship is just with the CMG C, we don't have a look into those relationships, so I don't have an answer.
Speaker 1: I did want to bring this up just more sort of mindful to my colleague Wayne New, who's working on other sort of contracts, measures related more towards those subs, less towards the primes and the people on top that we deal with directly. So thank you very much. All right. So my rest is just comments. So I, I, I'm a I really just called this out so I could abstain mostly because I wasn't quite I didn't get myself up to speed on the inventive ideas that were brought by by this these groups on these contracts to adequately wrap my head around the request, as you can see, I'm sort of asking sort of normal, fundamental questions for me at this late hour. So I'm just going to be abstaining. Thanks, colleagues. Okay. Councilor Flynn, you still want it?
Speaker 9: Yes, sir. Got. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Do you see that I rhyme there? I don't know if you saw that.
Speaker 9: No. Sorry, sir. Thank you. I this is the first contract I've seen come through here and as well in my experience covering large infrastructure projects to use this delivery method. And so I was skeptical at first and I wanted to thank the airport staff for providing great additional detail on how the procurement went down, because you don't like to be the first to try something here in this market because there's always a risk. But I was very much persuaded by the information that through Aaron was was provided to me. And I look forward to keeping an eye on this project as it moves forward and adds these much needed gates to the airport in and particularly in seeing how this this delivery method works and whether it might be applicable to other projects, maybe as the bond comes forward. So thank you very much, Mr. President. That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Aaron. I'm going to follow up with a question that I raised earlier. I think it's important to know who the subs are and what the percentage that each of those subs will be getting on both of these two contracts. Can you share that with us?
Speaker 7: Sure. So first, I can let you know that the Division of Small Business Opportunity assigned a 24% goal to each of the construction contracts and 18% going to each of the design contracts. The right now, since the gate, the gates aren't designed yet. There are no. Maybe we be commitments just yet. Construction on the construction projects with any companies in particular. Once we get a little bit further down the road, then that's when those companies will be coming into play. But the SBA has approved the compliance plan that the contractors have submitted.
Speaker 6: But we do have some that have been selected, right?
Speaker 7: Yes. So once again, I'll call Mark Big or Mark Adams.
Speaker 6: So I just think it's helpful to know I mean, I asked this question often on many of our contracts. I like to know what the goals commitment are that we're setting for the the minority and women businesses that are in our community that try to take advantage of work just like many of our primes do with with these big projects that the city is doing. So can you share that with us?
Speaker 8: Absolutely. So, you know, we're happy with both of the CMG C firms in that they both did joint ventures with with, you know, from larger firms that have these experiences to local firms. I mean, turners with flat irons holders with FCA, the Turner Flat Irons team also has an associate partner to it with Gilmore Construction. I believe that's the only commitment that's been made. They helped in the process of putting together the response to the RFP or excuse me, to the RFQ, and they were part of the team during the selection process. I believe that's the only commitment.
Speaker 6: And that's just on the Turner contract. What about on the Holder?
Speaker 1: They are.
Speaker 8: Correct. They do not have any commitments at this point. Again, because we haven't designed anything. We haven't built out anything. They don't have any commitments.
Speaker 6: So the 24, 24% on each will come once the design is finished and you get ready to move forward with the the actual construction. So one of the things I think would be important because once we approve this, you know, we won't know who those folks are. So I think having an update brought back to committee would be important so that we know who the local firms are. They get to benefit from this work.
Speaker 8: Absolutely. I believe we're committed to doing a quarterly update on this program as it goes for the next three years. So we'll definitely do that.
Speaker 6: Great. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. We're going to put all three of these on. Madam Secretary, they are on 16, 17, 18. It's already been moved to the second it roll call. Please. Espinosa abstain. Flynn I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I. Herndon Cashman can. Lopez. I knew. Ortega I. Susman. Lark. Clark. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please I was wondering as the results.
Speaker 4: To advise one abstention.
Speaker 1: 12 eyes one abstention. Resolution 1617 eight 1216 2017 1218 have been adopted. All right. We're going on to 1219. Will you please put that up, Madam Secretary? Councilman Espinosa, will you put Resolution 1219 on the floor for adoption?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. concerning architectural and engineering design services related to the concourse expansion project at Denver International Airport.
Approves a five-year contract with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., in the amount of $65 million for professional architectural design and engineering services for gate expansion projects on Concourse A, Concourse B, and Concourse C, including new aircraft gates, hold rooms, a full basement, aircraft rated pavement, and other projects required to support the 39 new aircraft gates at Denver International Airport (201733061). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-4-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 11-1-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11132017_17-1219
|
Speaker 1: 12 eyes one abstention. Resolution 1617 eight 1216 2017 1218 have been adopted. All right. We're going on to 1219. Will you please put that up, Madam Secretary? Councilman Espinosa, will you put Resolution 1219 on the floor for adoption? I move the resolution to 19th May 1219 be adopted. Then I say, do not. No, I said, okay. All right. We got each other's back here. All right, it is. Adobe has been moved and seconded. Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 2: Thank you, President Brooks. I will be abstaining from voting on 1219 due to my brother in law's construction company having an interest in this project. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 1: That's right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore and Councilman Espinosa, you. I have now a question. And it's mostly because of that last response and this abstention. I sort of don't. It makes me sad, uncomfortable that the response is that, you know, you only had the one maybe be and it's related to this abstention. That said, these are joint ventures. So was wasn't there a partner I mean, when was the joint venture created prior to the selection? And in this or after the selection of this, maybe.
Speaker 8: We could control. So, again, Mark Baker, senior vice president of the airport for Infrastructure, those joint ventures were determined prior to the selection of the teams. They were a part of the teams as they competed for eventual selection. And I'd also like to mention, you know, all four are represented here this evening, have come to show their support for what we're doing at the airport. They view the goals that we have set as a floor, not as a ceiling, that this is an opportunity to grow capacity for the community of Denver. They're committed to doing that. They have shared with members their commitment to development and intern programs and helping us not only at Denver to do the work we need to do, but to leave us with a vast resource across the community of Denver and within Colorado to draw upon on future opportunities. So we see this as a great partnership with people that are committed to not only meeting, but exceeding those goals as we work toward all of the opportunity that this provides for the community of Denver in the state of Colorado.
Speaker 1: Okay. Yeah. So my concern is more from my colleague, you know, if if you know, there is no conflict of interest, but to avoid even the appearance of perception, you know, the the the obsession is is a is a is a rational move. Might want to get a more broad opinion on on the joint venture component as well going forward. I would you. Yeah. Just airing that out there. Okay. It has been moved and seconded. 1219 is on the floor. Madam Secretary, Roll Call.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. Epstein. Herndon. Catherine Kennedy. Lopez. I knew Ortega. I. Susman.
Speaker 2: I black eye.
Speaker 4: Clark. All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 1: Abstain.
Speaker 4: Flynn, I Mr. President, I please.
Speaker 1: I was wondering about the results.
Speaker 4: 11 I two abstentions.
Speaker 1: 11 I two abstention. 1219 has been adopted. This concludes the rest of items that needs to be called out. All other bills for introduction are ordered published, were now ready for the block vote on resolutions of bills for final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote. You will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item on a separate vote. Councilman. Councilman Espinosa, will you put the resolutions for adoption and bills for final consideration for final passage on the floor? All right, I move that resolutions be adopted in bills on final consideration, to be placed upon final consideration and do pass in the block for the following items. All Series 17 1172 1181, 1183, 12, 15, 12, 2711 82 1028 1120. 1282 1283 1177. 1143 1173 02i get there and. 1243. Thank you. Not 1143. 11 7709. 1164. And that is it. And I should be I should clarify. Seven or nine was 0709. Thank you. All right. Madam Secretary, how you feel about that?
Speaker 4: Good. That was good.
Speaker 1: Okay. If it's good with you, it's good with us. LAWYER How do you feel? Don't you start? Okay. I think we got it. All good. All right, it's been. Was it? Madam Secretary?
Speaker 2: Raquel Black.
Speaker 4: I Clark. Espinosa. Flynn, I Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega I.
Speaker 2: Sesan I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please close the voting. And that's the results.
Speaker 4: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing council bill 1022 Change the zoning classification of 20,000 2001 to 25 East 18th Avenue in City Park West.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Turner-Flatiron, a Joint Venture, concerning pre-construction and construction management of the concourse gate expansion project at Denver International Airport.
Approves a five-year contract with Turner-Flatiron, a Joint Venture, in the amount of $700 million for pre-construction and construction management of the concourse gate expansion program at Denver International Airport (201631723). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 12-4-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 11-1-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11062017_17-1256
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. And thank you, Councilwoman Black. All right, your second one.
Speaker 9: Well, thank you, Mr. President. This proclamation is very short. It's proclamation number 17, just 1256, recognizing the Colorado municipally for its invaluable service to Denver and municipalities of the state of Colorado. Whereas, the Colorado Municipal League is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization providing services and resources to assist municipal officials in managing their governments and serving the cities and towns in Colorado. And. Whereas, CML was founded in 1923 and is in its 94th year of service to the municipalities of the state of Colorado. And. WHEREAS, CML is the voice of Colorado cities and towns with more than 97% of the state's municipalities represented in the league's membership. And. Whereas, CML provides high quality resources and services that empower municipal governments to sustain strong, healthy and vibrant cities and towns, and represents Colorado's cities and towns collectively through its advocacy, membership, services, training and research efforts. And. Whereas, the State of Colorado has a multitude of different types of cities and towns, and CML empowers them to enact policy and make decisions that are best for their individual governments, economies and constituents. Because one size does not fit all in local government. And. Whereas, the work of CML unifies the municipalities across Colorado while also allowing them to maintain their own individual identity. And. WHEREAS, CMA has always been a champion and defender of home rule authority, both in the legislature and in the courts. And as a result, Colorado cities and towns, including Denver, enjoy one of the strongest traditions of home rule in the nation on a regular basis. Policy choices made by the Mayor and City Council to pass legislation or make expenditures in the best interest of our own citizens are grounded in the bedrock of home rule. And. WHEREAS, CMS's lobbying role at the state Capitol supports Denver's legislative priorities every session by providing a collective voice for all Colorado municipalities, providing a stronger, more influential position than Denver could gain if acting alone, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver's Section One that the Denver City Council extends a sincere thank you to the Colorado Municipal League for its dedication and perseverance to protect and maintain the rights of the municipalities of Colorado. Section two that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affixed the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that copy be transmitted to Sam Mamet, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League.
Speaker 1: All right. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that proclamation. 1256 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It's been moved. And second, it comes by members of the council. Councilman Black.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I serve on the CML board, and I just wanted to recognize the work of this important organization. Many people are unaware of the advocacy that they do at the state level on behalf of Denver and our citizens and other Colorado cities. Seamless, Denver's partner at the State House. They work closely with our legislative team. They monitor what's happening at the state capitol, and they advocate for Denver's position and for home rule. Their advocacy for home rule allows us to do our work here in Denver. They're an important partner to the city and county of Denver, and we appreciate Cmll and their outstanding staff. Kevin Volmer, who's their deputy director, will be presenting at our November 14th Finance and Governance Committee with the 2018 State Legislative Legislative Preview. So please watch it on Channel eight or attend the meeting. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to thank Councilwoman Plec for bringing this forward and asked that my name be added. I've served on this board as well, and Sam and his very capable staff do an outstanding job not only collaborating with Denver, but actually representing many of the cities that don't have their own legal representation and really trying to be the voice of local government and particularly protecting home rule authority. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Ortega and our time in here and just talk about the importance of it. I think there are probably people who live in Denver who are like, what is the amount and why is that important to what the heck I'm going through in front of my house today? And and I think that's fair. But, you know, one thing and I'm a little embarrassed because the first conference, the email conference that I went to was just this summer with you, Councilwoman Black, and some others who were there. And the fact that municipal leaders can get in the same room and talk about issues going on in their city, like the opioid issue that's happening all throughout our country that not enough people are talking about. It's very helpful. And KMO is the gatherer of all of that intellectual capacity to help some of these municipalities. And so I'm so grateful for that and so grateful to say a mammoth and promise that Mr. Mammoth, as long as I'm president, which is only about six more months, we will be involved. But I hope that Denver continues to have a presence at all of the events, because I think it's incredibly important. So with that, Madam Secretary, quick black eye.
Speaker 4: Claire Espinosa. Flynn Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please I was wondering. And as a result.
Speaker 4: 1313.
Speaker 1: ISE Proclamation 1246 is adopted. Councilman Black, could there be anybody want to bring up?
Speaker 9: Yes, thank you. I would like to ask Sam Mamet to come up. Sam is the executive director of CML and he has been with CML for almost four decades. Sam, I know you're.
Speaker 1: Yeah, come on, Sam. Come on down. For decades.
Speaker 9: I sent him a text and told him that made him sound old, but.
Speaker 2: He's.
Speaker 1: Like, I've known Councilman Flynn almost that entire time.
Speaker 6: After saying, Yes, you are old.
Speaker 1: That's right. You knew me when I was six, five and £300. It's an honor to be here tonight. Thank you very much. Councilmember Black and distinguished members of the city council. I'm very honored to be here on behalf of the league to acknowledge this proclamation. Denver was one of our founding cities back in 1923 and has been a stalwart member of our organization for all those many years. And so I appreciate the the sentiments expressed in the proclamation. I want to recognize Councilwoman Ortega, who was a longtime recent, long time member of our board as well. We've had tremendous participation from Denver over many years, both from the council and certainly from the mayor and the wonderful city staff that serve this great community. So it's an honor to be here tonight, and I want to thank you very much for the proclamation. Council member Cashman said something earlier and it's nice to see my councilman as well. Paul, about elections tomorrow. We actually have about 80 cities across the state with elections tomorrow. Many with very important issues on their local ballots, much like Denver. And this is a very important day. I kind of view it as our report card. We turn in our homework as elected officials and leaders of our cities and towns, and tomorrow we're going to get graded by our citizens and the taxpayers. So it's a very important day. And I also join you in encouraging people to vote, particularly as we celebrate Veterans Day. That's what people have sacrificed their lives for. So tomorrow is a very important day in the life of cities and towns in Colorado because of all of these questions that are on the ballot and people running for office. So thank you very much. It's an honor to be here. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right. We are through the proclamations and this is the last night that council may offer amendments to the mayor's proposed 2018 budget. Um, let's see here. So, Councilman Lopez, you want to offer your First Amendment?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the Colorado Municipal League for its invaluable service to Denver and municipalities of the State of Colorado.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_11062017_17-0709
|
Speaker 1: Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Dear again, direct your comments to members of Council as a whole and refrain from any personal attacks. Councilman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 709 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 709 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second it. The public hearing for council bill 709 is open. May we have the staff report from Councilman Black? Is your night and Dr. Jenny Conrad and Dr. Avery. I'll let you introduce all your folks who were with you.
Speaker 9: Thank you. And since this is my bill, I'm going to give the staff report, along with two veterinary specialists.
Speaker 1: So, Councilwoman Black. Just one more thing. I don't mean to interrupt you. You're you're on a roll. I saw that. This is we're going to vote on this for publication tonight. This is first hearing. There's going to be another hearing next week. So I'm sorry, another another vote next week, not another hearing. So it will be the it will be the final vote next week. So I just want to make sure that's clear with everybody. This is just for publication.
Speaker 2: Will next week be Councilwoman Black's week as well?
Speaker 1: Yes, there were.
Speaker 9: Anyway. Thank you all for sitting here. I know you all got here early to sign in, but this is what we do on Monday nights, and this actually is going to be a short night some nights we're here till two in the morning. So before I start, if you are in favor of this, will you please stand up? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. So I'll just have a few brief remarks and then I'll invite you to say a few words before the public hearing. But I first learned about this from Dr. Lav Izzo, and I was shocked to learn about the horrible and unnecessary procedure that actually cuts off the tips of cats toes, causing them pain, often disabling them and resulting in other bad behaviors like biting. For many years it's been sold to cat owners as a simple way to prevent cats from scratching furniture. But owners haven't been told that the procedure actually cuts off the tips of the toes of cats. It's painful, it's cruel, and it's unnecessary. Yet it is legal. It's often disabling and does cause other bad behaviors like fighting and inability and unwillingness to use a litter box. And many cat owners who have cats that develop those habits actually are relinquished to shelters. But there are also humane ways to train cats so that they can stay in the home. And decline is not the solution. The federal government actually prohibits it for large cats and wild cats and nations and cities around the world have banned the procedure. And so why are we doing it here in Denver? Well, I think that until the veterinary community is willing to ban this cruel and inhumane procedure is up to us to do so. So with that, I'd like to invite Dr. Jenny Conrad up. She is a doctor of veterinary medicine and founder of the PAs project and she is the person who successfully got the federal government to ban cat decline in large and wild cats. And also Dr. Aubrey Lab Oso, who everyone knows, he's quite famous here in Denver. He's a community activist. He's been a veterinarian for more than four decades and has accomplished quite a lot and is very involved in the Denver community and is the current director of the Pop Park Project.
Speaker 3: Go ahead. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. And thank you, Mr. President, and council members, for allowing me to testify on this very important issue. My name is Jennifer Conrad. I'm a veterinarian, and I am the founder and director of the PAS Project. The PAS project is the world's largest nonprofit dedicated solely to ending declawing. Now, as you know, declawing does no good for a cat. It is the amputation of a cat's toe bones, just like the cigar cutter would amputate my fingers. It does not keep cats in their homes because they begin to have problems. They come home from the surgery. They go and dig in the litter box. It hurts. They will never use it again. They now have to resort to biting because they have no other mode of defense. We know that declawing a cat does not help human health. The National Hemophilia Federation Federation and the American Cancer Society do not condone declawing as a way to protect human health. But what we what I want to discuss with you is things that you might not know that declawing bans are a win, win win situation. Declawing bans are a win for cats. They're a win for communities. And they are actually a win for veterinarians. It's obvious why a declawing ban is a win for cats. Cats are allowed to keep their claws. They're more comfortable, they're more confident, and they do not have the risk of having a lifetime of being in pain from ten toe amputations. Declawing benefits communities because declawed cats are not flooding the shelters like you might hear from our opposition. In fact, the Park Project sponsored eight ordinances in the state of California, and in those eight ordinances, we banned declawing outright, with no exceptions, except for, of course, like your bill says, that if it's medically necessary for a cat in the case of like a tumor or something in the toe. But our experience in California was very interesting. We found that if we looked at the numbers of cats who were relinquished before the ban went into effect the five years before versus the five years after the ban went into existence, we found that there was a decrease in the number of cats relinquished. And in Los Angeles, which is a city of 4.2 million people. Very big city. We found that there was a decrease in the number of cats relinquished in the five years after the ban by 43.3%. That amounts to tens of thousands of cats lives saved by a declaw ban. We also found that the cat adoption rate went up twice in Los Angeles after the ban. With these two astounding facts that happened in Los Angeles. We can only surmise how many taxpayer dollars were saved. So again, declaw bans help communities. Now declaw bans also help veterinarians. Veterinarians, I'm sure you've heard, have always said that they're trying to talk everybody out of declawing. They're always saying, oh, we only we try and talk everyone out of it. We rarely do it. It's it's a last resort. Well, isn't the ultimate way to talk someone out of something say it's illegal? I can't. It's animal cruelty. So I think the declaw bans help veterinarians. We also surveyed veterinarians who have stopped declawing. And we have found that they across the board have said that they have a larger clientele because they're not declawing they have more loyal clientele because they're not declawing and that they've actually increased their revenues because they're not declawing. So declawing certainly helps declaw bands, certainly help veterinarians. When I started this campaign, it was 1999 and people told me, it takes 20 years to change the world. Are you committed to this? And I said, I am because I am a veterinarian. I went to school to protect cats, not to protect couches. I am now here in Denver 18 years later with pending legislation in the province of Nova Scotia, the state, the states of New York, New Jersey, West Virginia and Rhode Island all. Listening to what Denver does tonight, I. I'm very hopeful that veterinary medicine will change instead of being what we call compassionate veterinarians, because compassion has a wide berth. You can declaw a cat with compassion. You can kill an animal with compassion. But if we change veterinary medicine to be guided by empathy, I think that there's no question that declawing would be illegal. I like to paraphrase the great Martin Luther King when he said that the greatest happiness you will ever know is when you make someone else happy. And I like to apply that to animals. And I certainly hope that tonight we make a lot of animals very happy. And I respectfully ask for your vote. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Council President Brooks, it's nice to be here again, but let's get real. You really want to know how this started declining? It started actually went up when some sleazeball in a dogfighting cult cut off a cat's toes and tossed it into an enclosure so that it would beat the dog to fight more aggressively. That's how it started. Later in 1952, a veterinarian found out about it and a doctor Meisner wrote an article and submitted it to the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association, saying that declawing is a simple and practical way to protect fine furniture. That's how it started. So that's where the AVMA is sorted. Sort sordid history began with mutilating cats. Now, now, some 65 years later, 19 million cats in the U.S. or declawed by 21% of veterinarians, 95% of whom still do it to to protect furniture. But you know what? Think of all the countless millions of furniture that's now projected and all the stuff cats we now have that we can put on those that furniture, because declawed cats are not real cats. They're ornaments. You know, a couple of weeks ago when we did, we're in safe house. Well, Councilman Cashman, Safe House Committee, the Colorado Very Medical Association, said, you know, we are against. We are against declawing. But, you know, we don't like regulation. You know, you guys just leave us alone. We take care of it. But you know what that means. Everybody up here kind of vacate. We don't need you know, you can't someone we don't need you because your regulators, we don't need that. You know, we might as well do, too. Let's repeal the Civil Rights Act. Let's repeal the Immigration Act. Let's repeal the Child Safety Act. Let's repeal violence against women because we don't need regulation while we're at it. While we're at it. Let's go on and decriminalize dogfighting, too, because now, you know, every if we if we decriminalize dogfighting, then, you know, we really don't need to worry about mutilating little cats because anybody can do it. But whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute. That gets into my pocketbook. Let's CPMs pocketbook. So maybe that's not such a good idea. Thank you.
Speaker 7: Okay.
Speaker 9: So we're going to have public comment next. And I think we have 15 speakers. And if you if you have something to say that someone else has said. Keep your comments brief. You don't need to say the same thing over. We've already had public comment at our committee meeting, so we ask you to please keep it brief. And with that.
Speaker 1: Great. So I'll call the first five speakers up. We're going to need this front row for all of the speakers. So I'm sorry, but you'll have to find some space over here. We have some space over there. I'm going to call the first five speakers up, and the first speaker is Debbie Ortega. I saw you're okay. You didn't look great. I was going to be like, wow, this is a first. Okay, first speaker Gina matera, chairman say COO Jean. Hmm. HOVEY Okay. Thank you. Rhymes with Van Jovi. Okay. Jean Hovey. Dr. Andre and Jen West. Dean Yes. Yep. That's great. Okay. We'll have, uh, Gino Metro golfers.
Speaker 4: Good evening. My name is Gina montero.
Speaker 7: I live at 80 West Cedar Avenue in Denver and I'm speaking in support of the ban or the bill to ban declawing in Denver. Dr. Llamas, though, has cared for my pets for almost 30 years and he declawed one of my cats. She may have been the last cat that he declawed before he instituted a ban in his clinic. At the time, I thought Dr. Lorenzo and I were making a decision for a routine procedure, but I didn't know the true extent.
Speaker 3: Of the harm that was in store for you. I didn't fully.
Speaker 7: Appreciate the procedure or understand that decline was an amputation. I grew up with cats and had never declawed a cat before, but I knew people who had and I didn't see the true damage that it caused. When I picked you up at the clinic that day and saw her bloodied, bandaged paws. I immediately regretted the decision. When a bruised paws didn't heal well, bled for several days and she.
Speaker 4: Never fully.
Speaker 7: Recovered. She avoided putting weight on it and she never walked the same again. Her personality changed, too. She became less playful, endless social. I vowed that I would never decline another cat. Boo died six years ago. But I'm still haunted by my decision to mutilate the paws of my sweet, healthy cat. And she lived the last ten years of her life in obvious pain. I'm currently caring for a rescue cat that has had all ten of her claws removed. She's completely defenseless and she can't scratch herself. She was surrendered to a rescue because of behavioral problems. And she does require more care than cats that I've had who haven't had their claws removed. Thank you for your time and allowing me to speak.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right, Chairman Sekou. Yes. My name.
Speaker 10: Is Chairman.
Speaker 2: Sekou. I'm the.
Speaker 1: Organizer, founder for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense.
Speaker 2: Representing poor, working, poor and homeless people. You know, this, it seems like on the surface is a very simple thing. Because nobody really wants to decapitate cats. Unless you're in the business of decapitation. And then, of course, you make money and then. You know, there's there's a whole.
Speaker 1: Myriad of stuff in the medical community of giving.
Speaker 6: People operations.
Speaker 2: They don't need to know about it. So it's not unusual that this would happen. And. There is a caveat in this thing. Now you have senior citizens who have animals who they can't necessarily take care of because of their fixed income. So the costs of maintenance of these pets are prohibitive for them to have lifetime pets around. And so.
Speaker 0: Many times.
Speaker 2: When these cats or.
Speaker 10: These animals are taken from them, it has a.
Speaker 2: Deplete. It has a killing influence on the senior citizen because now this is their best friend. This is the one that makes them.
Speaker 0: Feel good when nobody else will. This is the one that's around when nobody else is coming around, including their own families.
Speaker 2: So we're in this. Do we have room where poor people on fixed income will get the opportunity to have the necessary resources to do the maintenance on these comfort animals that they have that they can't afford.
Speaker 0: That they can't afford.
Speaker 2: So and so. I'm sitting listening to folks about this. And. I would hope that as we go about this process of making a decision about this thing, that something in this bill because I know you guys are going to pass it. You're going to do that because it wouldn't have got to the floor if you didn't have the votes already. So somewhere in this, there has to be a provision for people who are on fixed income, who have to who have to maintain these pets to provide.
Speaker 0: A service for them, for these comfort animals that they are certified.
Speaker 2: Would have and will have the opportunity to hold on to these animals. So that their life is not impacted. Because when it comes down to folks, I mean, I.
Speaker 1: Represent senior citizens. I don't.
Speaker 10: Represent cats. I don't.
Speaker 2: But they have a very important role in the life of the people that I represent. So consider that as you go about doing your deliberations, and I'll just tell you straight up, I'm diametrically opposed to the mutilation of any animal. Period. Because that's anti-human.
Speaker 6: And we can do better.
Speaker 2: Than that. That's all I got.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Sekou. Jean Harvey.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good news for the chairman. Declawed cats tend to have more health problems as they age, so senior citizens will do better with cats that have their claws. A recent study published just this year.
Speaker 1: Is State your name for this?
Speaker 3: Oh, sorry. Yeah. Jean Hovey. Yeah, I'm a doctor of veterinary medicine. I live on South Williams at the Harvard Gulch bike trail. There's been a lack of recognition and a refusal to recognize the long term side effects of decline. Veterinarians don't understand or don't want to see that these cats are debilitated some months, sometimes years later, and they don't attribute that arthritis or that sudden decision to start biting or that failure to use the litter box that crops up five or ten years later. They don't associate that with decline, but in fact, that is part of the problem. A study just published in March found that declawed cats are three times more likely to have back pain, seven times more likely to house soil, which is the polite term for peeing and pooping outside the litter box. Four and a half times more likely to bite, three times more likely to be aggressive and three times more likely to barber, which is pull their hair out due to stress. So some personal research I did in addition to the surveys in California, specifically declawed cats in shelters, the percentage went down following declaw bans. And one thing that was very interesting was that the percentage of cats declawed cats in shelters was by far disproportionately older, showing that these cats don't develop these problems right away. But years later, that's when they get dumped because somebody that was not tolerant of claws is going to be less tolerant of peeing on the carpet. So I hope you guys understand that there is no reason to declare cat that are. There are more than a dozen humane alternatives. There's no excuse for this mutilation any more just because people don't want to bother to train their cats. We need to have some responsibility. And the veterinary profession has failed miserably in policing itself. And, you know, they can say, oh, we don't think you should do it. Well, there's no enforcement power there. You guys have the enforcement power. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. If you if you all could hold your applause just so we can get through. I do appreciate I know there's some good testimony up here, but just if you could do it, that'd be great. Dr. Andre. Andrea.
Speaker 7: My name is Dr. César Andre. Hard one to say. Good evening. I'm a veterinarian. I have ten years experience as an officer in the Army Veterinary Corps. I'm now an active and owns several veterinary businesses in Colorado. As a practicing veterinarian, I absolutely oppose the routine decline of cats. But I am also in strong opposition of the proposed ordinance. I considered a privilege to stand in this room with probably everyone who is in support of welfare of animals. However, my concern would be the unintended consequences if this proposed ordinance was passed. My experience tells me that veterinary medical decisions are as complex as any may between a human physician and their patient. A veterinarian acts as the advocate for the welfare of both the animal and the animal's human family. Similar to many other veterinary medical decisions, a decision to declare a cat is affected by many human and animal factors . The well-being of the animal and their human family is best defended by providing owners with education about alternatives to decline, appropriate training for friendly cats, and well-informed discussions between that pet owner and their veterinary medicine provider. When adequate procedures medically and ethically appropriate, the use of modern surgery, surgical techniques, advanced equipment and effective pain management as utilized in all other veterinary surgical procedures can ensure that a declawed procedure has the best possible outcome. Not only does this best possible outcome scenario include a successful procedure and a pain free animal, but also a cat that is able to remain with their family and continue to develop and enjoy a unique human animal bond. The proposed ordinance oversimplifies complex decision making, hinders my ability as a veterinarian to counsel and educate my clients, and forcibly obscures the holistic view on which my medical practice is centered. The number of de claws performed by veterinarians is declining as we are able to provide education and guidance on alternatives. While I applaud the desire to protect the welfare of animals, the measure does might do the opposite. It attempts to replace sound veterinary medical advice within the context of a veterinary client patient relationship with legislation, while at the same time removing the right of an individual pet owner to choose the appropriate medical treatment for their animal. The right of the individual to make a medical decision, no matter how difficult within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and their patient, is one that is crucially important. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Dr. Andre Ginn Western.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Jen Weston and I live in Denver. I'm at 4740 Willow and I live in Stapleton. I am also a certified veterinary technician, and I have been I am also one of the owners of Northfield Veterinary Hospital in Stapleton as well. I am not a vet. I did not go to vet school, but I have been working in this field for about 18 years come January and I have been in almost every single aspect in a veterinary hospital other than being an actual bat. More importantly, I actually own a declawed cat who is 23 years old and she was declawed 22 years ago when it was just a normal standard. You took your cat to the vet? Most of my parents did, and my cat was spayed and declawed at that time. She's 23 years old now and she has pretty significant arthritis, probably something that will eventually be a cause for euthanasia for her. I also have a two and a half year old daughter, and every single time my daughter touches my cat's front feet. SCHWEITZER Because I think that it is probably a source of pain for her. When I was 16 years old and working in a veterinary hospital, my veterinarian at the time handed me a pair of nail trimmers and instructed me on how to declaw cats. And you honor them as well. Again, I was not a vet, did not go to vet school, but probably in my time, in my three years there, I probably declawed over 100 cats. And that is something that I live with to this day, knowing that I perform the surgery in accurately and probably caused a lifelong of pain to these cats. So my my experience and working in veterinary hospitals in Denver in the last ten years. So I do agree that veterinary declines have decreased. However, I don't always feel that that education is there. I think veterinarians are very compassionate people, and by nature they are very much into people pleasing and providing great quality of care to the owners and to the pet as well. And sometimes I think that we are they are either bullied into doing the declaw against probably their own wishes or do it sometimes even for income reasons as well. So I urge you guys to support thespian as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Weston. All right, I'm going to call the next five. So, you up here. Thank you so much for your testimony. Will French, Saraswati, Kirsten Butler, Andy Nigro and Dr. Robin Downing. Will French. You're up first.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Dr. Will French Address is 191 Yuma Street. I'm a veterinarian and the president of the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association. CVM opposes the decline of cats, but we also oppose the proposed ordinance. Some of the unsubstantiated state statements that were made, particularly in committee by Dr. Lav, is that while they may make make a dramatic point, are simply inaccurate. One of the studies that he references actually points out that the majority of veterinarians do not perform death claws via the guillotine method, but in fact uses scalpel blade, which has much more satisfactory outcomes compared to those illustrated by Dr. in presentation. Additionally, when asked about complication rates, specifically long term chronic lameness veterinarians report that fewer than 1% of doctors have those complications. I appreciate the council members comments at the Safe House Committee regarding that. A fundamental function of government is the regulation of professions that can't regulate themselves. In response to that statement. It is important to be aware that the veterinary profession is indeed regulated by the Colorado Board of Veterinary Medicine under the Department of Regulatory Affairs. The State Board of Veterinary Medicine is a seven member board of veterinarians and public members that licenses veterinarians, investigate complaints about the practice of veterinary medicine, disciplines, violators of the law and or board rules, and makes rules and regulations that govern the conduct of veterinarians. And it is also important to know that the veterinary profession is already effectively shifting practice by educating its constituents about declawing cats. The number of d claws and doctors performing d claws is rightly dramatically declining. Another fundamental purpose of government is to protect, protect and preserve individual rights and the right of an individual to make a medical decision, no matter how ethically difficult within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and their patient is crucially important. If Dr. Lorenzo would like to identify and present to the State Board cases of D clause that were performed without adequate pain, control or surgical technique, I would gladly stand with him in front of that group to testify as to the pain and suffering placed on those animals. If the project would like to collaborate on an educational campaign to for landlords about the problematic nature of requiring residents to have declawed their their cats, the CVM would gladly engage in such efforts. Decline is an extremely complex issue and a blanket ban is simply bad policy that will fail to bring about desired change. Changing hearts and minds about this issue is admittedly harder work, but it is sounder policy and a path that we are committed to not simply banning it in Denver alone, which may have unforeseen consequences contrary to the welfare of cats. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Ms.. French. Sarah, sweetie.
Speaker 7: Good evening, and thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. My name is Sarah Swann, and I live in Fort Collins. I am the co-founder and executive director of Fort Collins Cat Rescue and Spay Neuter Clinic. A certified animal welfare administrator, a retired veterinary technician, and a lifelong lover and protector of animals. I am giving comment today in support of Councilwoman Black's bill to prohibit declawing of cats, or, as we refer to it, amputation of toes. My first experience with decline was at the age of approximately nine years old, when my parents had our family cat declawed as a convenience. Immediately upon my cats return home, I knew that something terrible had happened to her. Sadly, I had many more experiences with declawing and the nine years that I worked in veterinary hospitals as a veterinary technician, one of my jobs was to assist during declawing procedures and to provide care for the cats post-surgery. I witnessed pain, confusion and suffering from every cat that had this cruel procedure done. As the co-founder and executive director of Fort Collins Cat Rescue and Spay Neuter Clinic. I made the decision early in the organization's life to require adopters to sign a contract stating that they will not declaw their adopted cat. Despite this, we have no trouble trouble adopting out nearly 2500 cats and kittens annually. Even more importantly, I'm aware of only a single cat. Of the more than 14,000 we have adopted out over the last 11 and a half years ever being returned to our shelter because the owner didn't have the option of declawing opposition to the ban will lead you to believe that decline keeps cats in homes when in fact data shows the opposite is true. The cruel procedure of decline is done at the convenience of pet owners and at great risk to the cats. Decline does not keep cats in homes. There is a famous quote that states the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way that its animals are treated. You have an opportunity to improve the treatment of animals, to alleviate unnecessary suffering. To be the first city in Colorado. To prove that the lives of companion animal cats are not just important but protected. I urge you to pass Councilwoman Black's bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, sweetie. All right. And thank you guys for holding your floss and some of you slipped. Okay. Kirsten Butler.
Speaker 7: Good evening, counsel, and thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight about a declawing ban in our city. My name is Kirsten Butler and I am a certified veterinary technician here in Denver. And the simplest terms, I provide nursing care to your furry family members. In regards to surgery, I do not performance. That is the job of a veterinarian. But it is my job to prepare patients for surgery, keep them alive and manage their pain during surgery by monitoring anesthesia and care for them as they recover. Having run anesthesia on declawed procedures, I can tell you it is an awkward and disheartening feeling to keep something alive while is mutilated in front of you. The post-operative care is equally as awkward, placing compression bandages on bloody paws and then apologetically replacing those blood soaked bandages as they will inevitably be shaken off by the patient who is painful and dysphoric, having woken up missing a third of the digits they want to sleep with. I did my job. Those patients survived. But a little piece of me died on those days, and I chose to no longer participate in this procedure. As veterinarians do, I, too, took an oath upon completing my education, and I, too, am expected to adhere to a strict code of medical ethics in regards to my patients. Part of that code of ethics is to alleviate the suffering of animals. And following this code in regards to declaw procedures, I have risked insubordination and have limited my job opportunities by choosing to no longer work for practices that condone this unnecessary and painful surgery. We are here today because as veterinary professionals, we have failed. Surgery may seem like a quick fix when weighed against the time it takes to have conversations and discussions with our clients about anatomy, behavior modification, medications and pheromones, impregnated products and the overwhelming ness of the everyday. We forget sometimes who we actually work for. First and foremost, our job is to advocate for those who cannot speak. Our patients, no piece of furniture is worth taking away an animal's ability to ambulate normally, just as you would not cut off your child's fingers for drawing on the walls. In closing, I ask, is it really enhancing your relationship with your pet or is it really saving the life of the patient if all you are doing is condemning it to a life of pain? Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. Ms.. Butler. Okay. Andy Nigro.
Speaker 8: My name is Dr. Andy Negro. I'm a veterinarian, have been practicing in the.
Speaker 10: Central Denver area for about.
Speaker 8: 13 years. My address is 3214 West 26th Avenue. First of all, I would also like to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I'm excited that this issue of a declaw ban is being discussed and getting his due attention. In thinking about how best to voice my opinion, I chose to point out the simplest and most basic issues. How does the declawing procedure affect cats? While some will attempt to suggest that does not. I would challenge you to think about the basic nature of cats. If you have a cat at home, this may be an easier thing to understand. If not, please go online and youtube cats playing. Every single one of these videos that you will see will involve cats batting or grabbing. Toys. Pouncing, climbing, kneading. The point is this cat's paws and claws are truly the essence of who they are as animals. I will argue that a reasonable analogy would be a dog as to licking, chewing and playing fetch as a cat is to climbing, kneading and scratching. To put a medical perspective on this. Cats are digital grade, meaning that they walk on their toes. So essentially like this, where other species like humans are plant degrade, so they'll kind of do a heel strike. The bottom line is, is that by taking away the ends of their toes, we are affecting them and they were affecting them so much more than most realize. Those in opposition to the ban suggest that this procedure is a medical decision that should be left to the veterinarian and client. I'm proposing that this is not a medical decision. Is a discussion regarding issues of convenience to me a medical decision? That involves surgery. Must address a medical problem. As it relates to this issue. There is no medical problem here.
Speaker 10: I'll leave you with this.
Speaker 8: Why is it reasonable for us to remove the ends of cat's toes? Imagine starting to consider this practice in this day and age. It would be ridiculous conversation that would be shot down immediately as cruel and unusual. This is something that somewhere along the way somehow became acceptable. We have the opportunity to question this. Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Dr. Negro. All right, last in this group, this is Dr. Robin Downey.
Speaker 3: Good evening and thank you all very much for this opportunity. I'm Dr. Robin Downing. I practice in Windsor, 415 Main Street in Windsor. I'm an internationally known pain management expert. I'm a board certified specialist in physical therapy for animals, and I'm a clinical bioethicist. And this issue of ten toe amputation in cats needs to be assessed from all three of these perspectives pain, biomechanics and bioethics. Pain. When we perform a ten toe amputation in cats, we cut nerves. And there is no way that any veterinarian can assert credibly that they can eliminate all the pain of a ten toe amputation at the time of surgery. But more importantly, because we cut those nerves, we have the opportunity for those cut nerves to develop a condition that in humans is called neuropathic pain. This is a perpetual, self-sustaining pain phenomenon. Humans with neuropathic pain will tell you that every step is torture, and even when they're not on their feet, their pain can be excruciating. Biomechanics. When we perform a ten toe amputation, we're not just removing a piece of bone. We're cutting ligaments, tendons and all the attendant structures. At the end of the toes, this alters the architecture of the feet forever and changes the biomechanics of the front limbs. When we change the biomechanics of the front limbs, we actually change the biomechanics of every single joint from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail. Bioethics. There are four foundational principles in clinical bioethics respect for autonomy, non maleficent's, beneficence and justice. Respect for autonomy means honoring the preferences of the individual. I would argue that no CAT would have a preference to have ten to amputation. None Maleficent's means do no harm. It is inconceivable to try to argue that a ten tone amputation does not cause harm. Beneficence means acting in the patient's best interest. Again, indefensible to argue that it's in any cat's best interest to have attend to amputation. And justice, as applied in veterinary medicine, really reflects fairness. I would ask, is it ever fair for us to perform a ten toe amputation in a cat? My respectful answer is, I think, a self-evident no. We need to remember what the Buddhists say. While pain is inevitable, suffering is optional, and you all are now in a unique position to prevent unnecessary suffering. By banning this barbaric and arcane mutilation procedure. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Dr. Downing. Okay. All right. Well, we're getting there. We're getting there. We'll let you clap at the end when we vote. Okay. The last five. Thank you all for being up here. I'm going to bring the last five up here. Uh, Reverend Roland Halpern, Erica Rambus. Lynn Decker the second. Lisa martin. And Senator Hamlin. All right. Okay, Reverend.
Speaker 2: Good evening, President Brooks. Distinguished members, thank you for having me here this evening. My name is Roland Halpern. I live in Denver, Colorado. I'm an ordained animal chaplain and a member of the Association of Professional Chaplains. I serve as the Colorado Faith Outreach Volunteer Leader for the Humane Society of the United States. I am on the board of the Colorado Voters for Animals, and I also serve on the board of the Colorado Council of Churches. We've heard a little bit of about ethics this evening, but I want to talk a little bit about morals. Genesis 125 reminds us that on the sixth day, God created the animals of the Earth, even before He created man. And God saw that it was good. And Genesis 131 reminds us that when God look back on all he created, he saw that it was very good. God gave man hands just as he gave cats claws. It was very good. And it is for a purpose. By unnecessarily declaring a cat. Are we saying God got it wrong that he didn't know what he was doing? As far as I'm concerned, if someone places their couch, their curtains or other material things above that which was created by the divine, then maybe they just shouldn't have a cat in the first place. Defiling God's creation because we might perceive it as a nuisance is simply wrong. Not one sparrow falls that goes unnoticed by God. And an injury to any of God's creatures is also felt by him. We were reminded that is the merciful that will receive mercy. And I hope in making your decision on this, that you are merciful for our feline friends. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Reverend. Erica Rambis.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Dr. Erica Rambus.
Speaker 7: I am the medical.
Speaker 3: Director at the Feline Fix 2600 West First App, or I'm sorry, West Second Avenue in Denver.
Speaker 7: And I have been practicing veterinary medicine in Denver for over 20 years. As veterinarians, we take an oath.
Speaker 3: And this oath includes the words to protect animal health and to prevent and relieve animal suffering. I find it hard to believe that.
Speaker 7: Any veterinarian who is amputating the distal toes of their feline patients.
Speaker 3: Is fulfilling and honoring this oath. I had very.
Speaker 7: Much hope that my colleagues would step up to the plate and do the right thing for these.
Speaker 3: Animals without the need for legislation.
Speaker 7: But that's not what's happened. Or how much more time did we give them to do the right thing? And more importantly, how much more suffering has to take place before.
Speaker 3: We as a profession and.
Speaker 7: We as a society stand up and say enough is enough.
Speaker 3: Are most of the public.
Speaker 7: Knows by now that this procedure is wrong? They know it's.
Speaker 3: Cruel, and those that don't yet know are looking to their veterinarians for guidance. Veterinarians should be.
Speaker 7: Leading the way when it comes to animal protection, not following behind and certainly not opposing it. The time is right for this legislation. The time is now to please end this barbaric procedure in our city once.
Speaker 3: And for all. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Rambis. All right. I think this is Win Win Decker. I'm missing the first little bit.
Speaker 2: Good evening, council members. My name is Command Sergeant.
Speaker 5: Major Mike Autumn Bin Decker the second. I am with the ninth Brigade Station and Suleimani, Iraq. I lost one of my toes in combat against the Islamic State. I was a volunteer. Every day I suffer in excruciating pain with my loss of my big toe. When I came back from my last tour, I returned back home and from a village called Abu Mohammed. When I returned from that village, I came with my small cat, a ginger cat by the name of Abu. He is now an American. He loves pork and he loves tearing up my house. I'm a career military man. I love this cat with all my heart. I will kill for this cat. I almost died for this cat. That's how I lost my toe. The thing I can tell you is to declaw cat. To remove a part of their body is mutilation. I see in the Islamic State mutilate innocent women, children, homosexuals, animals. And it is wrong. The same applies to our animals, our friends. Boo is my son. I love him. He is an American and he raises hell. But he is my child. And for you to sit there and not to stop this butcher ism would be a travesty to us in Iraq. Zero. Zero cats are declawed. As my journal once said, the Prophet Muhammad said, to file an animal is considered a blasphemy against Allah himself. This is a muslim in Iraq where they have total disregard for animals. Everybody knows about Iraqi police dogs and Iraqi alley cats. But we as American citizens who are free and have the right to fight for those that are persecuted and killed. But we stand back and we allow innocent cats to be mutilated. This is wrong. I can understand doing it for medical purposes such as a tumor. Or possibly they got ran over. I could accept that. But because you have a couch, you have curtains. I have a flag for the president of the United States. Abu climbs up it every day. I have no problem with that, because my love for him is more greater than the love for myself. So the fact I tell you is to please make sure to pass this ban, because the fact is, Abu, who has traveled 11,000 miles, depends on you as a new American for you to protect him. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And thank you for your service. All right. Lisa martin.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Lisa martin. I'm from Golden, Colorado, and I have been involved in Cat Rescue and fostering special needs cats for 18 years. Currently, with every creature counts and work of Fort Lupton, Colorado, in the past year I have fostered about 15 declawed cats, and these cats have been already surrendered to the shelter. We got them from at least once and by the time I get them to foster them, they've been surrendered at least once or twice. When I bring them into my homes, I find that they have chronic pain. I have a cat right now that can't put her right front foot down and she's on pain meds all her life. The other issue that I see with the cats because of the pain is they don't walk very much, so they're very sedentary. They just walk from their bed to their food bowl. They end up obese, they end up with diabetes. They can't clean their rear end. So a lot of cats end up with infections that we can't clear up. And it's pretty disgusting and they're very hard to get adopted. The other thing that I see with these cats is they feel very vulnerable and very defenseless without their claws. When they're in homes with little kids and other pets, they tend to bite, they tend to hide, they tend to become very scared and skittish. It's very hard to find them homes because they need a very quiet home where they feel very comfortable and they don't have to worry about feeling defenseless. The last thing that I see with just about every single declawed cat that I have fostered in 18 years is litterbox issues. It's painful to dig in the litter box. A lot of them have aversion from when they were first declawed. It's very hard to get them to start learning to use the litter box. I have to retrain them. We tried different litters, we tried different litter boxes. We tried potty pads. Oftentimes we can't find a solution. So these cats are next to impossible to get homes for. So people like me end up with these cats. So I.
Speaker 3: I hope that this.
Speaker 7: Does not I hope that this will be the ban will be. I'm sorry. I'm hoping that the ban will be go forward because it's so hard to find these declawed cats homes because they are pretty much unadoptable by the time we get them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Martin. All right, Santa. How much?
Speaker 3: Good evening, council members. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Snow Hamlin. I owned and Record Company, which is a Cat Cafe located at 3929 Tennyson Street. We foster cats who are up for adoption and we're in the business of providing a joyful experience to the people of Denver and of Colorado as far as the relationship with Cats goes. As the only Cat Cafe in Colorado, we have served over 25,000 people this year alone from all over the state and have helped facilitate the adoptions of over 400 cats. Based on my experience with working with rescue cats and our customers. I have three main observations to share with you. Number one is our customers are often surprised to learn that declawing is painful for cats and can lead to negative behaviors. This is because the practice has been normalized in the mind of the public, and many vets do not provide full disclosure to their clients or discuss humane alternative options with them. Once customers learn, the full extent of the damage, decline can do often from me and from our partnering rescues. They no longer are interested in declawing their cats. We would not need this amendment if all vets were upfront about the negative consequences of decline. But unfortunately, this is not the case. Number two, and related to my first point about education, I strongly believe that it will abandon Denver bill, even if it does not prevent all declawing in Colorado will serve as a strong signal to uninformed cat lovers that this is a cruel and unnecessary procedure and it will lead to better informed decisions in other Colorado cities. Third, and most important, cats who have suffered the pain and trauma of being declawed are not happy cats. We have hosted such cats at the cafe. They have trouble adjusting to human interaction. They often end up leaving because they bite. They have a harder time finding new homes. Declawing a cat not only does not keep a cat in a home, it does a permanent disservice to the cats chances of being accepted as a desirable pet for the remainder of its life. I urge you to vote in favor of this anti-growth amendment to protect our furry companions who give us so much love and joy so they can continue to do do so. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Ms.. This concludes our speakers. Thank you all. You can head back to your seats. All right. We'll head into the question portion of our our public hearing. Councilman Herndon, you're up.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I got a handful of questions.
Speaker 2: Dr. Conrad, if you mind.
Speaker 8: Coming up, Aubrey, you could come up.
Speaker 2: To.
Speaker 8: The College of Veterinary Medicines. CVM I think we had two doctor speak either one I'm fine with do we and Councilman Black do you have any idea how many or maybe this might be for Alice, how many declines in Denver that we perform annually? Do we or anyone do we believe it's a lot? Do we believe it's a little? Any idea? Are there any way do we have.
Speaker 2: That's a good question, unfortunately, because it's gotten such a stigma. Now, Councilman Herndon, there is don't acknowledge that information if you ask. It was a survey that was done just a couple of years ago by the Colorado Veterans Medical Association. In a survey was a subjective survey. It asked, do you do decals anymore? Well, not many. So we have no idea. And we're not going to be able to get into those practices to find out those records. We don't know.
Speaker 8: Okay. In our recent year there, this was a I admire your passion, but I heard you keep saying we do this out of convenience. I had a conversation with a cat owner who said a cat scratched my baby. And so I had the cat declawed. So I don't I don't believe that that particular instance was out of convenience. Is that a safety? So what would you tell that that cat owner who was concerned about the safety of their baby and they felt that decline or or getting rid of the cat would be the only two options that they would have.
Speaker 3: Well, I would say, first of all, it's not the only two options. There are humane alternatives. There are vinyl claw caps that you can place on the cat. You can train the cat. But more importantly, I would tell you that it is well documented that declawed cats bite more because they've been robbed of their primary defense. So in a sense, by declawing, you're actually giving that mother a false sense of security because now she's jeopardizing her child to be bitten. So I don't think that it's the right answer. And remember that declawing is illegal or considered unethical and most of the rest of the world and there are babies, there are grandmas with thin skin, there are people with HIV, there are people on Coumadin, and they're living with cats with claws. So I think that it that it's not a matter of declaw or get rid of the cat, it's a matter of declaw or humane alternatives to declaw and keep the cat.
Speaker 8: Okay. And from that, I will just say that that particular incident, the cat didn't bite the baby afterwards. But I admire I appreciate your opinion on that. I'm curious when these laws so how does. So if if adoption rates because we were having conversations about cats being adopted out that are declawed. But if you've gone to cities where we've made decline illegal, has there been an increase of cats being adopted out because now home owners feel that they don't have an option? Am I making sense? Like, do abandonment rates go up? Because now in L.A. County, I can't declaw my cat. I don't have the time ability to train it. So instead, I'm just going to take it to a shelter. Is that.
Speaker 3: The question? I understand your question, but the actual facts are the exact opposite. If we passed declawing bans in eight cities in California and five of those cities have their own municipal shelters, so we were able to get the numbers of CAT relinquished relinquishment in the five years before the ban versus the five years after the ban . And what we found is that every single city had a decrease in the number of relinquishment and actually an increase in the number of adoptions. So this this threat that you hear from the opposition that there will be this massive deluge of cats if you can't declaw. That didn't happen. There is no there is no proof of that. In fact, it's the exact opposite. Opposite. And as I said in Los Angeles, which is is a city that has almost the same population of all of Colorado, we found 43.3% of cats, a decrease in the number of cat relinquishes, 43.3%. That translates to tens of thousands of cat lives saved by declaw bans. And the head of Los Angeles Animal Services is a woman named Brenda Barnett. And she attributes the lack of I mean, the decrease in cats being relinquished to the declaw ban saying now she's not seeing the cats relinquished for not using the box or for biting. So declawed bans absolutely help cats and they help communities and ultimately they help vets vet.
Speaker 8: Things are coming. And I normally write down everyone's names and I did not do this as this. Conversations were so fascinating. So I apologize. So if you want to kind of if you want to rebut to that, that's how you raise your hand. And I had one more question for you. Thank you, Dr. Will French. So a couple of thoughts on the relinquishment, relinquishment numbers. I applaud those cities for the decrease in relinquishment, but I would say that we don't always know that correlation equals causation. So just because relinquishment were decreased in those cities, what we don't know is what happened to relinquishment in other cities. Right? If people just sort out declare because in the town next door and thanks to the wonderful efforts of many animal welfare organizations, really hopefully relinquishment are going down. So it the declaw ban was not the only decision made in those five years in a vacuum. So it's a little bit more complicated than that this year. And I want to give you a if you could speak a little bit more, because my familiarity was with the the tendons that other people were saying. But when you spoke, you talked about another procedure. And I just wanted to give you that opportunity, speak to that, because I was not familiar with that. So I'll try and answer the question to the best of my ability. But there there are a number of different methods to perform a declaw, and some are of appropriate surgical technique and some are not. One of the methods that was referenced is the guillotine method, where you cut it, cut to cut it all off, sort of like a quick amputation, like a someone's beheaded. Basically that that's not the most frequently used surgical technique reported by veterinarians. In fact, a scalpel is. So just wanted to set that straight was the point of that. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Hurd in my screen, are you next? Councilman Clark, your next.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Dr. French, if you'd come back up. I don't think it's any surprise where I am on this issue. I brought my cat to committee, and I'm wearing pen.
Speaker 2: So I apologize for that. But I.
Speaker 6: Am trying to.
Speaker 10: Understand why you guys as an organization are against it.
Speaker 2: So and correct me if I'm wrong, but you.
Speaker 10: Started your statement by saying that you are opposed to declawing, but you're also opposed to this legislation.
Speaker 8: Yes, sir.
Speaker 10: Why are you opposed to decline?
Speaker 8: I would agree with many of the statements made that as a as a routine procedure done out of, you know, pure practicality for the owner, I would be ethically opposed to that. Absolutely. I do not think that and I think the organization thinks that declaw should not be performed on a routine basis. However, we also don't think that a ban in Denver City Council is the correct way to go about enforcing.
Speaker 2: Okay. So you think it it.
Speaker 10: Shouldn't be allowed for routine? Do you guys have to get kicked out of your organization for doing that? You have any regulations against that?
Speaker 8: So we're a professional membership organization, but the State Board of Veterinary Medicine has the opportunity to regulate standards of care and that sort of thing.
Speaker 10: And do they? Do they do? Does anyone get punished for any declawing, even routine? Somebody comes in and just says, I want to protect my curtains, take my cat's claws off. Does anybody regulate that?
Speaker 8: That that's where the education component comes in.
Speaker 10: But does anybody regulate it?
Speaker 8: Not to my knowledge.
Speaker 10: Okay. You had also mentioned that there are certain ways like the guillotine. Guillotine. I don't know how you say the word method that are not as effective are frowned upon.
Speaker 6: Do you.
Speaker 10: Guys does anyone regulate and say you can't.
Speaker 8: Do that? What we do.
Speaker 10: Is there is someone allowed to do that today in the state of Colorado.
Speaker 8: So the state board of Veterinary Medicine, hypothetically, would be allowed to do that if it would do that today, if it were deemed to be not standard of care. And I don't believe that that question has been put in front of them. To the best of my knowledge, it may have been, but I don't know.
Speaker 6: But you guys are against that.
Speaker 10: Just not against it. Enough to tell people not to do it.
Speaker 8: I didn't sit.
Speaker 2: With you again. You started the first statement out of your mouth was, we are opposed to decline.
Speaker 10: And then you said, hey, this method is not good compared to the.
Speaker 2: Scalpel method or whatever.
Speaker 10: So you're against it, but not against it enough to tell anyone not to do it.
Speaker 8: With regards to the particular method, I believe what I said was it was more accurate to say that more veterinarians use the scalpel. We don't have any scientific peer review studies that look at method two method, and so people may look at the guillotine method and say it causes more pain, but we don't know that from a study. Placebo control.
Speaker 2: What other procedures are done on any animals.
Speaker 10: That are akin to declawing in cats that you guys also are opposed to, but no one is regulating and saying you can't do it. I'm not aware of any of word. So my wife drives my wife crazy. We have a kitten and the kitten hasn't quite learned not to jump up on the table when we're eating. Drives her crazy. If there was a veterinarian.
Speaker 2: Who told my wife I could amputate both.
Speaker 10: Back legs and your cat wouldn't be able to jump up on the.
Speaker 2: Table. Would you guys.
Speaker 10: Be opposed to government stepping in to say.
Speaker 2: That's not okay? Or would you guys be opposed but still.
Speaker 10: Not want to tell anyone not to.
Speaker 2: Do it? I'm trying. I don't mean to be ridiculous.
Speaker 10: But I'm failing to.
Speaker 8: See.
Speaker 2: This distinction between I'm opposed to it. We are opposed to it as an organization. But but we're not stepping.
Speaker 10: In where you could step in or where the state board could step in to prevent it from happening. And I don't want government to do that.
Speaker 2: And I will agree.
Speaker 10: With Councilwoman Kenney. She was not here in what she said in committee, that it is government's role that if a doctor started saying we're going to cut off the back legs of a cat or somebody use the analogy my kids drawn on my walls and I just painted it. So bind their hands that they can't do that.
Speaker 2: Government does have a role to step in and say, you could.
Speaker 10: Be regulating yourself, but you're.
Speaker 2: Not. And so on.
Speaker 10: I guess I'm trying to see why this isn't, from your perspective, an instance that is in desperate need of that.
Speaker 8: I would agree with Dr. Downie in that there are many different facets to bioethics and this is this is a complicated issue. I think that there are parallels that can be drawn to the abortion argument, unfortunately. It's a difficult decision that has to be made within the confines of a relationship between a doctor and a patient. And the highest court has said that it's hard and and that rightly belongs there. We are for that choice to be made a choice to be made between the doctor and a patient.
Speaker 2: I'd say the rest of the comments. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Dr. Downing, could you come up here just for a second? Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Clarke, I just want to say thank you. That was excellent. Yes, sir.
Speaker 6: From the standpoint of bioethics, what would be your view on spaying and neutering and the consequences of that as well?
Speaker 3: Well, we have actually solid medical evidence that lets us know that removing the gonads, the ovaries and the testicles have positive medical benefits down the road. For instance, when we remove the ovaries of cats fairly early in life, we actually have a very robust science that lets us know we dramatically reduce the risk for ovarian excuse me , mammary cancer in those cats. Mammary cancer in cats behaves biologically different than it does in dogs. In dogs, it's a less aggressive disease. In cats, it's an extremely aggressive malignancy. So reducing the risk. Excellent choice. As far as removing testicles, we have, again, evidence that lets us know that we reduce behavior issues in speaking specifically of cats , of reducing some of the sex hormone related behaviors, like marking behaviors with urine, those kinds of behaviors. So from both a scientific and a bioethical perspective, this these are procedures that actually enhance health and allow for a longer life expectancy. In addition, we have data that lets us know that intact animals, these are animals with their opponents of reason. Testicles tend to have a much shorter life expectancy than animals that have had their gonads removed. So we not only enhance their life quality, but we actually enhance their longevity. Mm hmm.
Speaker 6: Okay, so you just you see, there's no parallel between.
Speaker 3: There actually is. And that's the straw man argument. There is absolutely no parallel between toe amputation and removing the gonads.
Speaker 6: Okay.
Speaker 3: Excellent question.
Speaker 6: Though. Thank you. Because a lot of times are done in conjunction with.
Speaker 3: I understand that I'm.
Speaker 6: I was thinking about.
Speaker 3: It. I think it's appropriate for the council to know that I've been a veterinarian for 31 years and I was taught that this was a commodity, this toe amputation was a commodity procedure that I should offer. And in fact, I did offer that. And then our body of knowledge changed and our scope of knowledge changed. And what I tell people when I teach all over the world is you can't know what you don't know. But once you know something, you can't not know it anymore. And now we know that there are ramifications to the decision to perform at ten toe amputation that 31 years ago were considered inconsequential.
Speaker 6: Thank you. I actually do find that some people who do know things later pretend not to know that.
Speaker 3: Well, there is that there, in fact.
Speaker 6: That's a that's a whole other story. But that's a whole nother story. As my wife hates to hear people say.
Speaker 2: Hey, can I ask.
Speaker 6: The sponsor a couple of questions, Mr. President? Councilwoman Black, that tell me, because there's a very, very short council bill. What what is the penalty? Is it just basically an ordinance violation? If we found a veterinarian who who did do this against the ordinance.
Speaker 9: Yeah. They could be fined up to $990.
Speaker 6: So there's.
Speaker 3: Go ahead.
Speaker 9: They they could be fined up to $999. And the rules around this and the enforcement around it would be something that would be decided upon by our animal.
Speaker 6: That was my next question is how do we envision the enforcement? How would we.
Speaker 3: Well, I've talked with.
Speaker 9: The director in Los Angeles, and they passed this law in 2009, and it became effective January 1st, 2010. And they did press releases, letters to vets. And in that time, they've only had two complaints. And it was people who just weren't aware of it, and they just followed up with them and that was it. I think we would all agree that veterinarians are law abiding citizens, and if they know that it is not legal, they won't do it anymore.
Speaker 6: Okay. Is there. There's nothing in here. I just want to verify this for folks who might be watching and are curious about it. But there is nothing in here that penalizes a cat owner. If the cat owner went into a veterinary in Denver and the veterinarian did it, it would be the veterinarian who would be charged or cited and not the cat owner for procuring the illegal act. Okay, nothing. Then would.
Speaker 1: Our city attorney, Kirsten.
Speaker 7: Crawford. Excuse me, I am sorry to interrupt, but I just want to make sure that we're perfectly clear that the general penalty provision will apply, which is up to $999 fine, but also and or up to one year in jail. Now, it's we may may, may take enforcement measures that are shy of that sort of imposition of the penalty. But I just wanted to make sure that that was perfectly clear.
Speaker 6: And that's in relation to the veterinarian, not the pet owner.
Speaker 7: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 6: Thank you. And there's nothing in here again, just so the folks who are watching and reading later know there's nothing in here that prohibits a resident of Denver from taking their cat to Aurora or Englewood or Littleton or Lakewood and and having a cat declawed there and bringing it back.
Speaker 9: At this time.
Speaker 3: That is correct. I'm sorry.
Speaker 9: At this time. That is correct.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I think I had one more. If you may, if you can't do this, maybe one of your veterinarian witnesses can. But what I need a little better definition of medically necessary, because that seems to be a loophole in here.
Speaker 5: What do you do on that?
Speaker 6: On that question.
Speaker 10: Sorry.
Speaker 3: I can't help myself.
Speaker 6: On on that.
Speaker 1: Question.
Speaker 3: On that question. I forgot my Tourette's medicine. I'm sorry. Medically necessary would be things like a congenital abnormality that would be a deformation of the foot that the cat was born with at the foot or the toe developed abnormally and is actually causing a problem to that cat. Another OP opportunity for a medically necessary amputation of the last digit or even all of the digit would be the formation of a tumor. Any time that we have to remove tissue because there is a malignant growth, that is a medically necessary procedure. If a cat were to be hit by a car, for instance, and there would be no soft tissue left to actually heal over the toes, that would be a medically necessary amputation if, for instance, the cat were caught in a trap of some kind. I live in an area where I do see cats that are working, cats who are out and about taking care of mice and other rodents if they happen to get caught in an illegal trap where a part of the foot needs to be amputated because it is gangrenous and has died, that's a medically necessary amputation. Does that give you a flavor?
Speaker 6: Yes, it does, because I was reading the ordinance is quite broad. Medical that's a medical necessity is to relieve physical illness. Well, I see that as I see that as a pretty broad.
Speaker 2: Needs.
Speaker 3: To be a broad definition.
Speaker 6: Infection, disease or injury.
Speaker 3: Exactly. It needs to be broad because I couldn't I could be here all night and recite for you chapter and verse of different scenarios that would mandate an amputation of a toe or even a foot.
Speaker 6: And I think the material on this in committee said that about 90, 95% of of declawing procedures are done for convenience. Only so many successfully would be a very.
Speaker 3: Small it actually would be a very narrow.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: In the population.
Speaker 6: The only other thing I would add is I, having owned a cat many, many, many, many years ago, I find the term working cat to be oxymoronic.
Speaker 2: Oh, no. All right.
Speaker 1: Slipped in the comments there, Councilman Flint. I have no.
Speaker 6: History on this.
Speaker 1: Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: It's been asked and answered.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes the question portion of our public hearing. We are now going into comments. Public hearing for Council Bill seven or not is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Black, do you have any or should I.
Speaker 3: Put in into our.
Speaker 1: Colleagues here?
Speaker 9: I will say a few brief comments. Number one, I don't have much to add to the speakers. Their testimonies are very compelling. Most of them are animal care specialists. I've been talking to Aubrey and other vets about it for many, many months now, and I think it's the right thing to do. Denver has proven over and over that we are a compassionate city. This is a national movement and an international movement, and it really is the right thing to do. So I hope you all will support this.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I was just going to say that this is for publication and that and we were hopefully save our in-depth comments for next week when we're voting on final. So I support this moving forward to be ordered published.
Speaker 1: Councilman Clark.
Speaker 10: I just want to quickly thank everyone who came out today and stuck with us til not 2:00 in the morning, but a late night in hard seats. Thank you for coming and sharing your expertize and your passion. I really want to thank Councilwoman Black for bringing this forward. As someone who doesn't have cats, someone who is a cat enthusiast like me. I'm very thankful for you bringing this forward and shining a light on it, something that I was not even aware of. And I just want to I want to add that I do think that this broader conversation about the role of government is an important one. And I'll just say that my preference would be that this industry, that that the board and the professional organizations and veterinarians would be self-regulating. And if there was a movement towards saying, you can't do this method, you can only do this method because the science points out and we should even look at that. And and you can't do it for cosmetic reasons. You have to do it for health reasons. And there was a movement towards this. There wouldn't be a need for government to get involved. But this is exactly the core fundamental role of government is to step in. And that's not happening and it's not. And so I think that this is a very appropriate thing for government to take a stand on. And I think some day I hope that the industry gets to a place where this law is no longer needed because the industry is self-regulating on issues like this. And so I'm very supportive of this on first reading, and I hope all my colleagues will vote this on first and second reading. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 3: Black. All right.
Speaker 2: CLERK Yeah, I am Flynn. I am.
Speaker 4: Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. I Lopez. I knew Ortega.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Susman, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I was voting and announced the results.
Speaker 4: 11 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 11 Eyes Council Bill 709 has been ordered published. Final consideration of this bill be Monday, November 13th. Got it. Got a couple more announcements and then you can go and celebrate. All right. City council sitting as ex-officio as board of directors of Denver, 14th Street General Improvement District Rhino, the General Improvement District and Gateway Village General Improvement
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adding a new section 8-141 to Chapter 8 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on cats.
Adds a new section 8-141 to Chapter 8 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to prohibit surgical claw removal, declawing, onychectomy, or tendonectomy on cats. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 10-25-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10162017_17-1153
|
Speaker 2: Here. Looks like we have seven members present. We have a quorum. Councilwoman Sussman, your motion regarding the 2018 proposed budget and public hearing notice.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, I move that the clerk and recorder is instructed to publish a notice. That one. The Mayor's proposed budget for 2018 is open for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday in the City Council office room 451 of the city and county building located at 1437 Bannock Street. Starting the week of October 16th, 2017. Two. At its regular meeting on Monday, October 23rd, 2017, which will begin at 530, the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the mayor's proposed budget for 2018 and three. Any citizen may inspect the budget prior to or at the public hearing and register any objection to the budget prior to or at the public hearing on the budget. And the Council shall take any objections into consideration.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Sorry. One moment. Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, i. Herndon, i. I can each. I knew Ortega I. Assessment i. Mr. President, i.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes. The motion passes approval of the minutes. Are there corrections to the minutes of October nine? Being none the minutes of October night stand approved council announcements. Are there any announcements from members of council? Husband.
|
Announcement
|
Mayor’s Proposed 2018 Budget and Public Hearing Notice
The Mayor’s Proposed Budget for 2018 is open for inspection from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays in the City Council Office, Room 451 of the City and County Building located at 1437 Bannock Street starting the week of October 16, 2017; (2) at its regular meeting on Monday, October 23, 2017, which will begin at 5:30 p.m., the City Council will conduct a public hearing on the Mayor’s Proposed Budget for 2018; and (3) any citizen may inspect the budget prior to or at the public hearing and register any objection to the budget prior to or at the public hearing on the budget, and the Council shall take any objections into consideration.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10162017_17-1149
|
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Do any other announcements? I just wanted to recognize that we have former Councilwoman Jeannie Raab in the chamber tonight. Thank you for being with us and welcome presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations?
Speaker 3: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Tonight council was scheduled to sit as the quasi Judicial Board of Equalization to consider a reduction of total cost assessments for local maintenance districts. However, since no written protests of assessment were filed with the manager of public works by September 28, 2017, Council will not sit as the Board of Equalization for the following local maintenance districts. 15th Street Pedestrian Mall. 20th Street Pedestrian Mall. Broadway Pedestrian Mall. A Consolidated Larimer Street Pedestrian Mall. Del Gainey Street East 13th Avenue Pedestrian Mall Santa Fe Drive Pedestrian Mall See South Broadway Streetscape, Arizona two Iowa South Broadway Streetscape Iowa two Wesley South Broadway Streetscape Wesley two Yale South Downing Street Pedestrian Mall St Luke's Pedestrian Mall Tennyson Street two pedestrian mall Tennyson Streetscape portions from 38th to 44th West 32nd Avenue, pedestrian mall. West 44th Avenue and Elliott Street pedestrian mall. And that takes us to our proclamations. We do have two proclamations this evening. Councilwoman Susman, will you please read Proclamation 1155?
|
Communication
|
Local Maintenance Districts Group 1
Tonight, Council was scheduled to sit as the quasi-judicial Board of Equalization to consider reduction of total cost assessments for Local Maintenance Districts. However, since no written protests of assessment were filed with the Manager of Public Works by September 28, 2017, Council will not sit as the Board of Equalization for the following Local Maintenance Districts:
15th Street Pedestrian Mall
20th Street Pedestrian Mall
Broadway Pedestrian Mall A
Consolidated Larimer Street Pedestrian Mall
Delgany Street
East 13th Avenue Pedestrian Mall
Santa Fe Drive Pedestrian Mall C
South Broadway Streetscape (Arizona to Iowa)
South Broadway Streetscape (Iowa to Wesley)
South Broadway Streetscape (Wesley to Yale)
South Downing Street Pedestrian Mall
St. Luke’s Pedestrian Mall
Tennyson Street II Pedestrian Mall
Tennyson Streetscape (Portions from 38th to 44th)
West 32nd Avenue Pedestrian Mall
West 44th Avenue and Eliot Street Pedestrian Mall
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10162017_17-1155
|
Speaker 2: two pedestrian mall Tennyson Streetscape portions from 38th to 44th West 32nd Avenue, pedestrian mall. West 44th Avenue and Elliott Street pedestrian mall. And that takes us to our proclamations. We do have two proclamations this evening. Councilwoman Susman, will you please read Proclamation 1155?
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. It is my pleasure to read a proclamation celebrating and thanking Michael Anderson for 15 years of service. Whereas Michael Mike Anderson grew up in Iowa and was inspired by his father to become an engineer attending and graduating from CU Boulder. Spending a portion of his career at the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and Department of Public Works, initiating planning for the now 1 billion plus revitalization of the concrete channels of the Los Angeles River. And. Whereas, Mike relocated to Denver in 2002 and secured a position as a stormwater planning engineer in public works where he was instrumental in developing, get this, the 2005 storm drainage master plan, which was the first update since 1989, as well as developing both the 2009 and 2014 storm drainage master plans. And. Whereas, Mike was responsible for constituent complaints regarding drainage and often would meet with residents one on one, resulting in Mike getting to know them personally, especially after flooding events in 2005, 2008 and 2013, just to name a few. And. Whereas, Mike has managed numerous drainage studies across the city with the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District, managed several drainage studies that allow the city to see predicted surface flow depths during large storms. Mike taught me that those mean program storm drainage capital project for the annual budgets and manage the 2017 Storm Drainage Metrics Study to prioritize city drainage basins. And. Whereas, Mike facilitated numerous public meetings with a special style that explained things well, calm people down, and brought multiple agencies together, such as Parks and Rec, community planning and development to collaborative, to collaboratively work on drainage issues and develop strong relationships with several past and current council members. Whereas Mike was a willing mentor to news staff, a repository of engineering and institutional knowledge for colleagues, and an inspiration to others to be like Mike. Solely by example. His legacy will live on in the staff he mentored and the future stormwater planning studies built upon the work he pioneered and championed. Now, therefore let it be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver that Section one. The Council hereby recognizes and thanks, Michael Anderson, for his 15 years of service to the city and wishes him a wonderful retirement. Section two, the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest. And a fix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be delivered to Michael Anderson
Speaker 2: . Thank you, councilwoman. Suspend your motion to adopt.
Speaker 4: I move that we adopt the proclamation.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I first met Mike about four years ago. When, of course, we were having flooding problems in my district, the Upper Montclair Basin. First thing he just suggested was let's meet with the maybe with the neighbors. Of course he did. He was great at it. We met with about 30 neighbors one evening, some having experienced flooding in their homes, some having cars that had floated down the street. Some with people in them. The mood was very tense. I then watched this Mike Anderson suit the whole atmosphere in the room. His straight talk and empathic manner was an experience to see and hear. I started writing down not just the things he was saying, but the way he was saying them. Realizing I could learn a lot from this guy about effective and sensitive communication. You see, he really only had bad news for the neighbors that night. Only bad news. It was going to be more than 20 years before the city could get around to fixing the problem of that flooding. He did say Intel, what they were doing in the meantime to get ready to address the issues. But. But even with bad news, the back and forth went smoothly. And remarkably, remarkably, as neighbors were leaving that meeting, they were satisfied content, understood the issues and laughing with each other. I never saw anything like it. And since then, I've watched him do it over and over again with neighbors. So I have decided to name him officially The Constituent Whisperer, and I am very pleased to do this proclamation tonight and urge my fellow councilmen to vote for this proclamation.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Cohen. Each.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate my colleague bringing this forward. I think I met Mike closer to six years ago, shortly after I got elected. And there is an area that constituents is a little bit different. It wasn't so much. The reaction is more is the visioning phase where constituents had a vision for a brownfield and they'd had the experience of the city saying, no, it seemed too hard. And it but yet at the same time, there was a flooding study that seemed to indicate that in this area we needed some kind of city investment. And so I volunteered to try to help them kind of gather multiple departments together. And my simple appreciation to Mike was for being the first person to say, Yeah, that might make sense. If we're going to have to spend money there any way we might be able to do it in a way that actually meets these community vision ideas and wow, wouldn't that make sense rather than kind of thinking separately about our city infrastructure? And so although it wasn't his project to lead and Parks ended up taking the lead, it was him saying, yes, we will be having to invest in this area. And if we had others that were bringing money to the table and had a vision for how to do that, it might make sense. And so it gave me the hope to continue working on it. It might take another six or seven years until we get to a groundbreaking who knows? These things have a very long horizon, thus the patience that Councilwoman Susman described being so valuable. But I just you know, so I got to say, you know, there's always a reason why something's hard and there's always ten reasons why it might not work. But I appreciate you being the first interaction. I had to say, yes, we should think about this and it could be possible and it could be come together. And really that helped to kick start something that's now becoming a real project, which is the platform Open Space in Globeville. So thank you on behalf of those residents in that community for for saying yes to some creative thinking and to keep us moving in that direction. And I wish you the best in your retirement. Thank you so much for all your service to the city.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. So it's always great when you work with people in the city that you agree with and you work together hand in hand to accomplish projects. That was has not been my experience with Mike. Our interaction has been as much on projects that I disagreed with as those that I agreed with. And I think that's those times where we were in disagreement is where I think I saw the character that people are talking about with Mike. And that wasn't about politics, it was about public service and public safety. And he expressed a respect for my opinions, though, being steadfast in his as well. And as far as expertize in the area of city drainage projects, I'm quite sure that his expertize exceeds mine. But it was an experience that I enjoyed. You know, there's been a couple of people that have left the city recently that I just feel cheated about. You know, I got I've had a brief couple of years to work with Mike and Mr. Broad well before him and some others who have gone on to other pursuits. So I as well would like to wish you a wonderful retirement. Mike and Mike was in my office earlier this afternoon, and you just need to appreciate how thoroughly uncomfortable I'm sure he is hearing people talk about what a fine job he's done for the city because he's as humble a human being as he is a skilled engineer. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 0: SUSSMAN Hi.
Speaker 3: Espinosa Hi. Gilmore Gillmor I heard in Cashman I can eat new Ortega. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Hi. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 1999 is proclamation. 1155 has been adopted. Councilwoman Sussman, is there someone you would like to invite up to the proclamation?
Speaker 4: I think I'd like to invite Mr. Mike Anderson to the podium.
Speaker 2: Good evening, counsel. Thank you. Thank you very much. I am humbled by this. I look around and I was thinking all day about the various districts that I've worked in just about all across the city. And. It's really neat and rewarding for me to drive around the city and say, Oh, I remember that problem that's fixed. That's fixed. There are some that are going to take a long time, but it's really rewarding to see things that are fixed from southwest Denver to north east Denver and all points in between. I want to thank your city council and all of your aides. I want to thank the prior city council and all of their aides. It's great to see Councilman Robb here. I haven't seen her since she retired. The legislative analyst staff has been wonderful to work with and the mayor's office as well, especially Diane and Skye. I want to thank, obviously, my father, who was a civil engineer. He never pushed me into engineering. He allowed all of us children to choose our own path when I don't know if any of you ever remember seeing the flier that we sent out, but there was a cartoon at the bottom from Calvin and Hobbes about a thriving little city in a sandbox, and tragically, it laid beneath Hoover Dam. And he's got a little bucket. And that was me as a kid, you know. And when I'm about seven years old, we had an oak tree. No grass grew underneath it. I would carve out this little settee and drive my matchbox cars through the city, and then I'd take the dirt and I build a dam and I'd fill it with a hose, and then I'd blow up the dam and flood the town. So I am I, you know, and in the summers we play in the in the pool and in the river, and I dam up the gutter and the snowmelt. And, you know, it's when I went away to college and ended up getting an offer with the L.A. County Flood Control District, my family said, Yeah, that's Mike. That's Mike. So I said, I want to thank my father for his guidance. I grew up with Civil Engineering magazine. I got a C on a physics exam one night and he I was in tears and he said, don't worry, I never use it. So that gave me some comfort. My mom, my sister, my brother, my aunts and my uncles and my grandparents, who are all hardworking farmers, they instilled in me a sense of a work ethic and a sense of honesty, which I think has come through in the meetings to always be honest. And my teachers that I grew up with, an elementary school, high school, oddly enough, the ones that probably had the biggest impact on me or my English teachers, Mr. Foresman and Mrs. Belsky and Mrs. Adams, that taught me how to write because I've met a lot of engineers who can, and I counseled a couple of engineers that were graduating from SIU recently and and I said, You can be the best engineer in the world, but if you can't communicate in writing or in a presentation, it ain't going to happen. So how are your communication skills? My friends that have supported me through my ups and downs of my life, there have been downs. It hasn't all been great. There have been some real down times, but my friends and my family and my mentors have gotten me through those. I hope they're. Oh, hi, mom. Hi, Lisa. They're watching tonight. I forgot. And my coworkers, Bruce and Jennifer and Ron are here with me in the audience tonight. They've been absolutely wonderful to work with, and they give me the confidence to retire knowing that the next generation of engineers are. They're young. They're energetic. They have new ideas. They have a lot of computer skills that I admittedly don't have. I sometimes feel like a dinosaur. I know what I want and I know how to get it. But they can actually do it, and so can my consultants. And last but not least, I want to thank my partner Marcus here tonight for all of his support through all the years and all the community meetings and all the angst and talking me down afterwards when the adrenaline is running for an hour and a half. I'm sure you all have experienced that as well. So each and each and all of you have contributed a piece of yourselves to me and nurtured me along the way and created the person who stands here before you tonight. It's nothing I did myself. It's everyone that I've named and how that named. But name by name. So I'm really I really feel truly blessed to have had inspiring teachers growing up and supportive friends and family and colleagues and guidance from so many to give me such a rich and rewarding career. Thank you for the opportunity to serve the public and to have had an amazing career and to be of service. And thank you so much. This just means the world to me. Thank you. Thank you. All right, councilman, do you please read proclamation 1157.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating and thanking Michael Anderson for fifteen years of outstanding service to the City and County of Denver upon his retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10162017_17-1157
|
Speaker 2: Thank you for the opportunity to serve the public and to have had an amazing career and to be of service. And thank you so much. This just means the world to me. Thank you. Thank you. All right, councilman, do you please read proclamation 1157.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President. You. It's a proclamation recognizing and celebrating the service of greater Capitol Hill community activist Roger D. Armstrong. Whereas Roger de Armstrong worked tirelessly on behalf of the greater Capitol Hill and Denver community for more than 25 years. And. WHEREAS, Roger de Armstrong died on October the 14th, last Saturday after a long and quiet battle with cancer. And. WHEREAS, Roger de Armstrong began his career in Philadelphia, performing AIDS outreach and education and producing large fundraising events for AIDS research and patient support. He relocated to Denver and continued his work with the Colorado AIDS Project. And. WHEREAS, Roger de Armstrong became executive director of the Historic Temple Events Center in the Uptown neighborhood, overseeing the preservation of this architectural masterpiece and its transformation into a functional arts and cultural center that hosted many events and forums unto itself. And. Whereas, he joined Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, Chung, first as a board member in 2005, became the director of the Capitol Hill's People's Fair. And. WHEREAS, he accepted the appointment as executive director of O Chung in June 2008, serving for nine years. In this role, he managed the Capitol Hill Community Center at the historic Teres McFarland mansion, including many renovation projects. And. Whereas, he conducted himself with professionalism, knowledge, thoughtfulness, fairness, kindness, dignity and integrity. With Chung board members, staff, volunteers, city officials and community members earning the admiration of those whose lives he touched. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council, the city and county of Denver, that Section one that the City Denver City Council offers its thanks and appreciation for the life and work of Roger D Armstrong. Session two The clerk of the city of Denver shall test in a fix the seat of the city of Denver to this proclamation and that copies be transmitted to Cathy Lopez and to John.
Speaker 2: Thank you councilman knew your motion to adopt.
Speaker 6: A move the proclamation 1157 be adopted.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded. Councilman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. Roberta. I've known Roger for over many years and all the activities I've had with Chung. And it was just a pleasure working and knowing Roger as a as a human being, but also as a leader with Chung. I first met Roger at the People's Fair when he was running and organizing the People's Sphere, arranging all this wonderful musical events and artistic arts and crafts, and just a wonderful treat for all the citizens in Denver. And in all my interaction with Roger as I thought about it. I think I would try to truly describe him as a true gentleman. It was in my sense of the words. He was courteous, mild mannered, positive, soft spoken, and never seeking any recognition for himself. He was always focusing on the greater good for our communities. He served and participated in many of the city and community committees, working diligently to improve the quality of life for the residents. He was a tireless worker in that regard. We were hoping to have this proclamation ready tonight to be able to Roger can enjoy it in person or see it on TV. And unfortunately, he passed away last last Saturday. So it's a pleasure to me to to bring this proclamation forward. And I'll always remember Roger for his many contributions, and not only to the Chung, but to the city and all the neighborhoods that Chung represented. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Kennedy.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have a lot of words to add other than to say that. I remember when this came across our desk last week, Thursday, and I remember feeling glad that we were acknowledging someone before they had passed. And so it was really devastating, actually, to to get the news of his passing over the weekend. And, you know, Randall Loeb was here, but he shared a very moving piece that he wrote. And I think, you know, the friendship that Roger showed to people on a very personal level shined through in that story. And so in addition to all of the civic contributions and the organizational investments, it's just clear that that also translated to some very personal one on one ability to see people and find ways to engage them. And so, you know, to his to his survivors and to those who loved him, I just want to honor your loss as well, especially this being so soon after his loss. Ordinarily, we wouldn't, you know, be here. We'd give you some time and some privacy. But this being previously scheduled, it's fitting, I think, that we're here, even though I'm sure it's a lot harder for people because it's so very recent. So I just wanted to just acknowledge that pain that folks are feeling and hope that these memories and celebration are a small part of the long road to to remembering him and getting through a hard time. So thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I have the pleasure of getting to know Roger when he was involved with the Denver Road Home Program, when I worked over at Denver Human Services for eight years, and he was an incredible advocate for people who had fallen hard on their luck, that were labeled as homeless, that needed services and . I also had the benefit of interfacing with him in his role at Chun, both in in the capacity of working with the people's fair and enjoyed going to some of the meetings where they were awarding the funds from what was raised from the People's Fair to support local organizations in the community. He was just such an incredible human being that was just very personable, very humble in his approach. But he was an effective leader that, you know, was tenacious in trying to get things done that he saw needed help.
Speaker 4: And he was a huge.
Speaker 0: Advocate for the Capitol Hill neighborhood. His passing leaves a void in our community, and he'll truly be missed. And to all of his family and many friends who are here tonight that knew him, worked with him. I express my condolences as well. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. And thank you, councilman, who for bringing this proclamation forward. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: New Ortega assessment.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Espinosa. I Gilmore. I. Herndon, i. Cashman. Can each. Mr. President. All right.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: Nice, nice, nice.
Speaker 2: Nice proclamation. 1157 has been adopted. Councilman, who is there someone you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 6: Yes, I've got six people who'd like to come up. Just say a few words. But also we want to close Rangel, a good friend of Roger's, going to end with a little prayer from Roger. So first is Councilwoman Jenny Robb.
Speaker 4: Thank you, counsel. As Councilman Nu mentioned, we had hoped that Roger would be able to watch this presentation, but nonetheless, I believe he is with us tonight, although now he is witnessing the honor in spirit a little beyond Channel eight, our earthly viewing system. But I want you to know that as Councilwoman Kennish said, it is so important to all of us that you have taken the time to honor Roger because of our admiration and love for him. I had remarks in mind before I heard of his death Saturday, but still the main thing I wanted to say still applies. I would have mentioned that Roger excelled in his quiet way at networking artists, band leaders, retailers, developers, restaurant owners, liquor store owners, marijuana shop owners, social service agencies, city and state officials, even volunteers, neighbors, you name it. He knew them. He knew someone in the field. But what I really want to concentrate on is that, above all, he was a friend. I lost my own husband in 2000, and at the time I was serving on the board of the Temple Events Center uptown, where Roger was the executive director. And man, he was just there. He was just quietly there. You knew he got it. Didn't make a big deal of anything. But there he was, steady. And he was one of the first people to hear me contemplate running for council. And later at our annual lunch, he'd hear about my quandaries in trying to balance neighborhood business, citywide issues. And I know he was there for many people like me, listening, nodding, supporting us as we faced quandaries, loss and success. And Cathy, I hope we can be there for you, too. I've often said that District ten council people are lucky to have an organization like Chun because it's so fairly intelligently balances all points of views and communications early and often with the Council district tin rep. But I will say he was smart enough to have some trepidation and also some strong expectations before he took on that role and we talked about it. You can't be a neighborhood leader without facing just a little controversy. And Roger faced it quietly without creating more controversy. And I think the line from the story project guy Brian Andreas that anyone can slay a dragon but try waking up every morning and loving the world all over again. That's what takes a real hero. And to me, Roger was a hero citizen. I wish everybody could be a citizen like Roger Armstrong who cared so deeply for this community. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Like Michael Henry.
Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you. My my name is Michael Henry. I'm a past long time board member and early president of Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. I don't know why, but I feel compelled to think about how Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods has been a great incubator of public servants. Two of our original founders were. Congresswoman Pat Schroeder and Councilwoman Cathy Donahue. And after that, after Councilwoman Donahue retired. Councilman Ed Thomas had been on our board and Councilwoman Robb had worked with us and been on our board and then also councilman knew it. Could I just ask everybody who's here especially to thank and honor Roger, just to raise your hands? There are an awful lot of us. Here. Who want to do that? In particular, she does not wish to speak. But Roger's wife, Cathy Lopez, is here. Brad Cameron and I went to see Rodger Friday afternoon about 4:00, and we told him about this proclamation and he knew about it. And the words that he had for were. I am so humbled. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mike. Charles Nussbaum.
Speaker 2: Thank you, counsel. My name is Charles Nussbaum, and I've known Roger for probably six or eight years, most closely as the immediate past president of John. A role I had for three years, and only a few people can. Claim that. Anyway, I want to thank everyone close to Roger for allowing his time and contributions. Tirelessly to help advocate for everybody in this community. It's unbelievable. How one person can be so close in touch with the reality of so many levels of our society.
Speaker 5: He will be greatly missed.
Speaker 2: And it was a pleasure and an honor to know him. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Okay. Charles. Dave Wallstrom.
Speaker 7: They Wallstrom, longtime friend and colleague of Roger Armstrong. Thank you for the proclamation. It was wonderfully. It was recorded. Thank you for the help wording. The proclamation. You guys. And thank you for this forum to allow public expression of our love and respect for for Roger. I think that the way and the manner in which Roger went about serving our community. Can be instructive to others. Roger earned and gained the respect and the truck and the support of others because he always gave people his respect. To them upfront. And he demonstrated his respect by listening. Truly listening. And by listening. He created common ground to discuss just about any topic that was on the table. And I don't know if people were always aware about how Roger worked in terms of respecting people, listening to them and creating common ground. But that's how he worked. And he was terribly successful at that. Wonderfully successful. Roger also knew the first order of leadership, which is to serve. You know that. And that was his gift of leadership to our community. Losing Roger leaves a hole in our hearts. This will heal in time. But for now, maybe our sadness behooves us to become more attuned to life fragility enough so as to recalibrate our priorities in life a bit. And how we treat others, whether that be family or friends or members of our community. Of this. I'm sure Roger loved this place better than he found it. Thank you.
Speaker 6: Thank you. To heckle.
Speaker 5: Good evening, council members. My name is Ted Heckel. It's such a pleasure to be with all you tonight, especially to talk about a dear friend of mine, Roger. I volunteered to the People's Fair for the past 25 years. I found him to be one of the best leaders that I've ever worked under. The one thing about Roger, he gave everybody a voice. He listened to everybody and cared about what they said. And gave them room to prove himself.
Speaker 7: And he sure.
Speaker 5: Did that with me. I. Have you seen two executive directors leave us since? I've worked at the People's Fair, and it's really heartbreaking for me to stand up here and talk to you all about him. I know there's many more people that have want to speak. I just want to say. I love you, Roger. And you'll be missed. Thank you.
Speaker 6: I could hear you. You mirror.
Speaker 4: Thank you very much, city council. Speaking of slaying a dragon, my name is Aaron Yoshimura and I'm the former executive director for the Colorado Dragon Boat Festival. And Roger has done so much for so many large organizations. And I want you to know that he also carved out time to help a dinky little organization get on its feet. And the one of the founders of the Dragon Boat Festival could not be here. So I have some words to share from her as well. So this is from Ding. When Shu, she said Roger quickly became a key player in the Colorado Dragon Boat Festival Board in 2008. He not only shared his rich experience in event production, but also provided leadership in forming the future of the festival. His selflessness made a huge impact on the board, and his leadership paved a new path for those of us who had the opportunity to opportunity to work with him. And then these are my words. I actually expected to tell them this in person. Roger, when you stepped on the board, you stepped on the board as board chair in 2008 and I joined in 2010. You didn't really know me, but you certainly took me under your wing and mentored me. You helped me navigate a lot of the many facets of festival production. I always appreciated how calm and cool you were. You were so unflappable. You were my rock to lean on and get me through the turbulent times. And while you taught me a lot, you always made space for me to find my own answers. I can't thank you enough for everything you've done for me and for the Colorado Dragon Boat Festival. You may have been my rock, but you always have a soft space in my heart. Whether you know it or not or will admit it or not. You made a huge contribution to the festival and have left an indelible mark on all of us who had the privilege of knowing you. On behalf of the Colorado Dragon Boat Festival, board staff, volunteers and community. Thank you very much. We are forever grateful and I brought some flowers for you and I made sure that they weren't overly colorful, so not to embarrass you. So, Cathy, if you would please accept the flowers on behalf of the Colorado Dragon Boat Festival, I appreciate it.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Aaron. We're going to close this recognition with a prayer by Randall.
Speaker 5: Thank you, counsel pro tem and the rest of you, which is of course, a great honor to be able to share a few thoughts. I have an executive committee badge on at Roger's tonight. We are all watching. In memory of those who touched our hearts. We each must be ready, willing and able to let go, no matter what we have done or how we have lived. We are here for a finite time as sentient beings. We are here. But a brief time. Essentially, we pass in a flickering of a candle, leaving little trace of our presence. What we do with this gracious moment makes all of the finite difference in how we are remembered. If we make others feel better and be more alive, then we are immortal. Success is not judged by what we do, but by our impact on the world we share. Never be afraid to catapult into the unknown, to offer the best and lose one's way to fail utterly and remain steadfast. This is the gift of being alive. Our mission is to being focused on never squandering anything that we are given. Being fulfilled in the presence of the divine in us. And as individual spirits on earth. We're connected vitally throughout the passages of time, both aft and thereafter, without limits, reservations or turning back. When we have assessed the worth of our touring outpouring, we realize that there is no way to lose. Forget what we have and where we come from. That makes us possible in the early moments of our creative presence. We are present to a greater stillness that resides in our being awake. Listening. Of being free. In our approach to all that is sacred. And that we have. And from which we have originated. There is this. Time here. What we have become from the moment we are conceived, we are a blessing to every place, every way, ever intersection of hope and love that defines our way. There is no turning back, no turning round, no place of refuge. We verily must let go of the suffering, the loss, the adversity of being here, reflecting, integrating the mysteries of being alive, of being chosen to be and to have and hold the field, to deliver, to come to know that we have made a covenant with all life, that we are related across time was brought bands of waves that lap against the shore that bring the nutrients here that made our presence matter. For these gifts possibilities. We are eternally rewarded with a legacy of substance, of intention, of faith that this is what we have been called upon to do. All when he's, no matter how we are living, juxtaposed helplessly how much of the or little we use of the natural resources to which we are heir to. We are partners in the great sea of creating, donating, of giving, for giving of certainty that every participle, every obstacle, every way is sacred, that. No matter whether we are tossed and shattered against the stony. We're. We are here. We belong. We matter. Amen.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Randall. Thank you. Our thoughts are with you and thank you for all the speakers. And thank you all for being here on a roger tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. That concludes our proclamations. Resolutions, Madam Secretary. Please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing and celebrating the service of greater Capitol Hill Community activist Roger D. Armstrong.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10162017_17-0969
|
Speaker 2: All right. So do you want to start with 1969 or.
Speaker 3: Yes, 1969.
Speaker 2: All right. So we'll start with 969. Kels, menu. Will you please put Council Resolution 1969 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 6: And move the Resolution 1969 be adopted?
Speaker 2: It has been.
Speaker 6: A good resolution, passage of that on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 2: It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of Council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem. I just called it out for purposes of voting. No, thank you.
Speaker 2: Any other comments or questions? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: ESPINOZA No. Gilmore Herndon Cashman can eat new Ortega by Susman by. Mr. President.
Speaker 5: All right.
Speaker 2: Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results.
Speaker 3: Sorry. I think somebody's missing.
Speaker 2: Did they not push their button?
Speaker 3: Okay, great. Eight ice, one knee.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Panasonic Enterprise Solutions Company (“PESCO”) concerning installation and maintenance of the “welcome sign” at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with Panasonic Enterprise Solutions Company (PESCO) to add $7,469,673 for a new total contract in the amount of $14,516,951, to reduce the term of the contract by four years for a new end date of 12-31-28, and to revise the terms to eliminate future revenue sharing with the vendor and changing the agreement to a standard design and build contract for PESCO to install and maintain the “welcome sign” at Denver International Airport (201631761-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-6-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 10-4-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10092017_17-1127
|
Speaker 5: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 5: None. Mr. President, we.
Speaker 1: Do have one proclamation this evening. Proclamation 1127, an observance of the annual Indigenous Peoples Day in the city and county of Denver. Councilman Lopez, would you please read it?
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. With Pride Proclamation number 17. For me to say this department. Proclamation number 1127, series of 2017 and observance of the second annual Indigenous Peoples Day in the city and county of Denver. Whereas the Council, the city and county of Denver recognizes that the indigenous peoples have lived and flourished on the lands known as the Americas since time immemorial, and that Denver and the surrounding communities are built upon the ancestral homeland of numerous indigenous tribes, which include the southern ute, the Ute mountain Ute tribes of Colorado. And. Whereas, the tribal homelands and seasonal encampments of the Arapaho and San people along the banks of Cherry Creek and South Platte River confluence gave bearing to the future settlements that would become the birthplace of the Mile High City. And. WHEREAS, Colorado encompasses the ancestral homelands of 48 tribes in the city and county of Denver and surrounding communities are home to the descendants of approximately 100 tribal nations. And. WHEREAS, on October 3rd, 2016, the city and county of Denver unanimously passed Council Bill 801 series of 2016, officially designating the second Monday of October of each year as Indigenous Peoples Day in Denver, Colorado. And. Whereas, the council, the city and county of Denver continues to recognize and value the vast contributions made to community made to the community through Indigenous people's knowledge, science, philosophy, arts and culture. And through these contributions, the city of Denver has developed and thrived. Whereas. The Indigenous community, especially youth, have made great efforts this year to draw attention to the contributions of Indigenous people, including Confluence Week, drawing record attendance to a National Indigenous Youth Leadership Conference. Leading conversations on inclusion with their peers and supporting increased Indigenous youth participation in science and engineering. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by this Council of City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Council of the City and County of Denver celebrates and honors the cultural and foundational contributions of indigenous people to our history. Our past, present and future continues to promote the education of the Denver of the Denver community about these historic and contemporary contributions of indigenous people. Section two. At the city and county of Denver, Colorado does hereby observe October 9th, 2017, as Indigenous Peoples Day. Section three at the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and fix the seal of the city and county Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be transmitted trans mitted excuse me to the Denver American Indian Commission, the city and county of Denver School, District number one, and the Colorado Commission on Indian Affairs
Speaker 1: . Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 3: Mr. President, I move that proclamation number 1127 series of 2017 be adopted.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Council and council Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. It gives me a lot of pleasure and pride to read this proclamation. Officially for this for the third time. But as Indigenous Peoples Day in Denver officially for the second time. It is. It's always awesome to be able to see not just this proclamation come through, come by my desk, but to see that so many different people from our community in our in our council chambers. It was a very beautiful piece of artwork that you presented to us earlier, and it is exactly the spirit that we drafted this proclamation and this actual the ordinance that created Indigenous Peoples Day when we sat down and wrote it and as a community we couldn't think of anything else to begin except for the confluence of the two rivers. And those confluence of two rivers created such a great city and we live in such an amazing city, and we were all proud of it. And sometimes we and a lot of people from all over the country, all over the world, are proud of it and sometimes a little too proud of it. It's time to go back home. But I'm I'm kidding when I say that. But the really nice thing about this is that we are celebrating indigenous peoples day out of pride for who we are, who we are as a city, and the contributions of indigenous people to the city. Not out of spite, not out of a replacement of one culture over the other, or or out of contempt or or disrespect . You know, I think of a quote that Cesar Chavez made very, very popular. And it stuck with me for a very long time. And in any way any time I have the opportunity, I do speak in front of children and especially children in our community that, you know, they often second guess themselves and where they're coming from , who they are. And and I always say that, you know, it's it's very important to be proud of where you're from. And the quote that I used from Cesar Chavez is, you know, pride in one's own cultures does not require contempt or disrespect of another. Right. And that's very important. It's very important for us to recognize that no matter who we are, where we come from in this society, that your pride in your own culture doesn't require to not require the contempt or disrespect of another man. What a year to be for that to just sit on our shoulders for a while for us to think about. Right. And so I wanted to just to thank you all. I think the commission there's going to be a couple individuals that are going to come speak. Thank you for your art, your lovely artwork, for us to see what's in your heart and what now has become a probably is going to be a very important symbol for the community and also just for the work, the daily work every single day. We still have a lot of brothers and sisters whose ancestors once lived in these lands freely, now stand on street corners, right in poverty without access to services, right. Without access to sobriety or even housing or jobs. And what a what a. What a cruel way to pay back a culture that has paved the way for the city to be built upon its shores. Right. So we have a lot of work to do and these kind of proclamations and this day is not a day off. It's a day on. And Denver. Right. And addressing those those as critical issues. So I know that my colleagues are very supportive. I'm going to ask you to support this proclamation, as I know you always have done in the past. I'm very proud of today. Oh, and we made Time magazine and Newsweek once again today as being a leader in terms of the cities that are celebrating Indigenous Peoples Day. I wanted to make a point out of that.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez, and thank you for sponsoring this. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I'm going to ask my name be added. I don't think I could add much more to what Councilman Lopez has shared with us. I want to thank him for bringing this forward and really just appreciate all the contributions that our Native American community has contributed to this great city and great state. I worked in the lieutenant governor's office when the Commission on Indian Affairs was created and had the benefit of being able to go down to the Four Corners for a peace treaty signing ceremony between the Utes and the Comanches that had been sort of that at odds with each other for about 100 years. And just being able to participate in that powwow was pretty awesome. So and for those of you who continue to participate in the annual powwow, it's it's such a great opportunity for everybody else to enjoy so many of the contributions of the culture. I mean, to see that the dance continues to be carried on as well as as the native language from generation to generation is just so incredible because in so many cultures, you know, people have come here and assimilated to the the you know, the norms here, and they lose their language and and lose a lot of the culture and in the native community that that hasn't happened. That has that, you know. Commitment to just passing that on from generation to generation is so important. And so I'm happy to be a co-sponsor of this tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, Councilwoman Kenney.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. And I also want to thank my colleague for bringing this forward. And I just wanted to to say a word to the artist about how beautiful and moving I thought this logo was and your description of it. And I think one of the things that is clear is, you know, the words sometimes don't convey the power of imagery or music or the other pieces that make up culture. And so I think the art is so important. And when you talked about water, I was also thinking about land and I guess I just wanted to say thank you. Many of the Native American peoples of Colorado have been at the forefront or actually nationally of defending some of the the public lands that have been protected over the last few years that are under attack right now. And there places that you are the communities have fought to protect, but that everyone gets to enjoy. And so I just think that it's an example of where cultural preservation intersects with environmental protection, with, you know, recreation and all of the other ways that that public lands are so important. And so I think I just wanted to say thank you for that, because I think we have some very sacred places in our country that are at risk right now. And so as we celebrate, I appreciate that there's still a piece of resistance in here. And I think that I just want to mention a solidarity and a mention, a feeling of solidarity with that resistance. So thank you and happy Confluence Week.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each and see no other comments? I'll just say a couple. And in a time of such divisive ugliness and just despicable behavior from our leadership, the reason I'm so supportive of indigenous peoples days because it means inclusivity. It means respecting all, respecting those who have been silenced on purpose for a long time and whose history has not been told. And so we celebrate inclusivity in the face of such such evil times. Honestly, it is really evil times right now in confluence and inclusivity, in communion with community is what we're trying to be about and what we're trying to do. So thank you, Councilman Lopez, for embodying that and reminding us of who we are with that. Madam Secretary, do you think DC is listening? I'm just maybe not okay with that. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 5: Raquel Lopez. I knew Ortega I assessment I. Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Gilmore, I. Herndon. Cashman. Hi. Carnage. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I play salsa. Very. And as a result.
Speaker 5: Are you missing one? Okay. Got it. Lebanese.
Speaker 1: 11 ays note the zero nays proclamation 1127 has been adopted. Councilman Lopez. Anybody want to bring up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it was two individuals. Kimberly very like who was the chair of our american indian commission. If you want to come to the microphone and Martin strikes first his obituary, I gotta. Want to come up.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Would you? I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 3: Pronounce that wrong.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening. Thank you. City Council, City Council President and council members, we really appreciate your support and your commitment to continuing to recognize Indigenous Peoples Day. We know we established this as a city holiday or in your name. We recognized in proclamation and we recognized it formally. And we are here to continue to be supportive of you and of the Indigenous community for Denver. My name is Kimberly Barwick. I'm Eastern Shoshone from Wyoming, from my mother's side. I'm Oglala Lakota and Hung Poppa from my father's side from South Dakota. And I'm the current chair for the Denver American Indian Commission. And I would like to introduce you and acknowledge our youth that our indigenous youth who are here in the council chambers as well. I'd like to introduce you to Martine Jerome. I'm sorry, Martine Jerome. I keep putting an hour in there. He is going to sing an honor song for us today. And as is appropriate in our culture, we would ask you to rise as he sings. I would also like to acknowledge some of our students here in the council chambers and as this proclamation does, recognize the contributions of youth, it would be appropriate for them to stand at this time. We have a couple and some from high school and college who are commemorating the day. And as in, I'm going to turn this over to Martin.
Speaker 4: So. So I. What?
Speaker 7: I.
Speaker 4: I know. And so.
Speaker 7: I know that.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, MARTIN. Thank you. City council members, city council and Denver community members on behalf of the Denver American Indian Commission. I would like to again thank you for your continued support and appreciation and appreciation of Indigenous Peoples Day. For a long time, in many years prior till now, many community members have sponsored, have put together, have created events surrounding Indigenous peoples and in both before, on and after the second Tuesday of October. Since the adoption or since the since Indigenous Peoples Day was established here in Denver firmly as as a holiday for the city. We continue to see our community members still putting together events before, on and after Indigenous Peoples Day. And so in honor of that, we have recognized, and as you saw, the artwork from Christina Bad Hand. We recognize this time period to be Confluence Week. And this year it's October 4th through October 14th, 2017. So in addition to some of the events that folks have put together and even though we've created a community calendar to highlight some of those events, I'd like to share with you that there are Indigenous youth who have taken that initiative to organize, participate, host and partner with community members to provide a public forum for Indigenous film, Indigenous discussion and Indigenous social events. So at this time, I'd like to share with you a recognize the native students of the University of Denver Native Alliance, the University of Colorado, American-Indian and Indigenous students, the University of Colorado at Denver, and the Metropolitan University Students Associations who have partnered with our community members at this time and also recognize and like to share with you. As Councilman Lopez mentioned, we had several high school and college students conference or focused conferences this year focusing on American-Indian science and engineering. We had also the United Native Indian Tribal Youth Conference, which is a leadership conference, unity that took place here in Denver at the beginning of June or in the middle of June. During this time, we had a record participation for Indigenous students at the Unity Conference. And I'd like to share with you a couple of the chapters, the Unity chapters who helped put together some of the local participation excuse me, participation pieces. That would be the the Metro, the Denver Metro Unity Chapter, Mile High Unity chapter, Northern Colorado Unity Chapter and the American Leadership Alliance in Boulder, the American Indian Youth Leadership Alliance . So I wanted to recognize and share that with you, to let you know that our students have been ambassadors to natives from across the country, Accra and internationally, that they represented themselves well, that they have organized themselves well. And as part of the community members, we have thousands of native youth who are students here within the front range area and we have over 1500 Indigenous students in the Denver public schools alone. And so on behalf of the Denver American Indian Commission, we appreciate your recognition and support of them today and their contributions to the community . During Confluence Week, during Indigenous Peoples Day and would like to recognize that your support, your recognition of them is important because they are community members more than just their family, more than students at school. They are community members who provide community service. They are they participate in community organizations and are avid participants in some of our local communities. Our local organizations like our medicine heart dancers, our the local cafe call, Twitter, the Four Wins Council and the Stronghold Society. All of these indigenous groups are youth focused. Their empowerment, they're expressive, they get students involved. And as you have recognized today, and we hope that you continue that support, it sends a very clear message that we recognize our cultural leaders like Mateen, to carry on not only are our indigenous ways to be our future leaders for the indigenous community of Denver. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you and thank you, Councilman Lopez, for bringing this forward. All right. Madam Secretary, can you please read the resolutions.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation in observance of the second annual Indigenous Peoples’ Day in the City and County of Denver.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10022017_17-1018
|
Speaker 0: Councilman Cashman has called our Council Bill 1013 regarding the I-70 Environmental Mitigation Project for a comment. And Councilman Espinosa has called out this bill for a vote. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: That is correct.
Speaker 0: All right, Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen, which is 1018. Great. This is for a vote. Councilman Gilmore?
Speaker 7: Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay, count on it. Councilman Ortega, please put ten. Eight. Yeah.
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I moved for the adoption. There you go. Proclamation number 1018.
Speaker 3: It's a resolution.
Speaker 0: Resolution.
Speaker 6: Resolution, sorry.
Speaker 0: 1018 be adopted. It has been moved and seconded. Comments by the Council. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 7: Thank you, President Brooks. I will be abstaining from this vote as it is in regards to the Great Hall Project, and I am consistent in abstaining because my brother in law has an interest in that project. Thank you, President Brooks. All right.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. It's been moved and seconded. I see no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Gilmore abstain.
Speaker 3: Herndon, I Cashman High Kinney Lopez High New Ortega High.
Speaker 8: Black High.
Speaker 3: Clark High. Espinosa High. Flynn High. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting, announce the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes, one abstention.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one abstention. 1018 has been adopted. Madame Secretary, can you please put on the next. Um, item, which is should be 1013. Councilman Ortega, would you please put 1013 on the floor for passage?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Second Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Nossaman LLP concerning legal counsel in connection with the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with Nossaman, LLP to add $600,000 for a new contract total in the amount of $1.8 million and to add seven months for a new end date of 6-30-18 for continued legal counsel through the financial close phase of the Great Hall Project at Denver International Airport (201629808-02). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-23-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 9-20-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10022017_17-1013
|
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one abstention. 1018 has been adopted. Madame Secretary, can you please put on the next. Um, item, which is should be 1013. Councilman Ortega, would you please put 1013 on the floor for passage?
Speaker 6: Mr. President, I move that accountable. 1013 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, it comments by members of council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Mr. President. So since I've been on council, I've been very clear that I'm not a fan of the Central 70 project. And this is a much longer discussion than I care to engage in this evening. But what I've been very clear on is my dissatisfaction with the fact that the Colorado Department of Transportation continues to fall short of adequately funding mitigation measures for the homeowners within 500 feet of the Central 70 project. This bill said it sets up a new agreement whereby the Senate offers up $2.3 million for mitigation for these 270 some homes, I believe it is. And the city of Denver is asked to put up, I believe it's about 1,000,003. Now, I'm going to choose to vote in favor of this, not because I've suddenly become enamored with this project, but because these mitigations are critical to preserving the health of the homeowners. I've asked the city attorney to help me to look at the original iwga and the annual allocations that will go along with that to see if there's any opportunity to recoup our money there. Whether or not I'm successful in that, I think these mitigations are important, and I continue to wonder why we can't get seed out to fully honor their obligation in this project. I'm aware that they're doing a lot in other areas, but this is one area where they're definitely meeting a shortfall. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Casper and Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a project that I've been very involved in from the very beginning, going back to when this was part of Council District nine that I represented. Councilman Cashman is absolutely right. These costs are costs that should be incurred by court. But the record of decision that was issued back in December basically only committed the $2.3 million that court is going to spend on the homes. And it's a minuscule number when you look at the overall cost of the I-70 project. But the fact that Denver is stepping up and helping augment what is needed for those homes and this really is still not enough. Some of us are still trying to find more money so that we can address HVAC systems for the homes. What Siedah is covering is all the windows and portable air conditioners, none of the doors. So if you have a door and you live in the neighborhood where there's a gap, once they start doing the construction, the heavy metals that are in the soils have the potential of coming into those homes. And the portable portable air conditioners are going to do nothing more than circulate bad air in these homes. So the work that Denver will do with our contractor that will go into the homes and meet with the families and be able to talk to them about what is available to them and what their needs are is critically important. And so I will be supporting this tonight because it is important that we do the right thing by these 278 homes that will be left within the 500 feet of the the highway project.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I just want to be able to explain my vote. And the reason why I called this out tonight is I will be voting against this, not because I don't believe that the mitigation will be done earnestly or appropriately, but simply because I believe that the only true mitigation for I-70 is the removal of I-70 and the cleanup of those communities, not air conditioners, not sealing homes, and then putting them next to six additional lanes of traffic. So that is a belief that I is based on the fact based on science, based on sound transportation information. And so, you know, this is this is so I just wanted everyone to understand that my vote against this is simply because the only appropriate mitigation in this regard would be the removal of I-70. That said, the the you know, I do I appreciate the city coming in and sort of bolstering the sort of meager offerings by CDOT and the federal government. But you guys paying taxes and paying a large penalty for 50 years in those communities when this was installed in the first place. And so there is a correct mitigation approach for the last 56 years of that highway. This is not it. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilor Lopez.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. President Brooks. I see Miriam Pena in the audience. Miriam, can you answer how many homes are we looking out for, for this particular area in question that we can potentially help out? I know that we're kind of piloting some, but how many how many can we potentially.
Speaker 0: To 68.
Speaker 5: To 60 to 60. I'm trying to figure out the right number. So I defer to you, the expert.
Speaker 8: To 78 to the first phase ten that we're modeling so that we understand how long it takes to work on the homes, how long it takes for us to get the supplies for the homes, and that should be done before calendar year.
Speaker 5: Thank you so much. President. Brooks, if I just may add one thing. Look, I want to just to get that number because I am going to vote for this. In the meantime, I know that you know, the best the best thing would that do not have a highway there. But I'm not voting for this doesn't bring it back. In the meantime, I know that, you know, Denver's going to step up and try to mitigate it and try to really, at least from our end, help our residents. Those are still Denver residents. I. I'm under the. But the strong belief that we shouldn't have to do this. Absolutely not. She not knew that this was going to be an issue long before. And as somebody who keeps saying this, I keep saying this. I was one of those folks on the doors and knocked on all those doors. A $2 billion project. With $2 billion and only 278 homes. That's a drop in the bucket to put windows, doors, air conditioners in an area that has been subjected to the worst pollution in the city. $2 billion. That's a lot of money to be able to do the right thing at the very least, and it's not being done. And instead, you know, and God bless, you know, our our departments and you, Miriam, and your team for stepping it up. But I think see that you need to come. You need to come bigger. You need to come back to the table with a little bit more commitment. So.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa, you back up?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I forgot. I had a question. A question for Tim actually just came up. This popped up in my mind when I was watching the the how I mean, the committee, the state transportation committee meeting when they talked about this mitigation. I'm trying to call it my notes. Well, it wasn't clear to me is how it was clear was they were doing the installation in the House ceiling, but they were talking about the duration of the project being five years. Are these you know, most of these air conditioners are warranted for like a year. Is all of the work coming with some extended warranties as well?
Speaker 9: I believe, Councilman, that yes, they are. I might ask her.
Speaker 6: Rebecca just got here.
Speaker 2: But.
Speaker 9: If you can come up for just a moment, this is the gentleman who's doing the work from EOC and all of the homes that we're doing right now. And the question was on how long were warranting both the equipment and the work, if that was going to be five years as opposed to two years for the equipment itself.
Speaker 2: I think with the air conditioning specifically, it.
Speaker 0: Was excuse me, just introduce yourself for the record.
Speaker 1: Luke Alderton, I'm director of energy efficiency programs at Energy.
Speaker 2: Outreach, Colorado. Typically for a room or a portable air.
Speaker 1: Conditioner, it will be a one.
Speaker 2: Year manufacturer warranty and a one year installation or labor warranty. Okay. I'm going to push that the city push on because the clear response from CDOT, because one of the one of the senator in the house of the state reps had asked the question, I believe is Representative Pavone actually had asked the question if they were doing this mitigation for the construction or doing it because of the pollution that is both there or being generated from the highway. And the response from the DOD was that it was simply for the construction and not, you know, sort of trying to turn its back on the fact that there is extended pollution. But they were very clear that there's a five year construction period. So I do think it would be selling this community short if we're putting in mitigations that actually don't extend at least for the construction duration and let alone the long term health effects that are associated with being next to the highway. So I would really expect the city to sort of follow through and make sure that these commitments are at least through the construction period, since that is what CDOT is saying there for things.
Speaker 0: They don't work for CAIR.
Speaker 9: So thank you, Councilman. And yes, we'll follow up with Seedat about the five year period. I do know that the testing of our mitigations extends one year beyond the five year construction period. So we'll continue to test the air quality and make sure that we're maintaining the appropriate quality of their past, the construction.
Speaker 2: And I do want to want to make this very clear to everybody here, my colleagues. Mr. Santos is the absolute right person to be leading this on behalf of the community. And so I have every bit of faith that we will be following through. And I do have the luxury. I want you to be cognizant. I do have the luxury of the fact that this council will be putting probably voting for these mitigations to take this take my stance firmly. And so my criticism isn't of an DCC or Mr. Santos, it's actually of of Sudan. So thank.
Speaker 9: You. Thank you very much, Councilman.
Speaker 0: All right. I represent this district, District nine. And, you know, I'm glad, Councilman Lopez, you talked about going door to door. And we can talk about this project. We can talk about how we disagree with this project. But the and I have my concerns, but the fact remains, as I go door to door and talk with the residents of Globeville or Swansea, especially the residents that are immediately impacted in this 500 foot radius. They want mitigation from cedar mitigation in their home. Mitigation and air mitigation in schools. And this is why I'll be voting for this. I am highly disappointed that this is so late. We should we should have been working on this six months ago. And I've stated that disappointment, because the one thing that the city can come through on for the community is mitigation, especially on the homes. And so this is something that we should have came a long time ago. There are there are a cacophony of errors to why we couldn't do that. But we're doing it now, and I'm voting in favor of it. But I also want to say that there are millions of dollars being invested in the Swansea Elementary School, which I think is important to say as well. And it's under construction. Much of the school is under construction right now, which is something I think is incredibly important, because I don't know during other freeway projects what other schools have been done. And so but I am disappointed this has taken so long. But I'll be supporting this. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Espinosa, Nei Flynn, i Gilmore, Herndon, I Cashman High Carnage Lopez.
Speaker 1: I knew.
Speaker 3: Ortega I Black clerk.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I Please close, please close voting not the results.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes one nay.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, one nay. Let's see. 1013 passes. Okay, we are. Let me just make sure no other items need to be called out. Okay, we're moving right on. All of the bills for introductions are order published? We're now ready for the block. Votes on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Except for bills 1005 and 1006 series of 1217. They are companion bills to 1004 scheduled for public hearing this evening after the recess, after the public hearing and after consideration of Council Bill 1004 Series of 1217, Council will vote on the companion bills 1005 and 1006 Council members. Remember, this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I otherwise this your last call it on first have a vote. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please put the resolution for adoption and the bills on final consideration for final passes on the floor?
Speaker 6: Happy to do so. Mr. President, move that resolution. 1036. 1035 1016. Ten, 1910, 2010, 23. 1026. Ten. We just voted on ten, 12.
Speaker 8: 10,000 needs.
Speaker 6: That was not okay. Ten, 12, ten, 15. That's not the one we called out, was it?
Speaker 2: No. Okay.
Speaker 6: Um. 1024. And then you want the bills for introduction as well.
Speaker 3: Bills on final.
Speaker 0: Final.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 6: Find those. Okay. And then the following bills on final consideration are 999. Um 1007 978 981. Um. 1013.
Speaker 3: No, not. Not ten, 13.
Speaker 6: So that's the one we just voted on.
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 6: Yep. Okay. And that should do it.
Speaker 0: Uh, Madam Secretary, do we get all of them? Yes. All right. Okay. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, Raquel Black.
Speaker 3: High Clerk Espinosa, i. Flynn, I Gilmore, i Herndon. I Cashman. I can ege Lopez. I knew Ortega. I Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting announce results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes. A resolution have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. I'm going to take a little bit of personal privilege here and I see former Speaker of the House Marc Farentino here, now CFO for a DPS.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation regarding the CDOT Central 70 Environmental Mitigation and Denver Home Improvement Project.
Approves an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation in the amount of $2.3 million through 12-31-18 to implement home improvements for residents in Elyria and Swansea to mitigate for noise and dust during the Central 70 construction project in Council District 9. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-16-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-13-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10022017_17-1004
|
Speaker 0: The members of council as a whole please refrain from profane or obscene speech and please refrain from individual attacks. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Ready.
Speaker 0: Will you please put Council Bill 1004 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Will do. Mr. President, I move that council bill 1004 be placed on final consideration. Do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in. Second it the public hearing for council bill 1004 is open. May we have the staff report? You are not Brett Dodson.
Speaker 11: I am Nora Dodson.
Speaker 0: You are Tracy.
Speaker 11: I am Tracy Huggins. I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. And I'm sure you wish I was limited to 3 minutes in my ass, but I have a little bit more that I need to cover, so please bear with me.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 11: So the Denver Urban Renewal Authority order is requesting City Council approval of Council Bill 1004 to do a number of things under this ordinance to approve the I 25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan in which we will be establishing the 25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area, the 25 and Broadway sales and property tax increment area approve the I-25 and Broadway project and repeal the existing Cherokee Gate's Urban Redevelopment Area and tax increment area. So I'm going to take these in. Somewhat reverse order. So in 2003, City Council approved the Cherokee Gates Urban Redevelopment Plan, establishing the Cherokee Gates Urban Redevelopment Area. At that time, tax increment financing was not approved as the development program had not been identified. In 2006, Council approved an amendment to the Cherokee Gates plan to authorize tax increment financing to support the construction of certain public improvements required to advance the redevelopment of the site. For a variety of reasons, including the economic downturn in 2008. The Cherokee Denver plan did not move forward. Well, that plan did not advance. A portion of the area. South of Mississippi Avenue was redeveloped by Trammell Crow Residential. That development has generated approximately $3.19 million of incremental property taxes. None of that tax increment has been spent by Durham and upon repeal of the Cherokee Gates plan will be returned to the original taxing entities in the following approximate amounts. DPS Denver Public Schools will receive $1.97 million, the city and county of Denver approximately 1.2 million, and urban drainage and flood control district just over $24,000. So with the originally the existing plan repealed, we are now looking to establish the I-25 and Broadway urban redevelopment area. The proposed area is approximately 85 acres and is generally bounded by Broadway to the east south Santa Fe Drive to the west, Interstate 25 to the north and west Mississippi Avenue to the south. The site is located in Council District seven. While the vast majority of the area is empty. There is one notable exception, which is the I-25 and Broadway transit station operated by the Regional Transportation District, or RTD. The station serves as a major transfer station and is one of the busiest in the RTD system. The primary historic user of the property in the area was the Gates Rubber Factory, which at its height employed over 5500 workers and had a building footprint that occupied what is now vacant land immediately south of the transit station. The factory was demolished in 2014 after lying dormant for over two decades. The area is a brownfield site and has ongoing monitoring of its contamination levels. As this is a new urban redevelopment plan, a new urban redevelopment area, the finding of blight must again be made during commission matrix design group to conduct a study to determine if the area is blighted. That study, dated July 2017, has been filed with the city clerk as part of the record of this public hearing. In summary, the Blight study found the following five factors that constitute blighting conditions. First is predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. In its current state, the study area suffers from poor access due to few connections to the outside street network, the lack of an internal street network and the light and heavy rail lines that cut right through its middle to the west. Slide South Santa Fe Drive along with the South Platte River, which together cut off access to the West except along Mississippi Avenue. At the extreme southern end of the study area. This situation cannot be improved without major infrastructure projects, including additional bridges across the river, as well as additional intersections on South Santa Fe Drive. Bisecting the area along a North-South access is a major rail corridor serving both freight and passenger rail. Again, this access barrier cannot be mitigated without major investments in public infrastructure, including additional bridges, in order to develop the area in a fashion consistent with the character of the surrounding area, as well as the framework established by the city of Denver in its zoning code. An internal street network will need to be developed to complete the street grid to the greatest degree feasible because of the lack of access across major barriers surrounding the area, as well as a lack of internal access through the area itself. A finding of inadequate street layout has been made. Deterioration of sight or other improvements. The majority of the study area is vacant land, and despite the fact that it has relatively few site improvements, clear issues with lack of maintenance exist, especially in the northern portion of the area in the vicinity of the parking lots associated with the RTD station. Overgrown vegetation was common and one parcel in particular had excessive amounts of litter and debris. Additionally, much of the parking for the station is unpaved and potholes were observed in various locations. Because of these conditions, deterioration of sight or other improvements has been found in the study area. Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities. The area lacks the public infrastructure needed to fully integrate with the surrounding urban fabric, including the lack of a street grid that is consistent with non-industrial properties in the surrounding area and poor connections to the transit station itself. While there are some internal public rights of way in the study areas Northeast, they are unimproved dirt roads that will have to be brought up to city standards and sidewalks are needed in this area along South Santa Fe Drive. The greatest infrastructure need in the area relates to the lack of access and connectivity, both east and west, across the railroad tracks and the South Platte River, as well as North and South Access across I-25. There are issues with pedestrian pathways in the immediate vicinity of the RTD station. There is a lack of sidewalks connecting some of the unpaved parking areas to the station, and some of the lots are difficult to navigate due to fences, park cars and other obstacles. The lack of improved roads in the public rights of way in the northeastern portion of the study area, and the need for vastly improved pedestrian access across major barriers all contribute to a finding of unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities in the area. In viral environmental contamination of buildings or property. The area has been the site of heavy industrial manufacturing for the better part of a century producing tires, rubber belts and hoses and other automobile parts. Although this activity is no longer present, environmental contamination persists, including elevated levels of lead petroleum products and volatile organic compounds, affecting both soil and groundwater in the vicinity. A portion of the gate study area is identified as being a brownfield site by the Colorado Brownfields Program, as well as being part of the State Voluntary Cleanup Program or VICAP. The Colorado Brownfields Program recognizes the environmental contamination on site as being a hindrance to redevelopment and provides a streamlined review process. Tax credits, revolving loans, grants, and other tools to help clean the property and ready it for redevelopment until the cleanup process is completed. And property within the area receives a no further action letter indicating federal and state approval of the cleanup. Financing any redevelopment efforts is severely restricted due to the possibility of the state or the United States EPA ordering more potentially costly environmental cleanup since multiple properties within the Gate Study Area are listed in the State ViCAP registry as of 2015. The study area is considered to exhibit the environmental contamination of buildings or property factor. The existence of health, safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements. Since the Gates factory closed its doors in 1991, the land in the area has been greatly underutilized. Redevelopment plans were drawn up more than a decade ago, but ultimately never materialized. Since then, the warehouses that formerly occupied the eastern portion of the area have been raised. And three years ago, the site of the main factory building has been raised as well. The time duration of the areas underutilization in bankers and vacancy is especially notable given its central location in a growing metropolitan area and its proximity to multiple major highways, as well as a major station in the region's mass transit system. Due to the majority of the area being vacant. There is a finding of high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings and other improvements. These blight factors individually and collectively impair or arrest the sound growth of the municipality and constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health , safety, morals and welfare of the area. In bringing forward this urban redevelopment plan, we have sought to align the goals and objectives of the plan with the existing city plans for the area, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver, the Broadway and I-25 Station Area Plan, the Infrastructure Master Plan, and the Urban Design Standard and Guidelines . In reviewing the plan, City Planning Department staff found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to Plan 2000 by furthering several citywide objectives, policies and actions in the plan, including to promote quality infill development, encourage mixed use, transit, aurion development, support, mixed use income housing development, and use public private partnerships to facilitate development. Blueprint Denver Denver's Integrated Land Use and transportation plan adopted by the City Council in 2002, identifies the area as being located within an area of change, with the goal of having it absorb new residential and commercial growth in the future. The I-25 and Broadway station area plan creates a connected, resilient, vibrant and transformative multimodal hub that rents the station area into the fabric of the city. The I-25 and Broadway project will also be managed through the Infrastructure Master Plan, or AMP, which provides the master plan infrastructure concept for streets, sewer lines, waterlines, stormwater systems and bike and pedestrian circulation and connections. The IRP ensures the infrastructure requirements and upgrades are identified, so the proposed development is adequately served. Additionally, the IMP provides the mechanism for the city to approve the then current infrastructure costs and ensure implementation of the IMP over the projected 10 to 15 year development timeline. In addition, urban design standard and guidelines have been approved and recorded against the property to provide a comprehensive road map for developers, urban designers and architects to guide the process of designing and constructing streets, pedestrian connections, buildings and outdoor spaces consistent with the transit oriented, mixed use, vision and direction of the project. The Urban Design Standard and Guidelines further refines design elements regulated by the zoning code and defined by the IMP. The proposed urban redevelopment plan seeks to eliminate blight through the creation of the I-25 and Broadway urban redevelopment area. The main goals of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to eliminate blight, renew and improve the character of the area, encourage commercial, residential and retail development more effectively, use underutilized land. Encourage land use patterns that result in a more environmentally sustainable city. Encourage land use patterns where pedestrians are safe and welcome. Encourage high and moderate density development where appropriate. Improve and provide employment centers near transit, and encourage a diverse, sustainable neighborhood economy incorporating mixed use and commercial opportunities. In order to undertake these efforts, we are seeking to establish a tax increment area. The initial property and sales tax increment area would cover all portions of the urban redevelopment area, except for the property owned by RTD. The yellow portion of the site is that property that is owned by RTD. While there was a desire for the project to also include a redevelopment plan for the stationery itself, the parties were not able to come to consensus on the plan at this time. That does not mean that if and when development for the RTD site is developed and tax increment would be necessary, that we wouldn't be able to use that that tool for this site as well. Instead, in the event TIV is needed to support redevelopment of the RTD portion, we would consider coming back to City Council to ask for an amendment to the plan to approve a separate, separate tax increment area for the RTD property. As property tax increment is being contemplated under the Urban Redevelopment Plan, state law requires that daera enter into agreements with the other taxing entities. Dura has entered into agreements with the three other property taxing entities. The first is Broadway station metropolitan districts number one, two and three. Dora has agreed to pay all incremental property taxes received from the additional mill levy of the metropolitan districts to the districts for their use in the construction and financing of certain infrastructure improvements in the area. Denver Public Schools, Dora has presented the development plan to DPS in order for them to determine what, if any, impact the plan would have on their ability to deliver services to the area. The analysis conducted by DPS concluded a need for additional elementary school facilities and expecting to make enhancements to the McKinley Thatcher Elementary School. Per the terms of the agreement, Dora will cause $3 million of tax increment to be made available to DPS no later than December 31st , 2019. In order for the necessary improvements to be made. And then with urban drainage and flood control district, we again presented the development plan to urban drainage and flood control in order for them to determine what, if any, impact impact the plan would have on their ability to deliver services to the area. While urban drainage did not identify significant impacts from the proposed project. They requested that their staff time needed to review plans related to any regional drainage facilities be reimbursed and that the metropolitan district maintained the facilities until the tax increment area has terminated. We are also asking council to approve the I 25 and Broadway project. As noted previously, the planning area's redevelopment potential suffers as a result of the lack of infrastructure, in particular transportation infrastructure, to not only support the needs of residents and businesses within the development, but also to improve connectivity to and through the site from the surrounding neighborhoods and regional facilities for all modes of transportation. The IMP identified key transportation infrastructure improvements, including two new pedestrian and bike bridges across the central main line, one at approximately the I-25 and Broadway station and what in one at approximately West Tennessee Avenue. Acceleration and deceleration lanes along northbound Santa Fe from Mississippi to the New West Kentucky intersection. A left turn lane on South Platte River Drive north of Mississippi to the New West Kentucky intersection and a multi-modal bridge across the South Platte, South Platte River, connecting the development on the east side of the river to the expanded Vanderbilt Park on the west side of the of the river. The IFP also included a proposed development plan that included a variety of uses to create a diverse and vibrant, transit oriented development, with a focus on creating a unique, attractive and reconnected development and was divided into four Subdistricts a Marketplace and mixed use district in the southwest section of the site, the I-25 I'm sorry, the south east section of the site, the I-25 and Broadway station district to the north, an office in Parkland District in the northwest portion of the site and the Santa Fe Residential District in the southwest section. The I-25 and Broadway project, which has been refined to reflect current development assumptions, is further broken down into a development phasing schedule. If construction, if constructed consistent with the current assumptions at full buildout, the site would include approximately 2600 residential units approximately 900,000 square feet of office and co-working space. Approximately 109,000 square feet of retail and approximately 18,000 square feet of civic space. As noted on the far right of this slide, the tax increment supported development costs of approximately $63 million correspond with the regional infrastructure called for in the IMP to support the development vision. In addition to the estimated $63 million of infrastructure hard costs, there is an estimated $6 million of related soft costs and $11 million of continuing environmental remediation for a total of approximately $81 million. This will be the amount that there is 1% for Project Art and 1% for our Construction Employment Opportunities program would be applied against. An additional $6.1 million of tax increment is to be used to address city land conveyance costs and the $3 million that I previously noted to address the impact to DPS for a total projected tax increment investment of $90 million. These are based on 20 $16. And so they are not reflective of of any type of inflation at this point. And I also want to be clear that this is not a hard cap for these dollar amounts. Instead, as the infrastructure is better defined and to the extent the tax increment is available, we will pay for those costs as they are actually then bid out at that time. In addition to the tax increment, additional local infrastructure of approximately $48 million will be financed through the existing metropolitan districts. So again, to summarize the use of the tax increment, the anticipated TTIP eligible project costs are broken down as follows approximately $81 million to remedy the blight conditions, including demolition of remaining building foundations, regional connections, environmental remediation and site work, and $9 million to mitigate the impacts to DPS and to the city. So there are a number of other legislative findings that are required by the urban renewal statute. The first is that council find that the urban redevelopment area described in the Urban Redevelopment Plan is found in declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. And the conditions of blight constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. This is a legislative finding by City Council based upon the blight study and other evidence presented to City Council. The boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan. If any individuals or families are displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the I-25 and Broadway plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals or families in accordance with the Act. We do not believe that to be the case in this urban redevelopment area. If business concerns are displaced by the adoption or implementation of the I-25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business concerns in accordance with the ACT. The project area, as I said before, contains no residences there. Therefore no individuals or families will be displaced. Additionally, due to the vacancy of the project site, no business concerns will be displaced by the Urban Redevelopment Project. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the resolution setting this public hearing. City Council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first mail to all known property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the I 25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area on August 29th, 2017, at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this urban redevelopment plan. This is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site, and thus the City Council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site. This is the first consideration by City Council of an Urban Redevelopment Plan for this redefine site, and as such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months since any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan. On September six, 2017, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and its applicable supplements. And a letter to this effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing. The I-25 and Broadway redevelopment plan will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the urban redevelopment area by private enterprise. The project area is owned by Broadway station partners, who intends through coordination with the Broadway Station Metropolitan District, to undertake the horizontal development of this site necessary to attract additional private sector development of the area. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of any area of open land which is to be developed for residential or nonresidential uses or any agricultural land. And the Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each other taxing entity whose incremental property taxes would be allocated under this plan and agreements have been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenues. The city and county of Denver can adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Broadway and I 25 urban redevelopment area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. And the plan allows for cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address any additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the plan. We are very excited to be here again. This will be the third time we've appeared before council on this very challenge site. I think it really speaks to the need for public investment in order to advance redevelopment on this site. We believe that the terms that we have reached with our partner agencies, as well as with the Metropolitan District and Broadway station partners, are consistent with the plans that have been put forward through a lot of interaction with the community positions, the property very well for redevelopment and we ask for your favorable consideration of this ordinance. And with that, I will be happy to answer questions when the time is right.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Tracy. Well done, as always. Okay. We have three speakers this evening. If you would just come up to the front here. I will invite you on. We have Charlie Bush, Lisa Engel and Chairman Sekou. All right, Charlie Bush.
Speaker 7: Hi. My name is Charlie Bush. I reside at 715 South Sherman Street, which is spitting distance to this development. I've been there for 20 years. I've been working on this project for 16 of those 20 years. I represent two voices tonight. The first is for West Washington Park Neighborhood Association. West Short Neighborhood Association voted 12 zero zero. We were all in agreement to support all three of these bills. It's our third time here with the tiff and the it. It just makes sense. We commend the Broadway station partners and Dora for the smooth planning process. And I'm now going to transition to my own comments. Even though they're my comments, they are widely held by the board and by West Fischbach neighborhood residents. The Gates site has a lot of challenges, and the full Gates site goes from Broadway to Santa Fe, Mississippi, to Alameda. One of the biggest challenges it's had and the least addressed challenge is the East-West connectivity. There's already traffic issues on Alameda and on Mississippi during rush hour at this site, the Broadway station Partners anticipates 43,000 vehicle trips per day in and out of their site. I tried to find the numbers for the part to the north, the Alameda Partners. I have a number in my brain, but I. I don't like to rely on my brain. It's my least reliable method. So if we just double, you know, the Broadway station partners, it's about 83 vehicle to 83,000 vehicle trips per day into this area. 83,000 just to compare is the same amount of traffic as three lanes of I-25 in a 24 hour period. Think of the amount of traffic of I-25 and three lanes in 24 hours. That is the anticipated daily traffic in this site. There are four lanes on Alameda. Alameda is crumbling. There are four lanes on Mississippi and they are already slam full at rush hour. This this development is going to be a solid bucket traffic. When we started, it was going to be the model for Denver. We're going to show the world how it's done. We do not anticipate that that will happen at full buildout. It'll be great for me as an 88 year old lady because I can take my little shopping cart and weave between the stopped cars to get over to the site.
Speaker 2: But it won't be good for the area.
Speaker 7: I would encourage the city of Denver to take a step back for other developments and evaluate all issues and.
Speaker 2: Not just.
Speaker 7: Follow the developer's lead to keep passing things because they want to get to construction. We need Denver to take a lead. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Lisa Ingle.
Speaker 11: Hello.
Speaker 12: For the record, Lisa Ingle, 2024 17th Street. I'm here today as a representative of Broadway Station Partners. Broadway Station Partners is the owner of the former gate site at I-25 and Broadway. And I am absolutely thrilled to be here with you today. Thank you. We purchased the property back in September of 2014 and have been working towards its redevelopment ever since. In addition to ongoing remediation activities, we from 2015 to 2016, we participated in the I-25 and Broadway station area plan is one of the many stakeholders. We rezone the property to bring it into conformance to the current zoning code. And that, I think as you recall, came through council June of 16. Since then we have been working feverishly with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority on this particular finance package throughout this multi-year process. We worked with the community. We convened a Broadway station area advisory committee that we referred to as the B stack to ensure that the community was aware of our development plans, the remediation progress and our intent. Our request for a tax increment package. I believe in front of you, you have a packet containing support letters from the Mar Park Neighborhood Association, the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, the Ruby Hill Gottesman Neighborhood Association.
Speaker 8: Platte Park.
Speaker 12: People's Association. It's my time up. And and also the West Wash Park Neighborhood Association. So we are I'm hopeful that you will support these bills this evening and happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Engel. All right, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 4: Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou, organizer, founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense, representing poor, working, poor, homeless senior citizens. We are unconditionally in support of this ordinance. And this is in my experience of being down here for almost ten years, this is probably the largest.
Speaker 2: Two.
Speaker 4: Project that has ever been attempted by the city. And I'm fully confident that the city council folks here are more than adequate to the task of marshaling this project and so that it can be something of significance for the entire city, especially for poor, working, poor and homeless people who are in desperate need of economic support and jobs and contracts to make this thing happen. Now, I was talking earlier with councilman news about how important his work is in terms of identifying those folks who represent my constituency, who can perform with excellence on this project and being actual subcontractors to this and to share in some of the economic benefits that happen to the city that many times are passed over with the. Folks that I represent who most of them are people of color. Specifically black people. Now. This one is going to be. And require what we call a knockout punch, because now we can begin to level the playing field for real once and for all about how the city and county of Denver conducts its business. And there has to be a serious push. But City Council to oversee this project, to make sure that the playing field stays equal and that we lift that which has been suppressed in terms of receiving some of the benefits of being a part of the city count in Denver. So this is going to require that. The citizens. City Council, mayor's office and all interested party engage in a unified effort which we call TKO knockout punch and TKO. Those let letters stand for teamwork. To. Knowledge, data and fact k all organizational unit. We have got to be organized to make this thing happen and pay specific attention to the details. Because this one's huge. And of course, there's going to be mistakes made. There's going to be errors. Anything that happens, you know, except for a football, you know, that's just bad playcalling. We can do this. We can do this. And we've got to get behind way in the works that he's doing because he's going to need a lot of help to monitor this thing, sit on top of this thing, and then make sure that this thing worked because his name and reputation is on the line. He's heading this thing up to bring it up. And we've got to help. God help him. Seriously. All right. So anything that you ask for us to do, Wayne, for you, including maybe giving, you know.
Speaker 0: Mystikal. Let's stay on Broadway. Let's. Let's stay on Broadway.
Speaker 4: We do what we see on Broadway. Yeah. You know, it's a big street. So I'm. I'm I'm not trying to minimize role model. I'm going get it. And I'm going to do everybody a favor tonight, too, because it's getting late and close this thing out because some time has been yielded. But I just wanted to make sure that I got that point across to folks. I honestly believe that folks listened to what I had to say and I'm looking very, very much forward. And this project being successful and hey, boy, you got is on its own. All right. Congratulations on being our General Patton on this thing pushes through. All right. And keep on working. And don't forget don't lose your sense of humor because it's going to be rough.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 0: And thank you, Mr. Sekou. All right. This concludes our speakers this evening. Questions by members of Council. Oh, here we go. Okay. Councilman Espinosa started off.
Speaker 2: And a couple of questions for Tracy. If I understand the slide, right. The total sort of economic benefit of this would be in the $60 million plus range. Is that correct?
Speaker 11: Yes. Is it possible to pull the lights back up? Because I can go to that one of the groups if we want, maybe. That is the. How about that slide? So the infrastructure hard cost is about $63 million.
Speaker 2: So the slide slide 16 has a breakdown of the redevelopment plan. I mean, well, that's the height and the breakdown of the sort of development phasing in parcels. Yes. Is that part of what you consider when you're analyzing the mean this this plan area?
Speaker 11: The development phasing itself or the related infrastructure could.
Speaker 2: Potentially.
Speaker 11: Go together.
Speaker 2: Yes. So, I mean, that's the infrastructure for this buildout, essentially, right?
Speaker 11: That is correct. Which is consistent with what was put forward in the infrastructure master plan.
Speaker 2: Okay. So then I have a one question on the on the project team on this slide as well. And I have my calculator, but what is the total number of square footage? The total square footage of the of the potential build out here.
Speaker 11: Lisa, do you want to address that?
Speaker 0: Why don't you repeat that?
Speaker 2: Councilman Asari I could add up that bottom line, but do you have that total square footage?
Speaker 12: 6.5 million square feet.
Speaker 2: 6.5. Okay. So I'm missing some zeros here.
Speaker 12: Yeah, all product types.
Speaker 2: Okay. Do you have. So all this new development would be subject to the new linkage fee. Correct.
Speaker 8: Yes. No, it's not. But.
Speaker 11: It is not subject to the linkage fee as it was put into the the review process prior to the application of the new impact fee.
Speaker 2: Okay. So is there a separate affordable housing planned for the site? And can you explain that?
Speaker 11: There is a separate affordable housing plan. I am not the right person to describe that. And instead, I'd like to ask Jeff Romaine from the city's Office of Economic Development to address that.
Speaker 2: Jeff Romer in the Office of Economic Development Council. President Burks Members of Council. Councilman Espinosa Yes, there is a separate, affordable housing plan that's been approved and adopted back in December of 2016. It calls for 330 units based upon the 2600 proposed units that are right now in the plan. And they'll they'll be responsible for delivering all those units without subsidy or they'll still be there. They are responsible for delivering those units under the guidance of the agreement. There is some characteristics of that agreement that talks about how we've incentivized those units to come forward. When we worked out the agreement with Broadway station partners. The focus that that was trying to achieve was both long term affordability. So we achieved a 40 year affordability period. We are trying to encourage obviously tiered residential development. So that was called out. Additionally, we were trying to increase the size of the units. So therefore, there is some incentive within the program in order to encourage two and three bedroom units as opposed to just studios in ones. And then finally, part of the plan is really trying to encourage a mix of affordability and so calls for vouchers to possibly put in place. So that would be some additional subsidy. Okay. And is there a requirement that that all happen within this dura boundary or can it happen off site like a lot of others? It is intended that it all occur within the boundary that it's talked about within the and I'm sorry about the color because I don't remember Tracy, but the one color was encouraged.
Speaker 0: So right there to your left.
Speaker 2: Oh, just in the RTD side. The no, not the not the but the the Broadway station portion portion. And I think the RTD side was kind of an orange color. And the other was, I believe, a purplish color. And so then we could do well. Perfect. You probably already gave it to me. But if you could, there might be some value in me seeing that housing plan for for future reference. So if you could please just make sure I get a copy of that. Thanks. Absolutely. Councilman, we have shared it with several of your colleagues already, and we're happy to share it with you also. Thank you. No further questions.
Speaker 0: Councilman Espinosa, it's a prelude to 38th and Blake. But yes, you should see it is really it to your credit, is innovative.
Speaker 6: Councilwoman Ortega Tracy, would you mind coming forward, please? The land that is to the west of Santa Fe going southbound. That's within the boundaries. Help me understand why that's included. I know that city is city park or is that land that is actually owned by gates. Okay. And that's not swapping the park land for Vanderburgh Park that's on the site already? That is correct. Okay. And then Park that's on the site will be in part used as storm drainage.
Speaker 8: Course, correct? Yes.
Speaker 6: Okay. You think?
Speaker 11: If I may. Councilman Ortega, if you can see on the screen here. So this triangular parcel right here is actually a city owned park. And that's, again, on the east side of Santa Fe. This parcel down here is owned by BSP, by the developers. So that is why this property is being included in the urban renewal area. It's going to provide the opportunity to cross the river as well as redevelop the park land. That is all that is owned by BSP. And to your other question, yes, this is the city park that a portion of it will be used for drainage
Speaker 6: . And that's three acres. Is there any green space being added to it or is that the entirety of its size of the park?
Speaker 11: There is additional space that is being added to the park as a result. And I apologize. I don't have the slide that speaks to to that agreement, which is really part of the land conveyance agreement. But there will be additional land. I'm going to if I can find my pointer here in approximately, approximately this area that will be added to the existing park space that will be developed. If you drove by there right now, you wouldn't know that it is park space. But as part of the development plan, it will be developed as a park and then there will be an additional amount of land that is included to in part offset some of the use of the park land for the drainage facilities.
Speaker 6: And the drainage will dump into the South Platte River. Correct. Yes, that is correct.
Speaker 11: I'm hearing behind me.
Speaker 6: Great. Okay, that's on my questions. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman. I take it let me just ask real quick, the drainage piece. Is that a part of this is GDP. IMPEY Okay. Is that a part of the Impey? Does that require.
Speaker 2: Okay, great.
Speaker 0: Well, we'll just I just I just have a quick question. What what's the. I'm curious on the drainage portion of it. What is the capacity?
Speaker 2: Brad Dodson, Department of Finance. The capacity for the portion that's in the park is limited to I believe it's under an acre. I believe it's point eight, 6.83 acres.
Speaker 0: And that's what we have as defined in our code.
Speaker 2: In the infrastructure master plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Appreciate it. Oh, I'm sorry for for listening public. I said GDP, which is Jennifer General Jennifer general development plan. But AMP is.
Speaker 2: Infrastructure master plan. Okay.
Speaker 0: Just for the public that's listening to all these crazy acronyms. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 4: Tracy on slide 18. Could you clarify for me the expected amount of TIFF assistance is approximately 90 million in parentheses in 20 $16. Does that mean that in year of expenditure dollars it will be more? And if so, how much?
Speaker 11: Don't know how much more. It's all going to depend on inflation, other economic conditions that are in place at the time that the development is being undertaken in the infrastructure master plan, there is an allowance for inflation and I want to guess and say 3%. I think that that is right. But that is really in part why we have in large part way the infrastructure master plan is in place to already have identified according to the development plan that is anticipated what the expected infrastructure is, what the cost should be. And that was vetted very carefully by the city's public works department to then put some type of an inflation factor in place so that when the actual infrastructure is more clearly understood, there is a baseline from a cost standpoint to be laid up against what we believe the expected tax increment, maybe to make sure that there's a fit between the cost and what the amount of increment might be available to pay that.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm. What? And if, you know, what are the years of expenditure? Do we know how out that can be?
Speaker 11: It could be as far as, you know, 8 to 10 years. It really just depends on under then current market conditions.
Speaker 4: Lisa, is that something you can speak to?
Speaker 12: Exactly what Tracy was saying in market conditions will sort of tell us what that full buildout is. We're planning anywhere from 10 to 12 years at this of 12 years.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Okay. And one last question, Tracy. The RTD parcel. What is the it's not included right now in the TIFF. It's included in the redevelopment area, but not in the tiff for now. And why was there not the ability to reach any kind of an agreement to incorporate that at this time?
Speaker 11: Thank you for asking that question, because I in no way wanted anybody to feel that we did not have a cooperative partner because RTD worked very, very actively with the city, with BSP in trying to accommodate a development program in order to currently in order for us to bring it all together. And we there were just so many different influences that just really put us in a position where we were not able to reach those terms at this time. Remember that this is one of their busiest stations and it would really need to be a turnkey operation to make sure that their service was not disrupted at all. And so it was really just a matter of timing and a number of other issues that just really prevented us from coming to an agreement at this time.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Very complicated. And. And as you know, I've been concerned about maintaining the accessibility for patrons to use that by car. I have some constituents who drive there rather than take the bus over from from southwest Denver. And it's much more very convenient for them as it is. But in the event that RTD does at some point come into the TIFF district, how complicated will that addition be for us? You will have to come back to us to add it.
Speaker 8: We've just.
Speaker 4: Got to restructure the whole tiff.
Speaker 8: Through.
Speaker 11: Really all of the steps except for the the finding of blight. If we were to amend the plan, it would be as a material modification, a substantial modification to the plan. So we would have to understand what the development program is. Go back to Planning Board asked them to find that the amendment to the plan continues to be in conformance and go through the whole city council review process again. Okay.
Speaker 4: So we get a second bite at this apple. Yes. Thank you. That's all I'm proposing.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who will be best to answer this, but I watched the Gates site for decades in my previous job as a journalist, and I met former councilman and current TOD Director Chris Levitt when he was, I think, director of the Front Range Economic Strategy Center and was fighting for local hires and living wage in the jobs that would be created on site. Is there anything in the agreements to date that addresses those issues?
Speaker 11: Thing is, as I look at Lisa, we're going to tag team this and maybe Brad as well. I can speak to that from Dora's perspective. In the companion ordinance that pertaining to the cooperation agreement between Durham and the city, there is the requirement by the city that Durham cause our programs to be applied against the project as they normally would. And one of those I mentioned Project R previously, one of those is our first source hiring program, which requires that any new jobs that are created as a result of the project are first made available to low income Denver residents. And that is true not only for the construction jobs, but any permanent jobs that would ultimately result on the site. So that is something that we, through the metropolitan district, will be looking to make sure that that is put in place, that it was an existing program even back when the Cherokee plan was in place. So that is going to continue. There were some other requirements that were in place under the Cherokee plan that that Durham is not responsible for. And I'll have Lisa or Brad speak to the status of those.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 12: The the versus hiring will be enforceable through the metropolitan district and all the infrastructure will be installed under the metropolitan district. So we will be subject to that provision as well.
Speaker 1: Any any guidance on wage?
Speaker 12: And living wage. Yeah. You know, is what I understand is it's really not as applicable to the horizontal. That really comes into play with the vertical construction. So at this point in time, that is not part of our agreement.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 11: May I also add, though, that both under duress policy, but more specifically under the Metropolitan District Service Plan, there is a requirement that all of the infrastructure be undertaken paying prevailing wage. So prevailing wage will be paid on all of the infrastructure that that the tax increment is supporting, as well as what the metropolitan district is supporting
Speaker 1: . Great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: And thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. This concludes the question portion of this public hearing. Public hearing for Council Bill 1004 is now closed. Comments by members of council councilman, president pro-tem, Jillian Clark, you're up.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm really excited that we are finally here tonight. I've said this before and I say it again. This site has everything. It has a rail station and not just a rail station, but the second busiest transit center in all of Denver as Denver Union Station and then Broadway station. It has Broadway, which is Denver's iconic Main Street. You have a connection, an on and off ramp directly to I-25. You have the South Platte River, Santa Fe, and a dedicated city park that since the 1950s, the citizens of Denver have never been able to access or use Denver. 40 new people moving here on average a day. This is creating intense development pressure on our older neighborhoods, pushing housing prices through the roof and creating gridlock on our streets. This is the site where we can fit new people without tearing down historic homes or providing integrated, affordable housing unit. And there's no better place to show that transportation demand management tools can work to achieve the kind of mode shift that we have to be able to get to as a city than here. We also get two new bike ped bridges over the rail lines, a new vehicular bridge with an attached bike PED Bridge over the South Platte River, a dog park, a pedestrian focused market street, and so much more. This has been a really long process that started way before I was on council, but I'm so excited to be able to sit up here tonight and vote yes, yes to smart urban infill, yes to building a true transit oriented community. Yes to infrastructural infrastructure that will serve so more, so much more than just the people who will work, live, and play on this land, but will connect neighborhoods that have been separated by huge barriers for decades and provide real bike and pedestrian options that connect people on the West Side. Finally, to transit on the east side of those barriers and to Denver's Main Street on Broadway and the people on the Eastside connected to the South Platte River with $30 million of new parks and improved trails, and the Levitt Pavilion offering 30 free concerts a year. So with that, I would urge all my colleagues to please vote yes on this, and then let's go grab some shovels. And at long last, get this project started. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Clark. It almost sound like you're pitching somebody. They're like Amazon or something like that, but I don't know what I'm talking about. Okay. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate a lot of the questions that my colleagues asked just to get some of what back in the day we called community benefits that are emerging from this project. On the record, I was with the former colleague that Councilman Cashman mentioned was very involved in this project from helping a coalition kind of achieve a vision for the site, and then to negotiate that vision with the former developers and frankly, with the city, you know, because the city wasn't as excited about affordable housing then as it is now. Hard to believe, but they kind of thought the market should take care of those things. We've come a long way and in some ways the discussions we had about this site really created a whole bunch of things that are now much more institutionalized in the city. So the fact that prevailing wage applies and shrunk infrastructure and other projects never was a policy. Prior to this. We weren't doing a great job with first source local hiring at the time that this project was being discussed. And so there have been fits and starts with how well we do on that local hiring program. But but there are and now it's it's much more of a frequent expectation that affordable housing plans be adopted. And just to clarify just one tiny point, the fact this this project would not have been exempt from the linkage fee without an affordable housing plan because it didn't have actual development plans approved. So the fact that it had a vision in the pipeline would not have exempted it from the linkage fee. What exempts it from the linkage fee is the fact that there's an adopted housing plan. And I think that that is it's you know, we always have this dance about whether or not we should take big projects or big sites in the city and just apply our standard policies, which sounds like a good idea when you want uniformity and predictability. But then you have sites that feel like they want to create customized solutions because they have unique opportunities or they have unique challenges. We can never quite decide which is better customized or standard. And so we have a policy that allows for both. And I think that that's. A good thing. I appreciate especially the fact that the former housing plan for the site included some lower income units than the overall plan here is including in some ways. But it also it had necessarily a shorter potentially a shorter period of affordability. So we've exchanged some of the deeper affordability for a longer period of affordability. The other thing that we're getting is the fact that one of the community's visions for this site was that units that were affordable would be spread throughout the project. At the time we negotiated the last deal that wasn't possible. We were relying on tax credits and they tend to have to happen all in a building. And so in some ways, it's fascinating that we're actually more achieving that vision today with this revision, which it's a new proposal, but it's a revision to a former former plan in some ways, from the community's perspective, that we actually are achieving more integrated and more mixed income throughout the site rather than just certain buildings. And lastly, I want to express my appreciation to the department and to Broadway station partners for the fact that some of these units will be for those who have Section eight vouchers. We know that we have folks in the city who have vouchers, who can't find apartments. So so there's a number of things in this plan that although they look different and they feel different than that long ago process, they achieve some of the same outcomes or better outcomes. And so I appreciate the fact that that affordable housing plan was so carefully thought out and negotiated. And I appreciate the fact that we also did better this time on some of the connectivity and mobility. Right. And so there's a lot in this plan to like. We know it's a tough market out there. So that is going to be the challenge that you face after this vote tonight. And I'm hopeful that we can be resilient this time around. And I know that that won't be easy. But but that's my hope, is that we see this vision built. So thank you to everyone who is involved in for all the work you did, keeping my office and in particular involved in aware. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Kenny. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to first thank Councilman Clark for picking up the ball on this project and helping to get it to this point of moving forward. And I especially want to thank the the dozens and dozens of neighbors from throughout South Denver, like Charlie Bush and and many, many others who have sat through meeting after meeting after meeting of advisory groups starting back in the days of Cherokee. And I also wanted to mention the gentleman that I met along the way named Steve Maskey, who was became a point person for Cherokee development and almost got this project to the point of taking off. There were grand plans. I mean, Robert Redford's Sundance Cinema was interested. We had a big time developer out of Chicago ready to break ground, and then the 2009 rolled around and everything went down. So, yes, Steve Moore took me for a spectacular.
Speaker 2: Tour.
Speaker 1: Of of the Gates campus when it was completely empty but had not begun being demolished yet. And I'm telling you what we're talking tunnels and enormous, enormous old industrial buildings that we just don't build anymore. And so hopefully Steve's aware that we're at this point and I didn't want this to go by without calling calling his name . He passed away at 47 years old back in 2012. And so, Steve. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to congratulate John and Barbie Session Partners. Thank you for your work on on this particular site. I. Cannot begin to imagine what it's going to look like. I'm very glad that they were able to incorporate at least some of the affordable housing, local hire stuff. I mean, the connectivity. You did do a great process, kept us on a loop from day one, and I do appreciate that. It says a lot when you have the community with you and when you have a lot of folks saying, let's finally do something here, you. The other thing I have is kind of I mean, growing up just a stone's throw away. I got to me, it was great target practice. But I mean, with with baseballs and rocks and stuff, it was actually pretty cool. All the different colored windows you to be able to. I got that one. No, I got it. And we just it was this great pastime. Those are the old days. But can I just have one selfish request? I lost my gates rubber ball. That thing was awesome. The super balls that they had. If you find one, return it, please, while you're digging. If you have those things, you can throw right down the street and they just keep going. But those hours of.
Speaker 0: Okay. So thank you. So we got that. I know you, though. I know you've been waiting to get that one out. Councilman Espinosa, we're out of a good.
Speaker 2: I'm glad my colleague digressed and I can keep going. No, no. One of the things I was get I was scribbling here was a bunch of numbers. And the numbers are, you know, me sort of figuring out how much taxes my block generates and it pays in property taxes. And I came up with just under $60,000 a year for the 59. Let's be simple structures. I mean, homes on my block and I did the math on paving. And if we paved both lanes and on the block, that would be $31,000. So every year, my my block contributes. That's without sweet street sweeping fines and towing fees that are related to this the games. And so we're pumping money into this economy that's I mean into the revenues into the city. That's how this thing works. I understand that we're not always going to get what we put into it. And actually, I did that math wrong, that 58,000 is what we get from the city. I mean, that's that's what's left over, actually. We collect $146,000 a year from that block. Most of that's going to schools, which we didn't have very many kids on my block, actually none for about nine years. So we were that was net going to the schools. I mean, that's our part. My point being that earlier today council members discussed our budget request and this property in this station area has the benefit of having an applicant willing to go to a leadership in an organization willing to go through this entire process for the GDP and the IMP. And these are things that our all of our station areas would love to have. And in some cases, like 41st and Fox, my station area on sunny side, we don't have that sort of massive master developer. Councilwoman Black asked for money for her sophomore station. We have a lot of stations that actually need this level of analysis, planning and put in, in and in thoughtfulness that may actually end up in a a request. But the city has to put resources in. So for decades, blocks like mine have existed by these other station areas, contributing and paying their dues and paying their fair share and getting minimal resources in exchange. These are areas without sidewalks, the areas with crumbling streets, because that paving cycle's 15 years. So that $31,000 that gets kicked back in paving every 15 years. And so I just want to use this the sort of feel good nature of what we're finally hopefully going to get this round with this this level of deferred investment. You know, it's it's taxing yourselves to to sort of pump this back into the infrastructure to enable all this redevelopment to to then contribute to this economy the way we are. There are communities that are actually station areas that don't have that massive take down to one single developer, but they have the same infrastructure needs, the same planning needs, the same zoning requirements, the same design guidelines, the same affordable requirements that need to be addressed. And so we can do that as a city, that we can do that as a council. But we need a push for 41st and FOX GDP AMP and need a push for South More Station because we have the resources to do that in our budgets today. So I just wanted to remind my colleagues that it's it's decisions like this. It's great when we have people coming forward that are doing this, but we have station areas that we put in infrastructure already. And if we don't, we get what RTD sort of initiates and that's not great. So thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you for sort of circumventing RTD and then pushing RTD to probably a better place in the end. So I'm looking forward to supporting this things. Okay.
Speaker 0: Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President, for that introduction.
Speaker 0: Yeah, no problem. Any time.
Speaker 4: I just want to briefly make note of the historical significance of this site being once the center of industry in Denver. The convergence, I think, of three railroads, the Rio Grande, the. The Santa Fe, the Colorado and Southern that went down the alignment that they came I-25 in the first place. And of course, Gates Rubber. And when I ran for this office, I met so many folks who were retired from Gates Rubber, living in West Denver and Southwest Denver still drawn pensions from what was once a great industrial operation that gave a lot of good living and good good incomes, working class incomes to working families in Denver . And I'm looking forward to seeing that site once again become an iconic location for Denver's working families. So thank you very much. I'll be proud to support this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. For those of you watching, Councilman Flynn always gives us the historical context of all of our bills and projects going on. I just want to say thank you to Broadway partners. Lisa you did a fabulous job. Kim you did a great job. CRL the city. Excellent work. I know this was very complex. Jeff, I want to thank you because Paul's not here. He no longer works with the city. But I love it when we incentivize affordable housing to get the returns and the rewards that we want. Larger, right. More bedrooms, longer affordability. Those are all good things. And Tracy and the team, I don't know where you're at, Tracy, but great job. And you know, this really takes a collaborative team effort to get this done. Brad, I know you worked on this a ton. So, you know, someone once told me about the city of Denver. Nothing happens in this city without key collaboration. So thanks for everybody working hard to get this done. With that, Madam Secretary. Brokaw.
Speaker 3: Clerk by Espinosa. Flynn I. Gilmore. Cashman.
Speaker 2: All I.
Speaker 8: Can each.
Speaker 2: Lopez I knew.
Speaker 8: Ortega I. Black I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Police. Those voting in US results is.
Speaker 3: Sorry. It's not quite recording everybody.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Sorry, you. That's right.
Speaker 0: Oh.
Speaker 3: 11 eyes.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes. 1004 passes. Congratulations, everyone. Okay. Councilman Ortega, will you please put Councilman 1005 to be placed on final consideration duplex?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the I-25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan and the I-25 and Broadway Project, the creation of the I-25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Area and the I-25 and Broadway Tax Increment Area, and in connection therewith repealing the Cherokee Urban Redevelopment Plan.
Approves the I-25 and Broadway Urban Redevelopment Plan and authorizes the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area to support the Broadway Station Partners project in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-12-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_10022017_17-0984
|
Speaker 0: So that's what that's what that was. All right, Councilman Ortega, will you please put Council Bill 984 on the floor?
Speaker 6: I would be very happy to do this one council bill. I move that council bill 984 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded the public here for Council 984 is open. May we have the staff report? We have Laura morales from Parks and Rec and our very own Councilwoman Ortega during this proposal as well. So. Laura morales. Come on down.
Speaker 12: Good morning, Laura morales. Community relations with Pakistan creation. Just here to introduce the process that is community led.
Speaker 8: So we really just want to let you know that they've gone through all the steps necessary, which meant proud, which meant that happy. Haynes, our director, has recommended this and now it comes into the hands of the public and to the city council. So today you'll be hearing some stories that Councilwoman Ortega and her community have fled.
Speaker 3: So thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilwoman Vega.
Speaker 6: So we're going to walk through the PowerPoint that you see on the wall. Some of the documents are also in your files on the grant office system. And I want to just first start by thanking Brian Spinner, who helped put this together. He's going to help run the PowerPoint and Jack Patterson for my office, who's also my appointee to the Parks and Rec Advisory Board, who assisted with this as well. So as you can see from this picture, this is part of the structure on the what has been called Northside Park and our proposal is to name it Carpio Singh Minetti Park. So let me just walk through these slides. This is a 13 acre parcel that has received some awards for its design that's located in the Globeville neighborhood. This replaced the old wastewater treatment plant site that sat vacant for approximately ten years and became a blighted eyesore for the neighborhood. The land was once vital, fertile farmland, and the park is adjacent to Heron Pond in the Heller Open Space property that is bordered by the South Platte River, Emerson Street and 53rd Avenue. This is part of a 100 acre master plan with those adjacent properties. This is a project that Parks and Recreation is that has underway right now. The global community wanted this park name before all the other changes in the neighborhood occur. That is a result of extensive development that is happening to the east and really kind of all around them. The North Side Wastewater Treatment Plant Facility was built in 1937, as I said, on farmland. That's along the South Platte River. And as you can see from these pictures, that was what the old wastewater plant looked like at the time after the facility closed and the property was built. In the global community. It was a blight on the global community for over a decade. The property was so blighted that was used it was used as a backdrop in a sci fi movie called Asteroids. Part of the facility's concrete barriers were incorporated into the park, and this factored into the cost of turning this site into a park. This created the park's unique design that won national awards and saved money on the construction. And if you have never been out there, this is a somewhat isolated site that doesn't feel like you're in the city. You could see the skyline of downtown. And for those of you who like to bike, it's along the bike trail that runs along the South Platte River. So the park today, it's a community park and a very well utilized neighborhood asset that residents from not only Globeville, from other areas utilize for picnics, soccer, games, walking, relaxing. As I said, the adjacent South Platte River bike path is along this same park. Currently it has no official name. CEL was the catalyst in getting this named and I was the counsel person as it was developed and I checked in with Councilwoman Monteiro to see if under her watch it was never officially named. I think it's just been called Northside because that's what the treatment plant was called. So this is really the official naming of this park. It's very unique in that the community was involved in working with the artists in etching different messages onto the concrete, onto the sidewalks. And if again, if you haven't been there, it's interesting to walk through and just read some of those messages that were created both by youth and adults from the global community. The changing demographics of the residents in the community are rapidly changing. And again, the community wanted to be involved in the naming of this park to show the legacy and the history and the contributions by the two names that will be placed on this park now. So the reasons to name this park, it carries forward a shared history of stewardship and protects the neighborhood's past and changing demographics that impact this area. So Carpio and Simonetti family were leaders in Globeville and Elyria. Swansea, a community in Denver. Their civic, commercial and cultural contribution contributions deserve preservation to inspire future leaders and are youth that live in the neighborhood. Community leaders should be recognized in the areas they helped build. The renaming recognizes the importance of Sel Carpio and the same Unity family in their community to the Denver Parks and Recreation System and to the city and county of Denver as a whole. Naming the park Carpio Sanguinary is suitable, appropriate, symbolic and historic. So a little history on the Simonetti family. They were a Globeville family. They lived in the global community. And you'll hear from one of the descendants that still lives in the global community. They were a pioneering family that settled in North Denver in the 1850s. A portion of the park was part of the community farm located on the South Platte River. The family operated a North Denver grocery store that sold produce in the area. They also led a fight to stop upstream slaughterhouses from dumping waste into the South Platte River. As I said, the salmon descendants still live in Globeville in these pictures that you see were provided to us by historic Denver. Now to move on to sell curfew. So Carpio was a member of this body. He was a Denver city councilman. He was a visionary leader. He also had roots in Globeville. And I didn't know when we started this process that when his family moved from the Greeley area to Denver as a small child, he lived in their family, lived in the Globeville neighborhood. He was a Denver public school teacher, a Metro State College professor of sociology. He served on the council from 1975 to 1987. And one of he was one of Denver's first Latino city council members, along with Sam Sanders. And I believe we're going to hear from his son. Also a former councilman, Zell served as the council president. He authored the registered neighborhood notification ordinance in 1976 that empowered neighborhood organizations and gave them voice to what was happening in their neighborhoods. He was also a catalyst for redevelopment of the Central Valley, which was at the time abandoned railroad land and is now home to DaVita Union Station, over 10,000 residents and much, much more. It's almost completely built out now. As a community leader. He also established numerous city parks. Commons park cornerback. A park confluence, which are all in the Central Valley, among others, was the North Side Park. As I said, he was the catalyst for moving the redevelopment of the old wastewater treatment plant park site into a park. He established nine community centers in his council district. He was also the executive director of the Denver Housing Authority from 1994 to 2007. He modernized several Denver housing developments, including Quick Newton Curtis Park in North Lincoln, and that involves securing the funding to make those developments happen. He was an efficient steward of federal housing funds, not only at DHS, but when he served on the council. And way back then, the community development funds were actually earmarked by appointees of each councilperson. It was called the Community Advisory Committee that basically earmarked where those funds would go. So it was also nationally recognized for his leadership at DHS and many of his DHS initiatives adopted by federal funds and. Included projects like and this wasn't a DHB project, but the Urban Development Action Grant, which is where the King Soopers is on 13th and Spirit. Many of you may not remember, but we used to have junkyards along the Speer Boulevard corridor where you see those high rise apartment buildings. Cell was the catalyst in securing that federal funding to turn that area into something more attractive to the community. The next slide shows you just a sample of the signatures. I passed the book down the dais for you to see all of the signatures that were collected. This part required, I believe, 3300 signatures and 650 were submitted to Parks and Recreation. And that was done intentionally because there was 20 acres purchased to the west of this site with wastewater funds during the same time that the city was doing the Justice Center project. And that's to look at including some additional storm drainage for the area. And because that master plan is still being done in that project is not entirely finished. We wanted to move forward with the acreage as it's currently defined, but anticipate that these 20 acres will eventually be added to the park and the boundaries can be expanded. The 600 signatures is what's needed for a larger what's considered kind of a regional park. The next slide shows you the community and civic support. As you saw from the book that was passed out. We had letters of support from many of the leaders in the community, as well as residents from the neighborhood and the global community played a vital part. We had many meetings in the community with residents from the neighborhood, mostly some of the key leaders from the neighborhood, to solicit their support for this. And again, as I said, they were pretty adamant about moving this forward before all the development in the neighborhood happens. I want to thank the global community for their efforts. Many residents helped circulate petitions. I want to thank Happy Haines, a former councilwoman that also served with Sal Carpio, for her efforts as the manager, Parks and Recreation for moving this forward and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee that voted to move this on to the manager in request of sending it forward to city council. And as I said, I mentioned my staff earlier. Susan called already and Joe Wood from my staff also assisted in this effort. And just the very last slide. You know, it's it's always an honor to ask city council to be able to recognize leaders of our community. And I just want to respectfully ask for your support in naming this as the Carpio Simonetti Park after former city councilman Sal Carpio and the segment that his family who were pioneers in this neighborhood. So at that, I'll leave it at that. I know we have some people here that are signed up to speak in support as well. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. We have 12 folks who are signed up to speak. I'm going to ask every name that I call. I'm going to call five names at a time. I'm going to ask you to come up to this front row here. So just get out your seat and come to the front row. And everybody has 3 minutes, by the way, and no one is speaking in opposition. So this will be a good a good public hearing for city council. Okay. So Marissa macias. Teresa Carpio. Karen Carpio. Thomas Florence Navarro, Mary Dirty.
Speaker 2: But let's see. What do you do? Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's five. So come on up here to the front and let's say you are first. You have 3 minutes. Go ahead.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name is Mauricio Macias. I'm a resident of North Denver. So Carpio was my grandfather. Right now, I'm currently a student at CU Denver studying human development and family relations. And one of my classes in the past semester actually read about my grandfather and his name was mentioned with his thoughts and opinions around social justice issues that were happening. And it brought me a lot of pride to read about him along with my classmates. I can't help but feel hurt as well, not being able to ask him personally and learn from him directly, just like his perspective and his opinions on everything. I wish that when he was here I would have got more of his opinion and his thoughts on his personal on his professional life and his accomplishments. My life is so different without him. I remember he would always say to me, Hey, miss, if you need me, just call me. That was his thing. He would always say, Just call me and I'll be there. As I mentioned, he didn't talk a lot about his professional life with us because he was the man that I knew was a humble man who was all about his family. He was there to attend every soccer, basketball, football school play that his grandchildren had. Some of my favorite memories growing up was being at my grandpa's house. He always made it feel like it was our second home. He made us feel cared for. He made us feel safe. And he always made us laugh. For Christmas, his home was one of a kind with Elvis and Bronco decorations, something that we all miss dearly. He played a key role in teaching me the values that I still carry with me today, like family and education, hence my educational path that I chose. My grandfather left a lasting impact on my life, and I hope to continue his legacy of being a strong and caring voice for others and making a positive impact on those around me. I hope you choose to continue his legacy in an area of Denver he devoted his work to. My grandpa was not a perfect man, but he overcame every single struggle he faced in his life. He was hard working with a heart of gold. During this time of our city growing and changing, it's crucial to keep our roots grounded. For my generation and the generations to come, if my grandpa was still here, he would be so excited to welcome his first great grandchild. And we hope to teach him and show him the park one day when he's old enough to go play over there. I want to thank Councilwoman Debbie Ortega from the bottom of my heart. We could not have done this without you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Macias. Torres Carpio.
Speaker 8: Hello. I'm Teresa Carpio. I live at 4730 Tennyson Street. Hello, Councilman? Yes. First of all, I would like to thank you all in particular, Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman Ortega and her staff for all their efforts on behalf of this proposal to rename the park to Carpio Singh Greenwich Park. I'm proud to be the sister of Sel Carpio. As you have heard, sell dedicated virtually his entire career to the service of his community. Whether that was as a teacher, his 12 years as District nine councilman. Or as director of Denver Housing Authority for 12 for 13 years. As Debbie mentioned earlier, the roots of my family are deep in Globeville. My grandfather, Nicholas Navarro, worked at a flour mill, then located at 32nd in Brighton. My mother was raised at a house across the street from that flour mill so that my grandfather could keep an eye on her and the kids. In the early 1940s, my family moved from Gill, Colorado, a farming community to Globeville, so that my dad could work at the flour mill with my grandfather. My brothers, Ed and Cel. Later attended Swann R Excuse me. Garden Place Elementary. Sal loved Denver. He loved it a lot, which is evidenced by his diligent work to be a champion for those whom he serviced. He was a visionary, and his efforts both in city council and while leading Denver Housing Authority, helped make Denver the fine city we all consider to be today. As a family, we are so proud of the man he was. He was funny, witty, loving, hardworking, and devoted to his family and friends. As former Mayor Federico Pena stated in his letter, Cel shaped today's Northside Park and it is appropriate and fitting that it now be named in His honor. Together with Celles family and mine. His daughters, his sons in law. And his dear friends and his grandchildren. We thank you for your consideration of this proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms.. Carpio. Karen Carpio. Thomas.
Speaker 8: Hi. I'm Karen Carpio. Thomas. I'm a self-starter and. When you do it.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, basically, I want to thank everybody. And I'm just honored that my dad's being considered. It's an evening with the family. They were both active in the community. My dad loved his time on council. I really do think about it every day.
Speaker 7: I was younger at the time and.
Speaker 2: As a teenager I wasn't always aware of.
Speaker 8: All the importance of the things he was doing.
Speaker 2: I appreciate Councilwoman.
Speaker 8: Ortega's support on this and all the.
Speaker 2: Help she's provided and her great respect for my father. I thank everybody for the letters they wrote, and he would truly love being named.
Speaker 6: After a park. He loved.
Speaker 2: To barbecue. He liked to play games. He played Wiffle ball all the time in the backyard volleyball games, family. The most important thing to him and I think it's very important to my nieces son and everyone who just knew him as dad or grandpa have something.
Speaker 8: To show their children.
Speaker 2: And and where he could be honored for everything he did. They loved him for grandpa, and I loved him as my father. But I really just think it would be a great honor for us and the sanguinary family to have this happen. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Carr. Bill Thomas. Florence Navarro.
Speaker 8: Good evening, everyone. Yes, Florence Navarro. I reside in North Denver. 2728 was 39th Avenue. And thank you very much for bringing this forward, Deb.
Speaker 11: Appreciate it.
Speaker 8: And just want to talk a little bit about the why. Why are we doing this? Why are we? Besides Wood Theresa has put out there, besides what Karen and Marissa eloquently stated, you know some of the why. I grew up around cell. Kim and my father, Richard, were first cousins and spent a lot of time with each other. So for me, the why is about cell as a role model, not only for myself, but for several others. For many of your predecessors on council. Learned from cell. Cell was a first in many, many different areas, as was stated before, professor. And just in the community, that community leader, that role model. And so for me, it's about our youth need more role models. Who else could we call upon to be the role model any more special than cell and the what was put forward with the sanctuary family as well? So between both of them inspired us, our family, the community. I think about Sal and what he did for being that public servant.
Speaker 12: Oh, my gosh. All of you know what?
Speaker 8: That's like 24 seven. So for me, it's what he contributed. The community leader thinking about, you know, his character, work ethic, taking great, great pride in everything that he did, the visionary that he all of Debbie spoke about, the visionary, the plans that he put forward. And now to see all of that come come to fruition. So it's about also the personal side, his family, his friends. I remember one of his favorite activities, bowling. They talk about his, you know, excitement around the Broncos. But bowling, let me tell you, very, very committed to bowling. But there was a place where he could interact with people, hear what's going on in the community, get to know what's, you know, others asking those ideas, finding out what was important. Relationships were important to sell. So again, those are just a few of the attributes that truly reflect the role models we need more of, especially in North Denver, especially in the global area. For our kids to look up to. As as the family has talked about what how how much pride we will take in sharing with the youth in that community.
Speaker 11: They say.
Speaker 0: Your time is.
Speaker 12: Up. Okay, thank you. I'll just.
Speaker 8: Say thank you very much and how much pride we would have in naming it.
Speaker 12: Carpio Spaghetti Park.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Mary did it, Matt. I don't know if we may have your last name spelt wrong. Please correct me.
Speaker 8: How? My name is Mary Sanguinetti. During my my family's lived in Coalville for over 150 years. I'm the fifth generation to live there. And I just ask you all to vote. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Miss McDermott. Sanguinary. All right. I'm going to call the next five up right now. Thank you. Tim Sandals. John. Zambian gate Markkanen. Gate Markkanen. Debbie Gomez. Patricia. Patricia? Patricia Baker. And it looks like we don't have gates.
Speaker 6: He had to.
Speaker 2: Leave.
Speaker 0: Okay. So we'll call up a chairman and say, who has the fifth? Mr. Sanders.
Speaker 9: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of Council. My name is Tim Sandoz. I am the executive director of the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative and a former member at large of the Denver City Council. I wanted this opportunity to celebrate South life and support this park just a little bit more history. Sal came to the city council the same time my father did not. Technically, my dad's race wasn't as challenging as Sells was. So technically, my dad was the first Latino ever elected to the city council. But sale was a real close second. We'll let that go. For those of you who may not know, my grandparents did start in Globeville. They're buried right now at the cemetery there. And my family had a long history in Globeville as well. My brother and I even happened to be the plant manager of Nabisco before it became Purina. It smelled a whole lot better then. But along through those days, sell my dad. There were a group of council members who first came together and made some of the most significant changes to the Denver City Council at the time it was settled. Carpio, Sam Sandoz. Bill Roberts. Calvin Caldwell. Hiawatha Davis. Kathy Reynolds. Debbie Cathy Donohue. Excuse me. So as I think about these folks and some of the changes that they made to the council, that was when the council first moved from seven members to 13. Now, the other thing that happened of each of them had a commitment to making sure that they trained and developed another cadre of leaders behind them. So with Sal Carpio came Debbie Ortega, Sam Santos came Tim Santos, Bill Roberts came Happy Haines with Alvin Caldwell came Hiawatha Davis. And so many of us were trained by the leadership of this first cadre of people of color coming to the city council and working on behalf of their communities in ways that hadn't happened before. Now, back then, they did call them the Amigos, and that's because they did become such close friends in making sure that the people in their communities, people of color, were taken care of. I was blessed because of that. When my father died, it was Sal Carpio and Bill Roberts and Alvin Caldwell and Debbie and Ramona martinez, who brought me along and mentored me, and Sal Carpio, who helped me through public housing when I was actually working with HUD on a national basis and came back and got to work in Denver in developing some of the projects that Sal Carpio championed, both when he was on the city council and then the work that he did when he was the executive director of the Denver Housing Authority. Boy, I see that my time is up already. I certainly talked too much. I think it is only fitting in just five more seconds, Councilman, that this Saturday we are going to be having a picnic in the park at what will now be called Carpio Sanguinary Park. It will happen from 10:00 to 1:00. And I think Papa and Cell are in heaven right now celebrating because ironically, we will be dedicating the Sam Sanders Mel Sam Sanders Park at the same time so they can watch us celebrate our parks together. I hope everybody who has a chance can go and celebrate at the park. The new naming. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Santos. All right, John Zappia on the. John Zappia.
Speaker 1: Excuse me.
Speaker 5: My name is John Martinez up in.
Speaker 1: I live in Globeville. Mr. President, members of council, you're going to hear a lot about the sanguin that family and sell Cardinal's family. And I want to. Kind of expose you to some.
Speaker 4: Of the other sides of this. I have.
Speaker 1: The.
Speaker 5: Here before you. And I'm going to ask.
Speaker 1: You for an affirmative vote in the naming of that car bill, saying when that park. I'm pleased to be a part of this.
Speaker 4: And I'm.
Speaker 1: I have a mixture of of of pride and.
Speaker 4: Humility.
Speaker 5: In this whole effort. All the efforts that's gone into this. It's been a very.
Speaker 1: Very learning experience for me. I'm proud to have been associated with the people involved in this, with both families. And the whole process has been very humbling to me.
Speaker 4: And believe me, that takes some doing. The effort. It's not just another name in. The combined effort that went into this.
Speaker 5: It's an entry into the.
Speaker 1: Pages of history in the Globeville neighborhood. And it's a homage. The both the family names Carpio and Sang Minetti. And not just them.
Speaker 4: But also. The ancestors involved.
Speaker 1: Here, their ancestors and the ancestors of all the people.
Speaker 5: That they worked with and they lived with. And believe me. It has been humbling, but also an.
Speaker 1: Encouraging. Your vote tonight will be the first step in the redevelopment of that park area. We're involved presently. What the Heron Pond project and we will pursue the improvement.
Speaker 5: Ten, 15 years from now. It's going to be a beautiful, beautiful place. Hopefully sooner than that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mrs. Upjohn. Debbie Gomez.
Speaker 12: Thank you, city council.
Speaker 8: My name is Debbie Gomez. I live at 4905 Clinton Street in the Sunset neighborhood. I'm here this evening representing the Sanguinary family, although I am not directly related to him. My first cousin is a descendant of the Sam Kennedy family.
Speaker 3: In fact, he's named after.
Speaker 8: One of the very first people that moved into that area in 1860. His name is Louis Sanguinetti. And so I urge you to please move this forward and change the name of this park to Sanguinetti. I'm sorry, Carpio Sanguinetti Park. And on behalf of the family, because they've been there so long and the park actually is a part of the original farm. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Gomez. Patricia Baca.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Council. My name is Patricia Barker, and I reside at three, three, one Cook Street. I'm in Councilman News District, and I'm here to speak this evening on behalf of people of Denver who've lived here all their lives and who've lived in many parts. In fact, most parts of the city. When my parents. Lived here. We were renters. We rented in Globeville, we rented in Curtis Park. We rented in what is now the agrarian campus we rented in various parts of the city. The last one was in Westwood. My experience with this city has been that access to resources and specifically speaking about recreational resources in parks is not available to all members of our city. I believe that our city's residents all deserve access to a park. And beyond that, the symbolism connected with the naming of this park. Capo sound good? Natty speaks to me very deeply because of the importance of both of those families to this area historically. And I would expect that Councilman Flynn will refer to this in the future. The saying what any family being here in the 1800s and also historically. Sal Carpio being one of the first individuals that represented our Latino community on this city council, I had the opportunity to work with him as I was a part of Denver Public Schools when we put together the North Lincoln Project. And we did that because he cared. And we did that because it took hard work. And we did it because he loved Denver. I think this represents Denver loving him back. So I urge you to vote for this, this evening, and I appreciate your taking a look at it. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Baca. All right. I'm going to call the next five. The next two people. Actually, the next I don't see is Don Morris here. And you have to go. Okay. Last but not least, Chairman Seiko. 3 minutes this time.
Speaker 5: Yes. My name is.
Speaker 4: Tim as a crew organizer for the Black Star Action Movement. It takes a giant. To introduce the giant. And when we talk about the transition going from. One generation to another in terms of city council and leadership in the city. We can definitely say that. So Carpio was a giant when I was growing up here in the Five Points. And he was no stranger. To black people. And we had a barbershop called Bishop's Barbershop. And Sal used to be up in there with Mr. Pierre from Supper Club and. There would be a dis engagement in terms of political conversation with the jukebox playing in the front with some Ray Charles rolling around having all day. And as as a kid, I would just sit there and be a part of that because my father cut hair there for 35 years. And so I grew up sweeping the floors and whatnot in the barbershop, in the pool hall and just hanging out, you know, and running errands for Elvin Caldwell, folks. So. So was outstanding human being for real. And he had a wonderful sense of humor. And he had this way with youngsters where he would bring us in and he would say, Look. You're going to have to do this. You go ahead to do that and you're going to have to do the other because this is what we do, period. That's just it. And you keep it real simple. And then you could always count on Sal coming through it to make sure that he was doing what he said you were supposed to be doing. And there was awards for that. You know, and also there was a gentle nudge in terms of keeping your pushin, you know. And so. Debbie, thank you for doing this because you picked up the ball and you've carried that legacy forward. And for folks who don't know, Debbie is revered in the black community as the godmother of city council. You want something done, you go see Debbie. Debbie going to get it done it what I'm saying. And she's going to do it unapologetically and then she's going to do it gently. And I'm kind of learning that to now, you know, how to be a gentle person and got there yet. But I am working on it. But. You did it. You did it. And you've been doing it for a long time. Sal did it. He did it for a long time. And we've got 7 seconds left so that I'm going to do it and I'm going to get out of here on time. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Chairman. Say coup for getting out of here on top. No judgment. Thank you, sir. Good words, everyone. Everyone was very eloquent. Thank you. We now have questions for members of council. Any questions for members of council? All right. This concludes the hearing on Council Bill 984. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega, you've made some comments, but I want to.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I'd like to add just a few more that were not in the presentation. There were a couple of people that were planning to be here tonight that could not. One was Sandra Roberts, who heard her late deceased husband. Councilman Bill Roberts and cell were bowling buddies. They used to go fishing together and. You know, as as you heard Chairman Sekou say, the fact that there was this coalition of them that would work together to try to get policy changed in the city. The other one was Kathy Reynolds. And I just want to read a note that she shared with me, and I hope she won't mind me doing this. But her note says, Do you remember Teddy and my son Bob work together? Teddy was Sal son. They work together at Carbone. One night, someone stole batteries from the patrons cars in the parking lot. He sent Bob her son, out with a wad of cash to buy replacement batteries. A 16 year old redhead kid. And in a 13 year old VW bug buying up all the batteries he could find in North Denver. Cell made it work. He always stepped up to the plate and tried to do the right thing. His civic accomplishments are awesome. The legacy he left in goodwill is even more extraordinary. And she says, We'll miss you and celebrate, you old friend. So that's from Kathy Reynolds. So I had an incredible sense of humor. His granddaughter, Marissa, and my oldest granddaughter, Gaby, went to school together and they played sports together. And every time I would see him, especially when when you were first born, Marissa, he would say, My granddaughter can beat up your granddaughter. Little did we know they'd be playing basketball and other sports together. Sal was an incredible advocate for affordable housing and for homeownership, and he was the catalyst that got Del Norte Neighborhood Development started . And I worked with him in his office and he urged me to serve on that board, and I still serve on that board to this day. His efforts transformed and changed many of our neighborhoods. You heard me talk about the Urban Development Action Grant along the Sphere Boulevard corridor. Had that project not happened. Who knows how long it would have taken to get rid of the junkyards along Speer Boulevard? I learned so much from SEL about what it means to be a servant leader, and he truly epitomized what what that means. He was an incredible leader that just went above and beyond to work with community, to help organize them, to help them learn how to do for themselves. And this started out as a project trying to name the park after Sal Carpio. But when I came to the neighborhood, John was one of the people that stepped up and said, Wait a minute, what about the legacy of people from this community? And again, at that time, I didn't know about sales history of having grown up in the neighborhood. And then John urged that we include the name Sanguinary. And so the next few meetings we had, we invited Mary and her family to come and join us. And, you know, the the family the Carpio family was like, well, should we, you know, look at another park. And, you know, it made sense for this all to come together because this is what we do. This is who Sal was, right? Always bringing people together and trying to find a positive solution. And so we did the research on the saying when any family included that in the application. And I think Debbie and her husband Louis for being here. And Mary, you and your daughter for your efforts in helping us to, you know, pass the word out to the entire community. So, again, I just want to thank you all for your efforts in bringing this forward and just urge my colleagues to vote in support of this park naming. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Wayne, New York.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for bringing this forward and for having Heinz for supporting the name of this park. And it's always so much fun for me to to hear about the history of Denver, and especially important tonight here about two important families to Denver and what contributions the families have made to Denver. And I love hearing it from the families, especially when it doesn't come from Councilman Flynn. So. So we. But I just do. I want to thank you so much for your families, for the contribution you have made for dinner and dinner and for a sound car for you and his his leadership of the city council on and seeing. We have these pictures on the wall back there and you see the old I want to say the old the most important the leaders of our city. Oh, city councilman listed there and pictured. And it's always fun to see those leaders and the importance they made to our city. So I just really want to thank you and all the families for their contribution. And I look forward to supporting this tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. And Councilman new, um, councilman Paul Lopez.
Speaker 5: I don't know what they put in their coffee that they made in a good mood. The first person I want to thank is Councilman Ortega. Councilman Ortega has been steadfast in making sure that Sal has been honored in this city. Hmm. You began doing this a long time ago. And, you know, there were a lot of different things that we could have. We could have honored Sally with. But Councilman Carpio with Butt Park is amazing. Park is a place of peace. A place of unity. I. And it's a place of beauty. And that's the legacy that I believe Councilman Carpio left. I only got to know him when I was coming on board on council. And he. I was leaving. Council but I mean us going going to have. And he wrote me. This letter. And I all I know is that here's this dude with. I mean, he's older guy, but with his hair fully in there and still black and still had grassa like stabbed the grease. Right. And I thought to myself, I like this guy. I want to be him when I'm old. Right. And he once I met him once or twice, he shook my hand, you know. And then I got this letter, this random letter, and, you know, who writes letters to us anymore, like actually ran or written. We get a lot of emails and we get too many. But we don't get letters anymore like we used to. And I have this handwritten letter that he he gave me, and I saved it. And he's still around. I mean, this is 2011. He still around. But for some reason, I saved this letter and it was handwritten and hangs on my wall, hangs on my wall and counts like a big old corkboard. And it hangs there. I'm a reader because I think it's just it's just his words. Again, he's alive. Right. And and he says, Councilman Paul Lopez, I want to send you this note to thank you for your consideration and effort to have my name placed upon the Human Services Building in East Denver. That was one of the things that we were working on in the past year. What there's this humbles his humble part comes out and he says, I will understand the dynamics and pitfalls of such an effort. And although it was not successful this time, your sincere effort and consideration on our behalf is indeed an honor beyond words . And he says, thank you very much. I wish you continued success in your pursuit and improving. Knows we must improve the quality of life for the working people. The poor and the elderly. Thanks. Sincerely, Sal Carpio. And that's who I know he fought for. And that's who we still fight for. Because the city isn't successful and unless those folks are successful. No last minute. Only communication I really had with him was those words. And when you talk about this legacy that's passed on, it's compassion. It's not complex. It's to not leave each other behind. Right. And if I might get you more in detail, Councilman Santos. Is that you really don't become a council person until you take the oath? They took it together. And so I like to say that all their I may be elected one right after the other. They took them together. And you can't be what you cannot see. And when you fight so hard in our community. We've struggled, especially in the Chicano community. We've struggled to get our name, people, I mean, things named after our people. And unlike some times, it's easier. I hate to say this, but. There's a difference when you're trying to name something under a Chicano. You met with a lot of resistance. You have to struggle for it. You got to go through extra red tape. And we're always struggling to name things after our people. Not our struggle, but the resistance that we that we have. And I'm glad to see that there is no resistance. There you are. We are about to name this part of. Carpio Sanguinetti after great people that reflect who we are as a city. And so when, you know, we feel we get a lot of folks saying, you're changing the history of city, you're changing our city, our sisters, the cities disappearing. And they come here desperate at every rezoning, saying, Please save our city. What are you doing? Don't do that. They freak out, right? Because this is the history that we're trying to preserve. Right. These kind of things, these kind of people, these kind of efforts. And as Denver grows, it can not forget its history. And so these are the builders of the city, literally the builders of the city. And I just think it is long overdue. And I just wish one thing. I wish. Councilman sound out, Councilman Santos, too, because we did this a couple of years ago. I wish Councilman Carpio was here to hear this. I think we have an antiquated law colleagues. I think it's so antiquated that they can't be here to say to hear the thank you. We need a change in seven years. Some people make their legacy right off the bat. We don't got to wait seven years to tell somebody thank you in person. So if I might say this. Think about the names in our parks and I'll read this through. And this is just an effort in a community. Johnny Martinez. Some sandals, just a passport. Are buildings. Public spaces. Gonzalez. Castro. Flores. Chavez. Sanchez. Cisneros. Pena Sandoval. And now Carpio. So with that, I want to say thank you all. This is a good day, a good night for our community and a great night for our city. You, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 4: Thanks for President. I really wasn't going to get into any history, but challenged by councilman knew. I'm going to have to now. I want to make note. It's really appropriate to to single out this piece of ground, not only for Sal, but also for the Sanguinary family, because the history down valley downriver is a history of agriculture and the history of production from the land. And to see this piece of land enter into an official city park with the joint names of Sanguinary Family and Sal Carpio is very, very fitting and it's very historical. It's not just to memorialize a a city councilman, but to memorialize part of the culture and fabric of what built this state. And in the beginning, that was agriculture. It later and possibly because of the sanguinary family and their campaign to clean up the river. The in this is my historical note for this remark during the New Deal, during the Depression in the mid thirties. The North Side treatment plant was built there precisely to clean up the river and after that plant opened, people all the way down through Greeley and Weld County. The mortality rates dropped from such things as enteritis and other diseases, from drinking dirty water. And and now to see the remnant of that plant become part of the fabric of the park really, really ties this land and its legacy in a very visual, practical, physical way. I think it's really fitting that, Tim, that you're here. And I meant to ask during questioning. I didn't ring in in time. But I don't know if you are the only son of a councilman. Son of a councilman to or daughter of a councilman or for that matter, ever to be elected to council. But I think I think you are. And when when I started here in 1981, your dad and Sal were on on the council. And I think it's fitting to recognize Salma for not only for a lot of his physical accomplishments that we can view on council and at DIA, at the housing authority, but also because of the cultural shift that the coalition that your dad and Sal and others built on the council really led to some fundamental changes in how this council, which is basically a weak council, relates to the administration. And we can thank we can thank them for what is now the mind numbing task of having to read all contracts, over half a million dollars, because that was a reform that came in because of the Group of Seven that eventually was formed. I had I had the opportunity to visit last week over at the home of Cathy Donahue. And we were talking some stories about Sal and your dad and and Bill Roberts and and all the other folks, Cathy Reynolds, who eventually formed the coalition that managed to get those charter reforms in place so that the council could be a little more a little bit more of a watchdog over the administration. And those are the accomplishments I remember. I won't remember such things as as Sal and not so much your dad, but mostly Bill Roberts making me very late on deadline, my metro deadline, while I was sitting over the press tables saying, come on, come on, come on, you know, let's cut it, Mr. President, please cut them off. Not me.
Speaker 0: You're cut off. Thank you.
Speaker 4: But. But you're right. They raised a generation of other leaders. Sal, I met I met Councilwoman Ortega in the early eighties when she was the aid for for Sal and I met Ramona martinez who followed your father in on in the West Denver seat. And I think your dad paid his aide out of his own pocket at first because there were no council aides in the seventies when Sam and Sal were elected together as the first Latino members of city council and. Just the reforms that they that they managed to push through really affect the way we operate today. And I think that's the legacy that I will think of when I vote I tonight on this bill. And congratulations on your dad also. I think that to have Sergeant Carpio, Sanguinetti Park and Mile Sam Santos Park dedicated in the same year is really a fitting tribute to those those two people going through this council. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Councilman Flynn, I'm glad you chimed in to tell us the history that you did, because I got to have my mind blown a little bit that I now understand what it is that you're looking for. And it's a historical designation has absolutely no trace of anything other than a sewage plant. Now, all kidding aside, thank you, Councilman Lopez, for sharing the note. I know I've gotten something similar from different people, but I wish I had gotten that note. And I might ask you to, if you will please copy it and share it with me, because there's some wisdom, there's a lot of wisdom there that is born from obviously his time doing serving in those multiple roles on council and take that on. I'd be lucky if I ever sort of figure out who you can see. I struggle with that level of understanding of what it is that we're doing here. But anyway, the only reason I'm sitting at this dais in one of those seats that he occupied is is a direct result of that R.A. legislation that he moved forward. You know, I was just a resident in a neighborhood that had a problem with the way things that the city was doing. And me and other neighbors formed an R.A. as a way to fight in that. And we had a representative, Debbie Ortega, at the time where we knew that we had a fighting chance if we could make the case to her. And so that represented sort of the everything that was depicted here, which is the ability for the neighbors to have that power of that organization, have standing in the city and have a representative that comes from a place where people matter, people, individual constituents matter more than the special interests that are that are really driving this train . And, you know, so we won. We lost some, too. But we fought. And we we always felt like we had a skin in the game. And and that success in through different registered neighborhood organizations sort of put me as an individual on on people's map. Anyway back to how I even really I my relationship with the Carpio family. Sorry, did I say Sanders again? Sorry. My relationship with your family is. Is different than this council connection. But when you run in North Denver, there are a lot of old families there that have been multigenerational, involved in politics and in various sorts. And you do not run without hearing both those names actually, and becoming very familiar. And so we've been able to sort of connect the dots early. When I got here, when Councilwoman Ortega was talking about moving forward, this legislation, which is fraught with some of the concerns and difficulties and challenges that Councilman Lopez mentioned, you know, I was sympathetic and had a better understanding of how how everything sort of plays itself out. And I am so. But I just want to say that that, you know, you know that what's gone on in the last 40 years isn't the entire story of Globeville and that land is the part of the entire story of Globeville. And to have made that connection to the same genetic family was to me. The thing that that that I love most about this is to sort of for the future in perpetuity for us to have that acknowledgment that we had. We had this. This is this vast plains. That was then. Wrangled by people cultivated and turned into something that was bountiful. Man did its thing, sort of led it to decay. Different forces came in and we said, No, we're going to create change. And it all sort of just it's just the narrative of Denver from that 150 year history to the more recent sort of the history that we're talking about to what is now being discussed as the future, the next hundred years. To be able to point to to create this moment to to to honor both those families. At this point I'm sorry, Councilwoman Brooks, but now, unfortunately, I'm going to be able to go. You're doing this in the shadow of the Sanguinary Carpio Park. And that's going to mean something, because that's going to talk about the agricultural legacy, that's going to talk about the community activism and voice. And so I just I'm just blessed. I'm rambling and I get to ramble and I'm sorry. But I just wanted you guys to know that I am very, very happy to be in this position to vote yes on this particular naming application. And I'm so looking forward to it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I. It's such an exciting night. And I think the coolest thing about this is twofold for me. One, this is one of my favorite parks in all of Denver. And as a guy who spent 17 years working on parks, not saying a lot because I spent a lot more time in a lot of parks than most people. I can remember the first day that I stumbled upon this park working on the South Platte River and just, you know, you can't be in this space and not feel like it is it is just such a special place and such a space that the community has owned in a way that many parks don't have that ownership. And so this is the perfect thing to do. The naming process is one of the most community driven things that we do. I want to give, you know, a shout out and thanks to Councilwoman Ortega and Councilman Brooks, but really a shout out to all of you who who did the work and put in the time to bring this forward, to get the signatures, to do the work and to put these two families name on this park just really cements it as that much more of a special place. And so I want to say thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And congratulations. I'm very happy to support this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to chime in and add my congratulations to both the San Juan, Eddie and Carpio families. I was not pals with South Korea. I spoke with him once or twice early in my career as a news guy around the Neighborhood Notification Ordinance. I just remember him as being nice and direct and gave me the info that I needed. You know, I love that this is not South Carpio Park and it's not Sanguinary Park. I love that it's Carpio Sanguinary, as was said before. You know, not only does it reflect on the neighborhood and its history, but the fact that the capos didn't dig in their heels and say, Oh, no, it's got to be Carpio Park and Sanguine Ateez were were happy to join in this celebration. And the other thing I wanted to say to them, probably many, many people in this city who have never been to what will soon be named the Carpio sanguinary part. I truly think this may be the most unique park I've ever been to in Denver. I mean, with the remnants of the treatment facility there, it is a landscape unlike any other green space that I visited in our city. So if I were part of the families, I'd be real pleased with this choice. You know, this is this is not just a blank green lawn with a few trees and benches. This landscape is just evocative of our past. You walk along and you look at the walls and plazas and it's your mind just starts going, Well, we could do this here. Why don't we do that? I mean, it's a great space. So, again, congratulations and I will look forward to supporting this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Kathryn, Councilman are taking you back up.
Speaker 6: Yes. I just wanted to mention two very brief things. The first is that this park is not dedicated and it's not yet because it's part of the 100 acre master plan with Heron Pond and the Heller property. And also because as National Western is looking at doing, there are two roads that. Will connect to the river and eventually go straight over to Washington Street. There's a chance that. Part of the parking lot on the south end of this park may be. You know, it may be absorbed as part of the roadway as it comes to the other side of the river. And then the last thing I want to mention is that this information from this process tonight and maybe even a record of tonight's meeting can now be added to the archives that are at the Denver Public Library on Sal Carpio, which will also recognize the contributions of the Singularity family. And I think that will be awesome to have this information added to all the other information on the many projects and contributions that Councilman Sal Carpio made. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Seeing no other comments, this being the district I represent, I just want to say a couple comments. Number one, councilwoman are take a valiant effort. You've been talking about this for a while. We've been meeting about this for a while. So thank you so much for getting this going. And the community did a great job and getting all the signatures to the single nati family. And congratulations. This is a way to to to really honor the history. I mean, fifth generation, fifth generation here in the Globeville neighborhood. It's just incredible. And the only thing I regret about the Sal Carpio is that he couldn't be here to see it. I mean, I've read about the legend of Sal Carpio, but the first time I met him was at a redistricting meeting. You remember this? We're at tradition. Redistricting. We are so excited to meet him. And he put his finger in my chest and said.
Speaker 4: You better support.
Speaker 2: Lopez, this map.
Speaker 0: And so we didn't get started off on the right foot. But he's.
Speaker 2: So.
Speaker 0: He's so passionate about his community. And it was this this map that we ended up supporting was taken a part of District nine, which he represented. And I always respected the fact that he didn't even know me, but still checked me very clearly. So. And in Councilwoman, as we look back on, you know, the Human Services building, you remember this? Oh, yes. And we and we talked to I wish that we could have done something with the Human Services Building that remains unnamed today right there on Bruce Randolph for for Mr. Carpio. This has been beautiful to hear from you all as a community. And I am excited. Though we're about to change the name to sing. When Erica Carpio sang. When Madam Secretary Rocco.
Speaker 3: ORTEGA Hi, Black. Clark Hi. Espinosa Hi.
Speaker 2: Flynn Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore I heard. Cashman.
Speaker 8: Carnage.
Speaker 3: Lopez. I knew. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting, announce the results. Lebanese 11 eyes. The park name passes. It is now Carpio saying. Excellent.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance renaming Northside Park located at 1400 53rd Avenue as “Carpio-Sanguinette Park”
Renames Northside Park as the Carpio-Sanguinette Park located at 1400 53rd Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-12-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09252017_17-1060
|
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being here. And thank you to the delegation. You know, a good deputy mayor, by the way. He dresses you. You look sharp, sir. Nice three piece. Okay, we are going on to our second proclamation. Proclamation 1060. Councilwoman, can you please read this? And before you read this.
Speaker 6: David Bravo.
Speaker 1: Can you please come up here? Thank you, sir. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. I am proud to read on behalf of the entire Council Proclamation 17 Dash 1060 celebrating and thanking David Broadwell for 18 years of outstanding legal service to the city and county of Denver upon his retirement. Whereas David Broadwell has been a loyal public servant in the state of Colorado for more than 35 years, including making history as the then youngest city attorney in the state when he was appointed in Glenwood Springs at the age of 28. Brief service in the city of Arvada and seven years of service at the Colorado Municipal League. But whereas, he also always remained a proud Tarheel after being raised in Fayetteville, North Carolina, and cutting his teeth as a first time municipal attorney in Kabul, North Carolina, where his distinguished legacy began with a wheelchair ramp and an ordinance for the preservation of trees. Whereas David is most known for his workhorse approach to the job of assistant city attorney over his 18 year career with the city and county of Denver. Taking pride in his work, but sitting quietly in the back of most rooms while appointees or elected officials took center stage. Yet he stepped up and shined when called upon taking the mic. When asked by council members defending the city as a trial attorney and once taking the reins as acting city attorney. And. Whereas, David is beloved for his 14 years of service as our City Council liaison, which, when multiplied by the 30 council members he served, counts as closer to 420 years of actual service, which he handled with grace and unparalleled integrity. Serving as a loyal adviser and legislative drafter for each individual council member. Even when we disagreed and he had to represent us at the same time, while at the same time maintaining the highest standards of adherence to the city, charter and law , and always with an eye to the protection of the city and the city council as an institution. And. Whereas, David is a scholar and one of the foremost masters of the fundamentals of Colorado municipal law, including his passionate and effective defense of home rule powers and the nuances of navigating innovative public finance under TABOR. And. Whereas, Denver has also benefited from his penchant for creativity and innovation, as evidenced by a legacy of drafting ordinances of first impression and many that have become models nationally, including the first and several subsequent regulatory schemes to govern legal marijuana. A razor sharp local approach to the construction defect issue. A one of a kind, duly funded, dedicated housing fund, the pending tourism improvement district. And a bill to disentangle Denver from immigration enforcement. And. Whereas, David is an excellent writer and oral communicator who has also mastered a complex form of non-verbal communication through exquisite facial expressions that would preclude his success in a game of poker, but which often serve to save us from ourselves by alerting attentive council members when we've gone off the deep end or when it's time to stop talking and let him chime in. And whereas, David is an incredible athlete who often combined his multimodal tension with his love of the city as he drove, biked or ran through various parts of the city while contemplating the implications of the policy debate of the day on different neighborhoods. And. Whereas, David is a good man, a great friend, and a mentor whose encyclopedic knowledge, brilliance, memory and analytical skills, patience and kindness have helped council to understand the city, its laws and our rules. And. Whereas, David is also a dedicated and loved father and husband who often sacrificed time with his family to meet the high demands of public service, but did so in a way that never left his wife, Carol, of 26 years in doubt, in her words, that he was always most committed to them. And whereas, we are forever indebted to indebted to David for his personal and professional talents and contributions, and are only comforted in our sadness over his departure by the knowledge that once he crosses the Rubicon to retirement, he deeply deserves the break to travel, run, pedal, enjoy craft beers and to have total control over the future sharing of his talents. Should he, as we suspect, not remain fully retired now, therefore be proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver. That Section one the Council hereby recognizes and thanks David Broadwell for his 18 years of service to the city and his 14 years of service specifically to the City Council and wishes him a wonderful retirement. Section two that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest in a the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation and that a copy be delivered to David Broadwell.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilwoman Kenneth, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 12: I move that proclamation 1060 be adopted.
Speaker 8: Second.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded comments by members of the Council. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 12: Thank you, Mr. President. The proclamation said most of it. But I will just add these two things that as an attorney, one of the first David had worked with in many years. I have an especial appreciation for what I've learned from you, David. It was both in the realm of the law, but also as I came to understand and respect your advice and counsel just about this institution and about policy as well. And each and every one of the big policy milestones I've had in this Council were made possible only through my partnership with you, along with the rest of my colleagues on this body. And so I will forever think of you and remember that and appreciate all of the efforts and all of that I take with me in the rest of my career that came from my work with you. So thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Canete. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just publicly thank you, Mr. Broadwell. David has been absolutely critical for our council. I came in brand new, not even understanding a I mean, my understanding was probably a centimeter deep, a mile wide of the city. And I couldn't have asked for anybody better as a guy than David Broadwell, somebody who would always remind us that our Constitution is supreme. And mostly everything that I've ever worked on has really embodied that. And I always would know what I wanted to do in my heart, and it was very hard to actually do it. It was very hard to articulate and it was very hard to turn into any kind of legal arguments. But David did that. Mr. Broadwell does that. He knows what's inside. He knows your intent. And he says, Let me think about that. I'll get back to you. Right. And within a week you have an ordinance that is kind of it reflects exactly what you wanted to see. Right. And for me, that's happened so many times. And I could tell you what I've since. Whether it was over there on that chair or in this one. I've always seen David Broadwell wanting to clarify something or doing this number right here.
Speaker 4: Or.
Speaker 8: Or looking over going and doing that. But I could just I could just say this, David. You may not realize just how many fingerprints you have throughout our city. I mean, I can speak for the councilman in District three in West Denver that so many of your fingerprints are all throughout our district. There are throughout this city. And for that, we are absolutely grateful. For some of us, we've this has been our home since. I mean, our only home. And to see it improve and to see it become a just city and become a city that just respects everybody, but also respects everybody's due process and and respects their rights under that under this Constitution, I, I couldn't ask for anything better. And for that, I wanted to thank you, David. I've been thinking about this since you've made your your your announcement. And now what do I say to this man? There's just so much gratitude and was just there's been a few moments that I've looked over at you, David, sitting right there where I'm just my heart is just full of love and things. And one of those happened very recently when we had a room full of grateful people whose rights are being questioned, whose existence is is questions, this question, whose humanity is, is questioned. And to see them cry tears of joy. And to see them breathe like a breath of liberty. A small victory in such a large struggle. I looked over at David Bravo and David, I'm going to look over at you again and tell you thank you. There are those moments that sometimes you feel you're born to do and born to be at. And that was one of those moments. And you made that moment possible. So for all the headaches that we have caused you, David, I feel so guilty because I think I've been a part of a lot of his decision to retire . Sometimes I feel really guilty and I've done that without offering you a drink. So I'm glad the renegade brew is being brought up. This should make it up.
Speaker 3: And so David was there.
Speaker 1: I think that's legal for everybody who's.
Speaker 3: Not open yet.
Speaker 1: As long it is not open. Okay. Um, our friends from France have had it. Okay. Hey, you guys. Thank you. I thought it was the beer and not the wine. Yeah. Okay. Councilman Flynn, you're up.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. David, I don't have any beer for you, unfortunately, but I do have a message to. To thank you. One of the. One of the things I looked forward to a lot when I ran for this office and was seated was to work with you. And I'm glad that I got to work with you for only two short years. I wish it could have been longer because of the high regard that I always held you in when when I was on the other side and knew of your work. I want to thank you for your for the debates and the challenges that and the poking back and forth we would do on Saturday and Sunday and emails as. As I tried to get a comfort level with with a lot of what we were trying to do. And and I just I just want to say that as a defender of the city and county of Denver and its home rule status in this state, I don't think anybody could have done a finer job than you did. And we will miss you for that. I know that other folks will step up and do as equally fine a job. But I wanted to make a special note of your defense of our home rule status on so many occasions against a lot of assaults and challenges from outside. That really means a lot to the people of the city and county. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Brooks. David, I don't even know where to start.
Speaker 12: When we first came in about two and a half years ago.
Speaker 6: The seven of us, you know, I.
Speaker 12: Think we all had our idea about what public service was going to look like.
Speaker 6: And your honesty and always being available and even your quiet presence really helped to mold and shape and guide.
Speaker 12: Us as an entire city council body. And not that we're not going to represent our constituents, but you have the experience and the the where for all to really be able to communicate with others. Maybe not verbally. But when you looked at us a certain way, it was.
Speaker 6: Sort of like that light bulb of, well, wait, where am I going with this? What direction are we headed in?
Speaker 12: And I appreciate that. And we've had the opportunity to work together. Sometimes I wanted to have to work with you. Sometimes I didn't. But through that entire process, you have always been available and your advice is top notch. And I'm going to sincerely miss you. And even the conversations I didn't want to have, you pushed me to a different level and a different place of what I needed to do. And I appreciate that. And so I hope you have a wonderful time on your retirement, but a very, very sincere. Thank you, sir.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. David, it's such been such a pleasure to work with you, especially when I was president in the first year of my first term and really didn't know what I was doing. And you were so helpful. I had to get used to the facial expressions. And I do want to play poker with you some time because I got them down now. And I but I do appreciate everything you taught me. It's been a wonderful experience. Six years of having your help and support has meant an awful lot to me. So I hope to see you around here again. I know you'll be back, so thanks very much. And congratulations for all that you did for us.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Herndon, I.
Speaker 4: Think it was president. And David, I echo my colleague's comments. There's really nothing that I could say that will adequately articulate the impact that you have meant to me personally. My two years as council president, we spend a lot of time communicating. And I will just like to say, you are a rare combination of brilliance and humility because you are all about lifting up the law, the council, and you don't need to lift up yourself. And that is something that is sorely needed in politics today and very rare. And so I think it's important to say thank you for the man that you are, the friend that you are, and Godspeed and well done. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman. Hurting Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. One, one. Advantage I have in David's retirement is I'm honored to have David as a constituent of South Denver Council District six, the heart the heart of South Denver. And I'm just my main emotions. I am thoroughly bummed that you're retiring from me sitting with David Broadwell. Very honestly, it's like sitting with the best professor I've ever known. It really was, for me, a true education. And, you know, I can be very stubborn and I never once ever thought that I was right and he was wrong. You know, the the just the presentation, the manner it comes across, how, how thoroughly wed to his, his legal principles. Uh, Attorney Broadwell has been. So I'll just me to thank you for what you've done in my short two years here. And the two things that I do remember specifically were in the first day of council camp that we had, uh, when seven of us came on board. I remember the first words are this. This is what I remember out of David's mouth were, No, you cannot fix anyone's parking tickets. That was the first thing he advised council. And then there were several times in the middle of whether it was a committee meeting or on the dais, we'd be launching off into our council Olympic wisdom. And David would just literally get up waving his hands. No, you need to stop that right now, because we'd be wandering into areas of legal jeopardy. And thank you for keeping me out of jail. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Everyone wants to know what is council camp? Okay, let's do Councilman Clark.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. David, I just.
Speaker 4: Wanted to add my. Thank you. I feel so lucky to have had two years.
Speaker 2: And my first two years with.
Speaker 4: A guide.
Speaker 8: Someone who I could always talk to and.
Speaker 2: Always come bug you in your office about random little things or big things. Or I'm thinking about this.
Speaker 4: And just have so much respect for you. I'm sad for me.
Speaker 8: That I only got two years but feel very lucky to have gotten.
Speaker 9: Those two years. I think the world of you.
Speaker 4: Absolutely made my night last week when I walked into Platte Park Brewing and saw you sitting there. And I you know, I think.
Speaker 3: That the truest sign of the respect that everyone here has for.
Speaker 8: You is.
Speaker 3: There are very few.
Speaker 8: Things, if anything, that can.
Speaker 4: Get the freight train.
Speaker 8: That is.
Speaker 4: A City Council person on a mission on their path to stop almost nothing.
Speaker 2: Some council councilmembers, more than others, once they get.
Speaker 4: Going, can't be stopped. And all it ever took from you was this. And I've.
Speaker 2: Seen people who who haven't stopped for much of anything, freeze in their.
Speaker 3: Tracks and say, oh, would you like to weigh in?
Speaker 4: And I think that that is the ultimate sign of how much respect all of us have for you and your knowledge and your expertize and your fairness. And you're just an incredible asset. And thank you for all of your service.
Speaker 2: And I hope to run into you again at Platte Park Brewing soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. A lot of breweries in District nine. You're welcome to sir. Okay, Councilman. New, you are up.
Speaker 9: Like all of us. David, I appreciate so much your advice and your your guidance over the last two years and two and a half years and especially. It was always interesting to me when I saw one of those emails from you come out on the weekend or whatever, it automatically said, I better read this closely. Get us out of trouble so many times and God give us guys is almost like a professor helping us learn the legal issues that we were facing each day. So he'll be sorely missed. And we hope you won't leave us, the city council. You'll be back here sometimes to visit and help us in the future. And and I just want to say that you've just done a wonderful job. You're so articulate and so sound in your judgment. And we couldn't have had a better guidance from you. Thank you. And good luck on your retirement.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Council Black.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say thank you. And my comments are reflected in the paragraph that starts. David is a good man, although I did include the incredible athlete in that, but it was moved to a different paragraph. Isaiah around the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Espinosa. Hi, David. I have a different completely different take than everybody else. I got one of the facial expressions to when I first met you. I think it was when we were talking in our first private meeting in your office. That's when I, I think I think I noticed the planning degree on your wall. And to find out, I mean, that sort of helped explain how it is that you could pair every bit of knowledge that you had and had such a grasp of of land use issues as well. And I was, you know, it's such a treat. I was really looking forward. And then it was very shortly, I think, after the headaches that I started bringing from District one, that it was very.
Speaker 3: Clear the writing was on the wall. You were.
Speaker 1: You were you were leaving. But back then I was sort of plotting. I wanted I was like, I want to figure out how to convince this guy to come work for me after after he's gone. And then I talked to Kristen Brunson and she said, no, the charter prevents attorney from working for an for council member without special permission. And she didn't know. But I was I was having a tantrum that said I don't know what the rules are, but you could hear them. And if anybody can figure it out, you're the guy that can figure it out. You know, you drop your license, you don't become an attorney anymore. And you can sort of just be a community advocate and after activist in District one welcomes your full skill set, but not in a legal capacity. So that option is out there. District one really needs that firepower. And so and that is testament to your incredible skills that you brought from that you demonstrated in your your anecdote about North Carolina had no idea about that, but you brought it here. And I think everybody that spoke prior illustrated that. So just thank you for all those years of service there and here and looking forward to sort of working with you in whatever capacity that it is. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I won't say anything. Good. Okay. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 13: David, you really are going to be missed. I had the benefit and pleasure of working with you on my first round of serving on the council. And first, I want to say thank you for your 35 years to public service and your 14 years with the city of Denver. You know, when people can choose to go work for the private sector and make lots of money and they choose to devote their life to public service, that tells you a lot about the individual. And David, you have always approach the way you deal with all of us with as I think Councilman Herndon said it, with humility . But your your demeanor and how you, you know, worked with us was was. You were you were very humble, even though we thought we knew the answers to a lot of different problems. And you would help be very thoughtful but yet firm about what we could and couldn't do, even though we we thought we had the answers . But your knowledge of the city's code is is is unparalleled. I mean, it's almost like you've got that book in front of you and you could cite sections of the code and help, you know, point us to something that would make it clear, yes, we could or could not do certain things we were trying to do. So I just want to say God bless you and your family and your retirement. I hope you won't go too far. And, you know, thank you again for all your.
Speaker 6: Years of service.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. That everybody. David, you had. 13. I'm about to speak favorably. 13 council members speak favorably towards you and. You know, they think the world of you. And on this council, that is a big victory. So you go. Well, I just want to say thank you for always just being a good friend. You you embody everything that I never could do. I'll never be a marathon runner. I could never stay in this office till midnight. Memorizing the entire code. Every. You will never lose a debate. I'll lose many. But the best deal in that whole piece that was written about you is this is just such a good man. And that's why this is so hard to let you go. It's because you're a good man. So we at the city, we wanted to name some things after David. Some people talked about this room. Some people talked about downstairs, 391, the committee room. And just, you know, we decided, you know, all those things are very controversial. So we decided to name his own brew after him. And it's brought worlds brew and it's one of his his famous terms. Make yourself useful. Make yourself useful. And and I can't take any credit for this guy, Stuart over there. Who knows, all things gave me some of these words, but we we name this after we gave him a case of IPAs, some of his favorite beers and, and said, you know what? This is from all of us here on city council. We love you, enjoy this. And I think he liked it a lot more than he would like, come in here and having his name on a building. And so we love yeah, we thank you for your sacrifice. And I know some of us pushed you out. No, I'm just joking. Actually, I'm telling the truth. But only one. But. But we you you are such you're such an incredible servant. And we hope that we could have the the mind, the heart in the will that you have for public service. It is unmatched. So with that, Madam Secretary Brokaw.
Speaker 7: Can each.
Speaker 6: I because I knew.
Speaker 7: Ortega I. Sassaman I.
Speaker 6: Black I.
Speaker 7: Clark, I. Espinosa, I.
Speaker 3: Flynn hi.
Speaker 7: Gilmore I. Herndon, I.
Speaker 2: Cashman we.
Speaker 7: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. This was running as a result. 3939 Proclamation 1060 has been adopted. Now, Councilman Kennedy, is there anybody you'd like to.
Speaker 12: I would like to invite David Broadwell, Esquire, to the microphone, please.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thanks. Who said I was articulate? I was listening carefully to the proclamation to see if it was going to honor me for how many other proclamations I've sat through. 1999. And often when I'm listening to proclamations, I think about all the folks who are here for the other business of the council. So I'm going to be respectful of that tonight. But I do want to say a few things. You've got to you got to say a few things. And I want to as well. Gratitude. Absolutely. Is is the watchword in terms of aware where I am at this point in my life. Without naming a whole lot of names, I do want to mention some of my most important working relationships that I've appreciated and enjoyed all through the years. First, all of your aides and all of council staff, you know, all the good work your aides do. And I didn't enjoy anything more than helping them deal with some wacky constituent question or whatever and being able to immediately get back and serve the people that you all serve. So kudos to the aides, the central staff. I learned so much from John Boehner when I came here originally and all the all the all the folks who worked on the central staff through the years. It's been a wonderful working relationship with them during that time, too. Now, down on the third floor, I want to honor Skye Stewart and all of her predecessors. People don't realize the phenomenal work the mayor's legislative staff does to try to get us all moving in the same direction. We can't always do that, but there's an amazing amount of blood, sweat and tears that goes into that job with Skye and her staff and all the wonderful people who've been in that position through the years as well. I want to honor all my friends in the city attorney's office. Somebody made the point about being a mile wide than an inch deep. Councilman Lopez I'm a generalist, which means I'm kind of like a relic of the 20th century or so. So I depend upon the expertize of all the other wonderful attorneys in my office. When you guys would give me a particularly difficult question, you may not have always realized it, but I was leaning on them a lot to help out to to help out and get your answers for you. Finally, at the risk of insulting anybody else, I want to recognize one particular department of the city, your CPD staff, who are the ones who usually sit here from the Community Planning and Development Department on the whole legal and interface with the zoning code. And tonight, the landmark code. Those guys do an incredible job. There's been a huge trend toward professionalism, expertize and credibility in the staff that stands before you every Monday night. So I want to salute them as as Raphael or as Councilman Espinosa noted, my other love is planning land use and so forth. So I really respect the work those guys do. And finally, the group that I want to recognize is journalist. I love journalist because I might have been one of those too. But people like John Murray, how he cranks out all the content he does, I don't know. The new folks at Denver Writer do an incredible job. The journalists are one of the pillars of democracy. We need them now more than ever. You did a proclamation a few weeks ago to honor the work that journalists do. That was a great working relationship for me all through the years, was helping them to get their stories straight and helping their editorial writers to get their stories, their their opinions straight. A wonderful opportunity to work directly with those folks through the years. Now I'm going to come to you all. Okay. In terms of the honor that has been working for you. I, I, my work here in the chambers on Monday night is not nearly as interactive as it was in my small town days where I would interact a lot with the council. A lot of times I don't have a thing to do on a monday night, so what am I doing when I'm sitting over there? What do you all think I'm doing when I'm sitting there looking at you, giving these facial expressions that you all accuse me of giving? Actually, usually I'm playing a game in my head where I'm thinking, What would I say if I were one of you? And I engage in my own head? The debate, particularly the great policy debates you all have sometimes with when you all are at your best. I love it when you're having a civil discussion over one of the big issues of the day. But I'm over there thinking in my own head what I would say. All good city attorneys subordinate, subordinate their own ego and don't get a vote and don't really get the talk and make points. But I love it when one of you says what I would want to say if I were one of you and how many of you have. It's cathartic. Many of you have had that experience. I will come up to you after a meeting and say thank you for saying that, because at bingo, that's precisely what I would have said at that moment. So it really is cathartic because I've had to repress my own desire to debate all through the years, and maybe I can be a little bit more free. But in closing, I'll never be one of you because I don't have the guts. It takes incredible guts to run for public office and it takes. Councilman Cashman made a point about this last week, guts to sit here as you're going to have to do again tonight and cast decisive votes where you're going to make somebody unhappy, you can't make everybody happy. And when people come newly to the council, that sinks in pretty quick. It's a really hard job. I argue for it. I will just say to all the cynics out there, they don't know what they're talking about. This is really hard work done by people with great integrity. And that's been a pleasure my whole life as working for good councils, for good elected officials whose heart and minds is in the right place. Now you differ on your opinions, but. But in terms of the good of the people and serving your constituents, you do a phenomenal job. Keep at it and I will not be a stranger. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: David one more thing before you leave.
Speaker 8: David Yeah.
Speaker 1: I just. I just wanted to see you sit here for just a second and accept that. APPLAUSE Well done. We miss you. We love you. Thank you so much. All right. We. We do have another proclamation. Yes. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 1061?
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation celebrating and thanking David Broadwell for eighteen years of outstanding legal service to the City and County of Denver upon his retirement.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09252017_17-0984
|
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for considering that. I appreciate that. Now we'll do a quick recap on a resolution that nothing has been called out under bills for introduction. Councilman Ortega has called out Council Bill 984 regarding the renaming of Northside Park as Carpio saying Gwinnett Park for a request under bills for final consideration. North has been called out on a pending. Nothing has been called out, Madam Secretary. Make sure I got that right for everybody. Great. Madam Secretary, please put up 984. Go ahead, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 13: Mr. President, I would like to request a one hour courtesy public hearing on final consideration. So that would be next week, Monday, October the second, on this park naming.
Speaker 1: Okay. Great. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, on Monday, October 2nd, if there are no objections by members of council, there will be a one hour courtesy public hearing. Oh 984 regarding the renaming of Northside Park as the Carpio Sanguinary Park. Okay, this concludes our items to be called out. All other bills for introductions are now order publish. We're now ready for the block votes on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item on a separate vote. Councilman Flynn, will you please put the resolution for adoption and the bills on final consideration and final passage on the floor?
Speaker 2: Yes, Mr. President. Thank you. I move that resolutions be adopted and the bill on final consideration be placed upon final consideration and do pass in a block for the following items. All series of 2017. 958 959 967 996. 1002 1003 nine 9997 1000 982. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Let's just make sure you did your.
Speaker 2: Eye.
Speaker 1: Checked. Okay. Did you hold on? Let me double check. It looks good. Okay. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Black Clerk Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. I Gillmor. I heard in question. Hi. I Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Hi. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Please. I was voting. And now the results.
Speaker 7: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted on the bill and the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be required public hearing on Council Bill 903 designating the Peck Peck Packard's Hill Historic District.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance renaming Northside Park located at 1400 53rd Avenue as “Carpio-Sanguinette Park”
Renames Northside Park as the Carpio-Sanguinette Park located at 1400 53rd Avenue in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 9-12-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09182017_17-0939
|
Speaker 1: 11 I. One abstention. 973 passes. Okay, please bring up 939. Great Councilwoman. 99 is up. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 2: This is just for comment. Yup. So, first of all, I want to thank Krystal de Herrera, deputy city attorney, for getting over an updated letter. It's actually a memo that was written by Mayor Hancock and addressed to the National Western Center Authority. Chairperson So this will go to the board when they are seated. But what it does is spell out the mayor's expectations of the board. And initially, when this was shared with the members of the Community Advisory Committee, it had the verbiage the authority should, and it was changed to will in several of these bullet points. And so I just wanted to thank her for this change that has been made. I'm talking about you as you walk in the door. And I think this is really important because it's it's not leaving it up to chance. It's it's pretty definitive that these things will be done. And that's an expectation from the mayor of the advisory board. The last thing I mean, advisory board, but the authority board members, I so when we had this discussion last week and we had the public hearing on this, we didn't know that the executive director of the National Western Center, Kelly Lead, was going to be stepping down and moving on to other things. So I just want to reiterate my appreciation to you, Kelly, for the work you've done moving not only this project, but all the projects that you've started with the DCC. So, you know, you've got big shoes to fill. And Gretchen, you've been there every step of the way as well. So you'll be stepping into Kelly's role and the fact that you've been there means that you won't miss a beat. And so I wish you well and looking forward to the next meeting on the 28th and just appreciate all of the efforts. So thank you, Kelly, and Godspeed with you in your next chapter of your life.
Speaker 1: That. Thank you, Councilwoman. Or your client for his. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, I think I think those words are just right in. And I want to say a couple words as well. That one, this isn't the end of the conversation, I think for the community piece that there's ongoing conversations. I've offered up my time as president to continue letting the mayor hear the feedback from the community. Specify criteria of the chosen selections on this board. So I still stand by that and look forward to meeting with the community on that. And thank you, Councilwoman, for for being there and walking with us through this whole issue. And then, Kelly is it's been a fun ride. Many of us came in with Kelly Councilwoman to take in each council, Councilwoman Sussman and also oh yeah, earned it. We all came in 2011 when you were the development services director, then on to NBCC and now you know, the National Western Center and on to what you're gonna be doing privately. And so thank you for your service. Thank you for always improving systems, for being factual, for being consistent, for being transparent. I think you've done a great job. And so we we, you know, excited for the next step. We bitterly say bye, but thank you for all your hard work. And Gretchen, you're going to do a great job. Excited for you to take over the reins here. So with with no further questions, no one call the software vote. So we're going to we're going to fold this into the package. This concludes all of the items that need to be called out. All other bills for introductions are not or to publish. We're now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills in front of consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call on on our supper vote count someone Khamenei can each where you please put a resolution for adoption on and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor.
Speaker 2: I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in a block for the following items. 348 986 987 988 989 979 nine 8983 985 344 1038 938 972 nine 3931 937 960. All series of 2017.
Speaker 1: Great. You've got them all. It's been moved and seconded. My secretary, Raquel Flynn.
Speaker 3: I Gillmor I Cashman Kinney I Lopez High New Ortega Sussman, I Black Clerk. Espinosa Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I police was very nice. Results. 1212 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed on final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 841 changes on the classification for 385395405 and 415 South Cherokee and Baker.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a Framework Agreement and its exhibits among the City and County of Denver, Colorado State University, The Western Stock Show Association, and the National Western Center Authority; and exempting the public buildings on the National Western Center campus from the naming requirements of Section 2-275, D.R.M.C.
Approves a framework agreement with Colorado State University, the Western Stock Show Association, and the National Western Center Authority for fifty years, with two possible 25 year extensions, to authorize formation of an authority to operate the new facilities and govern the roles and responsibilities of each party for the redevelopment of the existing National Western Complex into a year-round venue to preserve the National Western Stock Show in Denver for the next 100 years, provide room for new programming, provide connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods, and bring more visitors to Denver. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-2-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09182017_17-0841
|
Speaker 1: Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech and direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Council woman can each just in the nick of time, will you please put council bill 841 on the floor.
Speaker 2: Yes. Council President I move that council 841 council bill 841 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 8 to 41 is open. May we have the staff report? Scott Robinson, how are you?
Speaker 7: Thank you. Scott Robinson with community planning and Development. So this is a request to rezone a3853954 or five and 415 South Cherokee Street from ib02 to C Annex 16. As you might notice in the staff report, the City Committee Planning Department is the applicant in this case. If you're familiar with this property, it is in Council District seven in the Baker neighborhood at the Alameda Light Rail Station. It's a portion of the Dennison development near the Alameda and Broadway intersection. This property was recently completed and we recently realized that a portion of the property was still zoned IPU Hotel, which is an industrial zoning instead of the C 16 that the rest of the property was developed as. As far as we can tell, the when RTD sold the property to the developer, they included a sliver of what used to be the rail right of way. And so that carried the industrial zoning. And it wasn't caught until earlier this year after the violent permit had been approved and the building had been completed in the city and occupancy had been issued. And so we realized the issue. The Iby zoning does not allow the residential uses that are currently on the site. So in an effort to clean up the zoning and get it all under the same zone district and his own district, it allows the existing uses. Brad Buchanan, the executive director of Community Planning and Development, decided to sponsor the application. So this is sponsored by the city. The property that's being re zoned is a little less than half of an acre. As I mentioned, it's the west portion of the existing Denison development. Going from the industrial idea you go to to see an X 16 the you go to is the billboard you overlay see an x 16 is urban center neighborhood context mixed use with a 16 storey maximum height request is along with the rezoning to remove the euro to overlay. There is a view plane in the area from Washington Park that limits the height to 160 feet. That'll come up again later. There is also an existing general development plan and urban design standards and guidelines for the area under the Denver Design District. This is in some areas too of the GDP, which calls for high intensity development around these station. Current use is mixed use site is mostly residential. There's one small retail portion of the denizen development. Surrounding it is the rail right of way to the west industrial uses to the north and the Broadway marketplace shopping center to the east. As you can see in the pictures in the middle one, there is basically the area that's being reserved, the sliver between the west side of the development adjacent to the station and the railroad tracks. The top is the property to the north and the bottom is the property immediately to the east. This went to the planning board in July with a unanimous recommendation of approval and then the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee in August. There's been no public comment at any of the public hearings or received in written form. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. First criterion is consistency with adopted plans, and there are four plans that apply to the area. First is comprehensive plan 2000 as described in the staff report. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning complies with these five strategies from camp planning 2000 mostly have to do with development, your transit and mixed use development and redevelopment. Blueprint Denver from 2000 to designates this area as right of way, which isn't actually further defined in the plan. The plan does say that the boundaries are fluid and not always specific because this was a citywide plan. And so if we look at what this really should be, it's most likely to be the adjacent designation, which is transit oriented development, which calls for compact mid to high density development and a balance mixed abuses, which is what these next 16 zoning would allow. This is also designated as an area of change. Both Cherokee and Alaska are on designated local streets, intended to provide connections to bigger streets both Alameda and Broadway or mixed use arterials, which call for a variety of travel options and more intense development. The bigger neighborhood plan from 2003 designated this as part of the transit oriented development sub area calls for a mix of uses, walkable neighborhood and a gateway development around the station area, and also calls for maximum building heights of 4 to 12 stories. And that was updated in a later plan, the Alameda Station Area Plan of 29, which calls for a plaza around the station area which has been constructed and. Office or the office uses at the station, which would be allowed under the sea. 16 Zoning. And this plan calls for building heights of 5 to 14 stories, which is slightly less than the 16 stories that would be allowed under the sea and 16 zoning. But as I mentioned earlier, there's the View plan, which limits development to a maximum height of about 160 feet, which will limit it to about 14 stories . So with the new plan, you can't develop the full 16 stories that would otherwise be allowed under the zoning. So if that staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the C annexed 16 zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and welfare of city. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and by allowing for the continued use of the existing development under appropriate zoning. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the changed conditions of the property. The property has been redeveloped and the proposed rezoning would update the zoning to match the existing development. And the final criterion is consistency with the neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent of the urban center. Neighborhood context is intended for higher intensity mixed use areas around like transit stations and the scenic 16 zone district is appropriate around transit station. So staff finds that the fifth criterion is met with that. Staff recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Scott. Appreciate it. We have two speakers this evening and representing CPD, Evelyn Baker and Chairman Sekou. Ms.. Baker, you're up first. And if you're just available for questions, you can let us know that, too.
Speaker 2: That's basically what I'm here for this evening. Good evening. Members of the city council. My name is Evan Baker. I'm the deputy director of Community Planning and development here on behalf of the applicant. In this instance, Brad Buchanan, who is the executive director of Community Planning and Development. I'm here basically to answer any questions that you may have. It is slightly unusual for this agency to be the applicant in in a rezoning request such as this one. But as Scott has described in his staff report and his presentation to you this evening, really this is an administrative sort of cleanup that we're doing after the fact to get the zoning in line with the the development that is occurred on site. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer. Otherwise I will watch the proceedings.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you, Miss Baker. Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 4: Good evening.
Speaker 0: My name is Chairman Sekou and the founder.
Speaker 1: Organizer.
Speaker 7: For the Black.
Speaker 0: Star Action Movement. Whose constituency are poor, working, poor.
Speaker 7: Homeless people and senior citizens.
Speaker 0: For the city and county of Denver. I would be remiss if not to mention very briefly. Our absolute.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 7: For participating.
Speaker 0: In the.
Speaker 7: Dias Square Center thing and to.
Speaker 0: Thank the staff members of Way News and your staff and deputy staff and Robin your staff for putting up with old man.
Speaker 1: I'm not a out of my German sexual.
Speaker 7: Urgency so we're going to get right.
Speaker 1: Here. Yeah we've got to get get right to.
Speaker 7: It and.
Speaker 1: Keep watch on the clock because I want.
Speaker 7: To be.
Speaker 1: With the process. We can see it. We support.
Speaker 7: This.
Speaker 0: Ordinance zoning change for a couple of reasons. One, jobs. Poor, poor, working, poor, homeless people.
Speaker 4: And we are.
Speaker 7: Hopefully.
Speaker 1: Enthusiastic.
Speaker 0: About this project being that it presents an opportunity.
Speaker 4: For us to uplift.
Speaker 1: The bottom of the.
Speaker 7: Socioeconomic.
Speaker 0: Barrier.
Speaker 7: And to get folks into a position where they.
Speaker 0: Can be self-sustaining and productive.
Speaker 7: Members of City.
Speaker 0: County and Denver.
Speaker 7: Our war is against poverty. It has nothing to do with race or class. It's about poverty. And we feel that each and every member of humanity should have a gainfully employed so that they can take care of their families and have a.
Speaker 1: Lifestyle worth living.
Speaker 0: That's number one. Number two. Is. I agree.
Speaker 7: With the C CPD.
Speaker 0: Report that we need to do something about the zone and it seems like it is coming up piecemeal where the projects coming up, we change them.
Speaker 7: But if we take a thorough examination.
Speaker 4: Of what exists, we can.
Speaker 0: Stop all of.
Speaker 7: This and actually be proactive.
Speaker 0: In changing the zoning.
Speaker 7: And being done with it.
Speaker 0: So folks don't have to.
Speaker 7: Spend all this time, money and resources waiting for this thing to happen when it should.
Speaker 0: Already be done. And we're talking about plans. It's been in effect for.
Speaker 7: What, 2005.
Speaker 0: 2017, 12 years?
Speaker 4: I know we can do better than this.
Speaker 7: And we have that responsibility for the consistency to make this.
Speaker 1: Process flow so.
Speaker 0: That.
Speaker 7: We are a government truly of the people, by the people and for the people.
Speaker 0: And it's not about.
Speaker 5: Us.
Speaker 7: Particular in terms of our positions and whatnot. Here are districts and whatnot. It's about really us doing the due diligence and be.
Speaker 0: Proactive and helping move.
Speaker 7: This process of government along so that the citizens feel as if.
Speaker 4: They matter.
Speaker 0: And. Oh, that's it. Time out.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. This concludes our speakers questions for members of council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 5: Couple of questions. Who is the developer that this city is doing this on behalf of?
Speaker 7: The developer's name is D for development.
Speaker 5: For the property owner. And why wasn't this done? I mean, why wasn't this picked up on the verification, the physical verification that goes on at the site.
Speaker 7: That I'm not sure about? I know the development services side of the department has taken a look at it and tried to improve their processes so that this won't happen again. So but I don't have the details of that with me tonight.
Speaker 5: Okay. Can somebody elaborate on what changes have been made? Because when we. Create when we have other problems in other departments, we actually it does very good result in some either disciplinary action or corrective training or whatnot. What have we done to actually mitigate this level of the De Silva error in the future?
Speaker 2: I would be happy to follow up with further discussion in terms of what process improvements we put in place to safeguard against these kinds of oversights in the future. I don't have that information for you this evening, and I'm but as I said, I'm happy to provide a follow up following this this matter.
Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. Because it's related. It might be part of the response there, so I'll be prepared to hear it. It's sort of a word there. Drawings incorrectly showing this is is is part of their within their bound I mean part of their zone lot and property. You know, so maybe that would be part of your response later on. I can take that later as well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would be happy to follow up on the specifics of how this oversight happened for this particular this particular development review matter. Certainly after after this hearing.
Speaker 5: In the reason why I'm even asking these questions and look forward to that response is because we do get complaints about building placement, you know, I mean, discrepancies between what we sort of know, what we can sort of document and then what gets built. Sure. Clearly not to this degree of of of error, but still it ends up being an error. And then our inspectors, I found, are sort of ill equipped right now to address these things in real time, at a time when they could be addressed and have resulted in civil litigation in District one. In my time in office. So I would love to see what you guys have come up with as far as resolution.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. I'd be happy to follow up with you directly on that matter.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Evelyn, if you wouldn't mind coming back for just a second. So I know the site is right next to the railroad tracks and the development already exists. But I just want to take advantage of the opportunity to ask, as we have been seeing applications come forward that are adjacent to railroads. Are we seeing cooperation with the new checkoff box on the form that they have to fill out that's come through? Right. That's a great question. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. I've been working with we do. In fact, we have, in fact, modified the application for any site development plan that's under review to ask the applicant to indicate whether or not it's you know, there's some proximity to the railroad. And I've been working with Jack from your office to identify the referral, the correct individuals within the specific rail lines to refer those projects to. So I don't know that we've had any of those checkboxes checked since we changed that application, but Jack and I have been coordinating and trying to find the right the right individuals within each each rail line to refer those projects to. And why that's important is because when the applications come to us. They basically have not been approached about their proximity to railroads. It's not typically part of the reason process is more normally the design review and development review process. And so we don't see whether that compliance or that cooperation with that new check off boxes is happening. And I know in this case that doesn't apply. But as we have others, I continue to raise this issue just to make sure that we are, in fact, addressing health, life and safety issues as part of these developments. And you've done a great job of reinforcing the importance of checking on that. So it is front of mind for the development review staff. They are aware that it is something that they need to incorporate as part of their referral process, and that was part of the training that you all did with them as well, correct. You know, in terms of training, what we've done instead of having a focused training on this is we have provided resources as the matter comes up. There are resources that are available for the appropriate staff members to refer to and to provide to the applicant as well. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. All right. Seeing no other questions. Public hearing for Council Bill 841 is now closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to thank CBD for finding this, for bringing this word to clean this up. Obviously, this is a building that was built. It's already people have been living in it for over a year, I believe. In fact, on Thursday evenings, you can now catch an all electric e took took to five destinations on Broadway from this plaza that was built. And so this one obviously slipped through the cracks. But thank you for bringing it forward. I'm going to go ahead and support this, and I would urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Seeing no other comments. I'm going to go ahead and vote on this thing has been moved in. Second, about Secretary Raquel Clark.
Speaker 3: All right, Espinosa Flynn hi. Gilmore I Cashman can eat. Lopez I knew Ortega. Ortega. Sussman Hi Black. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close to voting and announce the results. 1212 I's Council A41 has passed. All right. On Monday. This is just a pre German announcement because we're we're done. On Monday, September 25th, 2017. Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 903 designated the Packard Park Hills Historic District, located generally between Lowell Boulevard on the
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 385, 395, 405 & 415 South Cherokee Street in Baker.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 385, 395, 405, and 415 South Cherokee Street from I-B UO-2 to C-MX-16 in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 8-8-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09112017_17-1011
|
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Thank you for coming through. All right. We have one less proclamation. Typically, we only do have a limit of three. But we thought this is important and timely. So, Councilwoman Black, please read the proclamation.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. This one is very short and to the point. Proclamation number 17 dash 1011. Recognizing the importance of DOCA and Dreamers to Denver, Colorado and the United States. WHEREAS Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DOCA has allowed more than 17,000 young Coloradans who have lived in the United States since their childhood to live, go to school and work legally in the country. And. Whereas, nearly 800,000 young people across the nation are better able to contribute to their families and communities because of the protections instituted through DOCA. And. Whereas, ending DOCA will cost Colorado more than 856.9 million in annual GDP losses and will remove an estimated 685,000 workers from the United States workforce, resulting in a loss of 460.3 billion from the national GDP over the next decade. And. Whereas, our Senators, Michael Bennet and Cory Gardner have agreed to be co-sponsors of the bipartisan DREAM Act that would provide certainty for law abiding Dreamers. And. WHEREAS, 78% of American voters support giving Dreamers a legitimate pathway to citizenship and permanent, permanent residence in the country. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council of the City and County of Denver, Section one, that the Denver City Council calls on Congress to use the next six months to craft a bill that reflects the desires of the majority of American people by providing a permanent, positive solution to the status of Dreamers. Individuals who are brought to this country as children have grown up in America and are contributing members to our society. Section two that the Clerk of the city and County of Denver shall attest and affix the seal of the city and county of Denver to this proclamation.
Speaker 1: Your motion to adopt.
Speaker 10: I move the proclamation. 1011 be adopted.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in. Second comments.
Speaker 10: Councilwoman Black This proclamation is probably the easiest one I've ever done and probably got the most enthusiastic support from this council. There's no doubt in my mind or anyone up here that these young people, these dreamers who go to school, work, pay taxes to serve in our military and contribute to our country, should absolutely get legal status . I'm happy to emphatically proclaim that to our national leaders, including our senators, Congress and executive. Now is the time for our national government to do the right thing and pass substantive legislation providing a realistic path to citizenship for our Dreamers.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Kathryn.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Black, for bringing this forward. I was honored earlier last winter to help Councilwoman Gilmore craft a resolution in support of our immigrant refugee community, which was supported unanimously by this council. And now, once again, the need has come forth for this council to state its disagreement with the policies coming from Washington in this area of of guidance and state our support for those in our city that generally are unable to speak loudly enough for themselves. I agree wholeheartedly that we need legislation, this executive policy, Dacca needs to be firmly entrenched in legislation and we need to craft a path to citizenship for those in our country who are not so documented. But I really don't think that there was a need to threaten the security of thousands and thousands of our young people in order to encourage Congress to act in a more permanent direction. So thank you again for bringing this forward. And I'd like to just take a quick second. And I have a group of students here from South High School. Esmeralda, Beltran, Chavez and several of her student allies. If you all would stand up and be recognized. Thank you for coming, troops. And as we will be having an opportunity to speak to you in just a minute, and I will guarantee you it takes this out of a as he story takes this out of a matter of policy to a simple matter of human rights. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman, and welcome. South High. This is your this is your house. You're always welcome here. Don't be bothered by the man in the back, John Zogby, on. He's just encouraging you on. All right, Councilman Espinosa, firstly, I just wanted to add my name to the proclamation and then just quite simply say another message to to to my state representative, who I spoke about last week, Cory Gardner and Michael Bennett. This is low hanging fruit. If you guys cannot come together and get this thing right in six months, you have no business being in office. I'm sorry. So I just want to implore Congress to do the right thing and and address this measure. Because if you're putting yourselves over the thousands of lives that are being affected by this, then you're not representing the people of this country. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to thank you, Councilman Black, for for presenting this proclamation here in front of us. I know this is a unanimous vote, and it's because it's a no brainer. And it doesn't just happen on the federal level, happens on the state level. It did and it will happen on the local level. We have every single one of us, whether we're elected or not, has the the duty to stand for another person, to stand up for the rights of another person, and especially our young people who are criminalized. I stand unequivocally with our dreamers in this city and throughout our country. You know, I think it's a an immoral and unconscionable decision that was made by President Trump, by folks who could not pass the DREAM Act. But 20 years ago, the folks who could not continue to pass it, as are Dreamers, are now adults. And just a little bit of data on on those. According to that, there was a poll that was done well, not just a poll, but there was a source with DHS, the Department of Homeland Security's numbers, the University of California survey, political survey, and also that was reported in USA Today that the average age of and here's a little bit of characteristics of who these dreamers are, right? 787,580, to be exact. And in Denver, we have our share. In this day. We have our share. Average age is about 25 years old. Right. 97 are employed or in school. 97%. 91% have a job. 45% of those dreamers are in high school or college. Less than point less than 0.5% were in violation of their agreement of their of their status and or were deported. So a lot of folks that are out there that try to scare you and say that they say otherwise, it's just absolutely not true. And 78% of Americans believe that doc recipients should stay in this country, should have that path forward, and not to be a second class citizen. Let me just make this clear. It's one thing to be to have status. It's another when you have status without a pathway to citizenship. And so as we ask for that and as we as we tell our representatives how we act, when we act, each and every single one of us, we cannot just say, okay, we want a bill that allows folks to stay. We want a bill that allows folks to be citizens to have a pathway to citizenship without having to go to the military and dodge bullets in order to do it. Right. We have to have that path to citizenship. So as we look at at this DREAM Act, as we look at this new legislation, should it come, it's not for a second class status. It is for citizenship. Right. So with that, I just I just wanted to thank you, Councilwoman, for bringing this proclamation forward and L.A.. Thank you. Thank you for being here. And thank you for having the backs of our students student center in our country, no matter what language they speak and no matter where they're from.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. For the least. The last 25 years. It has been the failure of Congress to address immigration. That has led us to the point where we are. People who were brought here as children who know no other country. Need to have a path. To citizenship, to stay here, to live the only life they've known to be the contributing members of U.S. society, that many of them already are, but without status. President Trump. If he's proven anything, he's proven to be predictably unpredictable. And by ending by announcing the end of this program, but giving it six months. And asking Congress to finally tackle their responsibility that they've avoided for a quarter century, I think has been he's sort of been very cagey about it. I think that he is forcing Congress's hand. And I think what we've seen since the announcement is, Mr. President, we've seen a bipartisan effort, Senator Gardner and Senator Bennet here in Colorado. In fact, we've seen a bipartisan effort and a commitment to ironing this out in favor of. The Docker program individuals. So I think that we I think we might see things we aren't right now expecting. Six months from now by forcing Congress's hand. And I think it's about time that that someone did that. And I think the president took it on as his own responsibility to do that. So with that, I won't be supporting this proclamation tonight and looking forward to sitting here six months from now and seeing a favorable resolution. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief. When President Trump started talking about his approach to immigration, his focus was on criminals. So why now is he targeting our children? President Trump, leave our children alone. Thank you.
Speaker 12: All.
Speaker 1: Hey, man. Thank you. Aw, come on. Guzman-Lopez.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I.
Speaker 9: Forgot to say one thing. You know. All kidding. With our. With our sports aside. There's someone here I want to take my hats off to. And you could take your hat off if you want to at this one. And that's President Franco, right? CSU, you know, CSU came out ahead of everybody and said, you leave our kids alone. They said, they will. They will step up to the plate. Metrowest stood up to the plate. I see you standing up to the plate. You said it is incumbent upon our institutions to stand up to the plate, to stand up for these children. And I just wanted to thank you, sir, for your leadership on that issue and for CSU coming out so strong on doing that. So hats off. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Did he just tell Councilman Clark he could take his hat off? No, not everybody else. I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Please. Real call quickly.
Speaker 5: Black Eye.
Speaker 7: Clark. Hi, Espinosa.
Speaker 5: I flynn. All right.
Speaker 7: Herndon, I. All right. Cashman. Hi. Lopez. Ortega. Sussman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I police close voting, announce the results.
Speaker 7: One is missing.
Speaker 1: No. Oh, yeah, we are missing.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, as me. But my screen says.
Speaker 1: I'm marked as absent.
Speaker 7: Okay, you got it.
Speaker 1: We got you. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Ten Eyes. Proclamation 1011 has been adopted. Councilwoman Black, Councilman Castro, and anyone you guys want to bring up.
Speaker 10: Yeah, we would like to ask two young dreamers up to the podium. The first is Esmeralda, Tierra Chavez, who Councilman Cashman already introduced. Please come up and come to the podium. She's a student in House South High School. And I'd also like to invite Hazel Munoz. Come on up. Hazel's is a family friend. I have known him for more than a decade. I have seen him grown, grow from a young teen to a very accomplished man. I have seen him balance risks and rewards as he has worked very, very hard. He's excelled at school against a lot of odds and in sports. Today he has an MBA from CSU Pueblo and works as a financial analyst. He's also a very kind and generous person and a good friend, and he contributes to our society in many positive ways. So I would like both of you to say a few words, please. As a.
Speaker 1: Ladies first. Ladies first.
Speaker 2: I would warmly like to thank Mr. Cashman for inviting me here today on behalf of myself high school. And if it is okay with Mr. President, I would like to say a speech I wrote myself, and I am sorry if it takes a bit, but I want to make sure that I get my message across as the members of the city council.
Speaker 4: Go ahead.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm sorry. This is the first time I've done something like this, so I'm kind of nervous. But I shouldn't be, because I should be proud of. Who I am today? I guess so. Hello, everyone. My name is Gerard Chavez, but you can call me A-Z. I am here today on behalf of South High School to speak of a worldwide issue that has culminated our nation. The date September 5th, 2017 will forever be remembered as the day the President of the United States said no to our dreamers, no to our dreams, no to our aspirations, and no to our hope. As a recipient. I am here today to make my voice be heard. I know most of you sitting in the crowd are here to listen to a story. A story of how I crossed the border, how I overcame my struggles. But you want to know something? My story is no different compared to any other story. You will hear from any of the 800,000 Dreamers we have present here today. All of us came with a purpose to reach the American dream. But let me ask you something. What is the American dream? For all of us, it is different. For some, it might be economic prosperity. For others, it might be the ability to gain the materialistic objects we have always wanted. Like a new car, a new house and whatnot. Globally. We have all been engraved in our minds that the American dream is opportunity for prosperity and success. But what good does this definition serve us if we sit on the wings of the people who cross borders, who cross seas across mountains, to come to a country where they are offered these opportunities? So does this mean that the American dream will only pertain to those born in the United States? Well, let me tell you something. We are a country of immigrants. We are all immigrants. We all immigrated to different countries, different continents. Why? To search for a better life, a better education. And most of all, to search for our dreams. Crossing the border for me was not only crossing the border between Mexico and the United States, it was also crossing the mental border inside of me as undocumented immigrants. All of us knew the consequences of coming to a country where one single piece of paper was the difference between you and me. Reassured ourselves that we would hide in the shadows, that we would hide under the words of the people that judge us day and night. It took me a long time to find my voice. But by the help of a friend of mine, Ethan McNamee, whom we rest in peace, I find the voice inside of me. I found my courage. And more or less, I found my pride. I am proud to be an immigrant, and I am proud to be the person I am today. I built my own wings. I built my own path. And by the hope and support of my family. I built my own dream. Martin Luther King Jr once said, I have a dream that one day my four little children will one day live in a nation will they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I cannot change the color of my skin. I cannot change the way my story was written. But, uh, sorry, but, uh. Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Oh, I lost my path. But I belong to two cultures and I belong to two countries. And look, he made it clear that our culture does not define us, but that our actions and our words are the ones that speak louder than any bullet we let loose. As a captain of both the varsity soccer and cross-country teams. One of the things that we constantly talk about is resiliency. And it means showing toughness, toughness in life's most difficult moments. All my life, I've been a constant battle with the obstacles that life has thrown at me. I have struggled with my insecurities, with my decisions, and with my own self-doubt. It is easy to give up and quit when it gets too tough and when it seems like nothing will get better. But I chose to do the unexpected. I chose to rise up and fight the social inequalities. I chose to fight against the racial segregation we see constantly in the news, the radio and the television. I choose when to find my own battles and my victories are the ones that define me. I have accomplished so much and no one will take my achievements away from me. I have been named defensive MVP for my varsity soccer team two years now. I have been named the team MVP for two consecutive years for my varsity cross country team. I have been in the Student Athlete of the Week five times in my high school. I have been in the Mile High School Player of the Year. I have created my own leadership projects to help out our community and so much more. All those things. All those things don't come easy. They come with sacrifice. And now, coming into my senior year, I will be one of the two members of my family, including my cousin Yasmin, who lives in Mexico to graduate from high school and go to college. I will be on the run for a full ride scholarship to play soccer at Njcaa D1 College. And I am one. And I know that one day I will be a physical therapist and no one and nothing will stop me from accomplishing my dreams. When I heard about the news on the television and I heard that Dhaka was at risk of being repealed, I was sad. I was overwhelmed. And more or less I was scared. I felt like once again, my future was in jeopardy. And no words can describe that feeling of desperation, anger and frustration of once again being one step behind. I cried, and I felt like that was my only way of letting out the anger. And after talking to one of my teachers, Mr. Marini, who has been a vital part of my success, I came home and I thought to myself, What will crying do? What will every year bring me? Every tear served as a reassurance that hopefully something good will come out of this. But I was tired. Tired of depending on people to make decisions for me. Tired of people that. Tired of people determining my future. And it was at that moment when I told myself. No more will I sit in the shadows. Hiding from society. Hiding because of fear. And no more will I hide the hide behind the words of the people that constantly bring us down. I am here to fight and I'm here to stay because no one because no more will let my voice be unheard. And no more will I let this one. And no more will I stand the stereotypes that feel like bullets hitting my chest. I will stand up, use my voice, which is the most powerful weapon any person can have. And I will fight for the people that, just like me, have dreams. On Friday at my school held the Dakar rally and I had the pleasure of telling my story to my peers. At that very moment, I felt appreciated. I felt loved. And I felt pride. Pride because I had the courage to tell others a part of me that I didn't feel worthy of saying. And as I looked around and saw people's faces, one thing I noticed was a different people present people with different backgrounds, with different stories for different cultures. And here we were, all standing together, transpiring, love, support and hope. The US is enriched with many different cultures and as a nation we should appreciate when no other country has. And that is opportunity of learning is speaking to people all over the world, all in one place. We are a living kaleidoscope. My sister, who was born in the United States, came home that day and was confused, confused, confused because she didn't know what to call herself anymore. She asked my dad, But am I an immigrant? Think about it for a second and ask yourself, am I an immigrant? From my perspective, we are all immigrants because from the moment you choose, you choose to cross the street, to cross the city, to cross a country, to cross the border. In order to chase your dreams, you become an immigrant. Thank you very much for giving me the time to speak and for giving me the opportunity to stand up. And I would formally like to in my speech by saying to Attorney General Jeff Sessions that we are not illegal aliens. We are human beings. We are the future of this country. And we are dreamers. Now.
Speaker 1: Wow. That was that was really powerful. Thank you so much.
Speaker 10: That's a hard act to follow, he says. I did tell, he says, to keep his comments to 3 minutes. So. Feel free to talk as long as you want. But I don't want.
Speaker 5: It's a hard.
Speaker 10: Act to follow. That was an amazing speech. So go for it. He says.
Speaker 12: You're.
Speaker 3: Absolutely right. And she said a lot of things. A lot of sentiments that we all echo and that we all share. You know, I know that there's thousands of us, like she said, that are going through the same plight. So I'd like to start off by just thanking everybody for dedicating some of your time and attention to this matter. I know there's a lot of things going on in the world that require attention, and so it means a lot to us. As you all know, DOCA has been rescinded by Donald Trump, our president, which has essentially put an expiration date on the livelihood of all of the recipients on the program. The burden has been passed to Congress to pass legislation that will determine our future in this great country. And since Congress is an extension of the will of the people, really, our fate lies in your hands. It's. I hope you guys understand the importance and the. The fact that this decision these next few months will have on our lives. Get to know the Dreamers. Get to know who they are, you know, because this is going to be a big decision that, you know, is going to impact almost every detail of our life. Doctor recipients have been termed dreamers because we are chasing the American dream. We grew up knowing this country as a land of opportunity. When we had hard work and good values, we were told.
Speaker 9: That.
Speaker 3: If you had hard work and good values, you would prevail, you'd become successful. And where you can earn a place in society through commitment and dedication. We love this land because it gives us hope. We understand that for many of us, this is the only place that we ever wanted to call home. And the only place that we know is such. I understand that we find ourselves in our current situation because immigration laws and policies were not followed oftentimes by our parents. Many of us were not aware or could not fully grasp that concept, and it occurred in my situation. For example, I was only five years old. I do not blame my parents, however, because a parent's love for a child will drive them to great lengths in order to give the children a better chance of life. Understand the current immigration laws are complex and lengthy. Many do not meet requirements to even apply. And for those a can processing times often extend decades. I understand that many of these parents are coming from extremely dire situations places where you can work hard your whole life and still not have food on the table. Some days, places where opportunities are limited and the main out of a cycle of poverty as gangs. Or the cartel. I believe many immigrants have been misrepresented under the current political climate. As with any other society, it is true that there are immigrants, war criminals, rapists, gang members, those who pose a threat to society and those who must be dealt with. But by lumping all immigrants under that umbrella, you are misrepresenting the majority of immigrants who come and bust a sweat every day, day in, day out, under the most miserable conditions, often working multiple jobs for low pay. Those who never ask for handouts but yet dutifully pay their taxes. Those who are willing to sacrifice the best years of their youth to give their children opportunities in life that they never had. Those who contribute to the domestic economy and prevent further offshoring. I don't blame my parents. I thank them for their strive and sacrifice because the only time I ever saw them do was get up every day and come home exhausted, sometimes well into the night. As I talk to Dreamers, I find that we all have one thing in common the faith that if you work hard in this great country, you will find success. The faith is what got us through the many obstacles we have faced and are currently facing. As many of us grow up and become educated, we start developing ambitions and goals. Gradually, we come to the realization of our situation. You become painfully aware that the same opportunities are due now, are not landed to you as the rest of your peers. And you are presented with scenarios in which all of your hard work may not be rewarded, acknowledged, or even discouraged. Applying to higher education, as difficult as it is, becomes even more difficult. There's no financial aid from the government. Access to scholarships is extremely limited. You can't even apply for a job. And that's the realities that many are facing now and will face in the next six months as they get ready for graduation. A lot of juniors that are still in that same situation. And what that does is eventually you start feeling more and more of an outcast. There's a small feeling of betrayal that you overcome only by placing your faith and the values you have come to know growing up in the United States of America. The faith that as uncertain as your future plight may seem, you will find success if you keep working hard and upholding your morals. It is a difficult situation and a burden that we must live with every day. But we find hope in our community, the people we see every day who cheer us on, those who are willing to extend help and love regardless of your background. Today I stand here blessed because I have been given the opportunity to chase my dreams and goals. Thanks to the support I have received, I graduated with an MBA and I am currently chasing my dreams and I'm proudly working and paying taxes thanks to Dakar. When Dakar was issued, many of us step forward and place our trust in the American people. We understood that Daka did not grant us any legal status or federal benefits, but we were presented with the opportunity to contribute to our communities and step out of the shadows. And we grasped it. We paid the fees, and we gave up information about every detail of her life to be inspected by government officials who would decide if we get a driver's license, apply to school, apply for a job, and live under the laws of society as best as we could. Dacca was never a permanent solution. As the name implies, the ultimate decision was simply deferred. And we knew that everything we had worked for could be stripped from us at any moment. This is more apparent now than ever before. We have been living in a dream and the hopes that it would become a reality eventually. I understand that many of us. For many of us, there are no pathways to becoming documented under current immigration laws. It's not for lack of wanting or trying. We are not asking for handouts. We're simply asking for an opportunity to study, to work, to pay our taxes, to be productive members of society, to serve and protect, to be coaches, doctors, nurses, lawyers, construction workers, ultimately to give back and earn a place among the community and the country we have grown to love. Thanks for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, I hope our Congress is watching this. I hope Jeff Sessions is watching this. And also, our president just got caught out by some incredible, incredible citizens, Denver citizens. Thank you guys so much for being here.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the importance of DACA and Dreamers to Denver, Colorado, and the United States.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_09112017_17-0939
|
Speaker 1: Okay. We are convening today. I know you guys like talking to each other, but we are moving and convening. Thank you. Thank you. We have one public hearing tonight. Speakers should begin the remarks by telling council their names and cities of residence and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address. If you are here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium. State your name and that you're available for questions of members of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes. There will be no yielding of time because this is a courtesy public hearing on the presentation monitor to your right and to your left . You will see your time counting down speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing. Must direct their comments to council members as a whole refrain from profane and obscene speech. Please direct your comments to us. And no personal or individual attacks. Not fun, not cool. All right, Councilman Cashman, will you please put 939 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Yes, Mr. President. I move the council Bill 939 be ordered published.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved. President pro tem has been moved. And second it, the public hearing of council Bill 939 is open. May we have the staff report from Kelly? Okay. It says Jen Wilburn here. Kelly lead. Can we have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Yes, sir. Kelly Lead Executive Director, Mayor's office, the National Western Center. First and foremost, on behalf of the NWC Program Partners, we're excited to be here tonight to bring forward the National Western Center Framework Agreement. This agreement formally unlocks both our individual and collective abilities to fulfill the vision and mission of the campus in three broad categories our legal responsibilities, our financial and our operational relative to both building and ultimately operating this campus. Many of us have had the honor to work on this program in these and in these communities since 2013, among which included the signing of a nonbinding MRU, among the five founding partners of the National Western Center campus. And then subsequent to that, a term sheet, non-binding term sheet in 2015. And I think it was appropriate that we heard about Denver Union Station tonight and the success and on the heels of that. We hope to both learn and replicate many of their successes, successes. Tonight, we have our partners here who are the signers of this agreement, both Colorado State University, the Western Soccer Association, the city of ours, Tony Frank, the chancellor of the Sea Issue System, and Paul Andrews, the presidency of the National Western, to join me. They'll make a few remarks as well. And we've got team members here, both from the city's team. Amy Parsons is here from CSU, Crystal and Jen and Josh from our legal team, my deputy, Gretchen Holler. Who else we got here? We got Tim Santos and Chris Pacheco from the DCC. This has been a large group of folks that have helped make this happen, and we are all here to answer any questions of counsel, and we look forward to fully advancing the National Western Center in the coming weeks, months and years. In preparation for City Council, we held four sessions with our Citizens Advisory Committee, which started with handing out binders, briefing binders to those committee members on August 10th. And we heard and listened to a number of their questions, and those have been reflected. Some of the changes that we've heard have been reflected in the current agreement before Council. So let me highlight a few of those. One was there originally we called out for a voting member from what we called a local director. And based on what we heard from the community, a very strong support for changing local director to resident of Go Valerie Swansea. So that has been a change made. We've also heard about the desire to add additional representation to the committee or to the board. And so the Mayor will appoint now a non-voting director confirmed by City Council, who, as a resident of Gobblers, wants the neighborhoods. This change was made to allow for the neighborhoods to have a voice, even if the appointment is vacant, since the non-voting director would become the voting director from the neighborhoods if the voting director position was vacant for any reason. We've also emphasized, based on what we heard, the importance of starting off the authority appropriately and correctly, and so especially around the Community Investment Fund. And so we added language beyond just the round up idea to include a review of additional resources and to have the authority board review as part of their annual budget process. A discussion about how you could leverage and grow that fund beyond just the round up. And lastly, there was some additional again, language around additional resources and a commitment in a memo from the mayor that will direct the board to one have on their first agenda a discussion about the Community Investment Fund and how the authority board will partner with the community, among other things. And although we are here tonight to advance the framework agreement, we also know that the list of challenges is long and the goal volaris wants here communities, many of which originated well before any of us were born. This program won't resolve many of them. However, the campus is one of those rare, catalytic efforts that can shine a light on these historic communities and bring much needed resources in a variety of forms in helping solve some of the challenges that lie outside the campus boundaries for which we are responsible. And an example of that, which I'm sure we will answer questions about is the Community Investment Fund. So thank you again for the opportunity to come here before you tonight. And I would like to have Tony and or Paul, both of you come out and say a few words.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, members of the council, I'm here on behalf of the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System to thank you all for your consideration of this bill. Everything that we do as a university is founded under the principle that discovering new knowledge, passing it to the next generation, and applying it for the benefit of the society that we exist to serve are things that we do in every aspect of what we do. And you'll see that reflected in the programs here, whether they're research in water conservation and reuse at the Joint Center with Denver Water at the Water Resources Center, or the exhibitions that will push that knowledge out into the public or K-12 programs that will work on water literacy. If you're talking about our veterinary programs and improved local animal care or the support for the equine shows that will add economic benefit of the stock show connections to the Translational Medicine Institute back on our campus or programs that will tie two to some are scholarship programs for students interested in the biomedical sciences to come up to our campus. Or if you look at things like the CSU Center and the progress we can make around agricultural literacy for K-12 students, urban agriculture, support of a very large intellectual property aspect of the large industry that agriculture represents in Colorado. All of those things we're excited about doing through the facilities at the National Western Center. This is nothing, I think, less important than how we feed and educate the next generation on this planet. We're proud to be partners of it. Everything that we do, we can't always envision what these programs will look like because it's difficult to see how a program may need to address something as large as food, water, energy, the environment or human health. And that's the interface in which agriculture works. But rest assured, the Colorado State University will stand ready to use these facilities to address any issue as large as its big ones like that, or as smaller issues as timely as ethical officiating and sportsmanship for elected officials. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate that. That is a great sense of humor. So.
Speaker 4: Hey, that was wow.
Speaker 1: It was so beautifully woven in as.
Speaker 9: It was like silk.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of council. I'll be brief. I just want to remind everyone and those that might be watching on television that the National Western Center.
Speaker 4: Is a 250.
Speaker 1: Acre campus that's designed to keep alive our Western heritage for future generations and.
Speaker 4: To position.
Speaker 1: Colorado.
Speaker 4: To become the Silicon Valley of Agriculture. It puts Denver.
Speaker 1: Colorado, on the global stage as a leader in solving food.
Speaker 4: Production issues and fighting world hunger.
Speaker 1: Through.
Speaker 4: Education, entertainment and innovation. The forecast economic impact for this from several studies will be.
Speaker 1: $230 million per year. And that's from over 300 events that have been forecast in several studies.
Speaker 4: The new center will allow growth.
Speaker 1: Of the National Western Stock Show, the Super Bowl of livestock shows to numbers approaching 1 million people visiting in January alone.
Speaker 4: It puts the association in a sustainable business model. So that we can continue to support our mission of agricultural education. In order to do all this, leadership of the nation of Western has committed to put in $125 million of value, of which 50 million must be in cash. The first cash payment of $15 million in.
Speaker 1: The framework agreement.
Speaker 4: Is due by November 1st of 2008. That is basically.
Speaker 1: One year from today. This payment is doubly important.
Speaker 4: As it will release funds generated.
Speaker 1: By the Regional Tourism.
Speaker 4: Act at the same time. So by acting now in approving the framework agreement, we can begin our.
Speaker 1: Fundraising campaign and meet this very, very crucial deadline. Thank you very much for your consideration. Thank you, Mr. Andrews. All right. We are going to start the courtesy public hearing now. Before that, I just have a couple of announcements that I did not mention earlier. On September 14th, our own councilman, Kevin Flynn, will be turning 35 years of age and we are excited about that. So happy birthday, Councilman Flynn. Thank you.
Speaker 8: Mr. President, I'm the one who's supposed to be forgetful. Not you.
Speaker 1: You. You have a great birthday, actually. 65 years of age. So he'll be reaching that age. Okay, great. And then we we want to recognize former Speaker of the House Terrence Carroll, the first African-American speaker of the state of Colorado. Thank you for being here, sir. And we'll be calling you up soon. Okay. If you gentlemen can find a system, use this a first for first row. For the first five speakers, we have 14 speakers tonight. 12 are in favor. Two are against this. And for folks who are in favor, if you can think about your messaging and if you're on the end of that at not repeating the same thing over and over again, it's just helpful for the overall conversation of this hearing. Be helpful. All right. The Honorable Terrance, Carol, Nolan, Miguel, John MISBAH Sekou and Mercedes Gonzalez. For those using a translation interpretation, it will be a total of 6 minutes just letting you all know that again. Terrance Carroll. No, let me go. John Misbah. Sekou and Mercedes Gonzalez. Mr. Carroll, you're a first. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 9: Members of the council. I'd just like to add one thing to some of the programing that will occur at the National Western Center. I'm personally funding a program for giving sight to PAC 12 officials during football games.
Speaker 1: You had to understand the game to understand that. But keep going.
Speaker 9: Just saying.
Speaker 0: I'm here in my role.
Speaker 9: As co facilitator of the National Western Citizen Advisory Committee, and I'm also treasurer of the Western Stock Show Association Board. And I just want to give you a brief overview of what the SEC's role has been over the last several years leading up to the framework agreement. And I can do that in 2 minutes and 21 seconds very quickly. And it's actually quite auspicious that you're taking this vote today, or at least in this month, because we're actually on the four year anniversary or thereabouts of the formation of the Citizen Advisory Committee by former Councilwoman Julie Monteiro. And we continue to enjoy support from the City Council, both with Council President Brooks and Councilwoman Ortega, who both regularly attend the CAC. Members of the CAC have worked tirelessly, meeting basically every month for four years and on some months we actually meeting several times during the course of the month to influence and to provide feedback and to provide guidance and the process that led to the formation of the National Western Center. Some of you were in the Council when we voted on the master plan, and that master plan had ample input from members of the community. In fact, many aspects of the master plan came directly from the mouths of the members of the CAC. And I'd also like to clarify that the CAC voting members are composed of the residents of the community and business and other community leaders, nonprofits in the community. The facilitators, myself and Maria Garcia Berry, do not vote. Neither do the partners. That would be the National Western CSU, the City History Colorado and the Museum of Nature and Science. None of them have votes. They're just there to be we're just there to be resources. But I did want you to understand the CAC process and how important it is to the ongoing success of the National Western Center. And to also let you know that as this goes forward, even after the first shovels turn dirt, the CAC will continue to function, to provide guidance, to provide input, to ensure that members of the community have a voice in this project over the long term. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Carroll. All right, Nola McGill.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Members of council. Nice to see you all. My name's Nolan. Miguel and I work for the Global Response Coalition Organizing for Health and Housing Justice. We just formed in July as a formal coalition. So if you haven't heard of us before, that's why you may have seen a recent study that we did around displacement that's happening in global areas once a. But I actually want to speak just for a moment. As many of you know, I worked for Councilwoman Monteiro previously and was a large part of helping the whole process happen. And I actually wanted to read from her letter that's in the National Western Master Plan. Center master plan, because there are some parts of it I feel like kind of just making the connection from what was happening then to what's happening now. So and this is in page three of the master plan. So if you pull it up, it'll be the first actual text that you see in the plan. And in the third paragraph, she's said, I feel the most important part of this master plan is the inclusion of the neighborhoods with the National Western Center. As there have long been connectivity and relational obstacles for local residents. It was really important to Councilman Monteiro to create the Citizens Accountability Committee. It was an advisory when it was in the first idea formation. And I, you know, following through with with the the the compromise sorry, I'm thinking in Spanish, the agreements that were made at that time is really important right now, because this is a moment when this is all getting formal. Right. And then in the very last part of that paragraph, she says, moving forward, I would like to see specific details and commitments outlined which would benefit the neighborhood, such as. And then she goes and different things like a community, community, commercial kitchen, connections with the schools, integrated markets for the community communication advocacy exchange. So in that note, I just wanted to advocate for an actual community benefits agreement, which is something that we don't have with the neighborhood between the neighborhood and then this forming authority. And the reason that we don't have it is because we didn't have the authority yet, but we are about to. So we would like to see that included. I'd actually like to see it as part of the framework agreement where it talks about the CAMI Investment Fund. It should also talk about a community benefits agreement just like this framework agreement will create trust and will create commitment and people know what they're getting into that would do that with the community as well. It would also bring intentionality, goals and commitments around local hire, around open space, around access to the university. Potentially, there were families just like Maria that were displaced from this campus. In order for this to happen, those families should have access to the university thinking about use of facilities, commercial kitchen use, thinking about affordable housing and you know, are we at time? Sorry.
Speaker 1: Your time is up. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Okay. You know what? I figured this out. We had a misspelling. A severe misspelling in here. John, on. You're up to speak. Come on up. Yeah. We. Yes. Right now because we we misspelled your name. I couldn't figure out what that last name was.
Speaker 4: Don't let that happen again.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir. Okay. Will never happen again.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, members of Council, I want to share a human side of this whole effort. Councilman. You asked me. Be careful what you wish.
Speaker 8: For a couple of years ago. You remember.
Speaker 4: That? And I haven't been wishing for a couple of years. I've been wishing for a hell of a long time. Longer than that. And what I want to say for you is for you to look at what you got before you. And who ever thought we'd have a college campus in the middle of.
Speaker 8: A stockyards area?
Speaker 4: My neighborhood of Globeville will benefit immensely from this effort. People that live in Swansea will as well. The idea of. This complex. Becoming a reality has taken a lot of time and a lot of work, and it started a long time ago, even before Mrs. Monteiro sat on this council. Years ago, people thought the stock show was just another rodeo. It's not just another rodeo. This is a benefits effort for business and residents alike and those that might not like or might not approve this idea. We embrace them because we know they're entitled to their opinion. But paramount, they're our friends and neighbors and we need to live together and see this project through which we will. There's a lot of work to be done yet, and I look forward to working with the people that may be not totally agreement with it, maybe even oppose it. But that's how we get things done. And it's time. It's been over 100 years. This thing is going to be a beautiful project for business and residents. We just isn't going to happen like flower springing up from the side of the Platte River. It takes a lot of work and people for and against it or we got to work together on it. And that's the main thing that is in front of us now. And I'm concerned that we will get it done even with those people that are not in agreement with us, but we embrace them and will lead them along so they can gain the kind of.
Speaker 9: Knowledge and feelings that.
Speaker 4: We all have about it. Thank you. And I expect a unanimous vote from everyone here tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mrs. IP. Sorry about the name. All right, Sekou.
Speaker 8: Yes. Good evening. My name is Chairman Sekou. I am the.
Speaker 4: Founder organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for for Self-defense.
Speaker 8: Advocating for poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens.
Speaker 4: First of all, man.
Speaker 8: It's a little pretty. I'm talking about for real. That's outstanding homecoming for the Broncos. Beautiful, beautiful.
Speaker 4: And we want to thank you also President Brooks.
Speaker 8: For your leadership. And in supporting the.
Speaker 4: Residents of the dial, senior citizens of Operation.
Speaker 1: On 34th.
Speaker 4: And Elm.
Speaker 8: Street, where they're going to be celebrating their year end celebration.
Speaker 4: And everybody is so excited about the possibility of all city council and the mayor coming to share with folks who can't come out to events.
Speaker 1: They're kind of sick.
Speaker 4: So getting to the West End Stock Show, because this is going to. We stand diametrically opposed to this agreement.
Speaker 8: An audience. Many times the history.
Speaker 4: Of a society is written. To glorify the events.
Speaker 1: And circumstances.
Speaker 8: From which they exist.
Speaker 4: I just came from up at Carter Lake and the flat arts fishing and. You know, it broke my heart. I envisioned when Indigenous people was roaming that.
Speaker 8: Area before the Europeans came.
Speaker 4: And they had a wonderful environment and life. And all of that disappeared for them because they, in the tradition of how the West was run, was murdered. Men and women massacred their land seized illegally. With no consequence. And now the glorification of how the West is run. I refuse to let my children even look at that mess on Saturdays with the cowboys and Indians. It's an insult to those people. To have that glorified and looked at by the youth. And so as we go about doing this thing and acknowledging the white supremacy and the racism of this Western story. We need to really.
Speaker 0: Take a look at the 50 year.
Speaker 4: Agreement and what's going to be the educational process of that, because we've got to begin to tell the truth about the history of this nation and to begin to resolve the contradictions so those that are indigenous are not strangers in their own home. And I thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Sekou Mercedes Gonzalez. And you have a she has a translation, so we're going to set it at 6 minutes. Oh, like, almost us.
Speaker 11: Pull her mike down.
Speaker 2: Hello. Good evening. My name is.
Speaker 6: Sorry. Good evening. My name is Mercedes Gonzalez. Gonzalez, in which she has a better rapport more committee had an opportunity of Ester Gonzalez Baraka you're with they were that this soliloquy siento eran is the one time.
Speaker 2: Listen I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to share how I feel.
Speaker 6: Don't forget to circle the phone. I'm going to.
Speaker 2: Speak a.
Speaker 5: Little bit about the fund.
Speaker 6: They want the stake for your career. Okay. I'll give you a monitor that they talk almost every day.
Speaker 2: Cambio Everything.
Speaker 5: Sounds beautiful. The way.
Speaker 2: We talk.
Speaker 5: About the change, what the change will look.
Speaker 6: Like a mantra mutually narrow by your chromosome players. Para la comunidad.
Speaker 2: We're going to have lots of money.
Speaker 5: Coming in and perhaps even more jobs for the community.
Speaker 6: Better your perspective almost as it impacted us.
Speaker 2: But I believe we will be impacted the.
Speaker 6: Impact of those the in in Cuba where mas tropical mas mazrui those.
Speaker 2: Will be impacted by more traffic more.
Speaker 5: Noise must.
Speaker 6: Peligro para Bahrain Nuestros Ninos Madrid, Brussels, Parana Astros Trabalhos.
Speaker 2: Dangers for our children. We might be delayed even more.
Speaker 5: With our work.
Speaker 6: Entonces your crookedness as he doubles as a phone localized the también in law or not c'est almost pasando Rita Estamos Viviendo is still in la salta rain does a lot displacement those.
Speaker 5: So I believe we really need this fun just.
Speaker 2: To speak about what we're going.
Speaker 5: Through right now. We are going through displacement and.
Speaker 2: High rent.
Speaker 6: Mimicking A.M.E. study. Okay is was one of those what I'm fond of what apparently struck money that.
Speaker 2: I would really love it if that fund was used for our community.
Speaker 6: Paid or not so these are can no can can I started signing on whereas the a bitterly yeah at me what is the. Jacuzzi Iraqis are fond of. Paramus, Itamar Hummus. Rapido.
Speaker 5: What we know is what we hear is that that fun would not come into play.
Speaker 2: Until two years. And what I would like to see is for.
Speaker 5: That to come in a little bit.
Speaker 6: Quicker. All that being ketamine. Mr. Corbyn in Westeros need those monsters we need to stand behind. He uses the Necesitan Damian Bergkamp para para programas.
Speaker 5: I believe for our children. Our students are our grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Speaker 2: Could you really use that funding for programing?
Speaker 6: But our program, as they will see, they come more. But as to the end, those companies per capita we grandmas must make.
Speaker 5: Us so programs programs for them to be able to study more to to gain more.
Speaker 2: Scholarship money.
Speaker 6: Was stolen. It is no longer ICAC. Your hierarchy was to resist. They always are nostra and mistrust. Trabelsi Nostra. And this is either this the bossy para La Nostra Nostra Comunidad.
Speaker 2: And that is that I really hope you.
Speaker 5: Take into account the concerns.
Speaker 2: That we have and just really learn.
Speaker 5: About what our community is going through right now.
Speaker 6: Getting an address to look is a bit about an opportunity that I mean they ve been there nostra nuestros productos in Aztec in those the oportunidades in the la conejo. But I mean that nuestros productos no look is comi the he I mean my study is not yet and oportunidades is in Mr. Comunita.
Speaker 5: And I would really love it for women from our community.
Speaker 2: To have that opportunity to sell their products, food products in the in this space.
Speaker 5: I really would love it for women from the community to have that opportunity to sell in.
Speaker 6: Porto look at bazaar your character in those medicinals is able no parochial support is critical.
Speaker 5: And because of everything that we have been going through I think that we deserve we deserve.
Speaker 2: This bonus but I would love it in writing.
Speaker 6: A.C. I will not promise applecare+ palabras solution will be in can on this criticism.
Speaker 5: For it not just to be.
Speaker 2: Something verbal because sometimes words are just gone with the wind. Really have it in writing for.
Speaker 5: It to be a firm agreement.
Speaker 6: Which I want to.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Honest. Okay. I'm going to call the next five up to the bench. Nancy Grant Jones, Ray G. Angelina Torres and Pat Grant. That's for. And he's as well. Nancy Grant, is Jones your first?
Speaker 5: Good evening, council president and council members. My name is Nancy Grandiose Jones. I'm a business owner in Globeville own former meatpacking plant that dates back to the early 1900s. That's been repurposed. That business has been active. My business has been active since 1995, but my husband has been in the meat industry since 1975 in Globeville. So I have a long history there. I'm also an alternate on the WCC as a business person, not in my role in Globeville Civic Partners. I'm here to endorse the NWA, the agreement, and to speak to one of the community components the voting members, the directors on the board. We are very pleased that that there will be community representation. However, I'm asking that we had a vote on the NWA, CAC 14 to 3 to have two voting members. And the only way that would happen is if then the mayor used one of his one of his director appointees to come from the community. What I want to share is some context is when that there was the zoning text amendments that came before the planning board. Community members came to that meeting and we expressed some concerns. The planning board passed the text agreements then that then that moved forward the NWC plan and this is what they said that the City Council acknowledge and address the concerns expressed by the neighborhood stakeholders with regards to neighborhood involvement in governance and community equity. Two voting members would cover that under governance and community equity. The mayor did something bold with the N DCC and especially bold by putting a community component in there. I believe that this follows, along with the mayor's commitment to the community to for equity, to have two voting members. I'm asking that I know this cannot be amended. It's a contract. But as city council members, maybe you have some way of writing a letter to the mayor on behalf that you all would that you all would endorse having two community voting members, write a letter, whatever, if you do resolutions. We're very pleased that Councilman Brooks said that he would arrange a meeting with community members, with the mayor, but it would really have more effect that, you know what the issues have been in Globeville. The mayor uplifted geese for some reasons to right some wrongs. And truly, we've always tried to be partners with NWC. We've supported the two C, we reported to the RTA. We've supported everything that the National Western Senate has asked. Thank you very much. If you would act on our behalf also.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Dennis Jones.
Speaker 12: Okay.
Speaker 1: Well, good evening, everybody. I just.
Speaker 9: Want to really quick.
Speaker 1: Introduce yourself for the record Raging. I live in Globeville for a generation.
Speaker 9: Or Denver resident.
Speaker 1: Real quick, I.
Speaker 9: Just wanted to.
Speaker 1: Say.
Speaker 9: You know, just like John was saying earlier, this is going to.
Speaker 1: Provide a lot of opportunities for education for our community here in Globeville.
Speaker 0: I do agree with the.
Speaker 9: Framework in general.
Speaker 1: Overall. There's certain details like Nancy was saying, I believe there should be two voting members on the board in order for the.
Speaker 0: Community to have a bigger voice and a bigger.
Speaker 1: More involvement in what's going on, whether it be negotiations with business, whether.
Speaker 3: It be negotiations with other projects. But that would.
Speaker 1: Allow us as a community to have more of.
Speaker 0: A a bridge between.
Speaker 1: Us and.
Speaker 9: The Western Stock Show.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm sure you guys have heard. Represents no no representation without taxation is you know something that we need to be able to get involved in with with our community be able to have ownership of our community now, not only with these two members, be able to bring more opportunities to our neighborhoods, whether it be education , employment, like Mercedes was saying, we can have some of the ladies that are, you know, in our community struggling to pay bills, have them, you know, be able to be involved in some of the food vending, you know, just other aspects of the whole the whole project.
Speaker 9: The other thing that I want to say is that some of the criteria for some of.
Speaker 1: These members of the board, for the the resident members of the board.
Speaker 0: Should be that they have a equity.
Speaker 1: In the community. And by equity, I mean. We should have a measurable amount of time that they are given to the community, how they are involved in the community, maybe even have kids who attend the schools, have family that live in the area, have been living in the area and know what our neighbors and friends need. You know, because a lot of.
Speaker 4: Times we don't have a voice.
Speaker 1: In these communities.
Speaker 9: And this is part of the problem.
Speaker 1: That we've had with breakdowns of communication between the residents, city or other organizations, whether it be the Western Stock Show or or I-70, CDOT, all those all those is it's always been a breakdown in communication and not having that proper representation.
Speaker 0: In in the negotiation process. So being able to bring.
Speaker 9: Two more.
Speaker 1: Members on to this board would really help to, like I said, get the community more involved and back behind more of these projects and also give us more of a voice and more participation in anything that's going to be happening in the future, which is.
Speaker 9: Going to be a lot. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Appreciate it.
Speaker 9: Go, Broncos.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Reggie. All right. Angelina Torres. And there will be translation. So you will have 6 minutes or less.
Speaker 6: Do you want to answer? My name is Lynette Torres and I live in Swansea. It's a discussion we will need to establish. Are they fond of monetary office?
Speaker 2: It sounds really nice to hear about monetary funds.
Speaker 6: But I guess they told us Podemos the planet is the universe in resolution. That is the problem as against them.
Speaker 2: But I think we can all talk about a base, a foundation to solve some of the problems that are already happening.
Speaker 6: For us to get involved cannot get noice de la B in San Jose, knock it out. Our academics case that as it is el proyecto and that is.
Speaker 5: Why we don't think that you should dwell on it too long or think about it too much too long, but really start on the.
Speaker 2: Project now. Right now.
Speaker 6: See, forget the mutual system since all we are planning almost because sometimes.
Speaker 5: You forget about what we.
Speaker 6: Plan. This place can be almost the ideas.
Speaker 2: And then we change our ideas and don't.
Speaker 6: So hasta la solutions or most others.
Speaker 2: The solution lies within all of us.
Speaker 6: You are your list below the power case. The case? Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I asked you for this favor to work on this now can nice.
Speaker 6: But it must be in this plant. The mysterious sister, this place handle. Yes. They're so friendly, LASCARIS. It cannot resist that long, long, medium or well. See, I know this whole story.
Speaker 2: So to not wait for people to continue to be displaced and to be out on the street, this is not fair.
Speaker 6: This dental health care solution that is legal under Leona Minerva. Those maneuvers sometimes we want this or no, not. Well, I said, I see.
Speaker 2: We want to solve this problem by giving them one coin or two coins. It can't be this way.
Speaker 6: Was good listening and player and the was in that is.
Speaker 2: We want you to give jobs to our neighborhood.
Speaker 6: See get emasculated in the LA mano you know they think in this dress amigo see those extensively in the last been us get get yours know not be the hero.
Speaker 2: We we want you to extend a hand to to these folks and and to help these people that are going through these sufferings that they didn't ask for.
Speaker 6: This one nosotros not mortify Chyna's interest in them which at that is this is they better so they are not get him also get them as Bartolo Alligator Press they handle.
Speaker 2: This mortified. This this this saddens us. We don't want to see this we want people to be celebrating.
Speaker 6: Trabalhando Haciendo algo can not go still.
Speaker 2: Working and doing something that we love.
Speaker 6: E presence the list below they have all they get them being is the know now that my sister is still unprecedented.
Speaker 2: And that is why I am also asking you as a favor to not only have one resident.
Speaker 6: Represent La Comunidad representing the.
Speaker 2: Community.
Speaker 6: Como, they say, is the last person as owner noise. Ninguna It's.
Speaker 5: Not just one.
Speaker 2: Person representing the community like people sometimes say one is.
Speaker 6: No one does get among those person us representing.
Speaker 2: We want two people to represent.
Speaker 6: Alamosa directives.
Speaker 2: On the board of directors.
Speaker 6: And on the lines of personas con person.
Speaker 2: For these two.
Speaker 6: People to be able to talk the thing and solutions para la comunidad.
Speaker 2: And to have solutions.
Speaker 6: For the community. You look at Yellow Square, those gathering adentro in La mesa activa.
Speaker 2: And these agreements that.
Speaker 6: They make within the board cannot. The hearing is to communicate a law that can communicate and also.
Speaker 2: Trust that these members.
Speaker 5: Can communicate it back to.
Speaker 2: Residents.
Speaker 6: But I said people it is the acid algo Perla la that to get access to.
Speaker 2: Be able to know and to be able to do something for the community. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Grasses Mr. Mysterious Pat Grant. The grant?
Speaker 4: No. Mr. President, members of Council. My name is Pat Grant. I am chairman of the Board of the Western Style Show Association. I am really pleased to be here, but mostly to express sincere gratitude to council for helping us bring this issue in this matter, in this agreement. To where it is tonight. It's huge. Your support of major to see some months ago was really, really important and critical to this process. I was here in 1990. Some years ago when you approved or your predecessors approved the first 50 year agreement. And we look forward to the next 50 years. And how exciting, how dramatic, how huge these steps will be undertaken. As you know. The National Wells turn overtime has grown its footprint through largely our own resources. We have been careful stewards. Of our resources so that we could acquire our land. We could grow our process, grow our stock show. Tonight through this agreement, we are prepared to convey and transfer. This land. 90 acres. Back to the city and county of Denver. This land has a value of some $75 million. But we are not only prepared to convey our land. Well, we've made a promise, we've made a commitment and are making a commitment through this agreement that we will raise $50 million. And transfer that 50 million to the city and county of Denver. Make no mistake. We've never done this before. We've never been in a position where we had to raise money and transfer the money to the city. But we will do that. We will fulfill her obligation. We view this as a very fair agreement, a very equitable agreement. It has been worked on for a long period of time. Let us now capture our collective vision for an exciting vision. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Grant and Hayes.
Speaker 2: Mr. President.
Speaker 11: Members of council. I am. And Hayes. I live in Capitol Hill, Denver.
Speaker 5: I work for Westfield Company.
Speaker 11: We own 14, actually 17 acres on Brighton Boulevard that we are getting ready to redevelop. It is in.
Speaker 5: Close.
Speaker 11: Proximity to the National Western and we hope for our project to be symbiotic with the National Western. And so we're very excited.
Speaker 5: About what's happening.
Speaker 11: In that part of town.
Speaker 5: And the possibilities for the enrichment of the community in that.
Speaker 11: Area and for all of the people, not only up in that area, but of all of Reno as.
Speaker 5: Well. I'm also very active on in Reno. I am on the National.
Speaker 11: Western Citizens Advisory Committee.
Speaker 5: I've been on it since almost the very beginning. I sought membership.
Speaker 11: Of that so that I could get.
Speaker 10: Involved. I've also learned.
Speaker 11: Time to be.
Speaker 5: A member of the Technical.
Speaker 11: Advisory Committee. When we did the agribusiness plan.
Speaker 5: Economic plan, and I also sat on the.
Speaker 11: Selection committee for the Placemaking Team that we're going to be starting to work with at the committee. I am here in 100% support of the framework document as submitted. I believe that the city has done a very good.
Speaker 5: Job of bringing to our committee the book.
Speaker 11: As Kelly explained, they actually brought notebooks for each one of us so that we could read them.
Speaker 5: We had four very comprehensive meetings to.
Speaker 11: Go over all of the details of that document, and I believe the city has responded to the community's.
Speaker 5: Comments adequately and has.
Speaker 11: In my opinion, really been fair with what they have come back and negotiated with the community. As far as having two voices on the the board, the authority board. And I think that that is fair. I think what needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that there are.
Speaker 5: Only 11 board members, that this is an enormous amount of money that is being managed.
Speaker 11: It's going to take.
Speaker 5: An incredible amount of.
Speaker 11: Expertize from many different disciplines. And I think we have to be careful going forward.
Speaker 5: With forward with.
Speaker 11: Creating the characteristics of all of those board members and what they bring to the table. I think it's important for the community to have two voices, but I'm not so.
Speaker 5: I was one of the three votes.
Speaker 11: That voted against the two voting members. I have to admit it took a little flack for it. But I believe that what we really need to focus on on our committee is to give the mayor at his request, the characteristics of the other board members so that this framework plan can be implemented in a way that's successful . There are many people, including the gentleman who just spoke, that are putting a lot on the line, and this has to be executed in a way that is disciplined and is successful. So that is my opinion. And I again, 100%, 100% support the agreement as submitted. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Hayes. All right. We have the last five speakers. David Wolski, one Vallas, Virginia Calderon. And. And Elizabeth. A E? David Lasky. You're up first, sir.
Speaker 8: I'm up first. Okay. First things first, ladies, congratulations on 85 years of voting. You know, I got to do that. But thank you, city council. My name is David Netsky and I live at.
Speaker 4: 4930 Logan in the Globeville.
Speaker 8: Neighborhood. And I want to thank City Council for letting.
Speaker 4: Me be here tonight and speak.
Speaker 8: I mean, my family's been Anglo Wilson since 1870. It's about 147 years old. Now, what I wanted to I don't know. I know I don't want to speak too much. I just want to thank everyone. City Council, Albus, Debbie, you guys been at our meetings? I want to thank the city attorneys for their hard work. You know, the M.O., you partners and Kelly lead and. Pat Grant and Paul Andrews. You know, they have treated us with respect and dignity, which we've never seen before. I mean, they're awesome. It's like if you ask them a question, they'll give you an answer. If you have a problem, they'll see if they can remedy it. You know, and and being in Globeville all these years and it being a neighborhood that's been neglected and abused, we haven't seen that out of a national westerner. This is an awesome. Ordeal we're going through. It's going to be, you know, world class. I'm I have my my faith in these guys and the women.
Speaker 4: That they're going to do the.
Speaker 8: Right thing, you know? And city council, you guys have been great. You know, you and Debi came to two meetings when.
Speaker 4: You could have been off. You know, and.
Speaker 8: We appreciate that you guys are constantly working in our mayor. You know, the way he laid out the DCC, you know, is amazing. But that shows you had experience because he put his internship in Globeville during the Asarco days. People don't know of that. And he's seen the abuse and neglect, but we've never seen, you know, in the end, he's trying to put it right. But the national western. They're not. They're just awesome, you know and the more you partners. And I just want to thank everyone. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Lasky. One Villas and Mr. Villas was all I have. TRANSLATION So you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 12: What I'm noticing of precedent. There was Brooke singular school and psychology school psychologist. Come in.
Speaker 6: Good evening, President Brooks.
Speaker 2: And Council men and women.
Speaker 12: Boy, I said, what is the. Juno was a set of cuatro, cuatro palabras.
Speaker 2: I'm going to be very brief. I just want to.
Speaker 5: Mention four words.
Speaker 12: Your point. El Proyecto and National Western.
Speaker 2: I support.
Speaker 5: The National Western Project.
Speaker 12: A. Personnel maintain the common leader community due to the lack of money that they Aliadiere is once again.
Speaker 2: Personally and also as a community leader of Illyria in Swansea.
Speaker 12: And under the La Comunidad de Lydia Swansea. Yet I also there is still a c estamos de acuerdo in proyecto a national western city. They then there is C is you lonely or c that.
Speaker 2: It on behalf of the Elyria Swansea a neighborhood. I want to let you know that we are in agreement with this.
Speaker 5: Partnership between the city and county of.
Speaker 2: Denver, between CSU and between National Western.
Speaker 12: And which has similarities very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Los. Virginia Calderon.
Speaker 6: We went to notice President Brooks. He they must be chemical then on your.
Speaker 5: Good evening, President Brooks. Brooks and other members of the city council.
Speaker 6: I mean, is he not going to let on people in an area this YMCA?
Speaker 2: My name is.
Speaker 6: Bettina Calderon and.
Speaker 2: I live in the Swanson neighborhood.
Speaker 6: Your story? I keep working a story on Occupy that poor kid and lost. I see. Then this. DeLaria This one see a globule? El-Erian. I am.
Speaker 2: Here because I am a tad bit concerned because the residents in the areas of Globeville, they're in Swansea are.
Speaker 6: Not anymore. Sophie Representantes and the committee want to say this is to represent thunder, don't.
Speaker 5: Have.
Speaker 2: Enough represent resident representatives on.
Speaker 5: This board that you are proposing.
Speaker 6: For Kennesaw resident to not receive more information to stay our land, sustainable land and ladylike diva.
Speaker 2: Because as residents we don't receive that information that is being presented at these meetings.
Speaker 6: Putting in place. So yes. QUESTION The order of the in an event Nostra Santos event or supporter annual they will call nosotros somos evermore if that affect that those directamente.
Speaker 2: Like I am hearing over 300 events that will come a year where residents will be directly impacted and affected.
Speaker 6: You know the name of and not being nosy and also the lack of money that nosotros tenemos on or not on. Not only on this couple of demos, they are listening for my noise. I see them on my MINUSMA, but I'm also Transavia. You are me seahorse. I'm in the capacity, Amazon is the area.
Speaker 2: And we don't receive that information. We don't know what's happening in these meetings and it would be good for us to have representation for places where that are ready meet like meetings that we have where we can rely that information to my children, to my my grandchildren and other members of.
Speaker 5: The community.
Speaker 6: Know certain systems more important, more into the cells and the nearest bank or the pier for customers to be in the right to know knowing the sign, you know. So some of our readers who will sit them, Paula Vasquez Encontramos Amelia Condors Minos doesn't know so of the safe animals either. Sign your guest on viviendo la carte.
Speaker 2: And and the other thing that we really are concerned about is looking at community land trust, not in two years, but now if you drive down I-70 and Vasquez, you will see a family living there.
Speaker 5: With a seven year old and.
Speaker 2: A two year old that are living out on the street.
Speaker 6: At Estrella hand. They'll stutter. On one hand they'll see, but not in the middle of by don't renter tampoco. Kevin Elsasser conjecture final status. CONAN Familia como.
Speaker 2: Esta? And we we have a people in this family. This mom is working and she is working. But but she doesn't have enough money to pay rent. What are we going to do with a family like this? What are you going to do with a family like this?
Speaker 6: Necessity Los Fondos Arrieta.
Speaker 2: Do you think the funding now?
Speaker 6: No. Podemos a estos does mean your system as Orlando sales guidance at Cinco MinutoS, Florida Connector callup. Yes, on orders and I see vandals.
Speaker 2: Sorry, we can't let these kids be out on the streets. Just you go out for 5 minutes and be in the scorching sun for 5 minutes. Imagine these kids that are out there for hours at a time.
Speaker 6: Is full of kids in bed. A stunning, stunning, stunning noise that accompany the necessity of proto hair loss. Our order.
Speaker 2: And if you want to see them, you can drive and you can go see them. They are living in our community right now.
Speaker 6: But I also if it's in Minnesota, Estamos, Ecuador and Casi status play, then are you there? No. See their net loss event or retirement sale, but up with that form, those apparently stress families.
Speaker 5: And so we.
Speaker 2: Would ask that if we could start having these events at the Coliseum to start fundraising for our community.
Speaker 6: It's just a little portable maintenance system. That is all for now.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Miss Cordero. Leslie and Elizabeth. E e.
Speaker 5: I need 6 minutes because I'd like this to be translated into Spanish.
Speaker 4: Something to think about.
Speaker 5: President Brooks, District nine members of the City Council. I am here strongly to support.
Speaker 4: With some enthusiasm.
Speaker 5: That is profoundly complex. This starting block. By establishing this authority.
Speaker 4: When we started the We.
Speaker 5: The People to form a more perfect union ordained and that established our Constitution.
Speaker 4: There was a compromise reached wherein some states came.
Speaker 5: On with the agreement that there would be amendments immediately proposed. This was an act of faith.
Speaker 0: I have experienced the city.
Speaker 4: Act in good faith in.
Speaker 0: Two specific changes.
Speaker 5: That were initiated.
Speaker 4: By folks who perhaps don't understand.
Speaker 5: That.
Speaker 4: The public voice can have a concrete impact at.
Speaker 5: Any any point in the conversation. So I hope that as this authority.
Speaker 4: Is established, more people will step up and recognize that.
Speaker 5: Everything that is everyone's concern can still be discussed and become part of the National Western Center sensitivities and and accomplishments. I really believe that the the change in response to the desire to have a.
Speaker 4: Dual seat.
Speaker 5: On.
Speaker 4: The authority.
Speaker 5: That was brought.
Speaker 4: About by the staff which which established.
Speaker 5: A and a nonvoting voting alternate.
Speaker 4: Was a gesture on the.
Speaker 5: Part of the the Denver team and to provide a solution that was not. Going to.
Speaker 0: Compromise the advancement.
Speaker 5: Of this mechanism at a time that it needs to be advanced, and yet also keeps the conversation going so that the entire board can look at what the priorities have to be in the holistic sense for all of the equity partners in.
Speaker 0: Terms of.
Speaker 5: Equity. I want to put out a formula for folks to I mean, I'm skipping ahead here. I'm totally discombobulated. If you can't if you can't tell with all that's being said, that's a value and I'm trying to shorten. You're not doing that. I really believe that the number of hours that people have put in over decades, if.
Speaker 0: You if you.
Speaker 5: Attribute that as pro bono work among the neighborhoods and you calculate it at $15, $15 an hour, 15 hours a week, over 50 weeks, over 20 years, you probably.
Speaker 4: Have about.
Speaker 5: $1,000,000 equity right there.
Speaker 4: I would like.
Speaker 5: To count the partners to consider in their first meetings a possible equity.
Speaker 4: Advance, just like the partners are using to fund it for reimbursements.
Speaker 5: To create the community fund and get that community investment fund going and all of the.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much. I appreciate a chance to ramble on.
Speaker 1: Hey, thank you so much. And I want to I want to thank everybody who came out and sat in this. Our benches went through security park, did all that stuff. Really appreciate all of your words. We are. This concludes the kind of the comment portion we're going to go into questions and I'm going to ask the first question to get things started, because I don't think we got a chance to outline this correctly. Kelly Lead and call. Jen will burn up and just ask you all to outline all of the changes that happened in those four meetings. Yeah. Come on. Yeah. Come on up here. In those. In those four meetings that we had, much similar to like we did the other night. Okay, very helpful. Just for so that all the is on the same.
Speaker 5: Absolutely. As a couple. Oh. Hi. I'm General Moore and I'm an assistant city attorney. And I actually if you want me to, we'll just go ahead. Just point out the actual language changes. Okay. So, as you know, I think all of you have been briefed and have had the agreement in your hands for a few weeks now . During the CAC meetings that we attended, what we heard was some concern about representation on the board for the neighborhood. And then also we we talked considerably about the use, utility and importance of the Community Investment Fund that was that was included in the original agreement. So we made a couple of changes to address some of the issues that we heard, and I'll just walk through those one by one.
Speaker 1: Kelly walked through the non-voting member, so you can skip that one. But the other the other pieces that you changed would be good to.
Speaker 5: Skip the non-voting member as I watched this.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. He already went over that.
Speaker 5: Okay. Okay. Sure. Yep. So we've added the non-voting director and we've talked. And Kelly also mentioned that that non-voting director will take the place of the voting director. So really the other substantive change since LUDI is that we've added a little bit of discussion about how the importance of the Community Investment Fund, and that's found significantly in two places on page 64 in the this is in a Section 12 about the Community Investment Fund. We added a sentence that says further, the authority shall explore and where appropriate, pursue other funding options and or partnerships annually to supplement funding that is generated from the round up and to increase the benefits of the Community Investment Fund to the neighborhood. So that's found there. And then the other place that that is mentioned is in. Sorry, give me just a second. I've got the wrong page here. It's in the first meeting of the board. Okay. And then on page 16 under, there's a there's a section that outlines what the what the board should do in its initial meeting. And we have added to to that section the idea that the the Chairperson shall convene the initial meeting of the board and the Board shall consider the initiation of the development of including consideration of funding sources for the Community Investment Fund, so that we make it really clear that the Community Investment Fund needs to be a priority of the board and that they have to address the creation of that fund and its funding at their very first meeting.
Speaker 1: Right. Any anything else? Any of substance. Okay. And just to point out, just to make it very clear to folks in the public, these four meetings were suggestions by the community to place in the contract. So the contract was actually amended from the Luti meeting till today. And so those are some amendments that were happening. Kelley.
Speaker 3: Kelley Lead Executive Director, Mayor's Office International. 11. that I would also add, you know, from the very origination of the original document when we started talking about the community investment fund is what's unique is a couple of things, but in particular is that one, the only role for the authority is to act as the fiscal agent, so they would collect the funds and then those would be held as a fiscal agent. We've been very clear and actually are looking forward to and Tim Santos, who's the executive director of the North Democrats from Collaborative, has agreed to help facilitate, among others, a discussion with the community about now how do we organize the global response to a community to prepare themselves for the receipt of these funds? And what's the right representation beyond just the Citizens Advisory Committee to talk about what programs, what projects? And we've heard a lot tonight among the speakers about different things that need to be funded. And this is truly a blank canvas for the community to determine how they want to use these funds, and it will evolve over time. So that's a point that has been with us from day one about this. And I think speaking on behalf of Paul Andrews and others, you know, we've talked about how could we accelerate this sooner? And I think that's the next round of discussions about how we move the community investment fund sooner well before the building start.
Speaker 1: Great. And just one quick question to I don't see Terrence Carroll, but I see Maria Garcia Berry. The ongoing meetings of the CAC, once this authority is formed, will the CAC continue to meet? Because there is a community person saying that, how will they continue to be informed?
Speaker 5: Right. So the CAC has been meeting once a month since August of 2013, September 2013. It is the intent and the mayor's agenda for the first authority meeting that the Citizens Advisory Committee should be considered as the permanent advisory committee to the authority. That's our intent. We've been talking to a lot after the last meeting that we had Terence and myself and Liz Adams, who also works with us. We've been talking to a lot of the committee members and on the meeting on the 28th, which is our September meeting, even though we've had four meetings, we still have one more meeting in September. That is the topic of discussion is how do we position ourselves, what do we need to do to better structure ourselves, to have better accountability, to make sure that everybody understands everything that the CAC is doing? We do a pretty robust mailing and notification to people who just sign up to get the information. And what's amazing is over two thirds of the committee has been meeting regularly for over four years. They show up every month and we get a lot of attendance, a good attendance. So we'll be talking about that on the 28th.
Speaker 1: Great. All right. Thank you, Miss Berry. All right. Rafael Espinosa. Councilman Espinosa. Okay. I guess for the two that are closest to the microphone, how many how many directors are coming from the state? I mean, are assigned by the state of Colorado.
Speaker 3: Zero.
Speaker 5: How many?
Speaker 1: But there but the state portion of this project is 100 and 117 to 120. Now, $120 million, correct?
Speaker 3: It's 121.5 million is what's coming from what you're referencing is the Regional Tourism Act application, which was adopted or approved by the State Economic Development Commission.
Speaker 1: So the cash portion for the National Western Stock Show is that is how much?
Speaker 3: So it's 50 million in cash and then 75 million inland. So $125 million.
Speaker 1: How many directors are they getting to? And then the University of Colorado also gets to direct.
Speaker 3: The University of Colorado is not represented at.
Speaker 1: Colorado State University. Sorry, Frank. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 4: Hey, notice how I stood up for you, Tony?
Speaker 1: He is not happy and not coming back.
Speaker 3: Is there a rebuttal from the Chancellor? So, CSU. So the state is so there in the agreement. There are dollars actually through the House bill 1344, there was 250 million approved by the state legislature. 50 million is for facilities supporting facilities in Fort Collins. 200 million are coming to this campus for three facilities and they have two seats on the board.
Speaker 1: So $120 million, zero seats, $50 million and 90 acres of land. Two seats, I mean, zero seat, 217. Two seats at $50 million and 90 acres and two seats for $16 million.
Speaker 3: Can you clarify that? Where are you coming up with the.
Speaker 1: So what was the what did you say, the current state house?
Speaker 3: Yeah, sure. So House Bill 1344, which was adopted in the state in early 15, was 250 million. 50 million goes up to Fort Collins for supporting facilities. 200 million comes to the campus for three facilities that will be built at the National Western Center, a state.
Speaker 1: Tax revenue.
Speaker 3: CLP Certificates of participation.
Speaker 1: We're going to sell those.
Speaker 3: Well, that's for the state. Determine how what they use as collateral for those. But ultimately through the Secretary of State, she will represent the state in the sale or use of those funds.
Speaker 1: I'm going to now suggest that that is $330 million of state money or $317 million of state money with with just the two representatives.
Speaker 3: So let me let me just clarify. So the RTA money don't count, the 121.5 million is paid over 36 years. So that's paid out of an increment that will be paid over drips and drabs over the course of 36 years. So what we need right now, though, is the construction is now and the actual value of that state money is substantially less. It will have to be pledged in a certain way and it will be worth a lot less than 121.5 million because we need it for construction today.
Speaker 1: My my point there my point that I'm trying to get at is we paid $168 million for Coors Field, divided over six counties. We paid $250 million for Mile High Stadium, divided over six counties. And every single one of those counties got equal representation with two state people on those that district. And now we're now Denver's portion. Just Denver's portion is $673 Million.
Speaker 3: $622,000,622.
Speaker 1: Million. So basically those two are portion more than our portion on those other two projects combined doubled or tripled. And the community here is asking for two seats. Why was that so difficult? Because I know that the mayor gets six appointments. I mean, have we gotten a commitment from the mayor's office that we're going to get actual neighborhood people as part of those six appointments that somehow justifies excluding them because.
Speaker 3: So a couple of points. One, you know, this is as far as I know, and I worked on the football stadium project. This is the first entertainment facility, public entertainment facility that actually has neighborhood representation as a voting member. I cannot I'm not aware of any other facility in the city in county of Denver that has a resident or residents that are impacted by a project as a voting member. That's one to is. You know, again, if you think about the original term at 50 years with the ability to extend for two additional 25 year terms for a 100 year deal, one of the things that the mayor wanted to make sure, because obviously mayors will change over that hundred years, is that there was always going to be an assurance in the framework or the makeup of this board that at least one community representative would be a voting member of the of that body based on conversations with the community. And this was actually a really one of many good conversations, was this idea of adding a non-voting member that would be also at these meetings so that if there was a vacancy of the neighborhood, that this non-voting member could step in and actually be a voting member. So there's always continuity of a vote among the members. And again, the last piece I would reference in Crystal or Jen can jump in here is the mayor has has six other appointments. But what was important here was being very clear that the neighborhoods always had a representative that could vote on behalf of the community.
Speaker 4: But that could have been one.
Speaker 1: Could have been two, could have been eight members of the community. That is up to you guys to make that determination. And while there would likely be sort of homogeneity or sense of mean consensus in in any of those agencies, the stock show people, the university system, there is no there there is more there's less homogeneity in our communities. We could have that appoint that single appointment could be somebody that has been a long term.
Speaker 4: Member of that community or a short term member.
Speaker 1: Of that community, rather than having representation from a cross-section. That just adding one additional member could add. So, you know, instead what we're doing is we're asking the mayor to just focus on that. Let's focus on the question. You can get to those comments in the comments portion, but just get to a question on them for this portion. Thank you. So is the then for you, Crystal? Has the mayor committed to one of his six, two of his six or some portion of his six appointments to being members of this community that live within the boundaries of global Elyria in Swansea.
Speaker 2: So good evening everyone. My name is Krystal Torres de Herrera. I am the deputy city attorney. It is my pleasure to be here today to answer these questions. Councilman Espinosa, I really appreciate the question, and it's obviously something that we've talked about at each of these meetings that we've had with our community members. I'm going to answer your question, but I also want to highlight some other information that was shared in these meetings, because I think it helps out to frame this discussion as well. One of those is that in addition to the document and the changes that we made, we also shared some additional documents with the Citizens Advisory Committee that we thought would be helpful. One of those was a letter that the mayor has drafted for the future board members of the authority, and that letter details his expectations for this authority board in terms of how they're going to interact with the community and how they are going to honor and be able to make sure that there is always that relationship and understanding and conversation with with the community. I think that was very important as we talked about with these discussions. Even for those folks who have concerns about this agreement, I think it was really helpful for them to see that that this is an expectation for all of the the board members that the mayor is appointing here. I would also point out that city council is also going to be approving each of the mayoral appointees. These are folks who will come back in front of all of you. Also, the mayor has asked the Citizens Advisory Committee to give him feedback on the attributes that they think are important in these and these appointments to say, hey, these are really important appointments. I want to hear directly from you what you think is important, what are the perspectives they should have? What are the qualities I need to be looking for? And President Burks, as you know, while you were at that meeting, President Brooks generously made the offer to the community members that he has a standing meeting with the mayor every Tuesday and that he was going to be bringing when the community was ready, a group of. Folks to meet with the mayor and to say at that end, to have that time to talk to him about, hey, we understand that you're going to be appointing a community member, but you also have these other appointments. Let's have that conversation. Let's talk about that. I really appreciated the dialog from the community that we had around that meeting and the fact that the community was very thoughtful about wanting to get their ducks in a row, wanting to spend some time together as a group and figuring out what those attributes are, what they really wanted . There was a lot of conversation about business owners versus residents and people who had a longstanding impact in the community. So all of that was also part of the discussions and I think really helpful to really frame what these conversations look like and the path forward. So understanding that that process is still unfolding. We anticipate that as that meeting happens, as the community comes forms with comes forward with the attributes that we will be having those conversations as we move forward together.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the real unfortunate thing in that response was, I mean, we had a proclamation tonight about DOCA. You know, the mayor's letter does not have the gravitas of having it in the authority agreement in this foundational document. If we had the difference between having a director a position assigned to the community versus a commitment that can change with any mayor. That can change with whoever the president is that there's no guarantee that District nine is represented. I mean, is the president of this council. So while right now I feel like we're in a good place, why wouldn't we just memorialize that for this community.
Speaker 9: Now and forever?
Speaker 2: So if I may, just for the.
Speaker 5: Next hundred years.
Speaker 2: Comments. Number one, there is a representative that's a voting director that is in the document. There is also a gas resident that is a non-voting director who will be at every single board meeting who will have access to executive session. The only other non-voting director is this city's then CFO at the time. That's really powerful because you then have two people who are there who have access to the same amount of information that not even voting director has. The exact same access to information will be able to have all that at the same exact time. I think it's helpful to then have those two people be out, be able to go back and talk to the community. I just wanted to make it clear that both the nonvoting director, they both have the same access to the meetings and the information.
Speaker 1: With the non-voting member have proxy if the voting member is not present.
Speaker 2: Exactly. And that was the thought behind it, because and I'd like to give a a shout out and credit for spotting that. That was something that was very important to us. Is that because this representative needs to be a community person, there's no one else on that board who can jump in and in at a moment of a vacancy. And so it really needed to be somebody from the community who understands the community to play that role. And it wouldn't be fair if somebody wasn't up to speed and aware of all the conversations and contacts that was happening. So that is why we did the non-voting member, because we absolutely wanted someone else from the community to be there to have that same info and be able to step in in the moment of vacancy to address the community's concerns.
Speaker 1: I'm going to jump in here and just clarify one thing. If we added a this is the question. If we added a voting member, you'd be at 12, correct? Correct. An even number. Okay. So there would have to be a whole shift in the in the makeup of this. But, Councilman, are you. One last question. It doesn't need necessarily to be in this agreement, but is there any discussion at all about a patent rights clause if we're talking about becoming the Silicon Valley of of of AG, you know, I imagine we would be generating some sort of great ideas that, you know, with this level of investment. I mean, the entirety of the infrastructure is ours. Is there some sort of discussion about patent rights clauses?
Speaker 3: Sure. I mean, there there's not in this specific agreement. And I think, you know, one of the things that we should references once the authority board is or the authority is activated and stood up, they then become a signatory to this agreement as well. And I think that will be a conversation among the CSA in particular. And, you know, we spent a lot of time and Gretchen in particular has led our next generation agribusiness work, along with the Office of Economic Development. So we need that authority in place. And my guess would be once the authority is up and running, we are moving forward on our next generation. AG We're working with cashew issue on programing that may include a whole range of things around innovation is that there will be a whole nother round of agreements that will emerge, but we really need that authority up and running in order to have those conversations.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, it depends on a whole bunch of what happens in the future that we cannot predict. That's good. That might be a resource for to help stem any sort of future decline. Right. I mean, we don't expect this to decline. 100 years is a long time, though, and things change. So. Okay, great. Great. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Crystal, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone.
Speaker 2: For you, Councilman. Anything?
Speaker 11: Yeah. I don't have the document in front of me that you had passed out that highlighted the mayor's commitments or expectation from the board members. Can you can you remember what some of them are? I know one of them was a commitment to the Community Advisory Committee.
Speaker 2: Absolutely. And, you know, we were getting a copy just right now, and I'd be happy to have that in front of me while we speak.
Speaker 11: That would be awesome. I think it's important to just highlight what those expectations are.
Speaker 2: Perfect. And and just so everyone is clear, this is a letter that the mayor would submit to the end of it, to the authority chairperson and to the members of the board, which highlights several key things, which, as I alluded to earlier, but really at the forefront saying what is the purpose of this letter? This is to protect and to understand the valuable role that all three of these neighborhoods have played historically on this campus and will continue to play. And to that end, in an effort to having the authority integrate within these communities, he is proposing the following. So as part of the overall onboarding. All members of the NWC board and staff shall receive copies of the adopted neighborhood plans, including any amendments, and should be conversant as to the important relationship between the National Western Center campus, its operations and the adjoining neighborhoods. The authority and it originally said should and we're going to change it to well will cooperate with or initiate efforts to develop a local talent pipeline for jobs on or around the NWC campus with an emphasis on talent development for students in the girls neighborhoods. Such programs may include mentoring, internships, apprenticeships, work study or other similar programs. The board and again this said should and we're changing it to well, the board will actively engage the NWC Citizens Advisory Committee, which was established by the National Western Stock Show in the fall of 2013, or any successor organization to create a direct dialog between the future campus and the neighborhood representatives. I would also encourage the authority to engage the many community nonprofits, schools, arnault's and businesses in the region. Another one. To the extent possible, NWC board meetings should be held in the as neighborhoods to provide area residents, nonprofits and business owners direct access to members of the board. Board meetings should include an opportunity for public comment. And then finally and again, this is one more change. We are changing a will should to will. The board will provide easy access to public documents in both electronic and printed formats, as well as in English and Spanish. I would also point out, Councilwoman Ortega, as you know, because you were at the meeting along with Council President Brooks, but there was also discussion from the community, NOLA and others about a community benefits agreement and that I made a commitment that I would raise that issue with the mayor and I will see him later this week and we will discuss that as well.
Speaker 11: So when we come back next week, you may be able to give us an update of.
Speaker 5: Correct. Okay.
Speaker 11: All right. My next question is for Kelly Lead and Kelly. Can you tell us what the additional documents are that would come before this body for approval as part of the National Western Center?
Speaker 3: Absolutely. So the mayor's office of the National Western Center, which is a creation of the mayor and is housed actually in the Webb building right now, is charged on behalf of the city. We're acting as the city's owners rep, and that's a term of art for the design and construction business. But in essence, anything related to where there's an expenditure of city funds. The Mayor's Office of the Western Center, most likely in collaboration with public works, which would be our procurement arm, will put forward two two city council design and construction contracts that in terms of executing this agreement. So anything that hits the threshold, the 500,000 threshold would come before this body for review and approval.
Speaker 11: So the document that you've been referring to, I kept calling it some kind of book, which in my mind is the blue book, but I don't think that's what we call.
Speaker 3: Our baseline.
Speaker 5: Baseline.
Speaker 11: Book. Okay. Is that a document that's approved by council?
Speaker 3: It is not. But what it what it will do is so if you think about the course of the last four years, there's been a lot of documents generated about this project. And what the baseline book does is brings everything together and organizes it into three buckets schedule budget. And scope. So all those documents get pulled together into one document. That becomes the document by which our office and the partners now are now measured and schedule is probably the easiest. In fact, the framework agreement starts to lay out some some schedule dates that show, you know, we had always said this was going to be it'd take us at least ten years to get these early phases done. We're now showing a schedule that goes faster than those original ten years. But the document, the baseline book will be a document that we will certainly share with council. It will be publicly posted. The partners will obviously we'll all use it, but at the end of the day, it's the document by which were measured and we will be providing ongoing reporting to City Council through most likely the Luti Committee, Mary Beth Committee, land use, Transportation Infrastructure Committee around our progress against those targets, just like you've seen in better Denver.
Speaker 11: So, so just to be clear, it's primarily the construction contracts that will come to count design.
Speaker 3: Design and construction.
Speaker 11: Half a million. So any of.
Speaker 3: The and and we still have finance, you know, we've only issued the first tranche of finance, the first 200 million. So we have additional tranches of finance that will come before this body as well.
Speaker 11: Okay. And just to be clear about the ongoing existence of the community, but community a community advisory committee. Is so important because of the ongoing issues. So once the I-70 construction starts, we'll see some of the same activity begin to happen at National Western. So circulation and you know, which bus routes are going to be changed and which streets are going to be closed and all of that kind of stuff, the emergency access to the neighborhood. So that ongoing dialog with the community where those conversations both with National Western and the NBCC and obviously will see that contractor now that's been selected becomes a critical part. And I see the CAC kind of playing a vital role in all of that because it represents the three neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: And absolutely, in fact, it's a lesson. You know, Marie and I were talking about this not long ago. You know, we worked on the Mile High Stadium project together and we had a similar sort of group. But once we kind of finished our work, the group disbanded. Now, obviously, that's a single project with a single purpose. This has and you just highlighted the enormous complexity that's before us, not just around the National Western Center, but the surrounding projects. And I think the Citizens Advisory Committee plays a really, really important role in how do we connect and align those. And Tim Santos and his team in the NDDC will play an equally important role in kind of connecting all the dots. But you know, and then the last piece I would say is, you know, obviously once the authority board gets up and running, we're going to start the authority board's going to be talking about the operations of the campus and the programing and having that connection to the community about their interests of their own programing, talking about the impacts for various events. I mean, today most people don't even realize there's well over 200 plus events at the National Western complex today. Most of them are pretty small and are self-contained. We all we all know the impacts of the National Service talk show.
Speaker 11: So I was at one of those yesterday. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So I mean, all those things are really referenced. Why it's important that we continue to nurture and involve the Citizens Advisory Committee going forward. Absolutely.
Speaker 11: Okay. I'm going to save the rest of your comments. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And with that, I see no one, no other comments. The public hearing for 939 is now closed and we'll open up to comments by members of the council, and I'll start this being the district I represent. Wow. This has been a long time coming in. I was going to say this is kind of the culmination of the two C agreement making good on what the voters approved of. But it came way before that and even came before I came on council in 2011 when the stock show was talking about leaving the city. Joe Johns, that beyond just said for 100 years they've been thinking about this day. Velasquez has many generations of parents and family who've been living in the neighborhood with this incredible stock show in and also the hope to be included in its vision. And so it feels incredibly it feels awesome to be a part of a night like this. Now, is everything perfect? No. But we're doing something that no other communities has ever done. And at a macro sense, you heard the incredible president out of the wonderful CSU University who has been getting joked on today. He's a great guy to really talk about. Feeding the world is the vision, which I think is awesome. But I think for our country, the two regions that don't talk to each other are urban and rural. And we have an opportunity to bring to bridge the urban rural divide. And I think that's incredible. There's a lot that I can say tonight. Boy, we could be here all night. But seeing as this is a special night as well, I'm going to save my comments. I have been a part of two of the four meetings with the community. It's been incredible, really trying to see the city. We have equity partners. I know a lot of folks want to just say, hey, change this and change that. We have equity partners. When you have equity partners, you just don't change. You're in a a legal agreement. So this is very complex. But the equity partners see the value of the neighborhood. And the equity partners had to approve of the non-voting members, which on the face, everybody says, what is a non-voting member? But I think it was just explained very well that there's a lot of value. It's a proxy. It's someone who gets all of the executive information. It's someone who who sits at the table, someone who is allowed to report back. But still with that. I stand with the community and say, you want a second voting member? Okay, let's go meet with the mayor. He has six choices and I stand by that commitment and we are going to have a meeting with the mayor. But this is what it's going to call from the community is organization. And the other thing that I would say is. It's not just that one member I think you all shits. We should all come together, Councilwoman Ortega as well and say, what are the guidelines? We are asking the mayor to choose from. Not just a pick six. This is in Governor Swansea. This is in District nine. We should set up the guidelines of how we picked a six. But that's going to cause a lot of organization. So I completely support that. But I'm deeply moved by the number of residents, the most the eclectic amount of residents who've come to the table speaking in English and Spanish, representing hundreds of years, representing ten years, saying, you know what? This is the right direction. We have some concerns, but let's move forward. Let me tell you right now to have Globeville, Luria, Swansea, come to this podium right now and have general support for this is a miracle. I'm not joking. It is a miracle because I've been in the meetings we've talked to and it takes a little bit for us to come together. And so that's big for the community. That's big for the city. That's big for the equity partner issue in the stock show. And I just want to thank you all, because this has been one of the most inclusive billion dollar projects that I've seen come through the city. We were just having a conversation about DIA and not being able to really get the information. We wanted it. Sorry, DIA. But it was. It's correct. And you all gave books to everyone. Some of them not opened, but you gave books to everyone on the community saying this is it. What are your thoughts? So I want to thank you for that. And I think this is the biggest test for the community now because there is a lot of there's a huge opportunity at stake. And how are we going to use these resources for the betterment of not just now, but ten years, 20 years, 30 years and all over Elyria. Swansea. So I emphatically in supporting this. I'm so proud to. Councilman Monteiro. You worked hard. You didn't get to see this day, but you really worked hard to bring it to this fruition. And so I want to thank you for your leadership. One thing, Kelly, the team, the legal team, CSU, the Rams, such a great school and people in the National Western Stock Show effort for coming to the table and saying, you know what? We want to stay in Denver for the next 100 years. Thank you. All right, next, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to clarify, Councilwoman Monteiro did get to see this day, just not from the dais.
Speaker 1: There you go.
Speaker 4: Thanks. Want to scare anybody alive and well to say.
Speaker 1: Very good clarification. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Sir. I know I was a little bit shook. Yeah, this is really an exciting night. It's. It's a night of great opportunity as well as great challenge. I remember when I was still in the newspaper business and I heard that the National Western was was thinking of moving to Aurora. What do you what are you talking about? It's the stock show. It's Denver. It can't move to Aurora. And I was heartened when I heard discussions kicking up that maybe that that wouldn't happen. And when the deal started to formulate and the stock show was going to stay, and then and then in discussions, I hear there's there's going to be a festival park out there. And the city's been talking about a festival park and how much we need that got a little bit more excited. But it was and I had the opportunity to tell President Frank this a few minutes ago, that a couple of years ago I got the opportunity to attend a dinner on the eve of the stock show and and hear Tony Frank talk about the research that could take place on this campus, really going a long way to address hunger around the world and to change the way food production is handled and look at issues of of clean water in the environment. That's what really got me excited about this project. And yeah, the stock show will be spiffy and new and it'll be great for the next 5000 years, but we really have an opportunity to do some very special stuff there. That being said, 100% support what I hear coming from the community. I think a formal community benefit benefits agreement makes great sense. I think a second voting member is probably doable. I hope I hope that it is. And you know, excuse me, I forgot the neighbors name who who testified, but about having the opportunity for women in the community to to do a purvey their skills on the site. I'm thinking of something like komal out a taxi where where the Latino women came in, come in and not only prepare spectacular meals, but but learn how to get themselves into the restaurant business. So I just along with President Brooks, I talk all day about the opportunities it's spectacular project and I still share. A lot of concern that. This has to be done well, or this neighborhood could get beat up along the way more than it needs to. So Mr. Lane and his crew have a heck of a job ahead of them. And work hard, sir. Work hard. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. Crystal. Crystal, thanks for the answers and Kelly as well. And hey, I don't know how that whole conversation manifests itself, but that to me is I'm I'm grateful to know that some member of the community brought that up to your guys's attention and that not only did you respond, but you responded in a way that I would have been sitting there if I'd been sitting in that meeting begging for you guys to include. And so hopefully part of the reason why we have a community member and why we have a backup plan and a proxy for that is because, you know, well, Rafael's going to sit there and he's going to rail on us, do the so I great answers and thank you for including both you know I will be supporting this because this framework gets the gist right and is better than. Far better than it could have been. And I appreciate the work that you guys have been doing over these years and more recently since the vote. With regard to community dollars, though, now I think I get frustrated how we hide behind the legal lane that this consortium is operating in. I understand it, but the fact remains that this whole thing was in part borne out of a willingness by the stock show to leave. You know, bartering. One municipality versus us and essentially abandoning. They would have essentially abandoned Greece with land that was devalued by an elevated highway. And contamination in this city pumped millions into staff and consultants to benefit the stock show directly and the equity partners as well. And we've been pumping those millions through the MDC, the NWC for years, through the planners that we've hired to master planning process, the Globeville process. And yeah, there's a community component to all those things, but all of those are advisory. So that's why you keep me hearing me hammer about the community aspects on things that are legally binding. This is where we can actually give the results to the community in the same way we're giving them to the partners. And so I appreciate the fact when you do get those wins, because this is where they matter the most. We can document and we can put all these things on a piece of paper and a spreadsheet and talk about how we know what this community needs. But until we start delivering on them. One member said it best he didn't support. All in faith. So there is a ton of faith in this community in everything that has transpired over the last five years. This framework, though, is the one tool that you need to get going. So just be mindful that you know this this is that next piece and use it. All of you guys, the equity partners, CSU as well, to to to start moving forward on your on your on your initiatives, in your goals. But recognize that all those things you've memorialized. Do what you can to capture them, because this community is desperately wanting needing those issues addressed. Thanks. Thanks. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Council president. So I, you know, I've been paying attention to this for quite a while, I think since two C at its birth. And, you know, seeing folks go door to door in the community and hearing overwhelmingly that this is a project that that needs to happen. It's part of our history. It's part of our heritage. We can go on and on with the two key talking points. But the thing that we had to take away from it the most is every single precinct, this was supported. There's a lot of support citywide, and that also comes from the community to have some of the folks I recognize from the community since back in my organizing days and to see them here testifying in support really means a lot to me as well to. Let me let me just say this. I think this partnership with the National Western, with CSU, with Denver, I think this is something that only comes along when you have a lot of different people at the table and a lot of commitment. Right. And and I really appreciate the leadership and it's the willingness to be at the table from Colorado State University. I think it's it's absolutely necessary when we talk about the future of agriculture. Right. Like any other study. And this is the best university to do this, right? This is the very principle of CSU. The very roots of it is that in history and I think of the purpose of, you know, well, we all know the purpose of the public body of the government and to, you know, help accomplish the things that we cannot do individually. And then I think of the purpose of the university, and that's to be that beacon of knowledge, to provide that research, right, to do that research to teach, but not to keep it behind the ivory walls. Right. The ivory tower. But to bring it out into the community and share it with the public good. The knowledge that we have in whatever institution of higher learning that is the purpose that it serves. And to see that kind of mix together and take place in a community where we absolutely need it. Where for three decades, ladies and gentlemen, we've been wanting to see a grocery store. Access to fresh food. There are a lot of things that I think in my day organizing under the Cross Community Coalition with Lorraine Granado is my as one of my mentors and saying there's a lot of work that needs to happen in this community and we cannot do it alone and we are going to die not being able to finish it all. That's just how big of a movement this is and how big of an effort we have to have and. That was 15. 15 years ago. And that still has that still continues. This is one of those opportunities that we have an opportunity just to really bring these different folks together, these different organizations, different efforts together to really address this need, not just in the community but in our city. Right. In this partnership, that takes it to a completely different level. It's a lining of very important stars. And I think, like I said before, it would be a shame if we kept it behind the walls of government for the benefit of government, for the benefit of contractors or whatever our for the behind the ivory walls of the university just to sit on a shelf and say, this is the study we found with this, you know, our our our one institution. And I think. We all want. Our two confused, Dr. Frank said, are two. Are one. Ah, one. I'm sorry. Thank you. I keep mixing that up. The. The, ah, one institution. And I think. What I'm trying to say is. We have the right people at the table. And we have a challenge in front of us. We need to solve this challenge. And we need to start with the community that we are in. My ask and from day one. It's not my. My district, not the neighborhood I was born and raised in. But something that I know has been a big issue that we knocked on a lot of those doors is. Let's end that food desert. If it's about if this is what it's about and this is this alignment of the right folks at the table, let's put an end to the food desert out in Greece. And let's do it the right way. Let's do it as as this proud woman got up and said. Give us the opportunity to prove who we are to what we're capable of. Right. Those are the community benefits that we're talking about. Of course, you know, there are community benefits that you can write in any agreement and stuff like that. But we have to make a real commitment because if we can't change the community around us, then we have no business trying to change the world around us. Right. And I think that's going to be, you know, something pivotal. Those jobs. Right. The ability to actually put people in those scholarships, banning from from from the stock show. I think that's that's just a critical opportunity. The last thing I'm going to say is that and I and I heard what what someone somebody had said earlier about our culture and in the history of of Western culture. There's something that we don't talk about that we should be. And I think, of course, in silence this poem I am walking. And I think of the fact that the American cowboy and not Western culture comes from us. The people that they point and say, those are not Americans, us. The Aguero's. Americanos, the folks who live in these communities and call this home. We did reveal. That's why it's called Reveal. That vaquero, that culture comes from us, the adobe and our buildings, those bricks that we use that comes from us hundreds of years ago. That corn, that grain comes from our ancestors thousands of years ago. And what a shame. The hundreds of years later, we cannot benefit from it. And I think this is the opportunity for us to actually turn that around, to close that, to close that gap and to finally say, you know what? Your ancestors taught my ancestors a long time ago to survive in this rough Western climate. We are finally going to. We're going to we're going to turn it right back around. And I think that's one opportunity that we have. And I've been thinking about this for a while, Dr. Frank, and this has been brewing in my head for a while. I was like, Man, what a what, a what? What an opportunity that we have not just in front of us for the next hundred years, but in front of us for the past 300 for the next 300. And that's the way we should be thinking. So thank you so much. You know, it gives me a lot of proud, a lot of Pride Counseling Council president to to see something like this, an opportunity be created in in Globeville, Larry and Swansea out with the National Western Authority. National Western Center Authority. Thank you all for all of your hard work. Everybody in the room, including the community. And I think the Broncos are tied at seven seven.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, I think the CSU team will be looking forward to you taking them out, apologizing for this.
Speaker 9: Hey, man, he was the one that made the silly bet.
Speaker 1: That wasn't even just Councilman Ortega. Mr. Nice bookend.
Speaker 11: So I first want to. Extend my gratitude and appreciation to Kelly for the role that you've played in in guiding this project and this process to where we are here tonight. Your leadership has played an important role in bringing the community together and really making sure that all of these issues have been dealt with. I want to just list off the names of other people who have been key and active participants in the process. Jen There you are over there. Gretchen Crystal. Pat and Paul from National Western, Tony, Frank from CSU and your staff who have sat in on most of the CAC meetings, all of the residents from the community who have participated in the CEC meetings and whether you're a voting member or not, you know, residents from the community have come and made sure that their voice was heard. And I appreciate the discussion at the last three meetings that really moved this agreement. There was, you know, a document handed out to everybody and. You all listen to what the residents were saying and came back with some changes. It wasn't exactly what everybody wanted, but it was significant movement to show there was sincere listening and partnership in this process. Maria and Terence, thank you both for your role as co-chairs of this committee process. I just want to mention that part of the history with National Western in these neighborhoods goes back a long, a long way. And Pat played a very key role in working with the cross-community coalition in helping to raise funds to build the building that focus points is now in that was cross-community home in pat. You know I know the community and Lorraine was very grateful for your role in helping bring dollars to the table that they were not successful in attracting on their own. So this partnership continues and the neighbors have been full and active members of this process in ensuring, again, that their their voice was being heard. I also, Councilman Cashman, would like to see that community benefits agreement. It's something that we've talked about from from day one. It's been a part of the conversation with the neighborhood and in Kelly and the process as it's moved along. And there are some things that are in the works that will be part of that community benefits agreement, the roll up, you know, and the conversation about, well, gee, what is that going to generate? It's not going to really be enough for the community to offset the impact that they're going to be dealing with from construction to, you know, traffic to who knows what all those issues might be. But the the fact that the community is an active partner and those issues will be put on the table is part of the ongoing existence of the Community Advisory Committee, the fact that there will be representation and I'm committed to sitting in on the meeting with Councilman Brooks and the mayor to advocate for that second voting member, because I think that is important to ensure that that is part of the full participation. You know, we're not saying add another member to the 11 member board. We're saying one of those six members should be another voting member. So you have equal representation as the other two partners, because I see the community as the third leg of this stool. The the work that Tim Sanders will be doing as part of the index and helping to bring everybody together to look at standing up that infrastructure, if you will, for what would be the community investment fund beneficiary, if you will, is is really important because it it I see it also tying into part of the conversation with the mayor. But it also allows the opportunity for not just whatever could be generated by the complex itself, but there have been conversations about the fact that we still don't have enough money to do the improvements on the 300 homes left within the 500 footprint of the I-70 corridor. And, you know, that could be the vehicle to to put some of those dollars into you know, the community has been working on the community land trust to deal with an immediate and real issue these neighborhoods are dealing with today. And it's the displacement of families that cannot afford to stay in their own neighborhood. And if we could jump start getting some resources into that fund to try to buy some of those homes and save the houses so that, you know, people can stay in the neighborhood. We know some of those homes are in horrible condition and may be better off being raised than, you know. It'll cost more money to improve them than it will to build something new on those sites. But having control of that land in the community is is going to be really important to addressing so many of the issues that are kind of coming at these folks from all different directions, from the construction going on on Brighton Boulevard and what will be happening on the river and I-70 and National Western and how were they going to get in and out of their neighborhood when all of this construction is happening? And it's why all of these pieces need to interrelate with one another. It's why the index was created in the first place to ensure that these things aren't all happening in in silos, but they're all working together. I have been an active participant in this process, mostly through my staff person, Susan Aldouri, who has sat in on most of these meetings. But I attended the last, I think, three or four of the CCAC where, you know, the conversation has furthered along. And really it's in large part from the residents standing up and saying, this is what we need, this is what we want. And and again, that genuine listening that was part of this process. So I am happy to support this, to move it forward. But I'm committed to the ongoing efforts that need to happen to ensure that the community benefit agreement is in place and that we work towards trying to get that second voting member and making sure that this is the world class facility that we've all envisioned it to be. And, you know, I can remember one of my first council meetings in 2011. There were actually it was Councilman Brown and I were talking to colleagues saying we need a letter signed by all 13 council members because by golly, none of us are going to let National Western move out of Denver. And so that really was the beginning of the conversations of how do we then look at how we keep them here and what is needed to keep this critical asset that has been part of the history of Denver in the city of Denver and not in Aurora. Nothing, nothing against our friends in Aurora. But this is a Denver icon. And so it's important that this process move forward to keep this asset here and the relationships and the opportunities that will be afforded to the residents of this community and the broader community as a whole. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Last words, it's been moved in. Second amount of secretary roll call.
Speaker 7: Clark.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 7: Espinosa. Right. Flynn I friend in Cashman.
Speaker 4: Lopez Hi.
Speaker 7: Ortega. Sussman Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close the voting. And as a result.
Speaker 7: Nine eyes or see the grimace? Yes, nine eyes.
Speaker 1: Yes, you're right. Nine Eyes Council Bill 939 has passed. Congratulations on everybody's hard work. Seeing no other business before this body. We stand adjourned. Go, Broncos.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a Framework Agreement and its exhibits among the City and County of Denver, Colorado State University, The Western Stock Show Association, and the National Western Center Authority; and exempting the public buildings on the National Western Center campus from the naming requirements of Section 2-275, D.R.M.C.
Approves a framework agreement with Colorado State University, the Western Stock Show Association, and the National Western Center Authority for fifty years, with two possible 25 year extensions, to authorize formation of an authority to operate the new facilities and govern the roles and responsibilities of each party for the redevelopment of the existing National Western Complex into a year-round venue to preserve the National Western Stock Show in Denver for the next 100 years, provide room for new programming, provide connectivity to surrounding neighborhoods, and bring more visitors to Denver. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 10-2-17. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08282017_17-0883
|
Speaker 1: Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill eight three on the floor?
Speaker 3: Thank you. Mr. President, I move that council bill eight three be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. Can I get a second? Thank you has been moved and seconded the public hearing for council bill 883 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council.
Speaker 1: I'm Brad Dodson with.
Speaker 6: The Department of Finance. Council Bill 883 is for an ordinance to approve the creation.
Speaker 1: Of the Denver.
Speaker 6: Tourism Improvement District upon receipt of a petition signed by approximately 50% of the lodging businesses who will ultimately be in the district. The petition complies with the requirements of a Tourism Improvement District Enabling Ordinance and has been signed by more than 30% of lodging businesses as required. The boundaries of the district.
Speaker 4: Will.
Speaker 6: Be coterminous with the boundaries of the city and county of Denver and include any lodging business that offers 50 or more rooms at that location. The Denver Tide's primary focus will be to foster economic development by providing enhanced tourism related facilities and services, and the support will include marketing and promotional services designed to attract more tourists, visitors , conventions and other meetings to the city, as well as an annual contribution of funds for the expansion of the Colorado Convention Center and ongoing capital improvements. The Tide's initial annual budget for programs and services is estimated to be $8.7 million, and the district's revenue will be raised by adding a 1% tourism improvement tax to the guest portfolio of district hotels. The initial board of directors shall consist of seven members appointed by the mayor and confirmed by City Council through the Creation Ordinance presented. Proposed board members are in attendance tonight as our Richard Schaaf and Amy Mayhew, who are representing the petitioners as part of the organization process. The petitioners provided information on the proposed district by engaging hoteliers through in-person meetings and written correspondence and several news articles on the TID. Organizing efforts have been published by local media over the past few months. The operating plan for the Denver TID meets the requirements of Chapter 20, Article 13 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code. It is further submitted that the types of services and improvements to be provided by the proposed district are those services and improvements which best satisfy the purposes outlined in the code. City Council approval of the tides creation will permit the district to hold an election on the proposed 1% tax, and proponents of the district are planning to hold this required election this November. Based on the information presented, the Department of Finance recommends approval of the creation of the Denver Tourism Improvement District, its initial operating plan and budget, and the initial members of the Board of directors. And with that, Richard, Amy, myself are available to answer any questions that you may have.
Speaker 1: Thank you. We have three individuals signed up to speak this evening. I'll call all three. Looks like maybe, Brad, if you could leave a little bit of room right there, we could have one at the microphone and two on the on the seat with you there so that we can get through everybody. So our three speakers are Alan Patty, Chairman, say COO and Tony Dunn. And Allen. Paddy Allen. You're you're up first. Thank you. Good evening, President Clark and members of the city council. I am Alan Petty, general manager of two Doubletree Hotel Properties located in Stapleton. I'm here tonight on behalf of Visit Denver's Board of Directors to urge your final approval for the creation of the Denver Tourism Improvement District. Visit Denver along with the Metro Denver Lodging Council and the city and County of Denver have collaborated to develop an innovative funding opportunity that will benefit the city, the community and our partners. The TID will raise the remaining funds necessary to achieve the full vision for the expansion of the Colorado Convention Center and Fund Future Center improvements. In addition, the TIDE will support marketing efforts for convention and leisure visitors to ensure Denver's tourism industry remains strong and vibrant. This marketing fund will be overseen by a tidy governing board, of which I am proud to be a member. I'm joined here tonight by fellow TID Board members NAV and Demand and Building and Evergy as a demonstration of our citywide hotel industry support for this initiative. Visit Denver greatly appreciates the city's ongoing commitment to the tourism industry and recognition of the importance of the Colorado Convention Center to our local economy. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, Chairman Group.
Speaker 9: Excuse me. Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou and. I am the organizing founder for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. We stand in support of this bill. Primarily for the interests of poor working, poor, homeless and senior citizens, that it provides an opportunity for us to participate in a thriving and vibrant economy, which means jobs for the poor. Which means economic opportunities for the poor so that they're not poor no more, and that they receive equitable treatment in the hiring practices of the city. Tourism is one of the elements of economic development for any city that seeks to rise above the throes of poverty and allows poor people an opportunity to get in at the bottom floor so that one day we can honestly see that not only are we participating in jobs, but we also become owners of hotels and receive some of the economic benefits that can be distributed among our people. And so without further ado, I yield my time so that we can get on with really why we here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Last up, we have Tony. Tony.
Speaker 0: Getting President.
Speaker 6: Clark. Members of council. I'm Tony Dunne, general manager sheraton downtown Denver. Also chairman of the.
Speaker 0: Metro Denver Lodging Council. I'm here today on behalf of the MDL See Board of Directors to thank you for your leadership on this issue and ask you for your support in creating the Tourism Improvement District that's before you this evening. Over the past three years, AMDOCS Board of Directors has explored a variety of ways to bring additional marketing dollars to the city. We're pleased that those efforts have resulted in a district that has over 50% of electors have already signed on to. In addition to the marketing dollars, we are committed to the Colorado Convention Centers long term success and are pleased that dollars from this fund will ensure the competitiveness from years to come. Again, we thank you for your support of this tourism improvement district and your efforts to help make Denver a world class destination for tourism. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have at this time.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. All right, that concludes our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? All right. The public hearing for Council Bill 883 has closed comments from members of Council. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to speak in support of this moving forward. I think this is an appropriate way to fund the improvements of the convention center by adding the additional dollars to the hotels that are 50 rooms and above as a way to, you know, kind of have everybody play play in that plays in that arena, too, to be part of that solution. So I appreciate the fact that all of the hotels that are 50 and above that have signed on to this are willing to to do that, to make those improvements happen. Because when we fill our convention center, it fills hotel rooms and it benefits everybody in in the Denver hotel area, whether they're downtown or out at Stapleton or out at the tech center. When we have big conventions, all of our hotel rooms are filled. The other thing I think is important to mention is that for the kinds of jobs that are in the hotels, a lot of them are service industry jobs. But it's the one industry where you can start at the bottom and move your way up because they really support promoting from within. And it is one place where you can start as a janitor or you can start as somebody that's cleaning a room. You can start in a restaurant in any of our hotels, and years later, you can be the manager of that hotel. And so I think this this what this really is, you know, one of those jobs that that has some. Career path to it that. You know, creates that opportunity for people in our community who are looking for the ability to earn their income and to change their their living status. So I just want to encourage my colleagues to support this moving forward. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman New will visit the creative center. Obviously a real economic engine for our whole downtown. And we're so lucky to have Richard Sheriff and his whole team leading the development of the the new convention center expansion. That's going to bring so much in terms of what my colleagues are saying in jobs, but also it's just going to be a great enhancement to visitors who come to Denver and enjoy our city and be able to to have a more attractive convention center, an expanded center for four larger shows, and just a real asset to our city. So I just really look forward to supporting this. And Echo, my councilwoman were taking a few comments about supporting this movement. My colleagues, thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Do any other comments? I'll just add that I'm excited to support this tonight. I want to thank everybody who put the effort into creating our first ever ID in the city. I'm excited to see this go to the ballot and also just want to in addition to what my colleagues have said, Echo, it wasn't mentioned here tonight, but we talked about it in committee and visit. Denver has said it before, but that tourism drives down taxes for Denver residents, for Denver citizens, to the tune of about four $500 a year less that Denver residents have to pay in taxes to have the city services that we have. And so initiatives like this are continuing to build on our tourism industry and support not just our visitor community, but every citizen across Denver. And so with that, I'll be happy to support tonight. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 1: I.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. Carnage. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Secretary, please close voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight's counsel Bill 883 has passed. Congratulations. And now. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 755 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance creating and establishing the Denver Tourism Improvement District, appointing the initial members of the Board of Directors of the District, and approving the Initial Plan and preliminary 2018 budget therefore.
Creates and establishes the citywide Denver Tourism Improvement District (TID), appoints the initial members of the board of directors, and approves the initial operating plan and preliminary budget. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 8-9-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08282017_17-0755
|
Speaker 1: All right. Secretary, please close voting and announce the results tonight. Tonight's counsel Bill 883 has passed. Congratulations. And now. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 755 on the floor?
Speaker 3: I move that council bill 755 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: Has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Councilor Bill 755 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Good evening. Members of Council Online spoke with community planning and development here to present the staff report for 2600 South Sheridan a rezoning proposal to reason from pre 579 to study. As you can see, the subject property is located in Council District two and more specifically, the Harvey Park neighborhood. The specific location of the parcel is off of South Sheridan Boulevard and West Vassar Drive and is outlined in the yellow dotted on the map illustrated. The specific request here today is to rezone the subject property, which is about 1.26 acres into a study to allow for the continued use of a daycare, as well as the sale of 15 feet of the property to the east side. In terms of the proposed zone district as it stands for the suburban neighborhood context, as you as single unit uses and is pertaining to the minimum zone lot size of 6000 square feet from the existing zoning. As noted before, this is a planned unit development and the Pudi specifies that it allows for R one uses which are former chapter 59 residential zone district as well as child care for a standalone zoned as a standalone use. This need for child care as a standalone use was what precipitated to create the 8579 in the first place and creating those additional restrictions associated to gross floor area parking setbacks and as such prohibits the ability to do a zone law amendment, which is kind of necessitating this rezoning in terms of the existing land use context. The parcel as well as parcels to the north as well as south are public, quasi public as they are community serving uses of churches and then to the east and the west are single unit dwellings. Photos here illustrate the top far right is an illustration of the subject property with surrounding areas showing the lower scale nature of the churches in the areas where as well as some of the single family homes. In terms of the process that has brought us here today. We had the planning board hearing on June 21st, but the unanimous approval recommended by the planning board ludie heard this on July 18th. As for the public outreach, all the nano's within a 200 foot radius of the subject property have been notified. As of now, we have not had any comments received on this application to date, as well as the required notification signs have been posted on the property as required. With regard to the review criteria, I'll go through these quickly as we have two citywide plans of comp plan 2000 as well as Blueprint Denver, which is the land use and transportation plan for the City Plan, provides a couple of strategies that specifically pertain to the application relating to environmental sustainability excuse me, land use strategies, economic strategies , and specifically neighborhood strategies to ensure that we're investing in our neighborhoods and able to provide community serving uses within the residential areas such as daycare. From a blueprint land use concept. The subject property is designated as single family, residential and area of stability, but the future street classification of South Street and Boulevard as residential arterial. It's intended to serve higher degrees of mobility to and from trips with residential uses in the area. Whereas, West Bess, our drivers are designated local, which is very common for our interior residential neighborhoods. So with that we find it consistent with the adopted plans. We also find uniform application of this zone district requested and furthering the public health, safety and welfare primarily through the adoption of adopted plans, but also providing those services needed for the community. The justifying circumstances for this case have been determined as a new adoption of the Denver zoning code, which provides additional flexibility that was not previously offered in former Chapter 59, whereas a child care could not be a standalone use and had to be accessory to a church. Now child care can be a standalone use when it is in a building that was not designated for residential uses at the time of construction. Also, we're seeing a citywide demand for child care and those statistics are detailed further in the staff report justifying the need to maintain this use as well as a change in the land abutting 5880 West Vassar Avenue, in the sense that that land has been now used as a driveway for the abutting property. And so with this we find it consistent with the neighborhood's own context, purpose and intent as well. And so in the review of all these criteria, CPD does recommend approval of this rezoning application, finding that all the rezoning criteria have been met. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. We have two speakers this evening. I'm going to call both speakers up. We have Gretchen Williams and Gretchen, you will be first and chairman Sekou.
Speaker 3: Good evening. I'm Gretchen Williams and I live at 484 Gilman Street in Denver in Council District ten. And I'm here representing Tom and Kathleen Maxwell, who are the.
Speaker 2: Owners of the subject property at 2600.
Speaker 3: South Sheridan and Council District two. The Community Planning and Development Staff has presented a very thorough analysis of.
Speaker 2: A simple but somewhat difficult.
Speaker 5: To explain rezoning.
Speaker 3: Request. So they did recommend approval, though. So that's the main thing to remember. But there are two other points I.
Speaker 5: Just want to re-emphasize. The zoning will not change.
Speaker 3: Anything on.
Speaker 5: The ground. The daycare facility will remain as it is.
Speaker 3: It has they're not planning to change anything. And secondly, this will allow for the zone line amendment between the daycare facilities lot and the.
Speaker 5: Adjacent residential lot on Vassar Avenue.
Speaker 3: Which is a completely and totally necessary for for the owner of that. So the benefit, a secondary benefit is that this will bring.
Speaker 2: A Peabody.
Speaker 5: Into the new zoning classification. By giving it the SS your D classification. So I.
Speaker 3: Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Speaker 5: And.
Speaker 3: Ask for your approval. On behalf of Mr. and.
Speaker 5: Mrs. Maxwell, the applicants. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Chairman Sekou.
Speaker 9: Yes. Chairman say co-founder organized the Black Star Action Movement for self-defense. Client supplied poor, working, poor homeless people and senior citizens. I would be remiss if. I didn't. Call out on David. Congratulations, David. You taught me everything I needed to know to keep me coming back so I didn't get thrown out by the police. So I want to thank you do for all those sidebar conversations. You have done a wonderful job, and after almost ten years of participating down here, we need to give David a round of applause. And for my guardian angel, Debbie, happy birthday. Again, she has worked very hard to keep me coming back without getting thrown out or locked up by the police. When it comes to this matter that we're talking about, we unconditionally support the rezoning of this child care facility and in this neighborhood. The need for this is obvious. I mean, it's just talking about it. And so with no further ado, I can only say I know without a doubt you are going to pass this unanimously. And so with that order from the people. Do it, do it quickly. And let's get down to why we come here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions on this matter from members of council? All right. Seeing no questions. The public hearing for constable 755 is closed. Comments from members of council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. This is, I think, the second rezoning we've had in Council District two since I've been here. I had to check again to make sure it was not a mirage. But it is it is true. It's happening. I want to thank gretchen. Many of you know, Gretchen worked here as a legislative analyst for. Way a number of years and and worked in zoning. And I want to thank you very much for helping Tom and Kathy work this through. I've known the Maxwells for 30 some years. And this this is truly one of those indecipherable problems that results from having a pad in place and changing circumstances. And the whole thing revolves, if I can boil it down to its essence in trying to make sure that the driveway to the private residence at the rear of the property is on the zone lot with the residents and not with the former church Mal Daycare, so that the homeowners can do their financing. And it's unbelievable to me that it takes this long. I think this came to me. Two years ago? No. About eight months ago. And so I urge my colleagues to as to echo chairman, say, crew to pass this unanimously and move on to the next matter. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, two rezonings for District two. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 2: Flynn.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 2: Gilmore. Hi, Cashman. Hi. Carnage. Lopez. All right. New Ortega. Hi, Black.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce results tonight. Tonight's count, about 755 has passed. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 940 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2600 South Sheridan Boulevard in Harvey Park.
Rezones property located at 2600 South Sheridan Boulevard from PUD 579 to S-SU-D (planned development in the old zoning code to suburban, single-unit) in Council District 2. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-18-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08282017_17-0940
|
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce results tonight. Tonight's count, about 755 has passed. Councilwoman Black, will you please put Council Bill 940 on the floor?
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that council bill 940 will be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. The one hour courtesy public hearing for council bill 940 is open. May we have the overview? Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Kinney and Mr. Broadwell. I'll let you take it from here.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I've been waiting once to get to this point. Counsel Bill 940 series of 2017 is known as the public. The Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. And it will basically provide the following regarding public safety enforcement. First, it will memorialize city policy by prohibiting the detention of individuals beyond their sentence. Second, it'll memorialize predominant city practices by prohibiting city employees from collecting information on immigration or citizenship status. Third, it will prohibit the sharing of other information and other information about individuals for the purposes of immigration enforcement. It'll memorialize predominant practices by prohibiting the use of city resources or city cooperation with city with civil immigration enforcement, including prohibiting providing access to secure areas or facilities. So we will get a little bit more into this. But I wanted to pass this over to my co-sponsor, my wonderful colleague, Councilman Ken, each to to further explain some more details of the bill.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Mr. Chair. A few things to add in terms of the bill. It also prohibits the city from entering into any agreements with the federal government that would have us working on behalf of immigration enforcement, cooperation agreements, contracts, anything like that. And the city will always honor judicial warrants. This is the key, fundamental due process item in our U.S. Constitution to ensure that there's probable cause and to ensure that the correct person is being apprehended. And so if and when a judicial warrant is presented, then the city will be fully in compliance with that. Secondly, there is only one federal law that governs immigration enforcement in cities, and that is eight U.S.C. 1373. It requires that the city share immigration status information about an individual if we know it and if we're asked. The bill explicitly references that the city does and will continue to comply with that federal law. And also it has a clause requiring us to continue to comply with any other state or federal laws, which may involve checking on immigration status for immigration. I'm sorry for to see if someone's qualified for certain benefits. So where the law requires us to screen individuals, we will do that. However, unless the law requires us to collect that information or share it, we will not be doing that. We will be in full compliance with the law, but it will limit our actions beyond what the law requires. Lastly, while the jail may provide a notification of anticipated release times, this can only occur if individuals are advised of their legal rights. This allows individuals an opportunity to seek an attorney, right. If they if they choose to do so before their release. So it ensures that individuals are better advised of their rights. And lastly, the jail will report data to this council and to the administration on a regular basis so that we can closely monitor the types of requests that are happening at the jail, and so that we can continue the conversation about how these practices are impacting our city. So this is a tough area, and the bill intends to continue our conversation about it. With that, I will see if there's anything that our city attorney, David Bravo, would like to add.
Speaker 1: David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney That was an excellent overview of the bill. I'll be available for questions after they arise after the hearing. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. We do have 32 individuals signed up to speak this evening. Per our rules, the courtesy hearing is only one hour long. And so while you are granted 3 minutes, we will have to cut off speakers at the hour, Mark. And so I'll just ask you to be as concise in your words as possible. If someone before you has covered the same point that you were, you can reference that and seed time so that we can get as many people through as possible. And I do apologize to those of you in the front row, but in order to keep things going so we don't waste half of that hour just getting people to the front, I am going to ask if you're sitting in the front row, if you could please stand up. Everybody get nice and cozy. Scoot over. Let's make room for these folks so that we can. I'm going to call five speakers up at a time to have in this front row so that we can just get through as many people and get as many voices heard as possible. So I'm going to call the first five speakers and then we'll start our hour when the first speaker starts. I do apologize if I mispronounce your name, if you could make your way up to this front bench and we're saving the front bench just for the five who are called. And once you're done, you can go back and then I'll call up five again. So the first five that we have today are Victor Galvan, Kristin Wade, Ray Macias, Rigoberto Perez and Chairman Sekou, if you could all please come to the front pew. And a first is Victor Galvin.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Chair, and thank.
Speaker 6: You, counsel, for letting me speak.
Speaker 1: Today. My name is Victor Galvan.
Speaker 6: I am the director of membership and engagement at the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. I am also undocumented and a resident of Denver. I grew up here in Denver. I call it home and out of personal experience. I know what it's like to live in Denver and feel like you don't have equal protection of your constitutional rights, your right to feel safe and call on the police when you need to. And I've also seen this second hand at the hands of of our and by some of our members. The coalition is made up of 68 organizations across the state, many of them here in Denver. And through that, we've been able to do work to improve Colorado laws that improve the rights of immigrants here in the state of Colorado. And as a part of that, it's collecting stories of people who have been impacted by immigration law, both by federal, state and local ordinances. Some of those stories include people who refuse to call the police when they saw a crime because they felt that they couldn't call on them because of their collaboration with immigration. Some of them.
Speaker 9: Called on police and were later.
Speaker 6: Were later arrested based on their immigration status. And that is also due to some nasty laws that were passed in the state of Colorado in 2006, but also some of that. And because of the the conjunction of of work between immigration and our local law enforcement, I am I am here asking you to pass this ordinance so that people can call the police, they can call on them and help the police solve crimes and and get to the bottom of issues and protect people and serve them the way that they were meant to. This is not about immigration. Although immigrants will be greatly impacted by this ordinance, we want to make sure that the community is safe for everyone. That means that if I see a crime and I am an immigrant, that I have the confidence to pick up the phone. And that the police will come and protect me and serve you. So I ask that you vote in support of this ordinance. I hope that you see that a community that protects immigrants is also protecting everyone. So I ask you to vote in favor of this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, we have Kristen Wade. And I will. I will ask you to hold your applause until the end so that we can keep getting making sure as many voices get hurt. Thank you. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Kristen Wade. I am a resident of Aurora and member of Colorado People's Alliance. I'm here to urge the council to vote in support of this community led immigrant protection policy that takes crucial steps to protect Denver's immigrant community, as well as our city as a whole. Due to the increased focus of the new administration on enforcing harsher, harsher immigration policies. Xenophobic initiatives are already being implemented at the national level, and it has begun to affect us here in the Denver metro area. Parents are already being ripped from their families, incarcerated and deported, forced to leave children behind. Those children are the future of our city, our state and our country. I urge you to consider what impact the unnecessary loss of a supportive nuclear family structure will have on the development of this next generation of Denver's workers, leaders and neighbors. Though I live in Aurora, the enactment of this policy in Denver will not only have a ripple effect to the neighboring communities such as Aurora, who has yet to take proactive steps to protect their own immigrant communities but also set an example for the rest of the state. I want to see Denver become a city that protects all of our families, not one where ICE is allowed to run rampant. Though this policy is only the first step and much work still remains to protect our immigrant communities, it is an essential first step. Please vote in favor of this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Ray Macias. Ray. All right. Next up, Rigoberto Perez.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Members of the city council for allowing me to speak today. My name is Rigoberto Perez. I am 74 years old. I was born in Mexico and I become a citizen of the United States two years ago to vote in the elections. I am here to ask that city council support this law. I have many close friends who are afraid to call the police because of their immigration status, and that is simple for her. They should be able to be feel. Safe to call the police when you need and not worry about getting deported and. Separated from their families. Please. But yes. On these low.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Chairman Siku and I'm going to call it the next five. If you could make your way to the front, Howard Dotson, Sofia Chavez, Rick Bailey, Maria Diego and Vic Ahmed Sherman, thank you.
Speaker 9: All right. Thank you again. Chairman Sekou Black Star Action Movement, founder, organizer representing poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. You know, it's. Very rare that. I take pride in this city council. Because I know you're going to ask this. I mean, you got to be kidding me. And when we're talking about a very serious time now where the pendulum has swung. And folks want to take us back to the day two when there was nothing but a white supremacy. Male Privilege Society. That was pretty much stuck in their own paradigm because they wasn't thinking about nobody else but them. And so when you have a president that talks about taking it back to the day and going, no problem with that, let's take it back to before 1492. Let's take it back because if we take it back to that, there ain't but one immigrant in this country. And that's the European. That's the only one. And so as we break through this neocolonial domestic colonialism that seeks to make the people who are the original owners of the land. Strangers in their own house. We got to fix this. We got to fix it. And so I want to thank Robin. And Paul for having. And then, you know, the background player here, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, of creating legislation that will protect those that are unprotected. And build upon a legacy of human rights. Because now is the time. We don't seize the time now to speak out and stand up as a local, organize people that are here for the advancement of all civilization. That can set the record straight that we. Our nation. Under God. Indivisible when it comes to the liberty and sanctity of human life. And so we stand for this and we stand for this in the name of Frank Zapata, who was the first president of an independent Mexico.
Speaker 1: Where if chairman think your time is up.
Speaker 9: You can come to Mexico and be free.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Next up, Howard Dodson.
Speaker 9: I'm sure it's even chairman. Council members really want to affirm. What you're discerning tonight. I'm from Loveland, but I preach at People's Presbyterian Church in Denver. I've worked with six police departments in the last 11 years. I've walked with 104 families after a homicide. The journey began in L.A. with a three week old baby that was hit by a stray bullet. Chief Bratton asked me to help because we could not get the suspects because the people were afraid to work with the police. And Parker Center. I sat there and watched those mother's tears. And the anxiety that she was not going to get justice for her baby. We need those bridges. We need to know that our officers are there to protect and serve and that they're not there to work for ice. Ice is a federal responsibility, and that's where it belongs. Our founding fathers were wise. Those tears and baby Garcia and all those families. Who hope for justice. Community policing is critical. And I'll share with you the letter that I had Chief Bratton write. When we were facing SB 1070 and it was spreading to Nebraska and the implications when you could not fulfill, protect and serve. I've been a witness to an ICE raid. I've seen ICE agents arrest somebody across the hall from me. And I saw what it did to my entire apartment complex because in the barrio, my name is Tio Gringo. Those are my kids. I want them to go to school. I don't want them wearing colors. I don't want to see any more broken hearts. But we don't have those bridges in our community. Too often those kids get recruited. And I see more mother's tears. In 2008, we had the Republican National Convention in Saint Paul. I'm a kid from Lake Wobegon. And Steve Earle turn the speakers over to the RNC. And he sang a song that I encourage you to YouTube tonight. City of Immigrants. If I could just close with the course. All of us are immigrants. Every doctor, every some.
Speaker 6: Every one is every one.
Speaker 9: All of us are immigrants. Every one. You too.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Sofia Chavez.
Speaker 2: My name is Sophia Chavez and I live in Lakewood and I work on South Federal and Louisiana. I also have a small practice of a doctorate in natural medicine, and I offer Native American and Mexican holistic and integrative treatments. The people that have been coming to see me lately have conditions which.
Speaker 5: Are beyond my scope of practice.
Speaker 2: And so when I refer them.
Speaker 5: To their.
Speaker 2: Physician and I tell them, you probably need to see a specialist, but you need to go see your.
Speaker 5: Doctor. People are afraid to go to the larger health care agencies. I work for a.
Speaker 2: Larger health care.
Speaker 5: Agency, and we did the research. They're not safe.
Speaker 2: In our parking lot. They're not safe in our bathrooms. They're not safe in our lobby.
Speaker 5: The only place that they are completely safe from ICE is in our treatment rooms.
Speaker 3: So people are afraid to seek out.
Speaker 2: The health care that they need and the services that they need. So we need to do everything that we can to change that. The people that come to see.
Speaker 3: Me are really good, hardworking.
Speaker 2: Honest individuals that have lived here for many, many years and have contributed to.
Speaker 5: Denver's economy.
Speaker 2: And I feel that we need to be able to stand up and take care of them. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, we have Rick Bailey. Good evening.
Speaker 4: My name is Rick Bailey. I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the American Friends Service Committee. I am a resident of District ten and Councilman New, thank you for your support in the committee. We look forward to your future support.
Speaker 6: Of this bill. The American Friends Service Committee.
Speaker 1: Strongly supports the bill as a great step in the.
Speaker 4: Direction of justice. But it is a first step, and that is shown by the recent pardon by President Trump of Sheriff Arpaio in Arizona. I'm also a trial lawyer, and so I'm going to explain that briefly. There is more that needs to be done beyond this bill. So it's a great first step, but we need to take more steps and we're looking forward to working with you on those. One of those steps is to keep ice out of the court, the courtroom, as a trial lawyer, my client, whether it's a civil case or a criminal case, needs to be focused only on their case , not on worrying about whether ICE is going to detain them in the courthouse. That is justice. I would say that in this bill, the requirements for judicial warrants are also a strong step towards justice. So we strongly support the bill.
Speaker 1: We urge you to vote in favor it.
Speaker 6: And we look forward to working.
Speaker 4: With you in the future. On keeping ice out of the courthouses and also in protecting against notifications. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Maria Diego.
Speaker 3: Hi everyone. Thank you for having me here on council members. My name is Maria Diego. I am a resident of Mom Bello and a volunteer with Mi Familia Vota. I am here to strongly support the Denver Public Safety Priorities Enforcement Ordinance. As a member of the immigrant community, I see the effects that threats to the government, the federal government to deport immigrants have in our community. People are skeptical to have any interactions with government entities, particularly with local law enforcement. Massive deportations cost our city. It also traumatizes our children's like minors. And it makes it even more difficult for victims and witness of crime to come forward. If if law enforcement is involved. Interpretation. I urge members of City Council to support this ordinance because as a community, we will ensure that our city officials and our city resident are living and working together in a safe and welcoming environment. Because Denver does not leave people behind regardless of their immigration status. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, we have Vic Mente and well. And I'll call up the next group of speakers, Joy Thunders, Sisu, Andrea Savage, Philippe Gerard, Dino Julie Gonzalez, Karen Oppenheim, Tony Fagan and Tim Lopez. If you could all make your way up to this front pew. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: Mr. mayor, pro tem members of the city council. Good evening I'm vic comment.
Speaker 1: I live at 30th and raise.
Speaker 9: I want to thank counsel, woman at large Kennish and Councilman Lopez for sponsoring this ordinance. As a member of People Power.
Speaker 1: I met with them in.
Speaker 9: January as they were drafting this ordinance. You will vote on this evening. I am one of the 60 citizens that met with the police chief and the ACLU is nine points. I have been present at the committee meetings that were public. About this ordinance. And I was present at your last meeting to ensure that it made it to the today. I'm not a current immigrant. My ancestral family went through Ellis Island in the 1880s. I was born of American citizens. And I've had the benefit of all of the amazing things this country has to offer. The actions of the current administration in DC are not of the America that I grew up in and love. ICE is acting more like stormtroopers than law enforcement agents. I urge you to proudly. And quickly. Enact this ordinance to protect our neighbors.
Speaker 1: And our friends. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Joy, I thought to say you.
Speaker 5: Good evening. My name is Joy Attanasio, and I would like to thank all of the council members for supporting this ordinance this evening. And I would like to urge everyone to support this ordinance and to support future ordinances like this. Your job as city council members is to enact laws to protect Denver residents and to enact laws that are in the best interests of Denver. Your job is also to comply with the U.S. Constitution and to comply with federal and state law. This ordinance does all of that. In fact.
Speaker 3: It is ice.
Speaker 5: Practices that are violating the U.S. Constitution. And it is the actions of our current administration that are violating the U.S. Constitution, and we have a duty to stand up to it, regardless of who is violating, regardless of whether it's the federal government or the president or a random individual.
Speaker 3: We have a duty to stand up.
Speaker 5: To anyone violated the U.S. Constitution. There have been several courts who have already issued decisions that detaining individuals after the time of their release violates the Constitution. There have also been more recent decisions, and it is the opinion of many constitutional scholars around the U.S. that notification practices and information sharing.
Speaker 3: Also raise.
Speaker 5: Those same constitutional concerns.
Speaker 3: The issue that we're talking.
Speaker 5: About is the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which precludes the federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program like immigration. The federal laws themselves. Congress has recognized that local police officers are not required to enforce immigration laws.
Speaker 3: Our U.S. Supreme.
Speaker 5: Court has recognized.
Speaker 3: Including a recent decision in 1997 with a.
Speaker 5: Decision by Justice Scalia.
Speaker 3: Said the federal government may.
Speaker 5: Neither command the states.
Speaker 3: Officers or those of the political subdivisions to administer or enforce a federal regulatory.
Speaker 5: Program. This ordinance simply codifies our existing practices to comply with the Constitution and to comply with federal law. And that's important that Denver have a bright line ordinance that tells the world and all of the employees of the city of Denver what and.
Speaker 3: How to follow those.
Speaker 5: Rules. This ordinance also simply tells ICE to do their job. If they want someone from our jail, if they want information on someone in our city, they need to get a warrant like any other law enforcement agency is expected to do. They need to follow the rules. We should not be compelled to spend our money.
Speaker 3: Our budget, our local taxes to do. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Your time is up. Period. Thank you. Next up, Andrea Savage.
Speaker 3: Everyone, I want to thank you all for a yes vote on this policy tonight. Thank you to Commissioner Lopez for your leadership on this policy. It means a lot to the community. I want to express.
Speaker 1: But could you just state your name for the record?
Speaker 3: Oh, Andrea Savage. Thanks. I won't express gratitude and urgency to keep ice out of courts. So thank you for doing what we've done so far and urgency to move forward in keeping ice out of safe spaces. Myself, Patrick Hovnanian knew those COPPA and all the other organizations worked on this policy. We'll keep fighting and we are very happy that Kevin Flynn has expressed interest in leading the charge on keeping ice out of the courts. And we're looking forward to your leadership.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Philippe Gerard, you know.
Speaker 6: Good afternoon. My name is Filippo Giardino. Rossi. I'm a business owner, entrepreneur and Latino leader. And on behalf of my community, I want to say thank you, Mr. President, for the city council, City Councilman Lopez and the mayor. Um. I'm just very excited and happy about what I'm seeing today. But we need more. We need more than. This is a big accomplishment for our community to be here today addressing this matter. Like I say, in behalf of the community, I wanted to say thank you for presenting this act. But I believe if you say yes, if you guys vote yes, you guys are going to going to create a synergy between our loan officers. I mean, our law enforcement officers and our communities. There is going to be great something that we need that we've been fighting for for a long time, not only for the city, but for the state, for our country. So please vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Julie Gonzalez.
Speaker 3: Thank you, members of council. My name is Julie Gonzalez, and I'm here to testify in support of this measure. I'm representing here today the Meier law office, who formed part of a coalition of over 50 organizations, who has worked incredibly diligently over the past eight months to make this policy get to this point here before you all tonight. And it's just an honor and a privilege to be standing alongside so many people here in this room. I'm actually kind of nervous here being in front of you all. But I do want to say that immediately following the election of Donald Trump, our community was beset by fear and anxiety and anger and worry. And so at the Meyer Law Office, we began know your rights presentations in church basements, in libraries, in school cafeterias and in people's homes. And we brought this issue to the to the city. And quite frankly, it's been an eight month journey to one let our city elected officials know that this is a problem of ice infiltrating our local government. Some of them, some members of council didn't believe us when we said that ICE was conducting arrests in our courthouses until we actually filmed ICE going and without warrants trying to arrest people within our courthouses. And so it's been a process of learning and it's been a process of beginning to work together that, like I said, it's an eight month process and it took a long time. But here we are today. And, you know, I think that we are better when we and we are strongest when we work together. So thank you for that. Members of Council. This policy is going to draw a line, a clear line in the sand between the Denver employees and ICE, and particularly in a moment in which we find Daka hanging by a thread. This policy is more important than ever, and so this is a policy that will proactively protect our community. And so in the last minute that I have left, I know that there are many people here who are who would like to speak, who will not be able to. And so I'd just like to turn around and and invite folks, if you are in support of this community. And I'd like you to stand up. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Kieran Oppenheim.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council members. My name is Karen OP and I am a member of Colorado People's Alliance and a Denver resident. On November 9th, 1938, my grandmother's father rescued the Tora and their small town of Verner, Germany. This was Kristallnacht, the night of the broken glass where German SS officers vandalize Jewish owned businesses, breaking the glass of storefronts, harassing and harming Jews. My great grandfather was badly beaten. I grew up hearing stories from survivors of ostracization, of discrimination, of targeting and profiling and of assimilation. And sadly, I see parallels under this new administration's ICE agency. Several generations later, I have many privileges that other immigrant stories here today lack. I think about the fear that my friends who are immigrants live in. I think about the emotional labor and pure exhaustion that my friends who are community organizers experience when they are protecting their own communities and living in fear simultaneously. And I think about where this could head if we fail to take a stand. And that should not be on them. It should be on all of us. It is our moral imperative to protect all of our community members by ensuring our city is not doing ICE's job for them. I urge City Council to take this important step in protecting our community and to pass the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Tony Fagan. Good evening. My name is Tom Fagan, not Tony. Tom. I live in LoDo and I am, by the way, a proud immigrant. I'm here tonight to voice my strong support for this bill and to urge you all to pass it and pass it quickly and unanimously. There are two basic reasons for this. One is on principle. We're currently in a national political environment that is dangerous, divisive and toxic. And people are looking to the states and the great cities across the country to be the standard bearers for the values that used to be espoused by the country as a whole. This is Denver's opportunity to fulfill its duty as one of those great cities and to distance itself from the toxicity. The second reason is much more immediate and practical, and it's that if you do not do this, you're going to discourage and deter both witnesses and victims of violence from working with the police to find the perpetrators . And that's bad news for the safety of everybody in the city. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Tim Lopez and I'm going to call the next group of speakers severe your name. Come up to the front pew, Alexa Bylon, Corinne Riviera Fowler, Dana miller, Salvador Hernandez. Laura PANITCH, Maria Cruz Herrera and Denise Meyers. Go ahead.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon. Good evening, Mr. Chair. And Council Members. My name is Tim Lopez, and I represent criminal justice for the Democratic Party of Denver. I'm also a member of public policy and my committee chair, Lou Irwin, is there and provided you with a resolution that was passed through the Democratic Party of Denver. I'm hoping that one of you will do the honor of reading it into the record for us, because 3 minutes does not allow us to do that. But let me tell you, I encourage you by writing a letter at first committee hearing, telling you to pass this unanimously. And I'm here today to tell you, please do that again. It passed through criminal justice unanimously. We put the resolution together at public policy, hammered it out, and it passed again unanimously. And it was my honor to make the motion to move the resolution forward to the executive committee for the Democratic Party. I was able to stand side by side with Lou Irwin and present that at the executive committee, where once again, after much discussion, it was passed unanimously. So at this point, I would ask that you guys follow up and do this as well. I have to tell you, it's an honor to be standing here with my brothers and sisters who've been working on immigration for many years, and to also see members of council who have been working on it for many years as well. I know that over the last ten years there have been many that we have worked with and the organizations that really Gonzales spoke with, we have worked with as well. So it's most important that the city of Denver sends out this message that we will stand together and be the voice for those who do not have a voice at a current time. We must support our communities and we must follow up and usher in and continue the support of immigration and taking care of our communities and those that are not represented, those that feel threatened to go to schools, those that feel threatened to go to the courthouse and those that feel threatened to go into.
Speaker 9: Public buildings is most important.
Speaker 4: That we all take our time and reflect for the things that we take for granted as Americans. And in the United States, in the state of Colorado and the city of Denver, that we follow up and we do our jobs and hold ourselves accountable for those that are voiceless at this time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Alexa Bylon.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Alexa by Lone, and I'm a fourth year biochemistry student at Metropolitan State University. And I and I am an immigrant. Writing this testimony, I was trying to get into a nonimmigrant mind to explain why it's important to keep our immigrant community safe from the federal government in a way that appealed to, not to the non-infected. All I could think about is how Denver could not possibly be the diverse and wonderful place it is today without the support the immigrant community brings. Growing up aware of my status always kept me in fear of law enforcement. I would be more scared of cops and scary movies. My greatest fear was to be separated from the ones I love most. As a as a child, I would ride my scooter with my little sister, my little neighbors up and down the block. And if we saw a cop drive by. My first instinct was to hurry home and hide. I would think about how much I needed my mom. And I didn't want to be separated from her. I mean, I didn't know how to wash my clothes. And the only thing I knew how to cook was cereal. So I didn't want to live off of cereal. And as I grew into a teenager and developed into a young woman, I have always kept fear and just develop into different forms. The fear of being pushed, the fear of being pushed into communities by the federal government is more forceful than when I was growing up. I cannot imagine the fear that is being implemented into families today. I have been in Denver since I was two months old. I love this city and I'm studying to give back to the community I love so much. We must protect our immigrants because we are members of the community that love the city just as much as anybody else who are students and parents improving themselves to give back to the community and help our city grow and develop into the beautiful place that it is. Denver shouldn't be a place where you hide from cops but feel protected by them instead. We are so much better than allowing the federal government create a community of fear. So I ask that you support this bill because Denver needs it. I also know that there is more that we must do during the process to pass the bill. Councilman Flynn and others question the effects that this bill would truly have on safety. We are glad that our council members understand that we need to do more and we look forward to working with all of you for more solutions . Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Corinne Rivera Fowler.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council members. My name is Karen Rivera Fowler. I'm the policy and civic engagement director at Padres Seahawk in Encinitas. We are a member led organization. We have been fighting for racial right, fighting against racial discrimination in our schools, struggling for justice and working to expand and protect the rights of immigrants for over 25 years. On November 9th, our nation woke up to the reality that we had elected an openly racist man who had called Mexican immigrants criminals, drug dealers and rapists. A man who promised to build a wall across our southern border to keep the brown people out. It was shocking and unbelievable. On November 16th, immigrant rights groups and allies came together and the Resistance Network was born. Tonight, this council will pass an ordinance that is the product of input from affected community. The organizing of the resistance and the leadership of Councilman Lopez and councilwoman can each. Throughout this process, we have heard some opposition. We have heard that we don't need this ordinance because so many things addressed here are already in practice. I say that this policy cannot pass soon enough. Since January 20th, our communities have been under constant and daily attack. It is really as if we wake up each morning and ask ourselves what new policy threat or just plain insulting action this executive branch will act on. And as time goes on, his example is permeating throughout our society. And as we witnessed in Charlottesville, racist white supremacists have been given license to hate openly in our public spaces. Just a few days ago with the pardon of Sheriff Arpaio, our community was struck not in the back, but right in the face when our highest office is propping up racial violence and for giving public safety officers who have been convicted of racial discrimination and abused. We must take action. We must resist the passage of this ordinance. The changes to our statute will be in law and on the books. There will be there to hold every public official accountable. These laws will be there to draw a clear line. This ordinance is meaningful to our community. This ornaments means that we have each other's backs in Denver. The last time I checked, this was still a democracy and the rights of all people in this nation were protected under the Constitution. This ordinance solidifies those rights and holds true to the values of our city. Tonight, we celebrate the passage of this ordinance. Tomorrow, we look forward to continuing to work with our council and our mayor. We will continue to resist against a federal government that is going too far.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Dana miller. Dana miller.
Speaker 5: Hi everyone. I just want to say that my name is Dana miller. I am so proud to be a resident of Denver, Colorado tonight and to be able to stand behind this coalition and the city council who took on a really, really difficult issue. And you've worked really hard to get where you are. And all I want to say is thank you to the community and to the city council on behalf of Indivisible, Denver, Indivisible, front range resistance and other indivisible groups across the metro area. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Salvador Hernandez.
Speaker 6: Hello. Members of City Council. My name is Lauren Anders. This. I am the civic engagement coordinator with the Mi Familia Vota. Um, I'm here to speak on behalf of the immigrant community that I am a part of and, and, and, and in support of this ordinance. More specifically, I want to touch on a key issue that is, I think is critical for the public safety of all the people of Denver, and that is being able to trust your local police department. When I was 19, I was gunned down after getting off from work. I was walking home after my shift had ended around midnight and two men approached me. They robbed me and shot me five times. Two of my torso went through my lung when my back and went through my right bicep.
Speaker 1: After that.
Speaker 6: I spend about ten days in the hospital recuperating and about a month and a half at home. I found myself a victim of gun violence, and I almost didn't make it. At that time I was undocumented, and although I am a recipient of a U visa permit, I'm still.
Speaker 4: Consider myself one of the persons who's at risk from.
Speaker 6: Deportation. At that time, I had no doubts that the police would not question. Where I'm from or where I am a citizen of. Or my immigration status. The sole purpose of our local law enforcement should be to keep everyone safe. I cannot imagine not being able to trust the police in a situation like this. This is why I strongly encourage the members of this council to vote yes on this ordinance. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Laura PANITCH.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Laura Fincher. I'm a mother, recipient of Dacca, a community leader with together Colorado and a disciple of Christ. As a person who has lived undocumented in Colorado for over 20 years, I am here to testify in favor of all policy that protects human rights. As a person of Christ and child of God, I am here to testify that God is real. He speaks to us constantly, loud and clear, and I am listening and I have faith in him and believe his word, which tells us that the day is here now when the criminalization of discrimination and exploitation of immigrants will be over with. Undocumented or not, all immigrants will have the same rights and protections as any other Americans. We will be able to stay here and build homes work. Pursue a higher education. Pay and claim taxes. We will have the right to vote to drive a vehicle access to health care and a retirement plan. The right to live without fear of being snatched away from our homes, families and communities. Because I have faith in God and I know him. I believe in him. And I'm certain that very soon immigrants and refugees will no longer be rejected, discriminated, criminalized or oppressed, but only be accepted regardless of their backgrounds. We will have the same human right to thrive and survive in this land as righteous children of God. I'm in favor of God's plan, and all of you here present tonight are a testimony that his plan is real and that all of the things I have testified are true and must take place. I testify these things in the name of Jesus Christ be my.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, my Cruz Herrera.
Speaker 3: When I started this. I mean, Sara e we were not in the moment. Good evening. My name is Marie Cruiser. Sara and I live in the Montebello neighborhood. Oh, Ebola blood in your mother. Me, corazon. Impressive story. Orlando in Espanol. I'm going to speak in my heart language this evening. That's why I'm speaking in Spanish. Estoy aqui representan me comunidad hint the trouble. Laura honest that it could get us. It could get us that a shelter. I am here representing my community. This is working, working class community honest and they want to be heard or represent. I'm Familias San Familias Justin Aqui no stamp present this aqui better standing corazon. I am here representing 100 families. They are not here presence but they are here in their with their hearts and they are in support of this of this bill. So look at our Atlas and look at Yosemite here on LA. Only because Palavras kills me here on Casillas. Then you get out of Puerto Clara. So stay this. I'm going to share with you the words that they asked me to give you. And they asked me to give these words loud and clear. See if the animals. You do have a voice, Akeelah CNN, and you have it here. That's yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Denise, Maze and Denise. Well, Denise is working your way up. I'm going to call the next speakers, Father Joseph, Dang, Lou Erwin, Pedro Canelo, Margaret Bruguera and Sarah Morris. If you could work your way up to the front, go ahead.
Speaker 13: Mr. President, members of council. My name is Denise Myers, and I am the public policy director of the ACLU of Colorado. And we are here in strong support of the ordinance before you. We want to thank council members Robin Kinney and Paul Lopez for bringing this ordinance forward. We think clearly that this ordinance represents sound public policy, and it also is in complete compliance with state and federal law and any and all constitutional mandate. It is sound public policy entanglement between city officials and ICE officials clearly undermines public safety and it undermines community trust in local law enforcement. What this ordinance does is pretty straightforward. It says ICE. You will do your job and city and county workers will do theirs. This dissent, this delineation. Really sends an important message to the immigrant community, their friends and their families. And that message and that message resonate clearly. We have your back. We care for the safety of you and your family. You and your community. And the community at large. This ordinance is completely consistent with federal and state law and constitutional mandates. The Denver Post today ran an interesting article and it had a quote from a think tank that is conservative on immigration related issues. And those those particular observers said that really what this Denver ordinance is doing will be overshadowed by some of the more bold actions that are being taken in other cities. In other cities. In other words, councilmembers. You have nothing to worry about with regard to compliance with federal and state law. Now, though, this ordinance could be bolder. Regardless, it is a significant and important first step. At the end of the day, one, this is important public policy. Two. It is in complete compliance with all relevant law. And third, the bottom line. It is the right thing for this great city to do at the right time. I urge a unanimous yes vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Father Joseph Deng. Right, Lou Irwin. My name is Lou Irwin. I'm chair of the Public Policy Committee at the Democratic Party of Denver. And I appear tonight on behalf of the executive committee of the county party, which, as Tim Lopez indicated, unanimously endorsed this ordinance on August 15th.
Speaker 9: We recognize that.
Speaker 1: Enforcement of immigration policy is a responsibility. The federal government. We also.
Speaker 9: However strongly.
Speaker 1: Agree with the mission of the city to place priority on protection of the security and safety of its residents. We believe this.
Speaker 9: Ordinance does that clearly.
Speaker 1: Effectively and legally. The ordinance provides clear guidance and promotes systematic enforcement. Of policies, whether those are ongoing current practices or new policies.
Speaker 9: The ordinance recognizes the dedication and goodwill of employees of.
Speaker 1: The city and our public safety officers. The ordinance. Also, we believe, we hope, brings a measure of relief. To residents unsure of the.
Speaker 9: City's.
Speaker 1: Position on immigration enforcement. Finally, we endorse the compromise between proponents of this ordinance and the mayor and others who are concerned with the prospect of releasing dangerous felons into the community without warning. We believe that the adjustments to the ordinance strike.
Speaker 9: The appropriate balance.
Speaker 1: Between that concern and the principle purposes of the ordinance. So for these reasons and the other reasons enumerated in the resolution before you, we strongly endorse passage of the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Pedro Canelo.
Speaker 9: Pedro Carrillo. When I started, guys. Yes. Good afternoon. Thank you. City council's to be here. I'm leaving them there since 1988, 1988, when my mom's bring me and my brother to this country. She is she living in Denver since 1990, 1989. She and my brothers living here in this beautiful country, this beautiful state since 1988. She is a legal resident and she applied for me and my brother in 2001. Since 2001. At this time, I'm waiting to relooked, regularize my papers, my situation here in this country. But for these laws, I not be able to be realized still. And I looking for that. That's what I'm asking you here today to approve this ordinance. I'm work in Denver. I'm go to the school in Denver. I'm also I'm a part of this. You look local one of five since 2007. I work as a janitor in one of those beautiful buildings here in Colorado. Please see, the council's be up, and your heart helped me, my brother, my family, and many of families in this beautiful estate to be walk free in the streets, to be work free in the streets. We need this ordinance. We need help from you and for all these people whose being here. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Margaret Burger.
Speaker 5: Hi, everyone. Thank you for your time tonight. My name is Margaret Brugger. I am a resident and I am a licensed clinical social worker. I work at the Mental Health Center of Denver as a bilingual child and family therapist. I also teach in the Graduate School of Social Work at Denver University. There is where I teach about social work and social justice and child and adolescent trauma. I want to be clear. We have entered into a situation that is creating terror and diagnosable trauma in our communities with what is going on with immigration and immigration officers . I have diagnosed many kids, some as young as five, with post-traumatic stress disorder in relation to what is going on. For those of you that don't know PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder includes cheerfulness, crying uncontrollably, extreme fear, isolation, exaggerated startle response, anxiety, depression, trouble focusing in school, intrusive memories and at times can lead to suicidal ideation. Let me break this down in nonclinical language. This is translating to increased fear of the police. Parents have become afraid to let their kids play outside and in extreme cases, go to school. Kids that I work with that used to be amazing. Students that are brilliant people are having trouble concentrating. Increased depression and lowered interest in pleasurable activities. These same brilliant kids with amazing goals are sometimes not even ending up going to school. Kids are coming in with extreme fear and anxiety, resulting in trouble sleeping. This is resulting in more trauma. There's also extreme depression, which is what can lead to the suicidal ideation I was talking with you about. This is not a joke. It's time to act now. Nightmares. So many kids, so many kids, so little are coming in with increased nightmares. Nightmares that their families are going to be torn apart and nightmares about what they've been seeing. People are afraid to go to stores, to the doctors and even to come to courts. I will tell you one case that I have permission to share small details of this family that I work with. One daughter, five years old and one son seven years old. The father in this case is a U.S. citizen, and the mother is living in the U.S. without documentation. After a domestic violence situation, the mother was afraid to show up at court. In the case was dropped. This is real people had real family is people are afraid to go to parenting classes, courts. And this is where we have a breakdown in the system. Teachers and therapists are experiencing vicarious trauma at higher rates. I also want to be clear, many of the children I work with that I am speaking of a U.S. born citizens that are living in fear simply because of the psychological warfare immigration officers are using. We must understand the trauma being created in our communities, and we must work together to change it. That's why tonight is so important. And thank you, Lopez and commish and everyone else who worked on this. I really appreciate your support. We must keep working. There is a lot of work for all of us to do. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Next up, Sarah Morris and well, Sarah is coming up. If I could get Connie Romero, Angela Colby on and John Zito, Maia to the front bench. Gary. Go ahead.
Speaker 3: My name is Sarah Morris. I'm a Denver resident and community member and I'm a member of Padres. Vanessa. I support this ordinance and I strongly support continuing to work together to take the strongest possible measures to disentangle ICE from our community. I'm here today because I'm a civil rights lawyer and there is plenty of work for me to do before the election. And now there's more than ever. I'm privileged that I'm not directly targeted by the attacks on civil rights, by ICE and our federal government. But I'm outraged that so far the best response that I have been able to take as a lawyer and as a community member is to do things like know your rights trainings, talking to teachers about their students and families who are scared to come to school, talking to librarians who are scared and don't know how to respond if ice shows up at the library and by advising parents to gather their kids documents in case of an ice arrest. I've literally had all of these conversations with people in our community. This is no way for anyone in our community to live and no way for our community to respond to the historic threat to civil rights that our federal government poses. Denver can do better. I want our city to send a loud and clear message that Denver will not abide the racist criminalizing anti-immigrant rhetoric and actions of the federal government and instead stands by all of our residents and our values. I support this ordinance as a first step towards that. You all on this council have the power to do this and more, and I ask that you do so. Specifically, I agree with Councilman Flynn that this ordinance does not go far enough. I'm glad that he and you all will be considering solutions to address ice in sensitive areas of our city and more. I look forward to passing this ordinance and to continuing to work on more solutions together.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Connie Romero.
Speaker 3: Yes. Good evening. My name is Connie Romero, and I'm a member of the Colorado People's Alliance. I would like to urge our city council leaders to vote in favor of this policy. So many of our community members have been working so hard and towards this goal. I've joined phone banks and meetings in support of this policy because I'm a first generation immigrant. I've lived in Denver most of my life. I now live in Lakewood, but most of my family still lives in Denver. Unfortunately, I hear the stories and so much fear in the community of Denver and it's disheartening. I can't imagine living in a continued sense of fear, especially for those who are undocumented and also for those who are documented, as has been stated before, that we fear for those we love and those in our community and fear that there will be unexpected consequences for those that we love. And also, I think it's really important to support this this policy in attempt to lessen those fears that sometimes are realistic and sometimes are not realistic. But for the majority of the time they are in they are way beyond our belief. And some of us have been just totally disheartened and surprised at some of the events that we continue to see in this community. People are completely fearful. As a retired probation officer. I worked with with the community. I worked with offenders. I also worked with victims of crime. And it's really difficult to work with with individuals in a community who is fearful, especially for those who are reporting offenses. Those who have loved ones who have been affected somehow by a criminal offense, whether we're talking domestic violence or whether we're talking sexual abuse, it's got to be very difficult for a parent to try to protect a loved one when there's that overwhelming fear that they're not going to be listened to and they're not going to be protected. I feel strongly that that our community feels safe and protected, supported and respected and also treated with dignity regardless of the country of origin or their legal status. This policy is a big step in protecting our community, our immigrant community, and in keeping all of Denver safe, and that it also upholds the law. Please support the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. I thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Angela. Coby on.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Angela Coburn. I live in your district, actually, Mr. Clarke in seven. And I'm from southwest Denver. I've lived there the majority of my life. I consider myself from this city, by the way, of Mexico as my mother crossed the border and is now a naturalized U.S. citizen. Thanks to Ronald Reagan's amnesty, a political situation of which my former students were systematically they and their families not able to access. I'm here today to speak as a leader at Together Colorado and a parishioner of San Cayetano, which is a big church in southwest Denver. It's on federal and Alameda just a little bit up near Raleigh. And in 2015, I took a whole delegation from our parish carrying with us 200 letters that were written. And this was pre trump times by our parishioners that we delivered directly to Pope Francis in Philadelphia at the world convening of Catholic families. This resolution, while it's a good first step, also aligns with my values as a Catholic. As a Catholic, we believe in the Beatitudes, which read Blessed are they who suffer persecution for justice sake. For theirs is the kingdom of heaven, which is one of the reasons why, as again, as a Catholic and as a member of this community, I absolutely consented and wearing white because I'm trying to walk into that faith, into that beatitude for way too long, our citizens in our city, our community members, my former students and their families have walked in persecution. And this specific policy, which I urge you all to vote in favor of today, is once again a very first step to making sure that we create the kind of beloved community that Christians and other people of faith are trying to build in our community here in Denver. And also, I would say, continues and extends the organizing work that our parish has been working on again before pre-Trump times. We worked really closely with our precinct, which with Commander Felice, and we were actually the first precinct to actually have the commander's cabinet in the basement of our church. And the reason why we did that and the reason why we awarded Commander Phillips with the Community Award at our annual church bazaar this year was precisely because they listened to our concerns and the primary concern being that people did not feel like they could call the police when they were victims of the crime. So I urge you to stand in solidarity with the people from my faith community, as well as everybody else who's here in this room who's taking time out of their evening to speak. And we look forward to continuing our relationship with you to make sure that we tighten things up even more.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. And our final speaker of the night on Zito September.
Speaker 4: Got to explain that.
Speaker 6: Evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Hans Meyer, and I have the privilege of working with Julio Gonzalez at the my our law office, doing lawyer stuff and working with this community of people behind me. And only two quick things to say as the folks behind me and to the side of me. Thank you guys so much. What an amazing group of people. Give yourselves round of applause. You guys are amazing. This is the town I want to live in. This is the town I want to live in. It's the faces of the people in the town I want to live in and the type of diversity I want to be in, involved with, and that I want to have in my community. The second thing I wanted to mention is that this is a starting block. This is not the finish line. We've got a long fight ahead. And this is the first opening salvo and it's the first principled response. And thank you for passing it. And I look forward to working on all of the other issues we all know about that are going to come up over the next couple of years. And I appreciate this first step forward. The third thing is there's nothing else I have to say that hasn't been said better. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. I want to thank everyone for doing a great job speaking and so that we could get to everybody. That does conclude our speakers. Are there questions from members of council? All right. Quiet group. Tonight, the public hearing for counsel bill 940 is closed. Comments from members of council councilwoman can each.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I, my co-sponsor and I, I'm going to kick us off, and he's going to be the final speaker before we vote tonight. GRASSLEY As at those present, they are key. Thank you to everyone who is here, both to the community that is here in white and in solidarity, and also to the community members who are wearing blue from our law enforcement agencies. I think the significance of your presence here is as important as the communities. And I want you to know that we see you because we are a community united tonight, for the most part will count the votes at the end. But we know that our safety agencies and our mayor are standing in support of this bill as well. And so that is is the starting comment I wanted to begin with. The second thing I want to talk about is bravery. Victor. Alexa. Salvador. Laura. Pedro. It is a brave thing to talk about your immigration status at a time when you are probably more vulnerable than you've ever been before. I know that you had to probably do some soul searching about whether to talk about that publicly and how to talk about it. And so I want to honor that, and I think we all will honor that. There's also some soul searching I know that has happened through this process by the mayor and by the agencies and by some of my colleagues. And I know that part of that soul searching has included the very sincere question about whether or not that passing this ordinance sets up false expectations. I know folks have raised questions about the fact that we can't actually stop ice from some of the immoral tactics and detentions that are taking place in our community. I know that that concern is real, but I think it's important to address it in this way, which is to say that a failure to act on anything because we cannot solve everything. Is an enemy to justice. That justice only proceeds when we take actions step by step within the powers that we have. And so it is appropriate that this conversation has been led by communities who are impacted. But there are also soul searching and bravery required by those who have privilege, who use that privilege to stand in solidarity. And so I am honored to have had that opportunity in the course of this bill. Denver was already extremely limited in the ways that we engaged in immigration enforcement. But it mattered to you. It mattered to the community that you couldn't see the policies. It mattered that I couldn't point them out to you. It mattered that there were gaps and it mattered that there was no accountability. Trust is earned through transparency in government. It's earned through trust. And this bill is intended to give you that transparency, to give you the trust that when you tell someone it's okay to go to the city, to use the city, that we mean it . And so thank you. Thank you for the lesson that you brought to us about this importance, albeit not a complete protection from all the threats that you face. Tonight we vote on an ordinance, but it's not colonies ordinance. It's not even this council's ordinance. It belongs to the people of Denver. And it was a journey that I believe you all here tonight are demonstrating is about building your power and your voices for these next conversations. And so the mayor has acknowledged that you will have a space in those to the extent we continue the conversation as the council. When those conversations happen, a legal defense fund, you know, I will stand with you in fighting for that legal defense fund and for public funding for that. I know that you all wish. I know that you all wish for a policy to protect public but sensitive areas, and we share that goal. Paul and I. But we did not have a strategy legally to do that in a way that we felt like we could deliver to yet. And so we do need to continue to examine what kinds of innovations we can have and to continue to monitor that conversation. I have learned so much from immigration law experts, from folks who have had experiences, have made mistakes, have gone through our jail, have experienced probation or community corrections, and have tried to do right by our community and have experienced places where our our city did not live up to expectations and sticking to our local role. I've learned a lot from our city employees who really, really want to focus on their local jobs. That's what they want to do. They want to they want to keep you safe. They want to run the jail. They want to give you library books. They want you enrolled in recreation programs. They want you getting the benefits you need for your children. They don't want to be doing immigration enforcement. This bill gives you transparency. This bill gives our employees clarity. It does both of those things. I learned a lot from our city attorney, David Broadwell. I want to thank you and. My partner, my dear friend Paul Lopez, who allowed me to come along on this journey which he had begun and, you know, seemed like there was enough work to share. So thank you for allowing me to share. And to each of my colleagues, I have watched people struggle and move. I've watched them change their minds about tough issues. I've watched our agencies and our mayor move and change their mind and have issues in our climate. That doesn't happen all that often, that people sit down and really listen and really grapple and really evolve and really move. And so you all did that. You all by sharing your stories. By sharing your truth. By sharing the real impacts. This matters to you and therefore it matters to us. And so I hope it matters to all of our colleagues today by sharing a yes vote. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you for covering. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 6: First, I want to thank this council, the leaders of the sponsors of the bill and the administration, the mayor's office and his team. It's no stranger. You know, I wish we as a legislative body would exercise more of our actual charter power in sort of trying to meter out ordinances and laws that govern this city. And to. This is this has been one of the processes that I wish we did more often. But I understand it's a lot of work. But the courage that Councilman Lopez had in coming forward and coming out strong with this bill and the passion and the support he had from the community basically caused the administration to act in a direction that I don't think they were going to just willfully go. Maybe, maybe eventually, but not sort of out from the gate and and, you know, through through the series of deliberations and meetings that the the sponsors had and that other members of council had with both sides, I think resulted in a in the announcement you saw last week, I think it was last week and tonight's vote. And to me, this is this is how we should work on behalf of everybody, you know, on a more consistent basis, ideally. But I do want to I do genuinely appreciate the courage. Like I said, that Councilman Lopez expressed I mean I mean that in taking this on and and more so and not more so, but in the same amounts to Councilwoman Cannick because we Robin sorry but a couple a year and a half ago we had a conversation. That maybe isn't supposed to be public and I won't go into detail. But you have tremendous strengths and capacities and skills that I think would, you know, expressed, you know, if you could sort of share those from a time on issues like this to sort of help, you know, other members of council like myself get things across the finish line that would benefit from those skills. And I think you just spoke to them. Your involvement in in supporting Councilman Lopez and making this a joint bill between yourself and him, you know, is what what made this to be so successful into a place where I could wholeheartedly support it and feel comfortable that we were working well within the lines that we that we that we have to that we have to to to work in. And I and I and I'm looking forward to the fact that you're you're you're both are going to be continuing to work and sort of continue to to investigate what can and should be done going forward anyway . I do want to think and I wrote these comments down before Councilwoman Connie spoke, but I mean, same again. So this sounds a little bit repetitive, but I want to thank the vulnerable but brave members of the public that spoke today. And I also want to thank the privileged privileged, but just members of the public that spoke together in a unified voice, because that is that is what makes this country what it is. And as as as a shining example for how freedom and liberty should be, should be, should be carried out on this planet until we you know, that's how you make a more perfect union. We know we don't have it right even today. But we're, you know, we we by trying to explore and push and trying to create a more perfect union rather than take steps backwards, is is is essential to this endeavor. And and I'm going to say it because it's going to happen before the secret and open races that are going to express their ignorance via email or social media in the coming hours, minutes and days. The reason there won't be an injunction is that this council is acting consistent with our Constitution. The same cannot be said of the Oval Office occupant. So to to close too close, I'm actually going to quote no less than the great orator. W Yes, that w George Bush number 43. President George Bush. Yeah. And it goes this is the quote, Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love Americans at our best value. The life we see in one another, and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time. Thank you. With that, I'll be voting for Mr..
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm deeply moved and very proud. Of what's going on in this room tonight, the power of the words of the community, the presence of a few members of our city attorney's office, other members of the administration. As has been mentioned, a great presence of our law, law enforcement community. I the last thing that I am worried about tonight is any form of supposed retribution.
Speaker 6: That may or may not.
Speaker 1: Come from the misguided, deluded. Occupant of the Oval Office I get in discussions with. Friends. I don't have a president. And they say, well, yes, you do. He was elected, but I don't and I don't want to quibble with words, but I can't.
Speaker 6: Claim someone who finds.
Speaker 1: Very fine people in a group of torch carrying racists that spew hatred about Jews and people of color and representatives of our immigrant and refugee.
Speaker 4: Community.
Speaker 1: So that's what we're doing.
Speaker 6: Here.
Speaker 1: Tonight, is standing up as a community and saying if it if there are people in Washington that refuse to uphold our Constitution that this council is sworn to uphold, and as long as our children are afraid to to ride public transportation, because the the tone that has been set in Washington makes the spewing of hatred justified, expected part of some sort of ill thought policy. We will continue to close the gaps that need to be closed. So I.
Speaker 4: Want to truly.
Speaker 1: Thank Councilwoman Lopez and Councilwoman Canete for for the courage that they've shown. And it takes courage to stand up to authority. It takes courage to compromise when the justice you seek requires compromise. So I'm very happy to be supporting this bill tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. This is a country of immigrants. You know, it's just so ironic that we're having to have this conversation in the year, you know, 2017, when this country was built on the backs of immigrants who came here from, you know, every country around the globe. And I just want to say, I stand in solidarity with the community and with my colleagues who have worked very hard with members of our community to bring this legislation forward. The fact that we see the the unity among so many different sectors of our community and organizations like ACLU and American Friends Service Committee and others who've been is we need unidos in so many who have said. We're not going to take this. You know, it is important for all of us to stand up and to speak on behalf of people who feel like they don't have a voice. Who feel like they have to hide in the shadows, who are afraid to go to work. Who are afraid to go to school. I mean, we heard many, many different stories, not only in in committee, but at some of the public meetings that were held around the city about people who were living in fear. Not that that hasn't happened for people who are, you know, undocumented across this country. But with the kind of climate we have with this president and I won't go into all those details, but we should not have to have people living in fear in the year 2017. When you see all the progress that was made through the civil rights movement in this country to be taking so many steps backwards. I am honored to support this tonight along with my colleagues and anxious to roll up my sleeves and work side by side with, you know, the efforts that still need to happen to continue to address any of the injustices in our community. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro Tem.
Speaker 6: I would like to sincerely thank all of you who have shared your stories, your experiences and your hopes with us tonight.
Speaker 5: And I'm very proud of this.
Speaker 6: Ordinance and proud to support.
Speaker 3: It. I ask my.
Speaker 6: Colleagues to stand together on this side of history. All of you, the mayor, city employees, including law enforcement, are leaders who are working together for all people in Denver. We will not allow fear and hate to reside in our great city from the date that we discussed this in the Safe House Committee to this evening. So much more on the political landscape has erupted. Open racism, white supremacy, anti-Semitism. As I shared in committee, I have been elected by the people of District 11, and I'm honored to represent their voice and talking with my children. They helped me actually write my comments that I spoke of in Safe House, and I must really represent who my family is and who I am as well. My children are Spanish, Greek, Mexican, Black and Japanese.
Speaker 3: Their ancestors are the.
Speaker 6: Very immigrants and refugees. Refugees who I represent in my council district, which is 50% Latino and in Montebello is 62% Latino. We must have a society, a city and a community that is safe from fear. That is a basic human right. We live in a time that fear and hate are driving public policy at the federal level, and we must strive and work together. Tyler Tirelessly for immigration policy reform. We cannot wait. In our democracy, we have the right as a local municipality to define how we choose to operate and govern. And we are doing that here tonight. Dear friends who are part of my family, who I have known them since they were young babies are living in fear. Living in fear that their family members will be deported. Innocent children. Mothers, fathers, grandparents. Innocent people who only came to our country to live the American dream. To have a better life, to have an opportunity. And now we know that DOCA is hanging by a thread. We never know what the next thing is going to happen coming down from the federal level. It is our time to band together and do things right for our community. We need to make sure that our residents know their rights and know and understand what we.
Speaker 3: Can as a local municipality can.
Speaker 6: Do and what we frankly cannot do. I again want to thank Councilwoman Canete and Councilman Lopez for your strong leadership in a very uncertain time in our community and in our country. And I want to thank the mayor's office and law enforcement, because we are all working together to move a better Denver forward. And I'm proud to stand together and do this tonight together as the city of Denver. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro-Tem.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank everybody who came down here tonight and stayed to tell their stories. I want to tell a story also in July as we were preparing in Harvey Park for the annual celebration festival there. Some constituents brought to my attention a yard sale that was happening across the street from the park. And when we went over and we saw the banner, it was not just a yard sale. It said deportation sale. And my my constituents said, you have to pass this bill. So that we can address what's happening here. And so, as most of you probably know, I'm an old newspaper reporter. And so I followed my instincts. And two days later I went over and visited the house and spoke with the family. And here was their story. The father who is no longer there. Was brought to this country by his parents when he was 13, and he is in his late thirties now. More than two decades ago. His wife is a citizen. His two teenage sons are citizens. His wife is battling cancer. Her skin was a bright red from the chemotherapy, and it was a very difficult and a horrible, horrible experience to be talking to this woman as she tried to sell her last belongings and move to San Diego because her husband had been arrested. On a misdemeanor warrant during a traffic stop in Santa Barbara, California, while they were out visiting. And ice just happened to be stopping by the jail to pick up someone else. And they saw he was in there and they saw that he was not documented and they picked him up, too. And today he's sitting in a prison in Mexico. And his family sold all their belongings to move to San Diego to be closer to him. However, his arrest did not happen since Donald Trump was elected president. He was arrested last summer when Barack Obama was our president. And nothing in this bill. Would have kept this family together here in Denver and prevented this from happening. In our hearings on this bill in committee, we heard testimony from an advocate who accompanied a woman to traffic court to provide interpretation services. And while there, her client was arrested by ICE when she showed up. We've seen the YouTube videos that were referenced by the woman from the Myer law firm. Of ice, making arrests at our courthouse, tackling people in the doorways and folks screaming and crying as their family member is hauled away. And there's nothing in this bill that's going to prevent that from happening and continuing to happen. Nor is that, as I'm reminded by the sponsors, nor is that even the intent of this bill. The intent of this bill is to help people, as I understand it, to help people in the community feel safer and more secure by codifying many of the disentanglement policies and practices we now use, which are now only in handbooks or custom and putting them into a body of laws. Because we know, statistically speaking, that's stepped up and more indiscriminate enforcement of immigration is harmful to our public safety. We know this. We know that while crime is up slightly in Denver as a whole, the reporting of crime in Latino neighborhoods recent statistical look has shown that it's declined 12% since the first of the year since the inauguration of the new administration. So we know that there is there is this effect. We know that people will fail to report crime, fail to give eyewitness statements to police, fail to show up in court and support their neighbors, whoever they may be, who have been victims of crime. If they fear that by doing so, they may be grabbed by ICE and deported. We know this. This is bad for the cause of justice. It's bad for public safety. It's bad for Denver. And it's bad for Colorado. If we want to have an impact on reducing ICE apprehensions at our courthouse and other public places which are disrupting our justice system, causing cases to be dropped, and denying justice to Denver families, we need to find ways to reduce the need for people to appear in person at our courthouse or other locations. As Andrea Savage, one of my constituents, brought up. I already have met with our county court presiding judge, the city attorney and others to discuss areas where we might be able to expand such things as pleading by mail, expand the payment of fines online, and other measures like that under which people do not need to come to the courthouse and risk exposure. And I will continue to work with the administration on this. Let me say that by representing a city that's trying to deal in a fair and a just manner with the presence of refugees, immigrants, whether documented or not, and all of our residents and visitors, I place the blame for our dysfunctional system squarely on Congress, which has kicked this can down the road on immigration reform for more than a quarter century. And they've left America's cities with a dilemma that while trying to recruit cities and counties into doing their work for them while we are trying to maintain public safety, it's absurd. To deport people, for instance, who were brought to this country as children and, quote, send them back to a place where they may have no operational memory at all of ever having been. It's terrible to rip families apart, and it's a travesty that good and decent people who are trying to make a better life for themselves and their children have to live in fear. The Denver community is enriched and it's better off for the many contributions of our immigrant community. But some people were not better off. Because of our practices and policies. Timothy Cruz was not better off. And was not safer when we released a man from our jail in December whom I said asked to be notified about. We gave ice less than a half hour around midnight that this inmate was posting bail. And two months later, that man was arrested in the murder of Tim Crews at the 10th and Sheridan Light Rail Station . So in committee a few weeks back, I voted no on sending this bill to the floor because as Lou Irwin noted in his testimony here tonight, one new provision in the initial draft prohibited us from honoring ICE requests for released notifications of certain inmates. Unless the person in question had served time for a felony crime of violence within the previous seven years or under several other limited circumstances. I supported all the other provisions of the bill, primarily because, as Joy Athanasiou testified here tonight, my policy practice or custom, they were things we already were doing completely in accordance and in compliance with federal law and not in violation of any of our federal obligations. And despite. What Representative Dave Williams of Colorado Springs may believe and despite thank you and despite that, his own county, his own county follows many of the same policies that we do. In the previous version of the bill, we wouldn't have given us any notification when we were releasing the man later charged in the murder of Tim Kruse. We would no longer note if we would no longer have notified ICE if we were releasing a heroin dealer, for example, who might have come to this country not as an immigrant or a refugee, but to sell drugs and recruit our children and destroy our families. Denver is a welcoming and an inclusive community, but being a welcoming and inclusive community does not require us to abandon common sense by welcoming and making room for heroin dealers or violent criminals who in many cases, are victimizing the very same communities that are living in fear. So it's one thing to help make people feel safe in our community. But I want you I want you to be safe. So I am very appreciative that the sponsors, Councilwoman Kennish, Councilman Lopez, worked with Mayor Hancock and worked with the immigrant community, many of whom I see in this room tonight. To agree on a better balancing point between making our immigrant community feel safer and having them be safer. Removing that one provision and allowing us to honor ICE release notification requests for certain inmates, which I understand average about 15 a month. Maintains a balance between establishing trust between police and the community. And protecting them from criminals who prey on them. I also appreciate the new versions inclusion of mandatory data collection on released notifications and their follow ups with quarterly reporting. Because one of the most frustrating things about this issue has been the lack of hard numbers on which we could predict the impacts of what we were proposing here. So for these reasons, Mr. President, I am very happy tonight to be able to support fully this new version of the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Quinn. Councilman Lopez, I see you last up in the queue. And I know that you and Councilwoman Kennedy wanted the book, and so are you. Okay if I say a few things, and then I'll punch it to you to have the last word.
Speaker 4: Age before beauty.
Speaker 6: Part of what I meant.
Speaker 4: I meant the other way around.
Speaker 1: Just because you have that luscious hair. I first of all, I really wanted to thank the sponsors of this bill. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Kennedy, for all your hard work. David Broadwell and the administration, the mayor for all of their work on getting us to where we are. And to the community that has really done a lot of hard work getting us to where we are. As some of the speakers said. And my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega said, there are very few of us who are not immigrants in this country, whether we are immigrants ourselves or the sons and daughters of immigrants or the grandchildren or the great great grandchildren or the great great great grandchildren. We are a country. We are a state. We are a city of immigrants. I know I certainly am. And that is what makes this place the amazing and diverse place that it is. So this bill is about all of us. This we are one community in this room. I look around and I see that we have neighbors and we have friends. We have teachers, we have students. We are one community. There were 32 speakers tonight. Every single one spoke in favor.
Speaker 4: Of this.
Speaker 1: Bill. We are one community. There was a meeting that some of the advocacy groups held about this issue, a meeting that Councilwoman Lopez and Councilwoman Kennedy each and I think the three who were there were at where the community said, we want you to do this and put us on the spot. It was a meeting that was at times uncomfortable. And immediately after that meeting, you know, we kind of had a huddle and Councilman Lopez and Councilwoman Kennedy said, we're going to take this on and we're going to come up with a bill. And what I said to them then and every time they came back to me is, I've got your back. At the end of the day, this bill is not perfect. We still have a lot of work to do together in order to make sure that every single person in our community feels safe, that every single person in our community feels respected, and that every single person in our community feels valued. Because anyone who doesn't see or feel safe or respected or valued, that affects every single one of us because we are one community. So with my vote tonight and with our collective vote as the city council tonight, I just want to say. What I'm saying. What we're saying is we've got your back as a great honor to vote in favor of this. And thank you to everyone who got us to this moment and with that, to close us out.
Speaker 4: Councilman Lopez. You know. When it when it's the start of college football season, you're going to see this quite a bit. Is this back and forth? So we like to throw those little barbs at each other. Thank you for your words and counsel, counsel President Clark. You have had our backs. You are part of us. You were there. And in that meeting, I've never seen somebody so sure of that. That's like saying, hey, we're going to get into the brawl. We may not make it out. And he says, Absolutely. I have your back. And Councilman Ortega. Had our backs. Early on as well, too. And they so much as said, well, you need us to co-sponsor. We'll co-sponsor with you. Our colleagues have been. Very thoughtful. This council has been very thoughtful. These are a lot of new issues. These issues have been kind of forced on us, as you see most of our public hearings and zoning and, you know, tax increment financing districts and, you know, just a lot of boring city council stuff. But a lot of our work has changed since November. We have changed in Denver and our priorities have changed in Denver. And I want to really acknowledge our colleagues. For. Writing that change with us? Right. And so thank you all. Thank you for your solidarity or support. The time to sit down, the time to ask the questions and and really go through this step by step. It's been a long ten months. I really. Really want to thank my colleague. My sister Councilwoman can each. Our our bill. Part of our bill on council. Your bill. When you hand it to us. Right. But on the council front, I couldn't ask for a better co-sponsor. For a better. Person in the struggle. And my sister here. It's important to have these allies in our community. And I am myself an ally. My family came here at the border, crossed us. My family. One day we went to sleep. Mexican and woke up. American woke up. You know, United States citizen. We're all Americans. So thank you. To a wonderful co-sponsor and amazing councilwoman. I want to. Yeah.
Speaker 12: Please. Please. Led the way.
Speaker 4: And in times where I was frustrated and wanted to burn the whole place down. Should I have? We're not going to win like that. All right, all right. All right, Robin. All right. So I you know, I want to say that I also want to say thank you to our staff. All right. Rodolfo. Paulina, Arianna has Sousse. Our team. It's very, very hard. So thank you. They're just as dedicated. They this is their lives as well to the mayor staff, the mayor, crystal, dad around in the back and the man who. I believe. I saw all I know is the best. Attorney when it comes to public policy I've ever met in the state. And that's Mr. David Bravo, Mr. Broadwell. You, my friend, have written our history in Denver. This man with his pen, with his and those long nights, we said, Hey, David, what about this? And and Robin. And here in these two go at it, right? Not. Not in a combative way, but just kind of lowering around eye to see this and to see the work that's come out. On behalf of a very grateful city and community. Thank you, David.
Speaker 12: And losing the great man.
Speaker 4: In this city. The mayor, I want to thank in one man who doesn't think I'm going to call on him, but that man in the uniform way back there. That's Chief Quinonez.
Speaker 6: Had our back.
Speaker 4: The few who go back to our marches and go back to our work in oh six and oh five. And even before that, that man made sure that when we went to point A to point B, we got there in one piece, we got there safe, we got there peacefully. And in all of those marches and this is what our rallies are compared to these other rallies you see on TV, not one act of violence, not one sign of somebody being vile. Just us wanting to be seen. And it takes good people to do that in this city. And there are great people in uniform that cannot be here because they are out there. But he represents some of them in our sheriff's department as well, too. Look, there there is there is nothing. There's never anything. False about hope. Right. Our our movement needs these allies. They need allies to stand in this gap. And. We usually refer to civil rights and human rights as something in history books, but it's not in history books. Ladies and gentlemen, is today in these chambers and this city at this moment that we were born to be here for. And we all have this responsibility. We have this responsibility to stand up to injustice. And if we all stand together. Not notes by them overrun? No, not my man. We cannot be moved. No, no. Small Iran. And we've said that for so, so long. That if we stand together, we cannot be moved. We will not be moved. And a lot of movements we've been a part of on this council, folks in different capacities because we've seen the struggle of our African-American brothers and sisters, our Jewish brothers and sisters, Italian and Catholic brothers and sisters. We've. We've we've seen a Chicano movement born in Denver. We've. Stood with women to be recognized as equals and to yet be paid the same. As has their male counterparts. We stand with our gay, lesbian and bisexual transgender communities. All right. So you're seeking to be recognized in their humanity. And now. This movement, the civil rights movement. Is now shining on our new Americans. Because that's what our neighbors and brothers and sisters are. New Americans. And these are folks who have fled poverty. Have escaped famine. Who? Fled violence. Cross blistering deserts. Just to be free. Just to sit in the seats, the same kids sit in the same seats that our kids sit in, whether it be in school. Where the brain is. Chambers just to be able to sit here today. Right. These are folks who. Humbly. Work. They build the city. They maintain your gardens. It may clean your offices and they serve your plates. But they also teach your children. They also build your skyscrapers. We make it possible for this country to celebrate Thanksgiving? We? Will represent you as lawyers one day. And hold that clipboard when you're in the office. Looking for health care. Right. So. In essence. We are this country. We lead this country. And last year and we've all known this, I'm preaching to the converted both on council and here in this room. But last year we watched. As our new president. Called us. Rapists. Drug dealers and criminals. Our children cried. And fear. As a new president. President threatened to separate their families. And build a wall. Of deportation. And worst of all, in our community as a councilman, our children and our our community have stopped calling the police. Nine cases of domestic violence. Nine cases so far. We know that people have have not showed up, not want to testify, not only to be seen because of this threat, because of this fear of deportation. And that ain't right. After after ten years. I know ten years as a councilman that our police department has been working there. They're there badges off trying trying to establish this trust, trying to make it clear that when you call the police, you're not calling ice. And then it's erased with the election of one occupant of the White House. And so we. As representatives were there this day, we were asked and looked in the eye by the community and said, Can you please? Help. Can you help restore? Trust. And they handed us a bill. I said we will help to the best of our ability. So. And now. Shruti. And now the trumpet sounds. So tonight we are going to pass. What is going to be known as the Denver Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. And let it let folks understand and know whether it's here or in Washington, D.C. or anywhere else. We're no longer afraid. Never afraid. And we're not going to allow anybody. Not even a sitting U.S. president. Not even a rogue agency. To coerce us. Or to force our city or its employees to violate the Constitution to do their dirty work. And if you have any business with us whatsoever. We ask for one thing. Show us a warning. Show us a warrant like everybody else, like other any other law enforcement agency in this country. Show us that warrant. Because that is what we protect is our Constitution. So. In that. I just I just I just wanted to to end with with the thing that I thought about. And Robin would always remind me about this. But there's something that I thought that was always been said in our community, and that's what we do. Because it's not about them. It's about us tonight. It's about us. It's about our community. It's about our willingness to affect change in our ability to do it. And this council doing it. And that is that we do what we do. Not out of the hatred of our enemies. But rather for the love of our people. So with that, I want to thank all of you for being here. Let's pass this bill. Kim, council president.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: Lopez. I knew Ortega. All right.
Speaker 3: All right.
Speaker 2: Espinosa. Flynn. I Gilmore. I cashman. I can h i. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce the results. 1010 ies Council Bill 940 was passed unanimously. All right. After all that staying quiet, you guys really did know how to make some noise there due to the Labor Day holiday.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adopting a new Article VIII in Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, to be known as the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act.
Amends Chapter 28 of the Revised Municipal Code to add a new Article VIII related to public safety enforcement that will provide the following: memorializes existing City policy by prohibiting the detention of individuals beyond their sentence; memorializes predominant City practices by prohibiting City employees from collecting information on immigration or citizenship status; prohibits the sharing of any other information about individuals for purposes of immigration enforcement; and, memorializes predominant practices by prohibiting use of city resources or City cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, including prohibiting providing access to secure areas or facilities. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmembers Kniech and Lopez.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08212017_17-0940
|
Speaker 2: Nothing has been called out under bills for introduction. Councilman Lopez has called out council at 940 for a comment. Under Bill's defining consideration, I have nothing under pending. We have nothing, Madam Secretary. Is that right, everyone? All right. And, Madam Secretary, please put the first item on the screen. 940. Councilman Lopez, go ahead. Make your comment.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. This is in regards to the Denver Enforcement Priorities Act. I just want to let folks know we want to make I want to make my comments in general comments and have have time for that lengthy process next meeting. And I just being that there's some folks from the coalition here, I just want to thank you for your hard work. But Mr. President, don't want to belabor the point. Just be want to be able to make those comments and have that time next next meeting. Now that there's a public hearing.
Speaker 2: Great. And you want to just make that comment again for folks who came late in the night. Hear your announcement.
Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Thank you for for that. So just for folks that are that I came into the room before or during the announcements, we asked that we have a scheduled public hearing in one hour, a courtesy public hearing for the next council meeting in these chambers next Monday. 5:30 p.m.. It's a one hour courtesy public hearing on the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act. That's Council Bill 940. So I want now that we have that, I want to be able to make those comments then great. Thank you to the folks that came here. And then I just want to recognize my colleague, who's my course, who's the co-sponsor here, and I Councilman Kasich.
Speaker 2: That's great. And I echo those comments. So we'll have the debate next week for the courtesy public hearing. Madam Secretary, we have three public hearings, so that will be the last public hearing next week. Just want to.
Speaker 4: This. Correct. Okay.
Speaker 2: Just for folks who are going to be a part of this would be the last public hearing for that for a courtesy public hearing. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. As some of the folks know, I voted no on this bill when it was in committee a couple of weeks ago. And in that time, after making my objections to one of the provisions known the sponsors, Councilwoman Lopez, Councilwoman Cranitch worked very hard with the community here and with the administration to make some compromises that make it acceptable. And I intend to vote yes on it tonight and next week. Thank you.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Well, this concludes the items that feels a little weird saying that on an August night. So there's no more items that need to be called out or moving right along. All of the bills for introduction have been ordered published. We are now ready for the block votes and the resolutions and bills and final consideration. Councilmember this rumor. This is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise it's your last chance to call an item for a separate vote. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption and the bills for final consideration and final passage on the floor?
Speaker 5: Yes, I, I move that the following resolutions be adopted. Resolution 886 838 854 873 874 875 876 877, eight, 78, eight, 93. 852. 853. 867. Eight. 78. 71. 862. 879. 888. 92. And that's the resolutions.
Speaker 4: There's those on final.
Speaker 5: And though and also I move that the bills for introduction for final be passed. Let me get down to them. Should have had them up here. Series of 17 Build Number 794 924.
Speaker 2: Great. Madam Secretary, do we have it? It's been moved and seconded. My secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 4: Can each. Lopez. All right, new Ortega. My assessment. All right. Black eye. All right. Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Hi. Flynn.
Speaker 4: Hi, Gilmore. I heard in Katherine. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I plusieurs voting announce results 3913 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 751 Changes on classification from 46 north to Lady Street in Globeville.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adopting a new Article VIII in Chapter 28 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, to be known as the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act.
Amends Chapter 28 of the Revised Municipal Code to add a new Article VIII related to public safety enforcement that will provide the following: memorializes existing City policy by prohibiting the detention of individuals beyond their sentence; memorializes predominant City practices by prohibiting City employees from collecting information on immigration or citizenship status; prohibits the sharing of any other information about individuals for purposes of immigration enforcement; and, memorializes predominant practices by prohibiting use of city resources or City cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, including prohibiting providing access to secure areas or facilities. This bill was approved for filing by Councilmembers Kniech and Lopez.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08212017_17-0751
|
Speaker 5: Yes, Mr. President. I move. The Council will 751 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved.
Speaker 4: I'm sorry. 1/2.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Okay.
Speaker 2: It has been moved in second in the public hearing for council. 751 is now open. Andrew up. Can we have a staff report?
Speaker 11: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of the council Andrew Webb here from CPD to present on this proposed rezoning of a property at 46 North LRT Street from the EIA.
Speaker 0: Zoning.
Speaker 11: Bureau to overlay to CRL. This request is in Council District three. It's in the southwest quadrant of the Globeville neighborhood near the 41st and Fox, soon to open RTD station properties about just under three quarters of an acre. It's right at the intersection of LRT and 41st and currently has a small office building in a parking lot. Surrounding zoning is primarily the same as the subject site with the UO to overlay. Although as you can see on the map here, there have been quite a few rezonings in recent months and years to mixed use zones , implementing some of the adopted plans for this area, including a S.R. X Zone M's, their main street mixed use zone and SIMEX zone district, ranging from maximum heights of 8 to 20 storeys. The land uses in the area are primarily industrial, commercial and residential, with the bulk of the residential to the east in the student housing development for our area campus students and then to the to the west of the subject site is more of a mix of industrial, commercial and vacant land uses. As you get closer to the station, this area often gives you a feel for the scale of development in the area. As you can see, currently, most development is ranges from 1 to 3 stories, with the exception, of course, of the old Regency Hotel Tower there on the right hand side of the photo, you can also see the the rail line going through and the pedestrian bridge over to the Sunnyside neighborhood. These photos show the subject's sight from L.A. Street. As you can see, it is a small office and parking lot. The top photo here is the site directly to the north of the subject's site. It was resumed last year to the same zone district, S.R. 12. And the bottom photo shows a vacant lot directly across the street from the subject's site. The top photo here shows another commercial structure across the street from the subject's site. And then finally, a mostly unused parking lot to the south with the Regency, the old former Regency Hotel tower, and there in the background. So the current zoning, the air zone is a light industrial zone district does not allow new residential uses. The you oh two overlay does allow billboard uses subject to spacing and location and other limitations in the Denver zoning code. So this is a request to the S.R. X 12 Zone District that's urban center neighborhood context residential mixed use with a maximum height of 12 stories. The Zone District promotes pedestrian scale development with a shopfront building forms buildings built up at the street with pedestrian entrances and active street level uses aimed at creating a walkable district. In terms of the process so far. Informational notice went out on March 15th to register neighborhood organizations, the city councilors and other stakeholders in the area. Planning Board held a hearing on June 21st and recommended approval of this proposed rezoning of the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee met on July 11th and also recommended approval. We have not received public comment about this request. As you can see on this list, there are quite a few RINO's who who do consider this subject state to be within their boundaries and all have been notified of this proposal. As you're aware, the Council two to adopt a zone change must find that it's consistent with these five criteria from the Denver zoning code. With regard to the first consistency with adopted plans, there are four plans that impact the subject site Comprehensive Plan 2000 and Blueprint, Denver, and then also the 41st and Fox Station Area Plan and the Globeville Neighborhood Plan. So with regard to the comprehensive plan, the proposed year 12 zone, further several comprehensive planning policies including encouraging more density near transit nodes, promoting infill development in an area that has been identified for increased density and new uses. Blueprint Denver identifies the subject site for urban residential and identifies areas to the west of L.A. Street for transit oriented development. Closer to the station, Urban Residential is aimed at higher density, primarily residential uses with complementary commercial uses. The entire area here of Globeville is designated as an area of change. The 41st and Fox Station Area Plan also identified the subject site for urban residential uses with more commercial, more intensive commercial mixed uses. Further to the west, closer to the rail station, the Globeville Neighborhood Plan adopted more recently to reinforce the 41st and Fox station area playing recommendations for urban residential land uses at this location also highlighted it as an area of change. And then finally, that plan also established or made recommended building heights for the area. And this request for 12 stories is consistent with the recommendations of the 41st and FOX Plan. With regard to the other criteria, this request request will result in a uniform application of building form, use and design regulations for the S.R. X 12 Zone District. It will further the public welfare by enabling redevelopment over time of this industrial area into a walkable, mixed use district, thereby implementing adopted land use plans and policies and staff agrees with the the applicant's proposed justifying circumstance. There have been quite a few changes in this area already as the opening date for the G line station approaches and the adopted plans in this area made multiple recommendations for infrastructure improvements, many of which have been accomplished, including several pedestrian and bike infrastructure improvements in the area. Finally, staff finds that this proposal is consistent with the surrounding urban center neighborhood context, and with that, CPD recommends approval based on a finding that the review criteria had been met. And I'm happy to answer any questions you have.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, Andrew, that we have three speakers tonight for this bill, and I'm going to call them all up to the. You say so. Oh, okay. Sorry. I'm going to call the three speakers up to the front here. Patricia. Patricia Guillet. Gillette. Sekou and an Elizabeth. Patricia, your.
Speaker 12: First.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you for having me this evening. My name is Patricia Gillette. I am the vice president of the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, located at 46 North L.A. Street. My home address for the record is 6600 Zing Street in Arvada. I am the applicant. We are the applicant. We are a membership organization. Governed by a board of directors. And we are asking for the zoning change as a pro-active move to meet changes in our neighborhood. We have no immediate plans or or short term plans to redevelop this area, but we're looking to match the rezoning that has happened directly to the north of us and across both LRT and Fox Street from our location.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr.. I appreciate it. Sekou.
Speaker 8: Yes, it. Uh. My name is Chairman Sekou, and I'm an organizer and founder of the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Who are servicing poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. Resident of Denver for 67 years. Born and raised in the five points. And and thoroughly immersed in the culture, population and future development of generations here and coming. We support this rezoning. For a couple of reasons. One. Now the general floor. You already got the votes to pass it. There's nothing I can say that would deter you from doing what you're doing. So this is pretty much a done deal. And I doubt very seriously if I'm going to tell you anything new that you ain't already heard, especially for the folks who's been there for a while. And that is this. After the zoning change goes down. Everybody's hands off. There's no monitoring of the project after that because as long as it comes within the guidelines of the 22 plan and Gupta will develop. It goes down and nobody takes a second glance at it because you got so much stuff to deal with. You don't do no oversight whatsoever unless there's a complaint from the citizens. And because you know that they're not that well organized. And of course, you just say, hey, it's not on me. Some assistance to do. But there is a moral authority that we have because as they go about doing this mixed use thing and developing housing and they have this little category called affordable housing, it's housing that poor people can afford. Was gay passed away because he nobody's looking at that piece because according to the guidelines, as long as there's affordable and there's been no adjustment or data being brought forth in terms of who your client areas base, you end up with a city looking like boulder and over pencil and paper you gentrify the neighborhood and it becomes white only like apartments. 72% white now used to be 95% black. Yeah. Yeah. Mm hmm. So these what you call the fun unattended consequences or in fact, intended consequences because of what you do. See. So our question is, how do you sleep at night knowing that what you do is a rippling effect, not only happens in global, but that ripple effect is starting to happen in the five points. Then it goes Montebello, then it go to Park Hill, then go to Green Valley Ranch, and then all of a sudden you have a white supremacist society with white privilege and white boys making money on taxpayers money cycle.
Speaker 2: So your time is up.
Speaker 8: I'm close with this.
Speaker 2: Your time is up.
Speaker 8: Thank you very.
Speaker 2: Much. Thank you. All right. And Elizabeth.
Speaker 0: I appreciate the opportunity to just comment in favor of this zoning. I'm in Elizabeth at East 50th in Washington, in Globeville. And a little bit related to what Chairman Shaker was just saying.
Speaker 4: Is a.
Speaker 0: Vigilance that I think is favorable for the neighborhood. If you look at the justifications of how it aligns with the plans, there's into a is the sentence. The new zoning we seek will allow for quick, intelligent and reasonable growth in the area to help spur other elements of the neighborhood to also grow. So I just want to support this and put a spotlight on the organism of economy in Globeville and that the transit oriented development is an opportunity for very creative, very responsible, very egalitarian enrichment and revitalization in the neighborhoods where actually helping the accessible opportunities and entry into the diverse, diversified economy that mixed use can bring can be part of the solution for people being able to sustain multi-generational abilities to stay in place in their neighborhoods. So I support this partly because the people that are involved have been very sensitive to the neighborhoods. I know the area because of it being a project cure, drop up, drop off site, a volunteer site for dropping off for many years. And I used to be a courier for a couple of years picking up the hospital supplies, etc. And so I know the area very well and I think that the connectivity conversations around this are very good. I think there has been sensitivity to the plans in some of these conversations, but I would say let's stay vigilant as we do rezoning changes. I do feel like this is a gap in the continuity of getting from the from the ideal to the actual and that we need to all work together from within the neighborhoods in the council to really when we get to the nuts and bolts and the designs and what it feels like to bring in the more stories and that kind of a thing, to really make sure that we're doing the advocacy from as policymakers and his constituents and neighbors to really make these be organically neighborhood.
Speaker 7: Friendly.
Speaker 0: Developments. So there's a lot of work to do, and I think this is a really great step in revitalization. And I'm glad there's some legacy industry protections going on with these, too, because I think in the neighborhoods, a lot of people really do like some of the legacy industries that have been there for many generations. So hopefully this will be a shoo in.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss Elizabeth. Now questions for members of council. Mr. Let I'm ask you to come up. I have a question for you. You just had an Elizabeth who was in the neighborhood speaking on behalf of this. Can you talk a little bit about the outreach you do to the stakeholders and the community.
Speaker 4: According to under recommendations from the zoning meeting that we had early on? I've sent out emails and letters to every neighborhood organization that was listed. We met with our immediate neighborhood. I have not to date heard any.
Speaker 2: Who did you meet with?
Speaker 4: Who did I meet with?
Speaker 2: You said immediate neighborhood.
Speaker 4: Yeah. Our property to the north.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: And our properties to the west. I did not meet with the new ones to the north west. It's a medicinal.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 4: Recreational pot shop.
Speaker 2: In. And just about your. Your plans for this. You all are responding to the movement of zoning changes that is happening in the in the in the context of this neighborhood. But there is no plans for your organization to to sell, to grow, to. I mean, I'm just trying to understand a little bit.
Speaker 4: Right. We are responding to the changes within the neighborhood. Our board of directors, which are made up about 52 members. Trucking companies and allied companies have instructed us to look at a five, ten and 20 year plan for our organization. And as part of that, the zoning came up. We have no intention. We have no current plans for redeveloping. We have no capacity to to redevelop. To be very honest with you, there may be sales down the road. That's part of the reason that we're rezoning to match the neighborhood so that if somebody wanted to come in and match parcels to the immediate north, that would make our property a little more attractive for sales down the road. But we have no immediate plans for any of that.
Speaker 2: Okay. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to first ask Andrew if you would come to the microphone. Notwithstanding the answers to the questions that we just heard. But as we are seeing more and more properties in this neighborhood being resold to very, very high densities, and we will see an incredible increase in traffic in and out of this area. What specific conversations has CPD been involved in related to that intersection of 38th Avenue, Fox I, 25 and Park Avenue.
Speaker 11: Well, thank you, Mr. President. Councilmember Ortega, I appreciate the opportunity to answer that. I can't speak to specific conversations about that exact intersection, but I can tell you that the KPD in general is very aware of the volume of zone changes that have been coming in here in recent years, especially since the the Globeville plan kind of reaffirmed the station area plan in 2014. There have been, as you know, some some improvements made, some bike and pedestrian improvements that have recommended by those plans that have already been made. The CPD and Public Works and other partner agencies are actually in the sort of the beginning stages right now of a next step study that would look at as the as these zone changes occur, what would be, you know, and especially as actual development requests come in, what would be an appropriate sort of large scale response to to making sure that the infrastructure in this area can handle that. I should say that that the zone changes are not individual development approvals. So any development that comes in would have to go through review. And it's possible that traffic engineers and and other reviewers of those plans at Site Plan Review would require some off site mitigation of traffic issues and that sort of thing as well. So it's something that's being looked at from from multiple angles.
Speaker 7: So just to be clear, is, is that something that's being looked at, being done in a comprehensive manner that is taking into consideration the volume of density and traffic? That is. That has the potential to be in this area that is still way over tax. That interchange, that intersection.
Speaker 11: Yes, I think I can say that that when when CPD and partner agencies look at this, they will be looking at that whole kind of sort of semi-circular area across, you know, east of the tracks and and south of the of the highway interchange. And and looking at all of the land use entitlements that have been made and and calculating the the potential traffic and pedestrian and other needs for the area and looking at a holistic solution to.
Speaker 4: So are there.
Speaker 7: Conversations being had with the property owners who have come in and rezone the properties, letting them know that there's going to be.
Speaker 4: Some expectation for them to be part of.
Speaker 7: That solution, since they're going to be helping create part of the.
Speaker 4: The headache that we're going to be.
Speaker 7: Dealing with, because I don't want to wait until it is so oversaturated.
Speaker 4: That the expectation is the taxpayers.
Speaker 7: Have to fix the problem, not the people who are building and developing.
Speaker 4: In the area creating this challenge.
Speaker 11: And I can't speak to two previous rezoning applications, and I think a lot of the rezoning applications have been similar to this one in that they are sort of are being made by owners at an early stage who do not expect to actually be the developers themselves as these areas redevelop. So those discussions would likely be had more with some kind of end stage property owners or developers who are ready to actually come in for site plan approval. But but certainly at the point at which people are coming in for individual development approvals, I would expect any any reviewer who is looking at those plans to make them aware that there may be maybe needs for mitigation of traffic issues.
Speaker 7: Yeah, I think it's important that at the earliest stages of them having any connection to CPD, those conversations need to begin rather than waiting until somebody has rezoning their property and gets ready to submit their, you know, their detailed plans for for redevelopment that they learn about it at that point. I think it's important to start having that conversation upfront as as the department, you know, defines what that looks like. And it would be helpful for, you know, this body to understand what those solutions are going to look like so that, you know, maybe it's a presentation to our land use committee, but to keep doing these rezonings without knowing clearly that that's being addressed is a little concerning because, you know, I know somebody has put pencil to paper and they're not only looking at this intersection, they're also looking at 44th Avenue, which I advised we should not be doing, because what that means is you're going to put traffic through Globeville that that should not be traveling through Globeville to councilwoman.
Speaker 2: You're you're in commerce, and I know where you're going on that. And I just want you to reserve the effort for comments and go in and then I'm going the same place. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: Well, actually, this these are questions, but they're related. What does the Globeville plan that that over that speaks to this long district I mean this rezoning say specifically about and I apologize for not knowing this about the Fox Street interchange in the 44th ingress and egress to this site doesn't speak to how this level of growth should be accommodated. I'm sure it talks about the TOD, but you know, it should be talking about these other ingress and egress points as well.
Speaker 11: It does indeed look at the limited ingress and egress points in the area and it makes some recommendations for hypothetical approaches to solving that. Councilmember Ortega mentioned 44, and I think that does come up as a as a possibility in the plan as something that should be potentially studied. But the plan does not, to the best of my knowledge, make specific recommendations. It did recommend some bike ped improvements that were pretty obvious. And those were made relatively recently.
Speaker 12: You know, and, and the bike pad improvements on Inka are wonderful. Do you know what the grades are right now for both of the mean for the the 38th and Fox intersection.
Speaker 11: I'm sorry. Their grades?
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 11: The intersection in terms of level of service. Yeah, I do not.
Speaker 12: Before. Before we get another rezoning in Globeville, can you make sure to. To sort of be prepared with that for ludi? And if you get it, I'm sure it's available, you know, can you email that even between now and then?
Speaker 11: I'd be more than happy to do that.
Speaker 12: And then. This seems to be an industrial system in an industrial association, so that would be an office use sort of thing. If there were a change of use but no actual new storefront building, I mean, certain changes of uses would be allowed, correct?
Speaker 11: That is correct. Although the current zoning would not allow residential uses. So. But it would allow continued office and commercial and industrial uses.
Speaker 12: Okay. Do you think it's ironic, though, a majority of the industrial uses are not permitted in the X12. Some are in a limited capacity.
Speaker 11: And I think I answered your question incorrectly. So the new zoning, the proposed new zoning this year, X12, would allow limited office and commercial uses, but it is more focused on on residential uses. But the existing office use could of course could of course continue.
Speaker 12: Is that. But that's because it is a conforming use for that zone.
Speaker 11: That is correct, yes. Yeah.
Speaker 12: But industrial, certainly a majority of industrial uses for that would not conform to our X12.
Speaker 11: That is correct, yes.
Speaker 12: No further questions.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilor Flower.
Speaker 9: Thank, Mr. President. Andrew, in the staff report, it was mentioned that I think there were ten registered neighborhood organizations that are covered by this area, and no comment was received from any of them at the time the report was written. Has there been any? It's hard for me to believe that as active as the neighborhood is, that there wasn't a comment received from out.
Speaker 11: We you know, they have received several notices of upcoming meetings. You know, the originally the original application planning board meeting, Landers, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and tonight's hearing. And we have not received comment from any of the neighbors.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. That's almost asking.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Thank you, Councilman. Flaying. Councilman Cashman. Okay. Great. All right. This concludes my experience and all the questions are council bill hearing for Council 751 is now closed. Comments by members of council. You know, I'll sort of because this is my district. This is again on the on the technical piece of this. This. You know, is consistent and congruent with everything that we need to improve for city council. Obviously, you hear a lot of issues here on city council because we're seeing what's starting to be the reality on the ground here and what I call Fox Island. It is an island that is disconnected from for many reasons, but there are not neighborhoods that exactly go up to Fox on that. Why? That's why you're not going to have a lot of people commenting on this. You have a one way in, one way out transportation system of cars. You do have a light rail coming in, which is good. But you got to look at the number of. Rezonings that we have have had in the neighborhood. And what that's going to do for traffic and it's just going to the whole system is going to fail if we're not thinking about infrastructure along with redevelopment. And so for the the person the the group of folks who are asking for a rezoning, I'll tell you right now that this entire area is going to have a transportation network and it's going to have a transportation network that those who own property will be paying into and getting assessed for that transportation network. Because we as the city and the taxpayers can no longer afford to pay for that solution. And the the growth is is so much at this point that, I mean, we're going to see an epic failure for this for this area. So for me, that's just I'm just serving notice on everyone who's coming before us and getting a rezoning. By law, you can come before us and get this rezoning because it matches up with what our criteria is. But you have to know going forward where we're headed to the to the community conversation that we've for you. You actually had an Elizabeth who's very active in the community support this because she was a part of the planning process to approve zoning, to set the zoning standard. And the frustration that we hear from the community is why are you approving these zoning? And what folks don't understand is we have a process. We have a community process that was just approved in 2014, the Globeville area, Swansea, a plan which neighbors spoke into how they wanted to see their neighborhood address. And this. It's congruent and consistent with what that plan is. And so we as city council officials need to support that. But we also need to support a larger plan like this transportation network, affordable housing plans that you're going to see coming forth on 30th and Blake, things like that to make sure that we can rightsize it for our community. So transit plan is coming. Be prepared. I'm going to support this because it's consistent with what the community members spoke and what they want to see in their neighborhood. I typically do not like to see a rezoning without a plan, you know, and this seems as if you all are evaluating your land for future use of the sale. And I don't like to see that. But you have the legal right to do that before this body. And so but I just wanted to serve notice, let folks know we're doing a transportation plan. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 12: There was not. Maybe you can clarify it. Feel free to chime in to clarify. But it seemed that you spoke of maybe a possible. Sort of mechanism whereby the future of redevelopment in this area might actually contribute into the infrastructure needs of that area. I know that we've had a preliminary discussion about some potential metropolitan district, but it was very for a very finite portion of this area, not as all inclusive as this area needs. Are we is there. I wonder I mean, I'm just curious if.
Speaker 2: There's I don't think I don't think that there's a proposal that's ready for primetime right now. But all of the individuals who are parcels that are significantly impacting the area and causing a transportation need will be paying into, you know, this fee. We don't know how it's going to look just yet. Okay. But but I think it's something that Ortega was talking about and she's had ideas about the the administration and CPD is working on some things. And I definitely have some ideas on what to do. And I think we need to come together and figure out what that it is.
Speaker 12: That's that's good. That's good to know. I'd like to know more about it as this is adjacent to my district. But and because there's also been a concern of mine on several of these rezonings going back two years about the sort of what's what's happening. I do want to thank Sekou for for bringing up some of some very salient points, though, because because I am trying to grapple with the displacement issue in Northwest Denver and to you'd be naive to think that it would be any different in this part of Globeville. You know, right now it'll be in a series of spaces until a developer starts to move and be on a transformative project. Certainly the land use and the zoning is in place for something transformative. The planning is in place for something transformative. The infrastructure is lagging behind. But I'm pretty sure that once there's reinvestment in the area, you will see that subsequent reinvestment in infrastructure. And one thing that happens is if we took the demographic makeup of the area today and you saw somebody strikes that match and development starts to go commensurate with what is planned, the demographics will radically change. And if we if we if we. So there's two things here that I just want to comment on that are related to this rezoning and all previous rezonings and subsequent rezonings that are all involved with this, this Globeville plan and the tio de station area plan for 41st and Fox, which is if we don't get on top of the infrastructure, we will squander this tod opportunity of this area will remain in stasis when it actually is. You've got way too much potential. There's too much vision there that shouldn't be ignored. But if we don't actually figure out a better way than anything we've done to date and anything we are talking about right now on how to address displacement and gentrification, we will fail Denver as a city in both of both Globeville and Sunnyside. My side of the railroad tracks here offer tremendous opportunity for both to address, mean to catalyze new development, make maximum impact from a tod, and do so in a way that not only addresses displacement in the area, but actually can capture families that are being displaced from other parts of northwest Denver, north and west Denver, I should say. And so I'm just saying that because I've said similar comments in past Globeville rezonings. The comments tonight sort of spurred my own sort of. I mean feelings. With that said, it's you know, it'll be it's purely consistent with the plan. But I think the city needs has a big role to play on the future of Globeville as a as a as a sort of beacon for what could be redevelopment rather than redevelopment as as usual. Thanks.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Castro.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to add my voice to the the infrastructure piece as well. You know, we since we've been passing rezoning after rezoning in this area and every time at least Councilman Ortega will bring up what are we doing about the transportation system? And we get this vague. Well, we're will look at it. And as things come online, we'll look at it. And, you know, and I think I've reached my limit of of approving these. I'm inclined that to not pick on this particular development. But I think past that, I've reached my limit to the point where it may be part of the neighborhood plan, but I'm looking at our reviewer review criteria and I can't, with a straight face, believe that without some assurance that there is. I'm going to need to see on paper CPD's plans, contingency plans for how to address transportation in this area. Or I can't, in all honesty, say that this is furthering public health, safety and welfare. Because I'm looking at the maps of what land is left. And I'd be interested to see where you folks think you're going to go to build this transportation system that, you know, we've got parcels that are come look to me. I expect to see some three to twenties and so on. Yet in this plan, and that may be just what this area needs if there's an infrastructure plan that makes sense. I'm just not seeing it there. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Castor and Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I first want to say to Mr. Gillette, your your application is cut up in the middle of a bigger picture discussion that we started having about this area. You know, I think your particular site meets the criteria, as I think Councilman Brooks said earlier. But it is part of a conversation that we have not been privy to in terms of how we're working to solve what is going to be a huge infrastructure nightmare if we don't get out in front of it in terms of not only the traffic, but the drainage issue is equally as vital to ensure that we address because we already have flooding problems in this area, that 38th Avenue underpass, it it has trapped cars in there on many occasions when it when it rains. And so and part of that water from from the west side of I-25 flows through the pipes down into Globeville and is in part some of the reason that Globeville floods besides water that comes out of the, you know, the riverbank just south of 38th Avenue. So while we have the opportunity to be addressing infrastructure, we need to make sure that we're talking about drainage as well as transportation. And I would just caution that we not be talking about 44th Avenue being part of the ingress egress for this Fox Street area, because there's no way with everything else that will be happening with I-70, with National West, or with the reconstruction of Washington Street, with everything else that's happening in the Reno area to put even more traffic into that Globeville neighborhood. So we need to look at other solutions besides how we fix that intersection and look at other connectivity answers to how we solve this problem. So I look forward to either being part of ongoing conversations or seeing whatever is in the discussion stages with CPD to look at how we address this before we have any more applications from this area come forward. So I have no problem supporting this one tonight, but I am anxious to see that we're making some headway in addressing this problem. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. And I can promise you there are more on the way, and they will hear this same speech and I hope with a little bit more concrete of a plan of moving forward. It's been moved in. Seconded. Madam Secretary Rocha.
Speaker 4: Black. Clerk Espinosa.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Flynn. All right. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman.
Speaker 2: I think you missed a couple of that. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. You know, you guys know our SEC. Madam Secretary is very fast on that. We get everyone. We just listen to people. Yes. All right. 11 eyes. Council Bill 71 is passed. Okay. Next up, councilman, clerk, will you please put Councilperson 52 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4060 North Elati Street in Globeville.
Rezones property at 4060 North Elati Street from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-12 (industrial to urban center, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-11-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0922
|
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Okay, we are on to communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications?
Speaker 5: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. We have two proclamations that I'll be reading tonight. And the first one is Proclamation 17 092 to recognize in the annual Brothers Redevelopment and Denver employee volunteer opportunities. Paine Nathan Day in the city in county of Denver on Saturday, August 19th. Whereas, through the Partnership of Denver Employees Volunteer Opportunities Deveaux and Denver Redevelopment 100 plus Denver City employees will volunteer their time to paint homes of deserving senior homeowners in the agency's 39th annual paint a thon, whereas all painting will be completed free of charge for homeowners saving the city's fixed income seniors thousands of dollars in home maintenance repairs. And. Whereas, volunteers will be beautifying homes and preserving home values in Denver area neighborhoods as a result of their participation. And. Whereas, the paint often is a great way to show the city employees take pride in the community and take care of their residents that they care so much about. Whereas a paint a thon truly makes a difference in the lives of many, many Denver residents, now therefore be of a claim for the city and county of Denver, Section one that the Denver City Council recognizes the day August 19, 2017 as brothers redevelopment paint a fun day in the city and county of Denver, and that the clerk of the city and county of Denver shall attest and affix the seal the city, county, Denver to the this proclamation and a copy be transmitted to the to the devil board. And I move that proclamation 920 to be adopted. It has been moved by me. And second it I'll make a couple of comments here. I first of all, you know, I want to give a lot of credit to brothers redevelopment and all of these city employees that are so involved in their community. But I got to tell you, you don't realize how many elderly people who are not connected with folks are shut in their homes until you start going door to door. And this summer, I spent a lot of time going door to door. And just this last weekend I was in North City Park in the Skyland neighborhood, and I could not believe the number of elderly individuals who lived in the neighborhood 40, 50, 60 years, but just alone and no one spending time with them. And so I know there's several folks on this council. I know we do this with the Hiawatha Davis senior luncheon and things like that, where we try and honor our elders in our community. But something like this where you fix up an elders home in their community, can transform your life, can be so incredible because they just cannot get out and improve their home like they used to. And so I want to thank Brothers redevelopment. I want to thank the 100 plus city employees who will get out of their cubicles, get out of the building and hang out with some constituents and really give back. So with that, Madam Secretary, it's been moved. The second row, Cardinal Clark.
Speaker 5: Espinosa, Flynn, AI Gilmore, Herndon, Cashman, Kenny Lopez all knew. Ortega i susman i black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please close voting as results 3913 as proclamation 922 has been adopted. I would like to call out Jeff Martinez, the president, and tell them to come to the front here. Jeff Martinez, president of Brothers Redevelopment and derrick hoyt of the denver county court. To receive this proclamation. There he is. How you doing, Miss Martinez? Very good.
Speaker 8: This is a DVD. So.
Speaker 11: First and foremost, good evening and thank you.
Speaker 8: For the seven sponsors for this proclamation. Also, this.
Speaker 11: Vote is now a big thing that we do as Denver employee. Volunteer opportunities is exactly that. We try.
Speaker 8: To find volunteer opportunities.
Speaker 11: For the city and county of Denver. And with that, we're able to partner with area nonprofits.
Speaker 8: So if you ever know of a nonprofit that needs assistance or needs volunteers.
Speaker 11: Please contact Deveaux. Deveaux Denver Gov dawg.
Speaker 8: And then moving on to the program or.
Speaker 11: To the proclamation itself in Pennington, I want to make sure I say thank you to Brothers redevelopment for the work that they put into this event. We went from painting three houses last year to now eight houses.
Speaker 1: This year, and we couldn't have.
Speaker 11: Done that without them. Additionally, with our DEVEAUX board, it's the same thing. We have unpaid board members that are out there putting in their time and effort extra curricular work to make sure that we can do events like this. And we've had about 140 volunteers sign up for this event. So it's a big thing for us. And it's also our 100th home with brothers paint a thon. So we've now.
Speaker 8: Done 100 homes.
Speaker 11: For 12.
Speaker 1: Years. So. Right.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Thanks for having me. Council President Brooks in Denver, City Council, we appreciate the opportunity. This is a big weekend for the paint athon and the historic milestone that we're gonna surpass in our partnership with the city employees and city of Denver. And so we're really excited and we're just so grateful to be in this spot to provide a place for employees to serve. And they've certainly taken us up on that for more than I think this is our 12th year, 12th straight year that we've worked on this. And yeah, we're going to surpass this huge milestone this Saturday, the 100th home. I think it's going to be next door to Councilmember Brooks. Right? I think it's next door to you.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 0: We're coming to you. So to see you on a.
Speaker 8: Ladder with a brush, some gear, getting, you know, full of paint on Saturday.
Speaker 7: And we're looking forward to it. And we're going to be painting. There's eight sites, I think I counted in several districts and several neighborhoods over the past 12 years that we've worked together with city employees. We've painted 99 homes and we're going to make that milestone on Saturday. But that's total savings, collective savings for those homeowners of $225,000.
Speaker 0: And for fixed income, low income senior.
Speaker 7: Struggling to make ends meet, living month to month. That gives them the ability to use those resources toward grocery bills, utilities, going to the doctor, paying for prescriptions, whatever. And so we're just so grateful. And this really underscores and demonstrates the spirit of service that exists among our hardworking city employees, but also that exists here in the Mile High City. So, again, we're just so appreciative and looking forward to seeing you on Saturday at a house near you and see on those ladders.
Speaker 1: Hey, thank you so much. And, you know, I just want to say, there are a lot of reporters in here and they're probably thinking about cover India and some other things. Cover this. This is kind of cool. This is incredible. And it's some it's some cool stuff that we're doing in the city that doesn't get a lot of coverage. I mean, $225,000, we're saving elderly individuals. So thank you, guys for what you do.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation recognizing the annual Brother's Redevelopment and Denver Employee Volunteer Opportunities Paint-A-Thon Day in the City and County of Denver on Saturday, August 19, 2017.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0823
|
Speaker 11: All right. Zero I's, 12 nays. Council Resolution 811 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, can you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Espinosa, will you go ahead and put counseled Bill 819 on the floor.
Speaker 1: And move that council bill eight nine to be placed upon the floor for final consideration and do passed?
Speaker 11: It has been moved.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry, are we doing a 23 or eight, 1908 19.
Speaker 11: Next step of my jumping ahead here. Do.
Speaker 5: We should probably do the resolutions first. 823 823 2426.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 11: They're out of order. All right. So do we need to do anything to take back the motion that Councilman Espinosa just did?
Speaker 5: I know. We can just move. We'll go back. Okay.
Speaker 8: All right.
Speaker 11: Go ahead, gentlemen. Those are also.
Speaker 1: Listed as bills, but their resolutions, correct?
Speaker 5: There are resolutions.
Speaker 1: Of move that resolutions 823, 24 and 20. 26 be placed upon final consideration? Well, no, that's you know. And do passing the buck. Is that what I'm.
Speaker 5: Adopted in a black.
Speaker 1: And be adopted in a.
Speaker 11: Black. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments from members of council. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Much has been made over the past year or so regarding the connection or lack of a connection between the plot, the Park Hill Drainage Project and the proposed Central 70 highway reconstruction. Opponents to Central 70 are adamant the two are interrelated. Proponents say Central 70 can go on without it, and P2P is merely redundant. I've spent more than a little time over the past year or so researching the topic, and my conclusion is that not only are P2P and I-70 tightly interwoven, the city is far more than merely an interested party. We are a fully involved partner in facilitating the highway project that I believe will have long reaching negative effects on the communities, North Denver communities to which it passes. And I'd like to read a few things from the IGA that was run through this Council just a few weeks before a new majority of council members took office in 2015. I'm just going to read you some excerpts. Whereas the parties, meaning the city and the state, have determined that there are significant mutual benefits to be achieved by cooperating and working together on the I-70 East Project and related enhancements. Whereas, to the extent permitted by the NEPA process and applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, it is the intent of the parties to set forth their understandings and goals with regard to their respective commitments for funding parts of the costs of the I-70 East Project. The parties believe the Twin Basin Drainage Project is a necessary and important drainage project with benefits for the state and the city respectively. If the Early Action Drainage Project was, which was part of P2P, if the Early Action Drainage Project segment from Pond seven to the South Platte River is not operational by December one, 2017, or the remainder of the EDP is not operational by September one, 2019, and this delays the I-70 East Project. The city workforce will enforce the liquidated damages provision and reimburse the state for actual additional costs to the I-70 East Project in the amount of liquidated damages from the city's contractor. The State believes the Twin Twin Basin drainage project will result in significant benefits for the I-70 East Project and will result in a redundant storm protection system for the I-70 East Project. As a result, the state will pay 40% of the cost of the project, estimated at 53.6 million, and the city will pay 60% of the cost estimated at 8.4 million. The city agrees that its ongoing drainage plans, policies and regulations will be developed with the goal of maintaining the functional capacity of the Twin Basin drainage project to handle the 100 year flood. If the final cost for the project for drainage elements exceeds $134 million, it is the agreement of the parties that any amount above 134 million will be funded 60% by the city and 40% by the state. Provided, however, that the state obligation for any amount in 53.6 million A shall not exceed an additional 6.9 million. And finally, see that I shall have the right to review all plans for the Twin Basin Drainage Project, including the Early Action Drainage Product Project. CDOT will provide comments focused on the functionality of the drainage plans. When plans for the EDP have achieved 30% design, the city shall submit the plans to see for review and comments. See that we'll have ten business days to review and comment. And the same is true for the 60% and 100% design period. I believe that Court could indeed have provided the needed redundancy for the I-70 project on their own dime, but I believe they've chosen not to do so because it's in their financial interest to partner with the city. I believe if they were going to provide their own redundancy, it would cost far more than their contribution to the city. And I believe that because I do not know see that to be intentionally benevolent folks that I guess they're figuring it's a heck of a good deal. And so a partnership with the city makes good sense to them. We continue to struggle to gain full participation from C++ in mitigating the construction effects on nearby homeowners. Where I have had a chance to vote on this idea, I would have suggested that the money we are gaining to help with the P2P project was not sufficient to facilitate the continued debasement of the neighborhoods that this oversize, misplaced and misguided boondoggle will pass through. That being said, Mr.. Mr. President, I will be voting no on these three bills tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Castro. Councilman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. When people ask me what is the most surprising thing about being on city council, I have said for the past two years that it's drainage. It's something I never thought about before. It was a city council member. But now everywhere I go, I see drainage basins and ditches that the city and urban drainage and government entities have built in order to protect our neighborhoods and our city from a serious rain event in 2013. We all remember the horrible floods that we had that destroyed a lot of communities and a lot of homes. I do support these projects. They will protect our city and our neighborhoods. There's been a lot of misinformation out there, and I just want to be clear on some things. Number one, the city park golf course is not going to be destroyed. It is going to be improved into a more beautiful and accessible course. Q Alumnus and Hall of Fame golfer Hale Irwin is designing it so that players of all abilities can play golf together. The new design will attract younger players, and it will be more inclusive. It will also incorporate facilities for the first tee program for children. The historic character of the golf course and views will be preserved. And of the 824 existing trees, 561 will be preserved and 660 760 new trees will be planted on the course or in the area with a net gain of almost 500 trees. We actually have our city forester here tonight who can answer more questions about the trees, but many of the trees that will be cut down are already stressed or damaged. They also will replace the tree canopy. So if you think of a large tree and the size of the canopy of the branches in the leaves, they'll replace that with as many smaller trees that will create that same area of canopy. Many of Denver's parks are already drainage areas to mitigate floods. Just this morning, I rode my bike around Bible Park, which is a drainage area. The other day I ran in Paul Cashman's district on the Harvard Gulch, which is a great plant path and it is a drainage area. Also in my district we have the Goldsmith Gulch that goes through Wallace Park, Rosamond Park and Bible Park, and it's a drainage area. Using parks and green spaces for drainage is a natural, smart way to mitigate a major flood. So with that said, I will be supporting these contracts.
Speaker 1: All right. Thanks, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 12: Thank you, President Brooks. Protecting people and property from floodwaters is of the utmost importance. I know that we all agree on that. And I'd like to humbly share a little bit about my background so that you can put into context my next comments for close to 25 years. I worked within the field of natural resources. I started out at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources when Ken Salazar served as the executive director. I have also worked for Colorado State Parks and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, which is now merged into the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. I began my career when the number of women and people of color within federal, state and city natural resource agencies were in the single digits. And sadly to say, we are, we still are. I have dedicated my entire adult life to educating people and advocating for responsible and science led management in regard to our precious natural resources . Prior to being elected to serve my community as a District 11 councilwoman, I was the executive director for Environmental Learning for Kids, a nonprofit organization. I started in far northeast Denver, which is dedicated to educating a diverse population of youth and their families in science, technology, engineering and math and natural resource issues. During my tenure with Elk, I researched, wrote and implemented many U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grants related to environmental justice and environmental education. I have supervised and directly implemented educational programs involving watersheds, water quality, including point and non-point source pollution, and monthly analysis of local creeks, including westerly and Sand Creek for page hardness, alkalinity and other environmental variables through the River Watch program, which is supported by Colorado Parks and Wildlife.
Speaker 9: First and.
Speaker 12: Foremost, this is a storm water management project. We must direct the flow of stormwater to detention ponds and the City Park golf course makes the most sense. City Park.
Speaker 3: Golf course.
Speaker 9: Is not a native.
Speaker 12: Ecosystem, a native ecosystem. In this geographic location, as the majority of Denver is a short grass prairie, it would be rolling fields of prairie grasslands with a historic Montclair creek meandering through the prairie landscape. This creek is where the rain and snow melt, which would go on its way to the South Platte River. The historic Montclair Creek riparian zone would move water through this landscape and slowly help the water filtrate through riparian vegetation, much like a sponge would work to clean our water naturally before it drains into our rivers and becomes the drinking water for folks downstream in northeast Colorado. Where my family lives in Brush, Colorado and on out to Nebraska. This design will help recreate the historic ecological representation of what was here, and it will consist of riparian areas and prairie uplands and will sustain cottonwoods, willows and other trees and vegetation that will create a wider diversity of wildlife habitat. The City Park Golf Course is a human created, over watered ecosystem, created to sustain the non-native turf and the trees that have been planted. The majority of trees that you see in a native prairie habitat would be cottonwoods growing along a creek because of their need for a reliable water source. We have an opportunity through this stormwater management project to create a more naturalized native landscape, which will highlight what was here historically, along with creating a more historic environment. The most recent email from Public Works shows that their team, along with the design team, have worked incredibly hard to not only mitigate the loss of trees, but to enhance the urban canopy with the addition of hundreds of trees. This landscape will be more sustainable and will consist of wetlands, areas that will filtrate stormwater drainage, which many times can contain oil, pesticides and fertilizers. Pretty much anything you put on your lawn or in your driveway or on the streets when it rains. We know the roads flood and all of that stormwater has to go somewhere. We will improve upon the non-native environment of the City Park Golf Course, and this is good, sound natural resource management. The bottom line is that along with properly implementing this stormwater management project, we should also stay focused on the public safety and safety of property regarding floodwaters that rise in this area because there is.
Speaker 3: Not currently.
Speaker 12: Proper stormwater infrastructure in place. I will be voting in favor of this stormwater management project. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. So I think it's important to go back and talk about the fact that we had not only an IGA between Denver and Seaport, but there was a proclamation that was brought forward on the preferred alternative that was approved by City Council before the supplemental draft of the Environmental Impact Statement was released . I did not support that at the time. I did not support the IGA nor the rate increase that was followed, which included a $300 million increase to the rate payers in Denver. I believe there is a need for drainage in the Cole neighborhood. The Montclair Basin was one of the twin basins. There is a separately funded effort or planning process that's underway right now for that particular basin. But I think it's also important to note that when this Twin Basin project, which is now called the PDP Plat to Park Hill Project, was brought forward. This was not in the wastewater five year plan. It was pushed to the front of the line. And, you know, clearly it was to look at how to coordinate the two projects. And I actually had advocated that the $40 million court originally was going to spend on drainage for I-70 should be utilized because the city started talking about trying to address the coal flooding problem. But the project went from $40 million to what I just mentioned, 300 million. And I'm not sure we've seen the end of the costs just yet. Now, eight short years ago, the Globeville neighborhood had been taken out of the flood plain because of work that the city had done to make changes to the river corridor. And those low income residents no longer had to purchase flood insurance. Now fast forward to seeing a lot of the new development that's going on in this area. Anything that is less than one acre does not have to do any on site storm drainage, that's runoff that goes into our sewer system and into the river. We now have a new 33rd outfall that was done as a result of the RTD projects for the A-line. So that's additional water going into the river. And then when you add all of the water from this particular project, that's even more water that now dumps into the Globeville landing outfall, which is a little park right behind the Pepsi-Cola plant. For anybody that's trying to develop in the Globeville neighborhood, they are now having to build four foot high. Detention, not detention, but four foot high foundations to protect their buildings from, you know, being from from being flooded. So when this project came forward, we learned that Globeville will now be called an inundation area. This is not they're not calling their back in the floodplain, but it's an inundation area that is now requiring anybody who comes to our community planning and development agency that wants to build in Globeville on the west side of the river . They have to have a four foot high foundation. My understanding is that residents will also be required to have to start getting flood insurance again until that problem is resolved. I had asked our public works department to address this problem for Globeville. Given the fact that this project was put to the front of the line, there was no reason we couldn't solve the other problem at the same time. That didn't happen. So we were told we want to wait for the Army Corps of Engineering study that's being done on the river. And we're looking at probably ten years before Globeville may see some relief to this problem. We're talking about a community that's being impacted with national Western, with I-70, with Brighton Boulevard improvements, with all the development going on in these neighborhoods. We're going to see Washington Street redone. There will be an Excel pipeline that will go down the Washington Street corridor. So we're talking about a lot of impact to just this small neighborhood alone. Yet we made no effort to try to figure out how to solve this problem. So for all of these reasons, I have not been on board. I do think there is an issue that needs to be resolved with drainage, but I am not supportive of these three bills being approved to move forward. Has nothing to do with well-qualified people who have been selected to do this project. I actually have friends that are part of the team. But those are the reasons why I will not be supporting these three bills tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I. Look, I know we've had this topic in our chambers a few times, and. Of The Jetsons.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 1: To those viewers at home. There was a weird noise that happens like this.
Speaker 11: The catcher don't know the Jetsons. So I this topic has been in front of us a few times and I have a very intimate relationship with with it. You know, back in the day and in 2003. I was one of the folks I went door to door with with the survey, knocking on doors, getting the community input . Kevin You know, you remember this? Yeah. I think Kevin wrote the story that I was quoted in. But I was a young guy, and we knock on every single door from Globeville all the way to Green Valley Ranch. Every single one of those. It took us about seven or eight months to do. And we got, you know, everybody along that I-70 corridor. And we got valuable input from folks who said, we don't want this highway in our neighborhood. You don't want the housing in our neighborhood. Right. But if we had the choice, right, we reroute it or bury it. Right. It's better than this thing that is just above our neighborhood. Separating, creating this, casting the shadows. So. So I get it. You know, ever since then, you know, I look, I went through the process, and I saw that it took almost a decade just to make a decision on something that was obvious, right? I mean, it is it is a big deal. But and, you know, a lot of the advocates then are no longer around, but a lot of the residents still feel very strongly about it. And when this proclamation came in front of us, I voted no. Because I still. I believed in a reroute. Now. It was very unfortunate that we didn't go that direction. I think it was a tremendous mistake historically from a state in the city to tend to not fight for the root. Now we have what's in front of us. And I look at this through another lens. And that is a lens of someone who has chaired the urban drainage and flood control front flood control district for two years. Now, I never thought that I that this would be exciting or fun. You are talking about hydrology, you know, drainage. But I learned a heck of a lot. And I chaired this for two for two years, and I chaired it through the floods that we had and in in Boulder County and and Longmont. And and realized that the infrastructure that had that they had that the lack there we had in Aurora and the eastern part of our metro area. And we were even hit harder than they were. But if you if you remember the pictures, their houses were they were the ones that took it. They're the ones that got the the the hard that they were the hardest hit, lost their property, lost their homes, lost some, lost their lives. That's what happens when you don't have the infrastructure in place. They weren't part of the FCD or they weren't part of the urban traditional flood control district. They decided not to opt into that a while back. So in looking at at this through that lens, it is absolutely critical that we have the infrastructure in place for those neighborhoods right now. Um. I find myself in a hard position because here I am thinking about my work. And as somebody who went door to door in my work as a councilman and our vote against the current plan and I vote against the proclamation. And I come to realize that. Even if you vote no on this, it's not going to it's not going to bring back the reroute. Voting no on those. On these bills will not magically bring back the out. And that is what the primary thing that the residents wanted was the reroute or it lowered. And you absolutely is is my absolute truth. That is right. And what I remember from that, all those doors, 8000 doors that we knocked on. Right. People who I sat in interviews for almost 45 minutes a piece. Those are the two things. If it's not rerouted, put it under. If there's no drainage. Let's say that this is all for the let's say, folks. All right. This is all just to support, you know, what's going to happen on I-70. All you're going to have is another bridge for another 100 years. And you know, I get it. I get that there's folks that don't live there, that stand in solidarity with folks that are concerned about the the the golf course and the impacts that it'll make to the golf course. I get it. I respect that. I respect the solidarity. But you don't have to live with another bridge over your head for a hundred, 400 years. The folks in Elyria, Swansea and Globeville do. And all those neighborhoods all the way up to like around Colorado. That's what they said. That was the the thing that stuck in my mind. And I have to tell this story over and over because I see a lot of new faces that that are in the room and new colleagues. And, you know, I make this decision not lightly, but just with that intimate knowledge. Another elevated option cannot exist there. Not on my watch. It is. The I-70 was a grand mistake a long time ago, and it still is a headache. But the killing, the drainage for it isn't going to bring back the reroute, guys. And I fear that killing the drainage only if it does go through. And if the you know, every all the stars lined up. Right. You're only building another elevated bridge. And that is the absolute last thing that should happen on that road. So I will be supporting the the three bills ahead of us. I didn't also support the delay. And because that is our right on council, that was something that was made clear to us a long time ago. And, and and we we should always have room for that dialog in that process. So thank you. Mr. President, it is about lives and property everywhere, right? Both in Elyria, in Swansea and Globeville with the immediate remediation and. And areas that would be impacted by flooding. So. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Last week I was I joined Councilman Espinosa and others in supporting a delay in this final consideration of this contract, because I believe that we should always take the time any member of this council wants to take. Within the time we were allotted to look over these contracts, we get such precious little time as it is. And I hope that with Councilwoman Ortega, we can take a look at that as a group very soon, how we do contracts. I also wanted to thank Councilwoman Ortega for reminding everyone that this plot to Park Hill I always thought it should be Park Hill to because water flows downhill doesn't blow up at all. But I didn't get to name it that the project grew way too much, too fast. And as I said last week is by a significant factor larger than anything wastewater has ever done in a single bite. And it just gives me heartburn to have seen it grown from, I believe it was actually 134 million. When you combine seed out in the city to nearly 300 million without, without full and without enough engineering being done, without 30% design being done on every element that was going to be built, which I regard as normal process. And so I wish that it hadn't happened that way. I voted against a stormwater fee increase. Councilman Cashman reminded everybody how just two weeks before the seven new members were sworn in, I believe I was sitting out in the second row there and watched the council pass the IGA that that kind of locked us into this direction and I regret that. And but at this point, I think to use these contracts as a de facto substitute for the plaintiffs in the McFarland case to file and seek an injunction after we passed the contracts, I don't think the Council should act in the place of the plaintiff and and give a de facto injunction by killing these contracts. So I look forward to the trial in, I believe, two weeks. And I am reminded that despite and I mentioned this last week, despite the optimism of our staff, I'm reminded of the City Park Pavilion case where the Friends of City Park defeated the city's plan to convert the pavilion into parks headquarters. And how shocked everybody was at that. And I remember the headline show, I was a judge, I think Judge Flowers in district court who said that that was not an appropriate use of a city park land. So I look forward to the trial, but I just don't think that this council should substitute its judgment on these contracts by handing the plaintiffs in what, in essence, is an injunction that they have not yet sought themselves. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I just want to say thank you here to all the constituents who've reached out, engaged with me, sat down over coffee and had great conversations with me, were really smart, passionate people on both sides of this issue. I really appreciate that dialog. I spent my entire career prior to this working along the South Platte River. That's why my water bottle serves as PR for South Platte River on one side, and Greenway Foundation, the nonprofit dedicated to the river on the other side. I carry it not just on my water ball bottle, but in everything that I do. And it's Denver's river. I carry it in my heart. So I also take issue with the name of this, but not for the same reasons that Councilman Flynn took up. Because the Platte River is not Denver's River. The Platte River runs elsewhere. This is the South Platte River. And so we should stop calling it Plot to Park who should be South Platte when we were considering the fee increase to our stormwater to our stormwater fees. I met extensively with city and with the folks who I think the absolute world of at the urban drainage and flood control district. I dug in deeply into this, and there was one thing that was glaring for me after having those meetings. And that was that it is better for. The South Platte River to do this drainage project in conjunction with what is happening at I-70. I won't get up here and talk about it has gone past or whether I-70 redo is a good idea or not. What I know is that if we don't do this, we will once again be turning our back on the South Platte River. And we did that for a really long time and we destroyed the river. And it has taken since 1974 when the Greenway Foundation built the first park in the first trail. Imagine that a Denver with zero parks and zero trails along the South Platte River and the Cherry Creek. I can't imagine it in part because I wasn't alive in 1974, but also because it's not a city that I would want to live in. And we have been clawing our way back since 1974 and a hole that we dug and a vote against this drainage project does not stop the I-70 project. But what it does do is it will directly lead to dirtier water in the South Platte River because the I-70 project can continue on without this and they can put dirtier water in the river. And so for that reason, I am that I wanted to highlight why I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman.
Speaker 13: No, thank you, Mr. President. Even though, you know, I think this project has a relationship to us, I think the most important thing to me is, is the flood mitigation part of this this whole project aspect. You know, my background was hospital management for well over 30 years, for a long, long time. And I went through several floods with hospitals that I managed. And it was devastating. The amount of damage to buildings and all the residential areas around our hospitals was just incredible. So I just have the greatest respect for the flood mitigation part of this that's going to be helpful to all those residents in Cole and and all along that whole route of appear to be. So is this flood mitigation is extremely important to me. Also keep in mind this is I think it's like a over $300 million project, but it's only part of a $1.5 billion plan of mitigation for our city. This is like deferred maintenance. I mean, this stuff we need to be doing. This plan was developed a couple of years ago. So we've got to be respectful to what our city needs in terms of total flood mitigation. And I think that's extremely important. Now for my golfers head on and I'm an avid golfer and I played saved par golf course and it can be improved and needs to be improved. It has the most wonderful views of our city, but this is an opportunity to make it a better course. Hale Irwin on Colorado, a Buffalo golfer, again, is going to do an incredible job of redesigning that course and make it into something that's notable. Our golf course right now is not notable. It's a good public golf course, but it's not a great course. It could be something that could be much more important to our city and and to all the people who play golf like myself. But the most important thing is flood mitigation. We've got to we've got to implement this total $1.5 billion plan over time. And this is the first part of it. So I'll be supporting these tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thanks to.
Speaker 5: My colleagues for their comments.
Speaker 3: And thanks to all that wrote emails to us all. First of all, I'd like to. I also sat on the urban drainage and flood control district for four years, and like Councilman Black, I never knew that I'd really be interested in.
Speaker 5: Drainage and outfalls and.
Speaker 3: And all the vocabulary that I learned.
Speaker 5: Certainly.
Speaker 3: Learned a lot about this particular issue down in the lower Montclair Basin. Councilman Flynn, the reason why one would call it the South Platte to Park Hill is while water flows downhill, you always start a drainage project from the outfall from where the water is going. You don't start a project from where the water starts. So that's why I think since the engineers probably named it, they did South Platte to Park Hill. We have known on the urban drainage flood control desk. We have known about, of course, the lower Montclair Basin is the biggest flooding issue we have in the city of Denver . We have had it for years. We have on the on the EDF. We didn't know how we were ever going to really manage that flooding problem, a problem that we have there. The while the I-70 project is kind of related, it's because they were going to bury or put below ground part of their highway that. They were going to run into the Lower Montclair Basin issue and they were going to spend the money to help the drainage. On their little part. On their little part. And if we don't and instead they decided to do to partner with the UDC, UDC, FCD and with Denver and to use the dollars that they were going to use to give to the city to also work finally on the Lower Montclair Basin. I've really appreciated that. Comments that Councilman Lopez made that not voting for this doesn't mean the I-70 project goes away. I'd like to turn that around and say. Whether the I-70 project is built or not, the drainage problem is staying. If the I-70 project were rerouted, the drainage problem is going to stay. If the project goes through, the drainage problem is going to stay. If we stopped I-70 and made it a boulevard, the drainage problem stays. We have the drainage problem regardless of what I-70 is doing. And most important, and most importantly for my district, although this isn't related to the Lower Montclair Basin, I firmly believe we need to fix that basin and this is an opportunity.
Speaker 5: To do it. The large project that.
Speaker 3: Councilman knew referred to is going to help my district, which is in the Upper Montclair Basin. And I don't know if those those of you are aware, but not every two or three years we get a flood up in at 14th in Jersey and Jasmine and Carney, where we have cars floating down the street. I spent the summer of part, a night of the summer of 2013 with.
Speaker 12: With.
Speaker 5: The first responders.
Speaker 3: Saving people that were floating in their cars. If you can imagine down Jasmine.
Speaker 12: And 13th and.
Speaker 3: 14th.
Speaker 5: And the larger project.
Speaker 3: Is finally going to help us address the Upper Montclair Basin. But I will be supporting this tonight because.
Speaker 5: Of the serious.
Speaker 3: Need that our Lower Montclair Basin needs, whether or not I-70, we're going to be enlarged. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Newt, you look, you didn't pop back in the just system. You're okay, Councilman Espinosa. Sorry. I feel like I should chime in since I called this out last week too. Specifically to ask the administration to consider essentially postponing and putting in a clause or something for tree protection. We did get a. I did. I did. So I just want to know that I did make an ask specifically. I said that I pointed out that the highest inundation levels north of City Park in a 100 year event as model and in that stormwater plan is 2 to 4 feet and that and because in so what I asked him is because of a known breach in the Platte River levee, there's a levee called the Globeville Levee that's on the on the Western Bank protects Globeville. There's a known breach in that. Because of that known breach, there are several hundred year events that can occur upstream from Globeville. Remember, the South Platte River runs south to north. The there are several hundred year events that can flood Globeville to an inundation level of 15 feet, and that can happen multiple ways. The only way you do this in the Lower Montclair Basin is through a hundred year event in the lower Montclair raising and the. So I asked the administration to help me understand how even in a $386 million commitment to urban drainage, an $863 million commitment to the National Western Center, and now a three $934 million go bond ask. So those doing the math, that's over $1,000,000,000. Closer to two. How We Didn't Address Globeville. And then I went on to proceed in in and I don't understand the rationale because that stormwater management plan that was referenced didn't include these solutions. As Debby Ortega had mentioned, it did include some solutions. But you don't need you don't need a 39th Avenue channel. You don't need City Park. You don't need them both.
Speaker 8: You need one.
Speaker 1: And either one of those solutions solves both basins because the waters today that go through City Park, they actually outfall at the Globeville Outfall Landing or the Globeville Landing outfall. But because we're now taking water from a different basin and cutting that off through the 39th Avenue Channel, we have to hold that water.
Speaker 10: Somewhere in order to.
Speaker 1: Preserve the 100 year capacity of that channel. Not for the park, but for CDOT. And so, you know, I appreciate my colleagues in council sort of bringing this up and bringing this to light the sort of sense of urgency and connecting it to the Platte Park Hill. Because the response to the council to date and publicly about why this was needed was because there was a sort of finite window in which you can do this work and deliver this thing and still keep golf course sort of viable because of the growing season. And when you have to plant and plant sod and plant trees and what have you. Well, guess what? That happens every year. So we haven't done this to City Park since its creation, and now we have to do it in this window. We can't wait till next year's window or the next year's window. Why? Why is because of somehow something we're not talking about, the administration is not talking about, but this counsel is very clear on it. It's because this is needed in order to preserve its capacity to use stormwater capture the stormwater capacity of the 39th Avenue Channel . Four sedan for the highway. And so I argued, you know, I pushed back.
Speaker 7: I got a.
Speaker 1: Response. It was no. I pushed back and said.
Speaker 8: You know, because I was asking.
Speaker 1: Why not just complete the design were 30% design involved? Because, again, this is not the administration is not talking about the connection here. So I just pushed and I said, why not complete the design work with the community, complete the course design, hire Hale Irwin to do a fantastic job on the future of City Park. Maybe we could do more tree preservation in the process, get that clubhouse nailed down in the interim while you're preparing to do this project next year and then hire Saunders capable contractor. Very, very good to do this work. The answer was.
Speaker 8: No.
Speaker 1: And it's because of.
Speaker 8: Like I said.
Speaker 1: What we're talking about here tonight. And so this was not about, you know, this is somehow going to kill I-70. It's not you know, and I don't think anybody who's really trying to fight for city park and the preservation of that asset is saying that this is this thing is going to kill I-70 because, no, they will then put in their stormwater detention that they are not getting from 39th Avenue Channel into their project. They'll have to. And guess what? They'll have stormwater mitigation and water quality requirements for that for that detention that they put in their 100 year thing. I can assure you that if a 100 year event hit City Park or the 39th Avenue Channel, the water quality measures go away because at that level of inundation, there's water just moving. The water quality measures are there for lower flows. And so the reality is, is that we could actually drain these flows that go through city park and inundate areas north of City Park, directly into the 39th Avenue Channel today. He helped, you know, actually solved the drainage problems per the master plan for both the the two basins with just the 39th Avenue Channel and some additional work. And then city park flows will go exactly where they always were going historically to Globeville, Alfa. Our global landing. We are.
Speaker 8: So it's sort of a.
Speaker 1: Fallacy that we have to do this per an IGA. The Twin Basin solution is still solved. It's just not solved to the degree that it would want us to. In order to do that, we're taking on this additional work and we're obligating merely, you know, a significant portion of the $400 million which you are getting through your stormwater fees, which you did not vote for, and not solving real flood issues in Globeville and in other neighborhoods citywide, because we have taken on this agreement to sort of leverage. So the thing is the right thing to do is for City Park is to say, no, let's complete the design and move on. But if you vote for this, you're basically saying, look, I am putting the priorities of CDOT over this asset of the people of Denver.
Speaker 8: That I will be joining my.
Speaker 1: Colleague, Councilwoman Cashman, in voting no. And that's it. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I will go last to the cheering of the audience. I am. This is my district, and I represent this deal. And I got to say, from the very beginning, I was very frustrated with the administration for how they came talking to the community around this thing. It was it was not well done. It wasn't well communicated. And we had a lot of intense arguments and conversations about it and a lot of open meetings that were very frustrating. Since then, I feel like the administration really began to turn towards the community and reach out to the community and set up . We're talking about City Park here. I know we've talked about a lot of different things, but the city park folks, the North City Park, the city park west neighborhood and put together a stakeholder committee to begin working through the issues around this golf course and this drainage problem. And so let me let me start by saying when we talk about the the lower Montclair Basin. It's it's been said in ways but let me be very clear. It's the worst basin in the city. It is the worst base in any city. And in 2011, when I first got elected and we had a storm like we do in the summers and people's cars were floating down the street. Everybody remembers it then. Right? Got the emails. Councilman Brooks, you just got elected. What are you going to do about this? How will you address this? And I wasn't on the urban drainage, like many of the members here, and I started researching ways that cities do this. The most important work that a city can do is build infrastructure. It's this most important work, but it's stuff that no one wants to pay for and the public really doesn't understand or care about because we like the shiny things. And as I talk to my colleagues around the country. And we talk about different issue. When I tell them that we are having a community debate around drainage and paying for it in our city, they can't believe it. They cannot believe it because they can't find ways to pay for the real infrastructure needs of their city. I'm going to give you a number. 3000 homes. 3000 homes in my district, City Park, North City Park, Cole, Clayton, and into Elyria, Swansea. Will be protected because of this that is protecting my constituents. And so I will be supporting this. Obviously, this there's a lot of issues with the I-70. I live ten blocks away from I-70, and I get those concerns and many of the concerns from the group I actually agree with. Yes. This is this is an oppressive issue. But it's been interesting walking through the neighborhood, having these conversations through the last the last two months and hearing what they're saying. And I think actually, Councilman Lopez, he actually you know, he knocked on the doors back in the day. And a lot of people are saying some of the same things. Yes, I think the reroute would have been. What we want it. But we wanted this thing covered. We want it out the way. And there's a lot of miseducation from other individuals in the neighborhood about this project. I just had to show four homes in North City Park. The design of the new golf course because they believe it is going to be completely cement because they believe their golf course was being destroyed. So, you know, it's hard to have these conversations when we don't get a chance to bring everybody to the table. And this process was not perfect, but I think that we have is far from perfect. I think that we have ended in a good place. I really like the design. I like the team that we're working with. I like that. The architect. Who I see right there. And I forgot your name. But you're looking good today. I'm glad you're here. That that has worked on a large drainage project of this capacity in Palm Springs. Not for freeway. But the exact capacity. And it was incredible to ask them to send me all the information. Thank you for doing that. And he did. And so I will be supporting this and I thank everyone for the smart dialog that carried on today. But I'll be moving these bills forward. So, Madam Secretary, I just want to make sure it has been moved in second and we are moving to adopt resolutions 23, 24, 26, eight, 23, eight, 24 and 826. Is that correct, Madam Secretary?
Speaker 5: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 1: All right, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Black.
Speaker 10: Clark, I.
Speaker 8: Espinosa No.
Speaker 6: Flynn i.
Speaker 5: Gillmor, I. Her dad, Cashman. Can each I.
Speaker 11: LOPEZ All right.
Speaker 5: We are new Ortega? No. SUSSMAN Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please. Because voting and US results.
Speaker 5: Ten ice. Three days.
Speaker 1: Two nights, three knees. 823, 28, 24. 826 have been adopted. All right. We are going to go back to I believe is 811, Madam Secretary. 819 819. I'm sorry, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put 819 on the floor?
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed On-Call Program Management Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., for program management services of the City Park Golf Course Parks and Drainage Improvements Design/Build Project and the 39th Avenue/Park Hill Parks Drainage Improvements Design/Build Project.
Approves a contract with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. for $6 million and for three years for program management services of the City Park Golf Course parks and drainage improvements and the Park Hill parks and drainage improvements projects as part of the citywide Platte to Park Hill: Stormwater Systems project (201735100). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 7-25-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, August 7, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, August 14, 2017.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0819
|
Speaker 1: Two nights, three knees. 823, 28, 24. 826 have been adopted. All right. We are going to go back to I believe is 811, Madam Secretary. 819 819. I'm sorry, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put 819 on the floor? 30 Did you do it one more time, sir, please. I suppose. Where am I in my agenda here. I remember the.
Speaker 10: Council Bill.
Speaker 1: 819 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved in segment. Councilman Flynn, go ahead with your amendment.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I have an amendment to Council Bill 819, which is the companion ordinance to our bond issues that we are moving forward in a block vote later. So I move that council bill a series of 7 to 17 number 819 be amended in the following particulars in the project description tables on page two after the words citywide bike infrastructure strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to on page three after the words sidewalk construction, strike the words, for example, and insert the words including. But not limited to. On page four after the words improvements to fire department buildings strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. And on page four, after the words, improvements to police department buildings strike the words and Mr. President, feel like I should ask the audience to participate in this strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to.
Speaker 1: Don't play along time.
Speaker 6: One Page five After the words library or branch renovations, strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. And on page five, after the words, aquatic facilities strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to on page six. After the words park improvements strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. And on page six, after the words recreation center, renovations and improvements strike the words, for example, and insert the words including but not limited to. On page seven, after the words city owned facilities based on the condition assessment program strike the words, for example, and substitute the words including but not limited to. And on page seven, line nine after the word council, add the following. Whenever a line item project set forth in this ordinance includes a list of specific locations where the project will be undertaken, any modification to remove any listed location will require an amendment to this ordinance by the Denver City Council.
Speaker 1: All right. Question comments by members of Council. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. We we heard about this during the all the presentations on the bond issue and the I think the bond team on the 2007 Better Denver Bonds did a fabulous job in transparency and in reporting any change that occurred to what the voters were promised. And I think the biggest one that I can recall was the Belcher concert hall issue that had to be brought back to the council and in fact, was the reason my wife and I voted for the entire package in prior bond issues in 1989. In 98 and in 2007, the companion ordinance and each occasion had included much more extensive lists of the projects that we were going to undertake, that we were telling the voters, You're going to get these things. And this this time around, initially it was proposed that on some of these lists that were bulleted in the companion ordinance , we would say, for example. So that would give more flexibility if changes had to occur down the road. And when I looked at the list, I noticed that any project that was in my district that was listed in the companion audience and remember, were only listing very few of the hundred. Some projects were doing any project for my district that was on this list was on that bulleted list, which meant if anything was deleted out of my district, no one ever had to come back to this council to say, we're not going to do that and here's why and here's what we're going to do instead. So all we're doing here, Mr. President, and this does have the support, even after the the remarks I just made of the administration, what I'm doing is saying that of the projects that are on that list, including the bulleted ones, if they end up unable to do them. They would have to come back to the council and explain why and how they're going to how they're going to reuse those funds. So with that sentence, Mr.. I would ask for my colleagues to join me in supporting this.
Speaker 1: And and when I have any questions, I just want to verify on the record. Take us all the way. I believe you're representing the the administration on this. You also want to come to that to the mikes, sir. You all are supportive of this amendment.
Speaker 11: Good evening, President Brooks. Members of Council.
Speaker 8: Deputy Chief Projects Officer take us all the way in the Mayor's office.
Speaker 11: We are in support of this amendment moving forward.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. That's all we need to hear for the record. All right. It has been moved. And second, they were voting on the amendment on 819. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 6: Flynn I.
Speaker 5: Gillmor, I.
Speaker 8: Herndon I.
Speaker 5: Can.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 5: Can eat. Lopez I knew Ortega I accessible. I black I Clark Espinosa. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please Kosovo and thus results.
Speaker 5: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: All right. 13 Eyes. The amendment passes to 819. Councilman. Councilman Espinosa. We now need a motion to pass as amended. I move the council bill 8819 be placed upon final consideration and do pass as amended before we go into voting. I want to give folks a just a chance to make a comment who didn't make a comment last week on the entire package, believed it's a good time to do that. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, I know we're only voting on the companion ordinance, but that was part of what I wanted to point out, is that for those of you who've been watching and are watching on TV and following all of these projects and have participated in this process at public meetings through our committees and structures that all of the the bond ordinances are going through on our block vote. And I just didn't want it to go by unnoticed that when we vote on a block, which is a yes, meaning that if nobody called it out at this point, those are going to pass today. That is the near billion dollars worth of infrastructure projects that the community put forward. And I just want to say thank you to the community for everybody who participated to the team, from the administration, for the awesome Bond team that we have, for putting this together and to our council president for working very closely with 13 of us, I guess 12 not counting yourself and in being that liaison between the mayor's office and council to make sure that tonight we stand here with a group of projects that is so supported that we're not even calling it out for a separate vote. It is on the block vote. So I just wanted to say thank you before I missed my chance, since it's on the block. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clarke. And you've been great to be working with on this as well. Thank you, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I did not comment last week, but everybody else did. So I will be brief. Ditto what Councilman Clark said. I too appreciate the input from all the community members and the hard work of staff and committee members. I submitted all of the hundreds of requests that my constituents provided me and our visioning meetings and through surveys, emails and phone calls. I'm very pleased that some of our requests were added to the list, like improvements to Hampton, Yale and Colorado Boulevard. And Are You Hill's Library? I'm especially excited about the Highline Canal Tunnel at Yale and Holly. It is much needed for safety. Some of my constituents were hoping for a rec center since we only have one very modest one in all of southeast Denver. But for the record, it's not on the list because projects need to be shovel ready. And at this point, we don't even have a location or any plans. So I'm hoping with Denver right and game plan, hopefully we can start more conversations about a future rec center. In the meantime, there are many, many worthwhile projects all across Denver on the list, and all of the investments will then be beneficial to our great city. So I'm very happy to support the 2017 G.O. bond.
Speaker 1: Excellent. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. And and I'll just say to Councilman Flynn and Cashman and Black and Espinosa, I think we came into this process and and their districts were lacking, to say the least, and just appreciate your inclusiveness in this process and working real hard to get to a good place. And guys, you're about to see something you rarely see on council. 13 votes in favor of $1,000,000,000 plan to improve Denver. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Flynn. I thought I heard in Cashman I can eat. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. Hi, Sussman. I black eye. Clark. Hi. It's Wednesday. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I police force of voting and thus.
Speaker 5: Results 39.
Speaker 1: 13 Eyes Council Bill 819 is passed as amended. Okay, that is all of our bills caught out. All of the bills for introduction will be ordered published. We're now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Espinosa, will you put the resolutions for adoption and bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. Yeah. I move that resolution. Resolutions be adopted on file. On final consideration. It be placed upon. On final consideration. To be placed upon final consideration. Do pass in a block for the following items. All Series 17 built in 081083108350846084908390842085009210803080508320833. 0836. 0840085108200792079980800080408120813081408150816 and 08170818. 0818. Madam Secretary, get him on. Think he got them all? Yes. All right. It has been moved in second. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 5: Black. Hi, Clerk. All right. Espinosa. Flynn. I. Gilmer, i. Herndon, I. Cashman. All right, can each. Lopez. All right. New Ortega I. Assessment by Mr. President.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 1: Please. I was working as a result.
Speaker 5: 13 eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes. The resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight, there will be required public hearing of Council Bill eight or nine regarding the 14th Street General Improvement District. A required public hearing on Council Bill 810 approving the Emily Grove Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Area in a
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance designating the projects to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the November 7, 2017 election.
Designates the projects and level of funding to be undertaken with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the 11-7-17 election. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-24-17. Amended 8-7-17 to reallocate a portion of the bond proceeds associated with the debt issuance for transportation and mobility projects by eliminating the Federal Boulevard Transit Infrastructure Project; thus, freeing up $9.8 million to be reallocated as follows: An additional $4.2 million for Morrison Road Improvements, bringing the total amount of bond proceeds to be dedicated to this project to $12,242,500. The addition of the following three projects that were originally listed on potential project lists, but were not included in the Mayor’s recommendation: Central Street Promenade (with an estimated cost of $850,000), Federal Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements (wi
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0809
|
Speaker 1: Please refrain from profane and obscene speech. We don't like that. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. All right. Council is now convene as the board of directors of the 14th Street General Improvement District. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 809 on the floor? I move that council bill eight or nine be placed on the floor upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved. And second, the public hearing for Council eight or nine is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 6: Good evening, board members. My name is Michael Kerrigan from the Department of Finance Special District Team.
Speaker 7: We are here.
Speaker 6: Today to take the necessary steps to accomplish the refunding of the district's existing debt. The steps include a public hearing on an amended workplan and budget, which includes the refunding.
Speaker 10: Transaction, followed by an action on the.
Speaker 6: Authorizing ordinance. The district filed.
Speaker 10: The district filed statutory requirements for advertising.
Speaker 6: And posting no notices for the public hearing. The Denver 14th Street Guide was created by council and approved by the electors in response to the 14th Street Initiative, a public private partnership between downtown Denver Partnership and the city and county of Denver to create Denver's Ambassador Street.
Speaker 10: The initiative visualized 14th.
Speaker 7: Street between Market.
Speaker 6: And Colfax as a promenade and a major gateway to the downtown area. The plan contemplated streetscape enhancements and related public infrastructure improvements. Stakeholders included private property owners, public officials and business organizations participating.
Speaker 10: In establishing.
Speaker 6: The conceptual design for the.
Speaker 10: 14th Street at a chamber election in 2009. A majority of the qualified electors of the district authorize.
Speaker 8: The issuance of indebtedness in an amount not to exceed $4 million.
Speaker 6: Subsequent to the TABOR election, the district issued.
Speaker 8: A $4 million bond in 2010.
Speaker 6: And used the debt proceeds to fund.
Speaker 8: A portion of the costs for the streetscape enhancements and infrastructure.
Speaker 6: Improvements to achieve the 14th.
Speaker 8: Street Initiative vision.
Speaker 10: In the spring of 2017, the District Advisory Board wanted wanting to explore a more efficient financial structure, engaged RBC Capital Markets LLC.
Speaker 6: As a bank solicitor, RBC obtained refunding proposals from six local lenders.
Speaker 10: After review, the District Advisory Board recommends.
Speaker 6: For approval. The proposal from Vector Bank, a division of Zions Bancorp. The proposal is expected.
Speaker 10: To generate approximately $692,000 in debt service savings, benefiting.
Speaker 6: The district property owners. The amended budget includes the appropriate.
Speaker 7: Adjustments to diffuse the current debt and.
Speaker 6: Issue the proposed debt issuance. The adjustments include accounting for the movement of debt, service reserves.
Speaker 8: Bond premium, principal and interest. The transaction sources and.
Speaker 6: Uses include the movement of four $4,306,000.
Speaker 10: City staff has reviewed the amended 2017 budget and work plan and recommends it.
Speaker 6: For approval this evening. Beth Moisi from the.
Speaker 7: Is here representing the district and Michael Persky is here representing.
Speaker 6: RBC and both are available to answer questions, any questions you may have. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Michael. We thank you for also doing my job and listening the speakers. First, is Michael Persichetti there? Right. I only got it because of him. And you have 3 minutes.
Speaker 7: Michael PRISCU with RBC Capital Markets.
Speaker 14: In California Street, Denver. Just here to answer questions. Great.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Next up, Beth Maskey Denton of Apprenticeship.
Speaker 3: Hi. Good evening I'm here that my whiskey as a representative for the downtown Denver partnership and I'm the.
Speaker 5: Executive director of the 14th Regional Permit District, and I'm here to answer questions.
Speaker 1: Great. All right. This concludes our speakers for this evening. Quick question for me to you, Ms.. Moisi. What are you guys what improvements are you guys working on on 14th Street?
Speaker 3: Right now, we're maintaining the improvements that were made with the capital investment for the $40 million investment. So we're doing the maintenance, and the maintenance constitutes about $250,000 a year.
Speaker 1: Okay. And but for the for you're doing a 4 million.
Speaker 3: So this is refinancing a bond.
Speaker 1: Got it. Got it. So existing bond.
Speaker 3: Capital bond.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Great. Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. What is the total amount of bonds that were issued for this?
Speaker 1: For me, it.
Speaker 3: Is 4 million.
Speaker 6: Okay, so this is the tote we're refunding. All of them were refinancing.
Speaker 3: Or refinance.
Speaker 6: And was the original maturity date 2034 also on the original, yes. So we're just we're just getting a lower interest rate about.
Speaker 3: Saving we're saving people money. I'm happy to be here tonight.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. So same same term. Lower payments. Great. I like that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilman Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Just a quick question about the annual contribution. How will that change with the new hotel project that will go on across the street that's on 14th Street.
Speaker 3: That is on 41. So what happens is the distribution gets spread across all properties. I want to say there's 3540 properties and so it it all gets spread across. I don't know if Michael can do a better job explaining that, but it's it stays at the same rate and we just spread the pain across. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. This concludes a public hearing for 809 comments by members of council. This is represented in my district and this is a little shout out to Carla madison because I replaced her seat on this on this many years ago, six years ago. And so she was someone who was very influential on getting this passed through the bond. And this is a bond project from 2007 Bond and very innovative on 14th Street because you guys actually charge depending on what zone you're in, you get assessed more. And so 14th Street really transformed when we went through this. So I'm in favor of saving people money and continuing to keep up the maintenance of an incredible, incredible district. So. That's it. No other comments. Madam Secretary Roker.
Speaker 5: Clark. I. Espinosa, i. Flynn.
Speaker 10: I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. Can each. Lopez. New Ortega I. Susman I black eye. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please cause voting in US results.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry you got in. 12 eyes.
Speaker 1: Yep. 12 eyes. Eight or nine has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Councils now convene, reconvene and will resume its regular schedule. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Councilman 18 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, making certain findings and approving the issuance of $4 million principal amount of Refunding Revenue Notes; and approving and adopting a supplement to the Work Plan and Amended Budget for the 2017 fiscal year.
Approves the issuance of $4 million principal amount of refunding revenue notes, imposes capital charges, and approves and adopts an amended budget for the 2017 fiscal year by City Council sitting in its capacity as the ex-officio Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 7-25-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0810
|
Speaker 1: Yep. 12 eyes. Eight or nine has passed. Congratulations. Okay. Councils now convene, reconvene and will resume its regular schedule. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Councilman 18 on the floor?
Speaker 4: Sorry.
Speaker 1: I don't know what this little amendment is. I remember that council bill 810 to be placed upon final consideration do pass. It has been moved in second at great. The public hearing for Council Bill 18 is now open. May we have the staff report? Tracy Huggins.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. President. Members of City Council. My name is Tracy Huggins. I'm the executive director of the Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Bringing forward for your consideration tonight the creation of an urban redevelopment area of the site previously occupied by the Emily Griffith Opportunity School in downtown Denver. And that is not doing what I want it to do. Yeah. The proposed urban redevelopment area is comprised of approximately 2.4 acres and is located in downtown Denver's cultural core, as defined in the 2007 downtown Denver area plan. The area is generally bounded by Welton Street to the northwest, 13th street to the northeast, Glenarm place to the southeast and 12th street to the southwest. The site is located in Council District nine. The urban redevelopment area was occupied by the Emily Griffith Opportunity School, a Denver public school, for nearly 100 years prior to its closure. The vocational school was named for Emily Griffith, a local teacher who advocated that persons of all ages and races should have the opportunity to learn and better themselves. The school was expanded several times and continued to operate at this location until its programs were to reload. Relocated to 1860 Lincoln Street beginning in 2013. Since relocating, the buildings have remained vacant. In May of 2016, the Emily Griffith Opportunity School was designated historic at the local level and restrictions were placed on the amount and nature of the possible redevelopment. Most of the structures fronting the Welton Street must be retained and setbacks were established for new development to ensure that the appearance and massing of the Welton Street buildings are preserved, any future development on the site will be subject to the design standards and guidelines approved by Denver City Council with the designation and must be approved by the Landmark Preservation Commission. A fundamental consideration in approving an urban redevelopment area is a finding by council that the area is blighted as required by the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. To this end, Durham commissioned Matrix Design Group to conduct a study to determine if the area is blighted. That study, dated July of 2017, has been filed with the city clerk as part of the record of this public hearing. In summary, the Blight study found the following five factors that constitute blighting conditions. Slum deteriorated or deteriorating structures. At the time, the field study was performed in September of 2016. Structures in the area were found to be in fair condition. Most issues found were related to broken windows in the school buildings. These broken windows were fairly widespread, but all had been boarded. Suggesting that ongoing maintenance is still occurring despite the vacancy of the campus. The frequency of broken windows continues to increase and the campus buildings are becoming increasingly dilapidated. An additional area of concern was noted with the concrete window lintels, which were severely crumbled in many locations, creating small piles of rubble on the ground underneath them. While the buildings on the Emily Griffith campus were not found to be in an advanced state of deterioration, it does remain ongoing and the buildings are receiving only stopgap maintenance rather than repairs. This situation leads to a finding of slum deteriorated or deteriorating structures. Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout. There is relatively poor circulation in the vicinity of the area relative to the rest of the central business district and civic center area. The area is immediately adjacent to the Colorado Convention Center, which is a sprawling structure occupying more than six full city blocks. The sheer size of the convention center breaks the continuity of the street grid in the area, with the exception of Stout Street, which passes underneath the convention center but does not serve any of the property in the study area. The Convention Center is one of the largest super blocks in the downtown area, but it is also important to note the presence of the courthouse and the detention center to the south, as well as the Denver Center for Performing Arts and Area Campus in the vicinity to the west. All three properties also break the continuity of the street grid, creating dead ends and a lack of redundancy that felt funnels traffic onto certain streets and creates longer walking distance for pedestrians. Overall, the urban renewal area encompasses an area of downtown that is somewhat isolated and removed from the surrounding area, both physically and psychologically. Pedestrian activity and private investment in this section of downtown is far lower than the rest of the central business district to the northeast. Although none of these isolation issues are expected to be corrected by the urban renewal process. They do represent a challenge to the redevelopment of the area because of the lack of connections to the surrounding street grid and poor provisions for local traffic. A finding of inadequate street layout has been made. Unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Records from the police department show that over the past five years there were 91 reported crimes in the area and in the surrounding rights of way, not including minor traffic incidents. Emergency responses are more frequent still, with one in fact being observed during the field study by our consultant. But it was not recorded as a reported crime of incidents that were recorded. Nine were various forms of assault. Three were street robberies, 23 vehicular hitting runs, and three were business burglaries. The remaining crimes were mostly related to drugs, criminal trespassing and larceny. These crime statistics represent an elevated of both violent and nonviolent crime, given the study area finding of unsanitary or unsafe conditions. Environmental contamination of buildings or property. The condition study notes the former Emily Griffith Griffith facility had an onsite body shop, including paint facilities, which is a use that is commonly associated with environmental contamination. The use of hazardous substances over many years technically represents a recognized environmental condition. In addition, an appraisal commissioned by the city and county of Denver in 2014 noted that, quote, The building contains asbestos and lead based paint, and the cost of remediation and repurposing while retaining the existing structure would be very significant and economically counterproductive. And quote the former presence of the auto body shop and the noted presence of asbestos and lead based paint support. A finding of environmental contamination of buildings or property. The existence of health, safety or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements. Elevated crime levels revealed in police records already discussed coincide with high levels of municipal services. Emergency responses from the Denver Police Department are common in the study area. Additionally, relative to the rest of the central business district, the study area is substantially underutilized. The formerly the former Emily Griffith campus is a full city block that lies vacant compared to the rest of the central business district. There is very little history of private investment in the vicinity of the study area. Therefore, there is a finding of the existence of health, safety or welfare factories factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings or other improvements in the study area. These blight factors individually and collectively impair or arrest the sound growth of the municipality and constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare of this area. In bringing forward this urban redevelopment plan, Dürer has sought to align the goals and objectives of the plan with the existing city plans and their approved supplements for the area, including the Denver Comprehensive Plan Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the 27 Downtown Area Plan and reviewing the Urban Redevelopment Plan. City planning staff found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms to Plan 2000 by furthering several citywide objectives, policy and action in the plan, including the conservation of raw materials by promoting efforts to adapt existing buildings for new uses rather than destroying them. Conservation of land by promoting infill development within Denver at sites where service and infrastructure are already in place. Encouraging quality infill development that is consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood, that offers opportunities for increased density and more amenities. And that broadens the variety of compatible uses, promotion of standards and incentives for design that enhance the quality and character of the city, including the preservation of significant historic structures and features. Preservation of Denver's architectural and design legacies while allowing new ones to evolve. Leveraging city resources to protect Denver's landmarks and eligible historic buildings. And to avoid their demolition. And ensuring downtown's future as Denver's preeminent center for business, tourism and entertainment, including through continued support of the re-use of historic buildings in and around downtown. Blueprint. DENVER Denver's Integrated Land Use and transportation plan adopted by the City Council in 2002, identifies the urban redevelopment area as being located within within an area of change with the concept land use of downtown. Blueprint Denver recognizes downtown as the centerpiece of the city and region with the highest intensity of uses in Colorado. Blueprint Denver further states that downtown has the most intense land use, development and transportation systems, and the vision is to continue more of the same type of high quality office, hotel, retail, residential and mixed use development. The Urban Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the intent and vision for areas of change and the downtown concept land use. The Downtown Area plan identifies several strategies and objectives to serve as a tool to help community leaders, decision makers and citizens build upon downtown's assets and guide future development. The long term vision seeks to achieve a vibrant, economically healthy, growing and vital downtown through a sustained effort in each of these elements. Prosperous, walkable, diverse. Distinctive and green. The Urban Redevelopment area is located within the cultural core, which is generally defined in the downtown area plan as the area encompassing the convention center. Denver Performing Arts Center, Civic Center Park, Denver Public Library, Denver Art Museum and various municipal and governmental buildings. A key recommendation identified in the plan calls for the creation of a mixed use public private development that includes the Emily Griffith Opportunity School and other complementary uses. Though the Opportunity School moved to another location. The Urban Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the recommendation for mixed use development in this area. The proposed urban redevelopment plan seeks to eliminate blight through the creation of the Emily Griffith Upper Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Area. Creation of the area authorizes Dora to seek property owner and developer interest in redevelopment projects within the area and provide tax increment financing in support of those efforts. The main goals of the Urban Redevelopment Plan are to eliminate blight, renew and improve the character of the area, encourage commercial, residential and retail development. Encourage and protect existing development more effectively. Use underutilized land. Encourage land use patterns that result in a more environmentally sustainable city. Encourage land use patterns where pedestrians are safe and welcome. Encourage participation of existing property owners in the redevelopment of their property. Encourage high and moderate density development where appropriate. Encourage the re-use of existing buildings, including historic preservation and adaptive reuse. And improve. And provide employment centers near transit. This urban redevelopment plan does not include any approved projects. The entire site was purchased by Stonebridge Companies in May of 2017. Stonebridge, who is a hotel developer, is in the process of working with a variety of stakeholders to determine the optimal development plan for this site. Once this process is complete and to the extent the proposed project is determined to require tax increment assistance, an amendment to this urban redevelopment plan, along with new agreements with the other taxing entities, would be required to add an approved project in order to preserve the opportunity to fully utilized tax increment. The plan approves the use of sales and property tax increment financing. The plan is presented this evening, approves a property tax increment area and sales tax increment that is coterminous with the urban redevelopment area. So it's really important to note that even though we are asking you to approve the plan and approve the use of tax increment , we are not authorized to use any tax increment until such time as we would come forward and ask for an amendment to the plan to add an approved project. We are preserving the opportunity to allow for the tax increment to be an available tool. But again, we are asking you to take this action. Are not authorized to actually spend any of the increment that we may collect. There are a number of other findings required by the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, and those include that the urban redevelopment area described in the plan is found and declared to be a blighted area as defined in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law. And the conditions of blight constitute an economic and social liability and a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare. This is a legislative finding by City Council. Based upon the blight study and other evidence that has presented, has been presented to you that the boundaries of the urban redevelopment area have been drawn as narrowly as feasible to accomplish the planning and development objectives of the plan. If any individuals or families are displaced from dwelling units as a result of adoption or implementation of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan. A feasible method exists for the relocation of those individuals or families in accordance with the Act. If business concerns are displaced by the adoption or implementation of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan, a feasible method exists for the relocation of those business current business concerns in accordance with the ACT. This area in does not contain any residents nor businesses. Therefore, they will not be displaced as a result of any project that would be undertaken. Written notice of this public hearing has been provided to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns. In the resident in the resolution setting this public hearing, city council requested Dura to undertake this task. Written notice was mailed first class mail to all property owners, residents and owners of business concerns in the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment area at least 30 days prior to this public hearing. No more than 120 days have passed since the first public hearing before City Council on the plan. Tonight is the first public hearing before Council on this plan. This is the first consideration of an urban redevelopment plan for this site. And this the city council has not previously failed to approve an urban redevelopment plan for this site. Again, this is the first consideration by City Council of an urban redevelopment plan for this site. And as such, the requirement to wait at least 24 months into any prior public hearing is inapplicable. Conformance with the Denver Comprehensive Plan on July July 19, 2017, the Denver Planning Board unanimously found that the Urban Redevelopment Plan conforms with the Denver Comprehensive Plan and applicable supplements. A letter to the effect has been submitted as part of the record of this hearing, and Dura would request that City Council concur with that finding. The Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of Denver as a whole for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of the Emily Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Area by Private Enterprise. And again, while we are not requesting approval of a project tonight, the site is owned by a private entity that intends to redevelop the property once a redevelopment project has been determined. The Urban Redevelopment Plan does not consist of an area of open land which is to be developed for residential uses or any any agricultural land. The Urban Renewal Authority has notified the boards of each other taxing entity whose incremental property tax revenue would be allocated under the Urban Redevelopment Plan, and an agreement has been negotiated governing the sharing of incremental property tax revenue. There are two other property taxing districts. Denver Public Schools and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District during has negotiated agreements with both DPS and urban drainage, which allow DAERA to collect any increment in any incremental property taxes generated in the urban redevelopment area, but does not authorize the use of their respective portions of the property tax increment on any future project. Similar to the way that we would work with City Council at such time, if ever as a project is identified. These agreements will be renegotiated to reflect the impact the project may have on the their respective ability to deliver services to the urban redevelopment area. Additionally, if the Urban Redevelopment Plan is not amended to add a project by December 31st of 2020, the agreements terminate and any amount of incremental property taxes collected by DRA would be returned to the original taxing entities. The city and county of Denver can adequately adequately finance and agreements are in place to finance any additional city and county of Denver infrastructure and services required to serve development within the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Area for the period during which the incremental property taxes are paid to the authority. The plan allows for a cooperative agreements between the city and borough to address additional infrastructure requirements should they arise. And finally, it is important to note that no acquisition by eminent domain is authorized by the plan. The slide you've been waiting for. In closing, Dora is very pleased to be working with the city to bring forward this urban redevelopment plan for this very important site. The Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan captures many citywide goals, objectives and strategies that are found in the Denver Comprehensive Plan 2000 Blueprint, Denver and the Downtown Area Plan. We look forward to working with all parties to bring about the revitalization opportunities outlined in these plans, and I would thank you for your favorable consideration and I will be happy to answer any questions when the time is appropriate.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Tracy Huggins. Efficient, effective as always. All right. We have no speakers this evening, so I'm going to call you up, Tracy, because we're in the question portion. Once you confer with. Hello. Okay.
Speaker 3: Yes, sir.
Speaker 1: Yes. So you made this abundantly clear. But I think it's important for folks who are, you know, at home listening and been following this project that we are simply setting the base for the tax increment financing option, but we are not actually focusing on a project. That is correct. I just want you to and tell folks what setting the base actually means.
Speaker 3: Sure. So under urban renewal law, we are able to capture the incremental sales and property taxes that a project area generates in order to provide a mechanism for financing a future project. This is a fairly unique circumstance where the property right now is is tax exempt and is is has been has a taxable assessed value of zero because of its previous ownership by Denver Public Schools under the law. There are two times when the assessor looks to determine what the actual taxable value is. One is in late December, the other is August 25th because the purchase transaction occurred in May. By taking action tonight, they at the assessor will look back to the value last certified in December of 2016 and find that the value is zero. If we wait until after August, that sale transaction will be recorded against the property and the property will have lost its tax exempt status. So the value related to the sale will then instead go into the base as opposed to the increment.
Speaker 1: That's right. All right. Thank you, Joan. Okay. Okay, great. That concludes our questions. Counsel Bill 818 is now closed. Look for comments by members of council. So this is this project is in my district. I have been a part of it from the very beginning, working with stakeholders, working with the Denver Public Schools and historic Denver to ensure that the preservation of this building stays intact. Yet revitalization and opportunities are also a part of it. I am in favor of this because I think this is a good, good move for us as a city, and it allows us to move forward with possible plans of expansion of tourism and our downtown revitalization in this part of the area. So we want to remind council we get another crack at this when a project is actually before us, a project is not before us. Again, we are just setting the base. We are setting the area. So with that, no, no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Clare by Espinosa, i Flynn.
Speaker 8: I.
Speaker 5: Gilmore i. Herndon, i. Cashman Can Eat. Lopez All right. New Ortega like I black. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I put Kosovo voting in thus results.
Speaker 5: 13 Eyes.
Speaker 1: 13 eyes council bill 810 has passed. Thank you, Tracey. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan and the creation of the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Redevelopment Area and the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Tax Increment Area.
Approves the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban Redevelopment Plan authorizing the creation of an Urban Redevelopment Area and tax increment areas in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-25-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08142017_17-0822
|
Speaker 1: 13 eyes council bill 810 has passed. Thank you, Tracey. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the.
Speaker 8: Last.
Speaker 1: Bill of the night. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 822 Council Resolution 822 on the floor? I move that council resolution 822 be adopted. All right. It has been moved. And second it the one hour courtesy public hearing is open. May we have the staff report? Kim Day. Denver International Airport.
Speaker 12: Thank you, president brooks. Council members. I just want to start by thanking each and every one of you for the enormous amount of time that you have devoted to try and understand this very complex project. And I will give you, I promise, a very quick overview tonight. As you have heard me say many times, this is a transformative project. It prepares the airport for the future. It enhances safety and security, increases the capacity of the terminal, improves and replaces aging infrastructure while elevating the passenger experience. Since we opened in 1995, we have almost doubled the passenger traffic and we expect to continue to see growth into the future. Our airline partners have requested almost 30% growth in Gates. That means we need to, in parallel, increase capacity of the train that connects the terminal to the concourse, widen parts of Penn Boulevard, look at possibly accelerating the seventh runway and increase the capacity of the drop off curb and, of course, the terminal itself. And we expect our tremendous growth to continue as we expect to in 2017, above 61 million passengers. The current level of passengers, along with the projected growth, is straining our existing infrastructure. To construct and finance this project, we have chosen to enter into a public private partnership with the Great Hall Partners, an association of three firms bringing equity to this project Ferrovial Saunders and Magic Johnson Enterprises Loop Capital. This team will take full risk to bring the project in on its price and schedule. But and let me be very clear the airport still owns and maintains control of the terminal. The Great Hall Partners will bring to us their expertize in running award winning concessions programs, community outreach and training and development. And they will bring $378 million in equity and debt to the deal. They will guarantee price and schedule, and for this they will get a license to operate the terminal concessions for 30 years, retaining only 20% of the concessions revenue. The airport will invest $480 million, which is approximately the cost of the non concession construction. We will receive 80% of the revenue from the concessions program. We will reimburse the Great Hall Partners for the operations and maintenance cost over the 30 year operational period costs that we would have incurred if we were to manage the concessions. We will also repay the Great Hall Partners investment at a 4.8% return over the 30 years. The Great Hall Partners are also assuming risk of the success of the commercial program. If and only if it performs as estimated, they will generate an additional 6% return on their investment. The contract before you tonight is for 34 years. Four years of construction, 30 years of operation. It includes the $480 million investment by the airport that I mentioned. We're also maintaining a $120 million contingency for potential changes in the industry. Passenger processing. Security processing. Things we hope we never spend during the 30 years of operation we will pay predetermined amounts to reimburse the Great Hall Partners for operation and maintenance and to repay their investment at the 4.8% return. This results in a maximum contract value of $1.8 billion. Just to remind everybody, none of this is taxpayer dollars or general fund dollars. All will be paid from airport revenue. The construction project itself is $650 million. And with our $120 million contingency, we're identifying a range of 650 to $770 million. This image shows the most compelling need for this project reducing the vulnerability of our checkpoints. And while we do this, we will improve the security, effectiveness and efficiency, as well as the experience of passengers. We also need to increase the capacity of the terminal to balance the increase in gates requested by carriers and to address our aging facility with its increasing failing systems. This project will give us new elevators, new escalators, upgraded restrooms and systems, a new welcome area for international passengers, a new south entrance and meeting and greeting area for domestic passengers, right sized check in and security checkpoint areas. More curb drop off capacity on level six and will end with an elevated passenger experience. And this project prepares Denver International Airport well for our future while raising the bar as we look at our industry peers. Thank you. And the team and I are here for questions later.
Speaker 1: Great. And Ms.. Day, that's your entire presentation. That is my. Oh, wow. Okay. Here we go. All right. We are into the hearing portion and this is how we do it here at city council. This is a courtesy public hearing, meaning that this is not a required public hearing. It's a one hour courtesy that the council listens to the public on some of these more in-depth issues. And so it will be one hour will keep the clock. The pro tem here will look at the clock to make sure we're keeping it on time. And we will go through 25 speakers attempt to go through 25 speakers, which puts us over an hour. So what we're asking so that everybody gets to it. There's going to be a lot of folks, perhaps, if you're speaking on this, condensed your comments because folks that you're speaking with are going to say the same thing. So if you can condense it to about 2 minutes, we can really get everybody in here and get it through. So I'm going to call the first five speakers up. Please let me get this bench to call these speakers up. That'd be great. Ralph Bluefin. Joyce Foster. Bill BOLLING. What a hidden filter. Sorry, Hayden filter. Sorry if I mispronounce that. And why Livingston? So those are the first five. Ralph Lupine, you are first. And introduce yourself when you're ready.
Speaker 10: His counsel. My name is Ralph Bluford. I represent the Rocky Mountain Chapter National Electrical Contractors Association. I want to thank you, first of all, for allowing me to address you tonight. Our contractors perform a variety of work throughout the state of Colorado in the commercial, industrial, institutional and residential sectors. And we would like to go on record in support of this project and the positive impact it will have for the city of Denver and the surrounding areas. Job creation, sustainability of our pension, health and training programs will also come into play as a result of this project. And with respect to training, our contractors, along with our IBEW partners, offers some of the best educational programs for supervisors, electricians and apprentices that the industry can offer. Such training goes a long way to ensure the quality of the electrical installations that will be required for this project. As an association. ECA will also make every effort to support our contractors who may become involved in this critical venture. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Resolution. All right. Joyce Foster.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President, and members of the Denver City Council. My name is Joyce Foster. I'm a former city council member and a former Colorado state senator.
Speaker 12: In 1993, when I was elected and.
Speaker 3: We were here until 3 a.m. every Monday night discussing airport issues.
Speaker 12: Someone very smart told me never to allow the airport to become an authority.
Speaker 3: I'm afraid this may be the back door into one. Many nights, it would.
Speaker 12: Have been a lot easier since we were dealing with pretty hostile concession contracts. People elected me and you.
Speaker 3: To represent them.
Speaker 9: And make decisions, not a private company.
Speaker 12: By supporting this contract tonight, the citizens.
Speaker 3: Of Colorado will no longer.
Speaker 9: Have anybody to complain to.
Speaker 12: I know that sounds tempting, but your hands will be.
Speaker 3: Tied along with the next.
Speaker 12: Three decades of elected city council.
Speaker 9: Members.
Speaker 3: One airport vote I remember vividly was that of our baggage contractor VA.
Speaker 12: He wanted us to buy a $30 million maintenance contract. The lobby was strong and they had their seven votes. I merely asked a question while sitting.
Speaker 3: Where you are.
Speaker 12: Why should we buy that.
Speaker 3: When you haven't even.
Speaker 12: Made the system operational yet? Well, I was able to convince a couple more.
Speaker 3: Colleagues and we didn't buy it, thank goodness. And United Airlines.
Speaker 12: Had to take the entire system over. You know, the one that never worked.
Speaker 3: The airlines are the largest concessions.
Speaker 12: They must have input. And because the airports had to do everything differently after 911 when our airport was already operational. We all needed the flexibility to make changes.
Speaker 3: Maybe there's language.
Speaker 12: To make minor changes, but you won't be in the driver's seat. I promise. Future council members will assume the contractor is correct.
Speaker 3: And do as they say.
Speaker 12: No one will have the history. I've only contacted a couple of you and yes, I know I'm a Joyce come lately, but I'm here now to hopefully change.
Speaker 3: A few minds.
Speaker 9: In 34 years, I'll be.
Speaker 12: 107 years old. If I'm still celebrating birthdays.
Speaker 3: My grandchildren will range in age from.
Speaker 12: 46 to 51. This is the most.
Speaker 3: Important asset we in Denver.
Speaker 9: Have.
Speaker 12: I strongly.
Speaker 3: Urge you to.
Speaker 9: Reconsider your.
Speaker 12: Yes vote. Support Councilman Espinosa's suggestion.
Speaker 3: Pay the $9 million.
Speaker 12: And then my suggestion run like hell. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. Honorable Joyce Foster. All right, Bill Bolen.
Speaker 8: Good evening. I'm Bill Bolen. I'm with Paradise Leggo. There we are, an airport concessionaire. While new to Dan.
Speaker 7: We've been around for three years. We're in the Southwest project, and we have brought 120.
Speaker 8: Jobs to the airport. And we just we're getting ready to open up in East and bring another 50 jobs to the airport. And we look forward to this great hall project to bring more jobs.
Speaker 7: Here done and why we've been successful with the current RFP process in the.
Speaker 8: Airport. We also look forward to this new public private partnership and.
Speaker 7: Continued success at it. Dan Airport, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Bolen. What what heightened filter. Oh. Not here. Okay. Why Livingston?
Speaker 3: Good evening, everybody. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today as a member of the business and the traveling community. I'm honored to be a current member of the airport community.
Speaker 1: Ms.. Livingston, can you introduce yourself?
Speaker 3: I'm y Livingston and I'm an airport concessionaire and also the owner of Whitestone World Teas. I have been a certified TB firm for over four years and have seen the growth and improvement of our airport over that time. I support the continued improvement of the sixth busiest airport in the country by supporting the Great Hall Project. With the proposed changes, my support really centers on four main areas security. The new plan reduces our overall vulnerability very dramatically and at a time that's needed for the times that we live in. Secondly, the Esthetics Airport is aging, and we need to be proactive and thoughtful in our approach to transform the space from good to great and to be timely with this transformation. Opportunities from multiple firms is my third main goal operations for women and minority firms, for all of those that have an opportunity to participate in the concessions program. And then finally, the size of this project produces tremendous growth opportunities in our area for local businesses and additional employment opportunities. This project, in my opinion, is the right undertaking at the right time, and I don't want to see our airport fall behind in terms of its capabilities and capacity. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Livingston. All right. I'm going to call the next five folks up here. Nick Hostetler, Hush Bleu, Herman Malone, Steven Jagannath and Gavin Malloy. And one more. Michael Kiley. Nick. Just Stetler, your first.
Speaker 8: Hello and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you also. I really appreciated earlier when you guys took the stance against racism and discrimination at the very beginning of tonight's session. My name is Nick Hostetler. I'm a union organizer with Asthma Council 76. A group of city workers and myself came tonight to speak about working conditions at the airport and human services. But considering the topic, we will come back next month for that. So tonight I I'd like to stand in solidarity with Unite here local 23 workers out at DIA in opposing the Great Hall Project. We know that without a retention agreement, concession workers will lose their jobs. And what's more, city jobs in the Great Hall could be it could be jeopardized. And those are some of the members that we represent that could be jeopardized as a result of contract language that gives Ferrovial a great deal of control over the Great Hall . If FERROVIAL has control over the Great Hall, they could potentially use that control to outsource city jobs in the area. Ask me Local 158 is concerned about appropriation of city funds for capital projects which impact these city jobs. And this is city money being spent on a questionable contract that displaces workers and constricts a budget that could otherwise be used to improve the lives and workplaces of city workers. So we're very concerned about that. We therefore ask the city council to do they consider the importance of these employee jobs and also in the future for Ask Me, Local one, five, eight and other unions to be more actively included in the next contracting contracting discussion. So thank you very much for your time tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Stettler. All right. Herman Miller.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Council President Elvis Brooks and distinguished men and members of City Council. My name is Herman Malone and I reside at 8136 East Fairmont Drive. And here in the city. 80230. Oh. It's a pleasure to appear before you this evening to briefly discuss the most important part that is before you tonight. As one of the founding members of the Colorado Black Chamber of Commerce, where I served as its chairman for a number of years, in addition to the Rocky Mountain Minerals Supply Development, the Development Council. And in addition to being a business owner for the past 40 years, I have witnessed some significant milestones, including the hard fought campaign and passage of the land acquisition vote, which led to the development of the international airport. Proudly. Our community plays a significant role in the mayor opinions vision for a great city and airport and the way of administration. We witness the construction and completion of the day and the establishment of a minority and women owned business participation goals . These significant goals essentially put them on the map for a progressive city. Ready to include all of the citizens and an equitable opportunity to participate economically. Today we are faced with another milestone the renovation and expansion of our terminal dubbed the Great Hall. As a proponent of this project. And the approach that the management has taken to build it. I think there are synergies at play between the public and private sectors and I also think is a definitely a unique concept and trust that the team will preserve the integrity.
Speaker 1: Of the Minority Business Enterprise.
Speaker 8: Program. In a manner which allows the DBI community to be fully integrated and the public private partnership terminal development. Including establishing goals that are clearly defined and therefore be accountable for any shortages in achieving those goals. And also the local minority business development center and the local community to be included in the utilization of achieving those established goals. With that being said, thank you very much for the opportunity.
Speaker 1: And thank you, Mr. Malone. Steve. Check it.
Speaker 10: The reason why. Mike up. Here you go. Good evening. My name is Steve Jake with the vice president for United Airlines at DIA. Thank you all very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. As our President, Scott Kirby, stated here last month, the DIA and United Partnership is one of our strongest airport airline relationships anywhere in the world. We have a very long track record of working together. We appreciate the collaboration and engagement between the city teams and United. Over the last few weeks to resolve issues arising from the current Great Hall redesign. Significant progress has been made, but we remain concerned with the proposed level six design. We respectfully request that the DEA and United teams continue to work through these significant and outstanding operational concerns. We simply cannot afford months or years of operational disruption for additional construction or projects if the proposed level six design fails. While we do not diminish the value of the simulation work that was undertaken, it is virtually impossible to predict real world customer and operational behaviors with complete certainty. So it's best to plan for contingencies. Day's last round of simulations indicate that the current level six design does work. However, as we've previously articulated, computer simulations focus on a future single standard day that can rarely capture changes over an extended period of time, let alone anticipate the numerous variables in the highly complex environment of an airport. The simulations for the checkpoint area requires a 28 of the 34 plan lanes and the current design must be open and fully staffed or else a security queue begins to overflow into our lobbies. Based on our extensive experience of delivering new check point facilities across the country, we do not believe this TSA scenario is realistic on a consistent basis. Our lobby operations as well require additional study to ensure they have customer friendly flows with minimal congestion and acceptable lane wait times. We ask that any cost associated with day two construction to alleviate congestion or additional address additional problems created by the level six design be borne by DIA and their design partners. Airlines should not have to bear the burden of additional costs to fix the operational deficiencies in for Louisville's Great Hall design. As these issues have been brought to the day's attention in the pre-development stage. Finally, the proposed P3 deal with FERROVIAL requires the airport to maximize the amount of concessions revenue available to Ferrovial. To accomplish this, the airport needs to maximize the amount of available space awarded to Ferrovial and the concessions program.
Speaker 1: Mr. Jacquie. Yes. You've run out of time.
Speaker 10: Very good. Well, thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. Gavin Malloy.
Speaker 8: Good evening. I'm Gavin Malloy from United Airlines. Available for questions.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 8: Michael Kiley. Hello.
Speaker 0: Good evening. My name is Michael Kealy.
Speaker 7: I live in Council District one and I'm also a candidate for the Colorado State Legislature, House District four.
Speaker 0: I'm here tonight representing the Committee for City and Airport Fairness.
Speaker 7: Veronica Barela is here tonight or was and she's the chair of our committee. So we support the renovations, the need for renovations for the Great Hall.
Speaker 8: We understand the benefits from sales.
Speaker 7: Tax and for safety, but we have concerns and we're asking that the deal be amended. The concerns are as follows We believe the contract is far too long.
Speaker 0: How can anyone possibly.
Speaker 7: Know what is needed from the airport 30 years from now? Ferrovial hasn't been needed for the first 20 years, and we're not understanding why they're needed now. The city can finance these renovations at much lower cost than the current terms in the deal. All the profits will leave our state. Rather than being reinvested in Colorado. And why are we guaranteeing for over a profit? We should be guaranteeing a living wage for the citizens of Denver and affordable housing and affordable health care. We should never guarantee a profit to a corporation in a commercial venture. We need 100% assurance that the jobs created by this project will pay a living wage. A prevailing wage. Excuse me. Paying less than a living wage means those workers will require city or state services to live in the metro area. Paying anything less than a living wage amounts to corporate welfare. We need the.
Speaker 0: Project to have high goals.
Speaker 7: For engaging and bringing equity to the minority business opportunities. And we ask that local concessions be prioritized to keep the character of DIA. In summary, we strongly recommend that the City Council vote for an.
Speaker 8: Extension and make essential adjustments to get this deal done right. Take bold action. Maximize the benefit of the great hall renovations for the people of Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Kiley. All right. We're going to call the next five up here. Monica Stringer, Kevin Abels, Tiffany Patrick, Mark Thompson. And Nick Sullivan. Monica Stringer. You are first. Stringer. I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: But.
Speaker 3: Good evening. Good evening. My name is Monica Stanger. I'm the founder, president and CEO of Server Tech Electrical Contractors. I am here to tell you that I have earned the opportunity to have my own business in this city because of Denver International Airport. This airport has been a huge economic engine for our city. I started my company 17 years ago within dense walls. 17 years later, I employ 20 full time individuals and we had gross revenues in 2016 of $9 million. This continued growth has allowed us to train our workforce beyond industry standard. This would not have been possible if the opportunities were not available to us. This project is a great, thriving opportunity for this small business community. If they are granted great participation in it, thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Dinger. Kevin Abels.
Speaker 8: Good evening. I'm Kevin Abels. I live in Harvard Park neighborhood. Denver City Council District two. I'm here speaking as the Denver chapter president of Unite Here, Local 23. We represent 2000 hospitality workers in metro Denver, including 500 at the airport. Our union supports responsible airport development. However, we do not support this contract. Our members are the dishwashers, the cooks, the servers, and the bartenders that make our airport great. And we want to make the airport even better. That's why for over a year, we have talked to you, the members of council, about how we want to be a part of the redevelopment of the terminal. And we'd like to thank you all for partnering with us. You have given us a seat at the stakeholder table, and we appreciate you for that. We look forward to partnering with you and all the officials at the airport on future projects as well. On the other hand, Ferrovial has refused to partner with airport concessions workers. Our union reached out many times to engage Ferrovial in a discussion about our members most important concerns. Number one, after being laid off, will displaced workers receive the first right of refusal? Once equivalent concessions, jobs become available. And number two will Ferrovial and its concessions. Subcontractors respect the decision of a majority of workers on whether or not to unionize. Sadly, over the past year, Ferrovial did not seriously engage with us, let alone come to an agreement on these concerns. Ferrovial is lack of good faith means that we cannot support this contract. This company has shown a disregard for workers who have been at the airport long before they ever will be. Ferrovial has not done what it takes to build worker support for this proposal. Airport concessions workers are very concerned that if this contract is approved for Rovio, we'll have a 34 year pass to ignore us instead of partnering with us. Regardless of what happens with the contract tonight, please see concessions workers as partners of the city and the airport. Our cooks and servers will continue to take a seat at the table. We remain hopeful that we can make the airport even better by all working together on the next projects and contracts. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Abels. Tiffany Patrick.
Speaker 3: My name is Tiffany Patrick and I represent U.S. Engineering, a local union mechanical contractor. And should the contract pass tonight, I will be managing the mechanical and plumbing portions of this project in partnership with the Great Hall Partners Design, Build, Joint Venture and our minority and women owned mechanical and plumbing contractor teammates. I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Council for their support of this project.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Patrick. Mark Thompson.
Speaker 10: Council President Brooks. Did I do that?
Speaker 1: You might have, but that's okay.
Speaker 10: I do that. Members of council. I considered opening my comments tonight with a song selection from the musical Annie.
Speaker 4: However, the kids stole my thunder.
Speaker 10: I do want to take the first bit of my comment and thank you for providing that opportunity to the youth of our community. I realize you've been seeing a lot of the Carpenters recently. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the Carpenters and our community for the time and the opportunities to meet with you individually and again tonight. I'm here tonight on behalf of our members to talk about the Great Hall Project. I'm not here to speak in favor or against. This is another project that means opportunity. We do have a real concern about our city pumping money into an industry that is polluted with labor brokers, wage theft, payroll fraud and cash pay . Cash pay meaning? No taxes, no workers comp, no unemployment. We are an organization of carpenters, and we've been building this city since 1884. We just want to make sure that we build it responsibly. Unfortunately, we have had some fraud issues, some payroll fraud issues on recent projects at the Denver airport. We have discussed with most of you about apprenticeship opportunities, about career training that we believe would ensure that we are building the Denver airport the right way. We're asking for your help in promoting the creation of good jobs in Denver, in the Denver construction industry, as well as developing a well-trained local workforce. Again, we're looking for opportunities for the citizens of our community and in apprenticeship training, the youth of our community. I'd like to thank you for your leadership. I'd like to thank you for your support.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Nick O'Sullivan.
Speaker 8: Good evening. My name's Nick O'Sullivan. I live in Sloan's Lake. I'm the co-founder of Brothers Barbecue and Nugget Ice Cream. My brother and I opened our business 20 years ago here in Denver, a little place, about 900 square feet. We didn't have any employees. And now we've expanded to seven locations and we have over 100 employees. We've also been selected now to open up a brother's barbecue at the airport and terminal at the Den Lounge. I just like to say that, you know, the exposure and the sales volume will take our companies to the next level . And we're really thankful that Denver is bringing local businesses like ours with them as this amazing city continues to grow and thrive. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to say thank you to the City Council for recognizing us as a Denver original. And we look forward to serving you in February at DIA. We support the Great Hall expansion as it will give other local businesses like ours a chance to show the world what great companies Denver has. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. O'Sullivan. All right. I'm going to call the next five individuals up. Rob Prince, Michelle Verizon's, David de Villa and Howard Arnold. One more. Zach McNeill. Rob Prince. You're up first, sir.
Speaker 15: Members of the council. I hadn't really come here to speak, to be frank, but I'm so concerned about this issue that I decided that I would. I've done a little research, some I I'm against this proposal. And I just want to state it clearly and just to just give you a few explanations why. First, I've lived in Denver for 42 years. 3187, West 40th Avenue. My wife is a nurse at the Colorado State Veterans Home. I have two daughters, one who's a therapist at Kaiser, and the second who's taught for 19 years in the Mapleton School District. I was a senior lecturer of international studies at the University of Denver's Corbell School, and I retired from there two years ago, or at least I thought I retired and then all these things are coming up. What are my concerns about this issue? Several. First, the length of the contract. This ought to have been mentioned, a 15,000 page contract, I've heard. And also the size, the financial size of what we're dealing with, 1.8, 1.8 billion. So there's that. I'm also concerned, just given the research that I've done about one of the companies that's involved and its record, and that is ferrovial that several people have mentioned. So some have mentioned it's labor issues, but there are other things just that you ought to consider. First of all, it's been cited specifically in a recent Amnesty International report for for a facility related to off the coast of Australia, in which it's one of the main players, ferrovial, that is, get houses of people trying to become refugees there. And the human rights abuses there have been well documented. So that's something you should consider. Secondly, recent news suggests that they're having problems in in Great Britain. When Great Britain privatized their they're their airports Ferrovial is part of a larger consortium became ran seven of those airports recently I believe they were asked to to end their contracts with three or four of them. And you might want to look into that. And finally, there have been they had major problems, labor problems in Canada with with contracts, with airport contracts. So I really think that that that needs to be that needs to be looked at, really. The person who spoke for for me the clearest was former city councilwoman Joyce Prince. Okay. And her comment about how this place is going to be run and who's going to be running it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. All right. Michelle Burstyn's. Did I get that right? That's right. Okay.
Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Michelle Burns. I work and live in northwest Denver and I'm currently living on 20 something CLAYTON In your district. Mr. Brooks, I am here representing the Millennial World Traveler. I travel several times a month. I was just in Europe a month ago, took a trip last weekend, and I'm flying to Vegas on Tuesday, so I kind of fit that category. I fly by the seat of my pants and I am really proud to call DIA my my airport. I do think that the flow is a little inefficient and it doesn't feel that is it is as safe to me as it should be seeing other airports globally and seeing how they have the flow set up, you know, really brings that to my forefront of why I am in favor of this project. I just don't understand that we're such an international airport and we have so many people at risk. Safety wise. I do think that it is time to improve as it was mentioned. We've basically nearly doubled our foot traffic since we've opened. And now is the time. As a millennial, we also love our options and we really love local retail. We're excited about some of those new places that could potentially be coming in. More convenience, better safety and efficiency in general speaks to.
Speaker 9: Kind.
Speaker 3: Of the millennials. With this project, it will bring a lot of jobs for people who need it. Obviously grow the economy and we do think that that's very important. Also, another thing I'd like to mention is taking the airline from Union Station to ticketing through TSA. It just feels like it's, again, inefficient and and feels like it could be better streamlined. I just ask that you consider this plan. It will make us feel more safe, streamline travel, save us all time, and of course, bring jobs and local business into DIA. Just ask that you look at the bigger picture and vote in favor for this project.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Ms.. Persons. David de Villa.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Thank you. Council President. Members of council. My name is Dave de Villa. I'm a fifth generation Denver native. I live in Denver currently. I work for a board of directors who install mechanical and plumbing systems in commercial projects, much like the one envisioned here at DIA. We represent about 7000 workers in this state. I'm told as of today, that number may be closer to 7500. I have 150 members in the state who build everything from homes to hospitals. Airports in particular at our vendors and vendor members were about 180. We are have been around since 1886. No, I'm not the founding executive director. This project contemplates a $650 million price tag. What that means is it will create 11,800 construction jobs. Those are local jobs will be created here in part with Ferrovial. We've met with them a number of times. Contrary to some of the comments earlier offered by another speaker, they have been open and receptive and been good to work with. But I'm also here to talk about our friends. Saunders Construction. There are a local contractor who hires local subcontractors, like the ones that employ me. We thank Saunders for their continued partnership. They reinvest in this community and they're great partners to work for. Should you choose to approve this contract, not only will it generate 11,800 new jobs, it will also return two and a half times or $1.2 billion to the economy, although we don't know Ferrovial as well as we do. Saunders Everything from our meetings have been positive. We look forward to this project. We ask you, please vote in favor of this bill and this project. And as a former city council person, I know the role that you are in. I will tell you that P3 projects not only are the wave of the future, but the world is watching on how we handle this project and additional investments are made possible by how this is handled. Sure, there are some things that in hindsight may have been dealt with a little bit differently. But what I would say to you is I think Ferrovial and Saunders have helped us work through those. So again, I would ask your support in favor of this project and this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Honorable Dave de Villa. Thank you. Howard on.
Speaker 6: Mr. President. Honorable City Council. My name is Howard Arnold. I'm currently the business manager for the Rocky Mountain Bike Trails District Council. I'm also the past president of the Colorado Building and Construction Trades Council. We also belong to the MMP Alliance that stands for Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing Alliance. These are the union contractors and respective labor unions for the mechanical, electrical and piping trades. They typically make up about 60% of the cost of a project. This project will put hundreds of construction workers to work. These are jobs that come with a five year apprenticeship and continued training for the rest of their career. They'll provide health care for the workers and their entire families. They'll pay prevailing wages and they'll pay pensions so that at the end of their working career, they can retire in dignity. These are large these large public works projects that hire union contractors are transformational for people. Often times, for generations, it lifts people into the middle class. 30% of our membership are minorities and women, and we're working with a local community organizer, Servicios de la Raza, to recruit more folks who've been disadvantaged into our trades. This project will put bread on the table for hundreds upon hundreds of craft workers and their families. I appreciate Ferrovial has experience in building these types of large projects, and I applaud them for selecting an excellent Colorado local general contractor. Saunders Company. Saunders Company will hire Colorado subcontractors and will employ local Colorado building construction trades men and women. Please vote to make this project reality. Working people need it. The city of Denver needs it. And the safety and welfare of millions of people. The cross through our city needed as well. Please note. Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Honor. All right, Zach McNeal.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, members of the council, I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you and speak. I am totally for this project at Denver International Airport as a small business concessionaire for the past ten years. I've seen a lot of growth in our airport years ago. A few years ago we were rated number one in the US. I want to get us back there and do everything that I can. I am all about giving back to the community and when I started at DIA, that's one of the things that I did heavily was invest in our youth and put together a program. So you want to own your own small business. I'd like to think we were fairly successful with that, but now we have the opportunity to put that on steroids, not just for the youth in our city, but also for other small businesses that we have the ability to mentor. So. The commitment that I will like to make to you tonight is that we will work tirelessly within optimal concessions to make it work for youth, to mentor them, to give them jobs, to grow and nurture other small businesses so we can share the success. But we have to seize this opportunity. There was only one other opportunity where we had the ability to do concessions, do outreach, touch small businesses in a major way. That was 22 years ago when the airport opened. This is the only other time that it is occurring. We have to take advantage of this opportunity. So I'll make the commitment to you that we will work tirelessly to get that done and to help make then become number one again. And I would ask you guys to vote in favor of this project and not let this great city down. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. MacNeil. All right. I'm going to call the next five up. Thank you all. Rob McDaniel. Andrew Rusty Gonzalez. Trinidad Rodriguez. Walter Eisenberg. And Tom Allen and we are complete. Oh, you guys did a great job. Okay, Robbie, now you are first.
Speaker 7: Thank you for the opportunity to speak here this evening. Council President. Members of council. My name is Rob McDaniel. I reside at 22nd and Huston Hudson.
Speaker 10: In Park Hill and our offices are headquartered at 25th and Washington.
Speaker 7: And council president Brooks is district. I'm here tonight to speak in support.
Speaker 10: Of the Great Hall Project and everything that it represents for our community. In 1994, I was an intern in Governor.
Speaker 8: Roemer's International.
Speaker 7: Trade Office, and one of my many jobs was to do the check at the Christmas.
Speaker 10: Party at the yet to be opened Denver International Airport. During that great event.
Speaker 7: I was able to actually enjoy a little bit of the speeches and the festivities.
Speaker 10: And Tom Clarke spoke very eloquently about what DIA meant.
Speaker 7: Despite all the problems we had with the baggage claim system and everything else. And he said that Denver was going to.
Speaker 10: Be Denver International Airport was going to be not.
Speaker 7: Only a gateway to the world for Colorado, but a gateway for the 21st century. I think the Ferrovial project and what's going on with the Great Hall today absolutely carries that vision forward. US as a company, I went on my own as a small subcontractor to a company here in in Denver working at the airport in 2009 as a one person shop. I'm happy and proud that we've now grown to 12 full time staff in.
Speaker 10: The Five Points neighborhood. We have projects.
Speaker 7: Now in Seattle, Tacoma at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and we just opened an office in Cincinnati, Ohio, to represent our activities in the Eastern Seaboard. All of this activity, all of these jobs, the.
Speaker 10: Revenue we've been able to.
Speaker 7: Create has been.
Speaker 10: Facilitated and helped by the work we've earned and delivered at DIA. So we thank the airport and we look forward.
Speaker 7: For what this project means going forward for our company. I think the numbers speak for themselves, but sharing one small story from our company, Ferrovial, like all big companies, has many, many subcontractors.
Speaker 10: And we've been working.
Speaker 7: Diligently with one of their subcontractors to form a joint venture alliance here.
Speaker 10: In Denver and also to help represent.
Speaker 7: Our company and our services and solutions in Spain. So they have not it's a 500 person company headquartered in Spain. They've never had operations in Colorado or anywhere in the United States. And this project is helping them enter this market, so much so that they're actually considering.
Speaker 11: Putting.
Speaker 10: Their offices, their US.
Speaker 7: Headquarters here in Denver. And for us, that is a huge opportunity to grow our business in.
Speaker 11: Europe.
Speaker 10: And hopefully in other parts of the world.
Speaker 7: As this as we continue to become a global passageway. I urge you to support this this bill and support this project for the local economy and for small companies like mine. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Mr. McDaniel. Andrew Rusty Gonzalez.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Rusty Gonzalez 35 years ago, I made a conscious decision to leave the Big Apple, Cheyenne, Wyoming, and move to Denver, Colorado, to start an electrical contracting business. In that 30 in that 35 years, I've learned a lot about construction in Denver. I've owned my current company for 21 years. I've owned electrical contracting businesses for 30 years. And that 30 years as a small business owner, I've written over 1000 W-2s as a small business owner. After starting my business, I learned the importance of getting involved in fair wages. I've been a union contractor my entire time. I recently sat on the Auditors Prevailing Wage Ordinance Committee and was successful on that. That's the last time you all saw me. I also became active in the organized labor for the electoral industry. I'm on the board, vice president and board on the board of directors of the National Electrical Contract Association, who works in collaboration with the IBEW to create over 2000 construction jobs. Additionally, I'm the past president of the Hispanic Contractors of Colorado, formerly known as the Hispanic contractor Colorado. Now Colorado's diversity leader, which we represent over 100 small business construction owners, which also has hundreds of jobs. So. I guess what I'd like to say is one thing I've learned since I've left the Big Apple was the importance of being a small business owner in Denver and working with the city on these large scale projects. I've been very, very blessed, very, very fortunate, as I said, to have been part of working to help create in excess of 2000, 2000 jobs. And I see this project as another opportunity for many of the small and bedbug species, the ease to benefit from this project, not only short term, but long term. So I encourage your support on this. As always, it's great to see you. Peace out.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Gonzales. Best joke of the night, Big Apple. All right. Trinidad Rodriguez.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President.
Speaker 10: Members of Council, thanks for the opportunity to address you this evening. My name is Trini Rodriguez. I'm an investment banker. I live and work in Denver. Just a few short minutes away from where I was.
Speaker 7: Born and raised and.
Speaker 10: Villa Park neighborhood. And I'm here in that capacity as a resident and employee who works in the city.
Speaker 7: And county of Denver and uses Denver International Airport.
Speaker 10: Regularly, both with my family and for business travel. I was thinking back.
Speaker 7: To when Denver International Airport opened and remembering sort of my first experience with it.
Speaker 10: And that was when I flew out.
Speaker 7: To begin a semester.
Speaker 10: Of college and flew out of Stapleton and then flew back.
Speaker 7: In the Denver International Airport. And I remember.
Speaker 10: The, you know, significance of seeing the great new facility. But so much has changed since then. This is a key opportunity to invest in Denver International Airport as an asset to create capacity for many years to come, to accommodate.
Speaker 7: The very rapidly growing.
Speaker 10: On the origin and destination traffic that flows through Denver as the city itself grows. As you considered with the bond many this investment has a very similar sort of business case and rationale to be able to accommodate continued significant growth in our region. I I'm also urging support.
Speaker 7: You know, public private.
Speaker 10: Partnerships are a unique tool and they are not the right tool for every job. But based on how the transaction and the terms of the deal are structured, it can be very beneficial to all the parties involved. And I believe the team.
Speaker 7: At Denver International Airport and the city and county of Denver.
Speaker 10: Administration and management have have worked to that.
Speaker 7: Goal. I understand that.
Speaker 10: The for.
Speaker 7: As one particular measure, as an investment banker, we look at credit rating.
Speaker 10: Agencies and credit ratings. And I understand that the city team has very much briefed the three nationally recognized credit rating agencies that rate the.
Speaker 7: Bonds on Denver.
Speaker 10: International Airport and that by virtue of the transaction structure in terms and the way those terms fit within the flow of funds of how Denver International Den's obligations are met, that this only works to enhance the credit.
Speaker 7: Worthiness of the airport's capital financing program and enhances the ability to achieve the all important credit rating metrics that determine the rating on.
Speaker 10: Bonds such as downs. So with that, I just wanted to lend my perspective. Thank you again for the opportunity and I urge support of this spell.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Walter Eisenberg.
Speaker 8: Thank you so much. Thank you, counsel. My name's Walter Eisenberg. I'm president and CEO of Sage Hospitality. I'm a member of the Visit Denver Board of Directors. Member of Colorado Hotel Lodging Association, which is supported this. And a trustee of Metro State University that has entered into an agreement with the Great Hall Project for job training in advance of this evening. I live in Denver, have been here 33 years 1984 moved here to start sage hospitality. Today we employ about 6000 people, a thousand of who work in the city and county of Denver. 22 years ago, we opened DIA and I would tell you that my view of the last 33 years, by far and away the most important economic impact investment that we have ever made. And I cannot imagine what our city would or would not look like, perhaps if we still had Stapleton. The airport is now 22 years old. Four years from now, when this project is completed, I think that we would all agree that it is time to reinvest and update the facilities as have been described. I think that there's been some discussion about the term of this agreement and we have firsthand experience with P threes at Denver Union Station. I think we would all agree that it is a wildly successful P three. We have a 99 year agreement with an option to extend for 50 years. So this seems like a pretty short deal to me. So I would encourage you to think about this opportunity to take private dollars in partnership with DIA to reinvent and improve our airport and bring it up to current standards. I would encourage you to be bold and vote yes in favor of the project. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Isenberg. And last but not least, Tom Allen.
Speaker 7: Thank you, counsel. My name is Tom Allen. I am the president of Intermountain Electric. We are a union electrical contractor here in Denver.
Speaker 8: We started in 1946.
Speaker 7: And we've been out at the airport since it opened. In the last nearly two years, we've been providing pricing to the Great Hall partner team to.
Speaker 10: Help them through this initial pricing process. And should council.
Speaker 1: Support this.
Speaker 7: Project. And I hope you will.
Speaker 10: It will hopefully.
Speaker 7: Mean a lot of jobs for my company and for many companies.
Speaker 1: For the years to come. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Um, I just got to say, 25 speakers, 50 minutes is very impressive, so thank everyone for keeping your comments concise and to the point. Yeah, very effective. All right. We're going into questions, questions by members of Council Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. If I. And Commerce Day up to the microphone, please. It is.
Speaker 12: Council.
Speaker 10: You said that the private partners assume full risk. And I'm wondering if you can explain what you mean by that.
Speaker 12: They assume full risk for price and schedule. So they are giving us a firm fixed fee of $650 million to build the project. And they have a schedule that has us opening the fall of 2021 for completion.
Speaker 10: Okay. So and I think at least one of my colleagues will talk a little bit more about this. But the one area that seems to be left open is change directives that that Dan might require of the project. And I understand we have $120 million set aside to cover that. Is that correct?
Speaker 12: That would be for changes that happened in the industry. Ferrovial takes responsibility for opening the ceiling and finding a surprise that's on them. But if something changes in the next couple of years about how you use your phone to process, and that means we need to redesign part of the Great Hall. We would pay for that out of our contingency, right.
Speaker 10: Or any other design changes we want to make along the way. Okay, Mr. De Vere, I have that right. Would you mind? And Mr. President, I've got about 90 questions, but I'll ask three and then give it up, if that's okay.
Speaker 1: Yes, sir.
Speaker 10: Go ahead. Q Thank you. 11,800 jobs. That sounds like an awful lot of jobs from one speaker talked about 500 carpenters jobs, I think. Tell me more how you get to that number.
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Councilman. We commission as the electrical contractors, the sheet metal contractors and the mechanical plumbing contractors. Every other year, an economic impact study that I can send you a copy of with Colorado State University. They're the only accredited construction management program in the state. They do a research project for us. And this January they conclude or we release the last installment of that for every million dollars you spend in construction. It creates 18 direct jobs. What I didn't quote you was the indirect figure, which brings that closer to like 28. So if you just take 18 times 650 million, you get to 11,800.
Speaker 10: And are we talking a job year, a construction jobs?
Speaker 7: So for every six, every million dollars you spend, you create 18 construction jobs. Direct construction jobs. Indirect things would be items like suppliers, downstream partners, other other supporters that feed the industry. I can get you the exact study with all the metrics that are used in order to calculate that, if that would be helpful.
Speaker 10: Well, I'm not going to beat this. And I'm just like I said, I'm trying to understand what a job means. You know, as far as is this the length of the project? Is this someone who may show up during the project for a limited period of time?
Speaker 7: So there are sometimes in projects like this, there could be upwards of 60 contracts with construction firms. Mechanical and plumbing would be either one, or in this case, it is one. But everybody who hits that job site, the way that the economic multipliers work is it calculates a job is created, eight of them for every million dollars you spend. I'll make sure that we get your copy and everybody else on council copy of that as well.
Speaker 10: That's okay. I'm guessing after tonight I'm not going to want to read a lot about this project. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll pass the microphone.
Speaker 11: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I've had lots of questions that have been answered, and I appreciate all of the folks who have been involved in getting my questions answered, but some of them have raised additional questions. So let me first start with safety and security. I asked a question and I got a response back, and I'm not sure it was completely accurate about what our safety or security rating is for the city of Denver's airport in terms of the vulnerability of our airport and. Not necessarily just related to checkpoint, but in general. Um, and I don't know if this is, what's the word I'm looking for. Maybe protected information, but. So so the question I want to know the answer to my question is, are we at the highest level of the security rating on the scale that is used by federal government agencies to rate the security risks of airports around the country?
Speaker 12: I'm not aware of any particular rating system that is used that's applied to our airport. What I will tell you is that the TSA every I believe it's three years, does a vulnerability assessment. And the last two or three of them, they have pointed out that our Great Hall is indeed a vulnerability that we need to address . Not sure that directly answers your question.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out where we are on that scale, because I understand there is a a rating, if you will. And so that's why I'm asking the question.
Speaker 12: And none of us here at the from the airport are aware of a rating scale for the airports.
Speaker 9: Okay. Well, let me go on with my next question. So it sounds like the issues have not been completely resolved between the CIA and the airlines in terms of concerns about throughput traffic on level six and how those will be resolved. Is that accurate? And it sounds like there are still ongoing conversations.
Speaker 12: I'll let Mr. Malloy come up and tell you from the united side of things. But I think we've worked really hard the last couple of weeks. I think they're planning team agrees that the simulation showed that it all works. What we are focusing on now is if it shouldn't work and let's just say things change, right? There are there are other aspects that could happen in the next couple of years that we have not anticipated. We are looking at what we are jointly calling relief valves, ways that we could add even more capacity. But I think it might be good for you to hear directly from United on this.
Speaker 9: That would be helpful. And in the meantime, it's my understanding, if you would just please come to the microphone that the. What I heard pretty loud and clear was that the open TSA lanes that are managed by non airline or airport employees are federal government employees would require 28 of those lanes to be open and staffed. So if you can help address where we're at in the process and whether those issues have fully been resolved or are there still ongoing conversations with DIA about addressing the concerns that were, I think, pretty eloquently expressed when we had our committee meeting about. Backup and co-mingling of TSA check in traffic along with passenger ticketing and baggage check in traffic that would be all located on level six.
Speaker 8: So to answer your first question, conversations are ongoing. I think we've been encouraged by those conversations in the last couple of weeks. We do have an ideological disagreement about when you pull the relief valves. We would like to see those valves incorporated into the Great Hall Construction Program so that we don't have a situation that the design fails. We'd prefer for those relief valves to be built now so that if something does happen, they're ready to go. And we don't have congestion. We have a genuine operational concern here. We want to make sure our customers can get through the airport efficiently. Your question, in terms of TSA, the simulation study does say that with 28 lanes of the 34 lanes, that the queuing should not back out into the lobby. That's only six lanes that can be unstaffed by TSA. And we have seen through our implementation of checkpoint projects throughout the country, that's pretty aggressive staffing by TSA. So we remain pretty concerned. I know the the airport feels pretty convinced that we can work with TSA and solve that problem. We have not seen that in reality in other airports.
Speaker 9: So can you and Kimmel ask you the same question? Help address what we see as normal staffing levels today? Are we are we operating at 100% or are we at 80% with TSA lines open?
Speaker 12: So it varies. Every day we review the schedule of the day with TSA as to the ebbs and flows of traffic, and so they attempt to staff it as best they can in terms of using their resources. I think they do a fairly good job. We have had amazing growth in the last year and we have had occasions here recently where we have been beyond the queue. But it is not because they're not staffing lanes, it's because currently we don't have enough capacity for this growth that we are seeing. I'll also just to comment as as Mr. Malloy said, we do think the TSA is going to want to staff this facility. This is their new prototype that we have an IMU with them. They are working with us on the design and developing this new concept for screening, and it is in their best interest to make sure that this doesn't fail. So I think they have a an unusual commitment to staff this airport that they may not have in others that are in the United System.
Speaker 9: And Kim, just from having the opportunity to travel and review the technology that we're going to be utilizing it, it is very apparent that that would assist with the traffic throughput, but it's still contingent on how many lanes we have open. Correct?
Speaker 12: Absolutely, yes. Okay.
Speaker 9: Mr. President, I do have other questions. I know you've got people in the queue. If you could just put me back in. I'll come back later with some of the other questions.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman, New.
Speaker 13: York, you. Let's just talk about the project review process. Can you describe how the proposed projects are going to be reviewed on an ongoing basis and reviewing the cost and the schedule and the quality of construction?
Speaker 12: Certainly. Well, we are at 30% design right now. So with with the optimism that this will be approved tonight, we will take that 30% to 100% between now and next summer, working very hard with our our partners here. Once we begin construction, then things change a little bit. Gisela has a third party who relates who directly reports to her, who will be overseeing the construction in terms of change orders and anything financial. On a regular basis, they'll be doing that oversight. We will also have an executive committee that will have representatives from this body, as well as representatives from the mayor's office and other city agencies that will be briefed on a regular basis on the process, both in terms of the construction and the cost. You also know we have an elected auditor that has the responsibility of making sure that everything we do at the airport is done in a legal and efficient manner. And I am assuming that Auditor O'Brien will periodically put this project on the list of things to audit. So there will be that outside audit as well. I'd also say because of the structure of a P3, there is additional oversight from the investors on the Ferrovial side who are very concerned about the investment and making sure there's a return so that there's that level of oversight. And then additionally, all the bondholders put yet another level of oversight. So there are a number of layers that will be looking at this project for the next 34 years.
Speaker 13: And I should say the Finance Department will be involved with that review process as well as the auditor. You know, they own their they on your review committee are the guys learned and the individual the structure of the project manager is going to be part of that with the finance department.
Speaker 12: Yes. The Brendan Hanlon, our CFO, is actually a member of the executive committee.
Speaker 13: And the person in Portuguese. Is that more of a project manager person that will he actually this person be going to the site or is it really more of a financial individual is looking at the financial details review.
Speaker 12: It's more from the financial part perspective.
Speaker 13: Well, there'll be a person, a project manager that will be looking at the construction as it goes along and working with partners and and everybody. That gives you reports about construction progress. And.
Speaker 12: You know, Stu Williams, well, he will be living and breathing this job 24 seven.
Speaker 13: One of the things that's been very effective with the National Western Center is is Kelly and his staff coming and giving quarterly reviews to our city council committee. And I just want to know, would you be willing to do that for our Business Development Committee to just brief the city council so that all council members can, you know, get an opportunity to to listen to how that things are progressing during the construction period.
Speaker 12: We'd be delighted to do that.
Speaker 13: Be great. Thank you. Now, my colleague brought up change directors, you know, being a cause that, you know, the city may occur if it happens, if you start getting into the 100 million, $120 million contingency, is a red flag going to go off or what's going to happen with them? When you start thinking about when you start getting into that contingency, especially if you if you if a if some major design situation occurs where you may even exceed that 120 million, that's the you know, we want to safeguard that. How do how do you plan on monitoring that?
Speaker 12: Well, first off, we are going to be very transparent about any use of the contingency. Let me start there. If we were to exceed it, we would actually have to come back to this body and get an amendment to the contract, because the contract has a maximum amount that we can spend. But yes, we are going to be monitoring it closely. I think these are not going to be little teeny things that add up. This contingency will be used for large issues that we have to deal with large industry issues. So they will be very obvious and transparent to all of you.
Speaker 13: Okay. Ask very good question about the concession agreement. You know, if if Ferrovial decides that it's not working out for them, do they have the right to transfer this agreement or or move this agreement to a third party outside of this? Or do they have the right to discontinue as a company and allow the rights for concession management to a third party?
Speaker 12: I'm going to ask City Attorney Dan Reamer to answer that one, if I might. Counsel.
Speaker 14: Good evening, Dan Ramer, City Attorney's Office. The short answer to the question is that the the developer's ability to transfer control and equity investment in the project is quite limited. There are two specific time periods. One is between the effective date and two years. So within the first two years of the development agreement, the ability to change and change control is subject to the city's essentially sole discretion. And after that two year period, it is up to the city's reasonable discretion. And there are conditions that have to be satisfied, such that the the substitute entity is equal or better capable to perform the services of the development agreement.
Speaker 13: Now, you know, we're not talking about construction. I'm talking about the concession agreement. That's what you're talking about, right?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 13: Okay. This concession group and with city council being involved with that process of approving that change of responsibility.
Speaker 14: It would not technically be an amendment to the development agreement because that power is conferred upon the city in the authority that the council would be granting this evening. So it would not require that the airport come back to the city council for that change in control.
Speaker 13: Would that be brought to a city council committee at least for discussion? So the city council would be apprized of that before it occurs?
Speaker 14: I am I am sure that it would in the ordinary course, but if you asked the CEO, I'm sure she would agree, just as she did a moment ago, to bring it to you, regardless of whether or not it would be standard.
Speaker 13: I think that's comforting. Last question for Gisela one. This I appreciate so much the last three weeks providing financial information to me to understand the deal, and I think it's a very attractive arrangement. So I appreciate stuff. Just a real simple question. I know the answer to this and I trust you explicitly. I just want to make sure that all the cost information that you've given us is accurate. And then in all the 15,000 pages of addendum or appendices, there's nothing in there. There's a hidden costs. It's going to come out all of a sudden later on down the road that's going to exceed the cost of this contract. That 1.8 is a good number, billion dollar number for our project, right?
Speaker 5: That's correct, Councilman. All of that is contained in the development agreement. And in that 1.8 billion other than the airports financing costs that we've discussed. But yes, nothing else in the 15,000 pages.
Speaker 13: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman. New council mechanics.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much. I so appreciate the responsiveness that Kim, your team has had very, very responsive and prompt. So my question I think for is for you in the discussions you've had with the airports, airlines so far, have you agreed to any changes in the construction projects that differ from the plans to date or whatever it is that's being considered tonight?
Speaker 12: Not at this point, no.
Speaker 3: Okay. And do you have any sense or can you estimate for me what the potential total risk is? So there's things they may want that are not even on the table. And then there's a range of things that, you know, that you all might be discussing. I guess what I want to get at is what is the maximum risk for cost changes related to the negotiations that are going to continue after this contract is approved.
Speaker 12: So I wish I could give you a number. We are not there. I will just tell you generally what we are talking about. We're talking about extending the baggage system to level one are the hotel and transit center so that they could possibly have a group check in at that level. We are talking about the possibility of locating some additional ticket counters on level four of the HTC served by that same baggage system that I just described. That would require some modification to level four, which right now is is empty, as well as an escalator that would come up from the from the level one up to level four and then also an escalator that would then get you up to level five. We're also talking about something that we refer to as modern zero. If you could imagine the area on both, you could do it on both east and west side, just to the north of the end of the ticket lobby that, you know, today we could add on in that area there. We could add not just ticket lobby space, but we could potentially add the level below so that we could add more bag claim space. All of those are just conceptual ways we might expand, and we are truly just doing, you know, freehand drawings at this point. And over the next few weeks, what we hope to do with the United is to refine them more and get to the point where we actually have costs, but we don't today. I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then this may be a question for Diane, but I want to understand, if we assume that some or all of these changes get made, are these all eligible for and with the costs come from the contingency, considering the fact that none of the costs would be known until after this contract were executed.
Speaker 8: So to be.
Speaker 14: Clear, owner changes are changes in scope.
Speaker 4: Mm hmm.
Speaker 14: They are not unforeseen circumstances. They are decisions made by the owner to change the scope of the project. The kinds of things that Kim just described could be added to the developer's scope or could be treated as entirely separate projects. It depends upon when the triggering event might be. If it's within the four year construction period, they may be owner changes and the airport may call upon the contingency in order to fund them. If they are simply plans that are that are developed and then put on a shelf that could be procured as an entirely separate construction project due to be resurrected when they may be needed. Five years, ten years, 15 years from now.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you for that information. A different set of questions. And this is one that I guess is a little less technical and a little more philosophical, because one of the fundamental questions we are grappling with is the role of the public sector and the role of private sector. So Kim, I guess I'd like to start with you and then I'll follow up with the similar questions for Ferrovial. But, you know, this is don't I don't expect you have a real number, but how many outside stakeholders would you say that you know, that you have met with throughout this process, as in people who are not part of the airport or the city family, but external stakeholders. People with an interest. People with an opinion.
Speaker 1: From the public.
Speaker 12: Well, I. Stacey is here somewhere. She might be able to tell me how many public presentations we have given. It's. Maybe 30 public presentations.
Speaker 3: I'm thinking more about meetings where you've really met with groups, whether it be CAF or whether it be contractor associations, folks who've said to you, I have an idea, I have a concern, I want to sit down and talk. And it may not be you personally if there's someone else. George I don't know if that falls more under your team, but I just trying to get a sense of how the airport as an entity operates as it relates to stakeholders.
Speaker 12: So I would say both ourselves and Ferrovial, independently and sometimes together have met with multiple groups, whether they are formal or informal groups here in Denver. You heard earlier this evening from CAF, we have met with CAF. You've heard from a number of a number of groups who have special interests that we have met with. We have tried to touch anyone we could. I would say that I don't know how to quantify it, but we have tried and tried very, very hard to do broad outreach. And do you want knowledge or do you want to say anything?
Speaker 3: But I want to just follow up with you first. Okay. So would it be safe to say that in some of those meetings you've heard ideas that you didn't agree with or met with groups who have publicly criticized the airport?
Speaker 12: I think that's fair to say.
Speaker 3: And I guess this you know, again, I'm just trying to get a sense of our role as a public entity. Why do you keep meeting with folks who might criticize you or who have ideas you don't agree with?
Speaker 12: So I think it's fair to say we also hear ideas we do agree with. So it's not all negative. And I think that's really important. And even if we don't agree, I think it's very important that the public understand why we're trying to do this. We are a public agency. We are your airport. We are everyone's airport. And while we're not going to get everybody on board, we certainly like to take the time to explain why we're doing it.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you. So I will now ask some similar questions to Rovio. And then after this set of questions, Mr. President, I, too, will see and let someone else take a turn. But so you heard our airport director talk a little bit. So is it your sense that if you all are awarded this contract, that you will be stepping into the role of, in some ways serving as a liaison or representative of a public airport, that you will be no longer just a private company, but you'll be doing something in the public sphere. Is that with that? Would you agree with that statement or.
Speaker 16: Every every public and private transaction that we carry out, we always take into account that fact that we will be working in an asset that is heavily exposed to the public sector, to the public service. So we are totally aware of that and have a long experience providing services to the public in the context of our concessions , lease leases and privatizations.
Speaker 3: So you you know, we had a mr. de Villa and a couple of others mentioned how very many meetings they had with you. Did they share some ideas with you that you maybe didn't agree with or that you weren't quite able to act on, but you kept meeting with them and found other things to talk about? Would that be?
Speaker 16: We have held many meetings with different stakeholders in the community with respect to construction, development, concession management and training centers. And we have found many ideas very interested or that can be accomplished. And developing this project or their ideas perhaps are less interesting or cannot be achieved in the context of this project.
Speaker 3: There's one particular community organization that has tried to meet with you and, you know, had one meeting and was told that you wouldn't meet with them any more. And that is you might hear the representative of the service workers, which is different than the construction workers. I would like to hear your explanation as to why you didn't feel that you had an obligation to continue to meet with them.
Speaker 16: Yes, we we have held at least three meetings and a number of conferences, a number of telephone conversations without a specific association. And what I would like to confirm is that Rubiales, a company that guarantees the rights of employees, is an employee of Ferrovial. I have the right to strike the freedom of association, collective bargaining, having the right to collective bargaining through representatives of employees or unions. I have access to prevailing wage framework agreements we consider trade unions as our partners. We have signed agreements with more than with more than 350 unions representing more than 12 million members, including 35 countries . So we are a friendly company with respect to unions. What has happened with this company is that the approach of this association was a good result into removing the right of choice of the union that would represent the future employees of the concessions in the Great Hall. And that's something that we will not be sympathetic or could agree with.
Speaker 3: So there was something you couldn't agree on. Did they ask to continue to talk and meet again?
Speaker 16: Excuse me?
Speaker 3: Did they ask to continue to meet and talk? Have they asked for meetings that with you?
Speaker 16: After the three meetings that we held and that meeting at Boeing that we could then. Except with decided to stop having more conversations, especially taking into account the aggressive approach of that association against the company they represent.
Speaker 3: Is there any other community organization or business that you've refused to meet with?
Speaker 4: No, no, no.
Speaker 3: Just one representing workers?
Speaker 16: That's correct.
Speaker 3: The community for airport fairness. Have you met with that organization? Sorry. The Committee for Airport Fairness. Have you met with with that organization? It's it's a group of folks interested in contracting and other.
Speaker 16: I think we held a meeting with then. I was not there personally.
Speaker 3: Yes, that's correct. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 16: Sir.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Cami. Is that okay? My screen is open. Councilman Espinosa sort of along that line, Tom Allen and any of the other union people that spoke. Could you.
Speaker 8: Come up?
Speaker 1: Are you all familiar with the Unite Here 23 group? And their requests for worker retention provisions.
Speaker 10: No. We're now more in the construction industry and those are collective bargaining.
Speaker 9: When you speak into the mic, please, whoever speaking. Councilman, identify yourself.
Speaker 10: I'm Ralph Llewellyn with the National Electrical Contractors Association. And we hold the bargaining rights for our electrical contractors who sign letters of assent to our agreements. I'm not familiar with that organization that you mentioned. Our main focus is with the IBEW electricians.
Speaker 1: Do you feel that workers that have that have worked at DIA and made it successful? I mean, you one of you cited its rankings and it's currently very well ranked in the world and in the nation. Do you feel that there should have been worker retention provisions in the contract for people that are currently employed out in the airport?
Speaker 10: I have to say I'm not that familiar with the demands of the players in that group. So I. I really have no comment on that.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, sir.
Speaker 10: Sure.
Speaker 6: Councilman Espinosa. Council. Mr. President. So, actually, I met Dave, DVR, contractor, exec and myself. Got to meet early on with representatives from Saunders and Ferrovial. And before I did that, I knew I had this meeting coming on and I did talk to Unite here. I talk with Kevin. I talked with the president of the Denver Area Labor Federation, Josh Downey, and told them I was going to have a meeting with Rossville and Saunders and ask them if they're just exactly what their what the problem was. If there was an issue there so that I would I would send them I would carry the message for them. When we met and I did that, I said, well, what I was told was that they were the they being the unite here their main their to me they only had two main issues then. One was that they is that they would not be interfered with if they tried to organize the workers in the new shops. And the other was that the workers would have jobs still, so they wouldn't lose their job if they if their shop moved out of the terminal to above or moved out to somewhere else in the airport. And I carried that message to Ferrovial and to Saunders. And what they told me was that they would not stand in the way of the workers if they wanted to organize. They wouldn't, they wouldn't. They would stay neutral. They wouldn't get involved in that. And they any of the people that were union out there now would still be union. If they wanted to be in the union, they would not interfere with those guys. I what I understood the main crux was the, the shops that were going to be built that weren't built yet. There was some disagreement over whether they would require them to be union or not. I think that was what at least what I understood was the crux of the conversation.
Speaker 1: And I appreciate, you know, sort of putting you on the spot. But, you know, as somebody who's, you know, an architect by trade, I'm not a you know, I.
Speaker 11: Wish architects had.
Speaker 1: A union. Right, because we worked long, long hours for lower wages despite what everyone thinks or what you see in the movies. The the so I'm trying to figure out how we got to a situation where there's union support on the labor, the on the construction labor side, but actual organized employees or, you know, struggling with this this with these terms or getting terms. So I appreciate the background. I probably still don't understand it the way I do. I'll probably ask Kevin later to sort of come up and collaborate.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 6: So I think there was an agreement with the hotel out there that they wanted to model agreement with for political reasons, as I understand. But I don't really understand all of that. I know the issues. That's what I was told.
Speaker 1: So yeah, but there is no sort of blanket brotherhood across unions to say.
Speaker 6: Look, we're.
Speaker 1: Labor is labor.
Speaker 6: We know that we're in the construction phase of it. Certainly we I would like to see everybody via the union. I would like see everybody, even if they're not in the union, have good wages and fair pensions, health care. Those are things that we should all have as people here in this great country, in our great city. It makes our it makes our city better. It makes our communities better when we have those sorts of things. So I don't think that I think from what my perspective was, this was a contractor that was going to offer those types of jobs for the construction industry. And I think that's great.
Speaker 1: Okay. Well, some of that I right. I respect it. I mean, I understand that significant portion of the responsibility actually falls on us. We could have we could have as council sort of made provisions of that, that they would have to sort of incorporate into their agreements. And we didn't do that. So now we're in a situation.
Speaker 7: Where we're looking.
Speaker 1: For voluntary compliance. So I mean, our inclusion into their their agreement. So thank you all very much. Sorry to put you all in the spotlight.
Speaker 8: Anyone anyone else have something to say?
Speaker 10: A quick comment. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. As a as a union, we do support dignity for all workers. We support that. And we'll fight for that. I will state that, you know, all of our construction trades issues have not been addressed as of yet. And still, you know, we're looking to all on the apprenticeship language as well, which is being talked about, concerned about timeliness of that. But as far as unite here, we haven't met with them, but certainly we support their them and their workers in their fight for dignity.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you very much. So. Sure.
Speaker 3: I am here representing small businesses. I'm also an electrical contractor. Electrical contractors or small businesses usually are not union members. So. I guess that the city of Denver is kind of like to try to accomplish a perfect balance to give opportunities to small businesses and big businesses and working together. So I ask for the consideration of this job not to be closed just to union members, because that will take a big chunk of the small business community.
Speaker 12: Out of the participation of this job. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 1: So to Ferrovial, did you. Did you at some point do an analysis and have some sort of understanding of the economic impact if you had made sort of any sort of concessions or labor agreements.
Speaker 7: Of some sort?
Speaker 16: Council Member Yes, we analyzed the proposal made by Unite here. You know, to understand the terms and conditions that they were proposing. And the first point that I would like to clarify for the benefit of everyone is that our great hall partners will not be the employer of any of the workers that will be working, hopefully, if this project is approved in the future. Concessionaires of the Great Hall. We are not that we are not going to be a master concessionaire. We are just developing procurement. Those units and the future concessionaires will have to hire to recruit those employees. What we have always stated from the very beginning, more than a year ago, we proposed creating a training center for those future employees of the concessionaires in order to help in the development. And we even committed ourselves to injecting money on day one. And I'm sure you will have seen in the financial model money contributions on an annual basis in order to foster the development of those future employees of the concessionaire. So we are very well aware that having those employees being developed, been retained that can develop an excellent career in those units is critical for the community. But what we cannot do, what we cannot accept is signing on behalf of those future concessionaire exclusivity agreements, to have those employees of the concessionaires being represented by one trade union, because that would neglect the right of those employees to decide who is the right representative of those employees.
Speaker 1: So do you have.
Speaker 7: That number on what you thought.
Speaker 1: It would, the economic consequence it would be to this agreement?
Speaker 16: We don't have I couldn't estimate the number to the economic standpoint of that agreement and.
Speaker 1: And I'll finish this line of questioning and I'll see.
Speaker 8: I had other topics, but.
Speaker 1: So you did the grant, the analysis in the green. So where I struggle with that, having read the entirety of the contract not I will admit to not in all the appendices is that there are that.
Speaker 8: You there are a.
Speaker 7: Lot of.
Speaker 1: Provisions that you are requirements that you are obligating any of your concessionaires to adhere to through the terms of the contract that are flow that are, you know, carried out. I mean, carry.
Speaker 7: Through pass through from.
Speaker 1: From Denver to your.
Speaker 8: Concessionaires.
Speaker 1: Writing additional provisions is not prohibited.
Speaker 8: So long as they don't they don't.
Speaker 1: Jack mean they're not illegal. So there certainly would have been the capacity whether, you know, it's not something it is. I want to stress that it is your choice to not have.
Speaker 8: That is not.
Speaker 1: There's nothing that we're.
Speaker 8: Doing that's preventing you from from making those requirements of your concessionaires. You simply do not want to put.
Speaker 1: Those sort of requirements on your concessionaires. That is correct. Correct.
Speaker 16: You understand that we we must keep the right of choice, of the right of the representatives that the future employees of those concessionaires want to want to have.
Speaker 8: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilor Lopez.
Speaker 11: Yeah, thank you. I wanted to continue the line of questioning with with Labor and in particular with the conversations with the concession workers and well, I guess the know here and not sure if they will be I mean drivers at all. I guess so. I want to come back to this. The the situation where you said you've met with the folks from Unite here. How many times?
Speaker 7: Yes, we we.
Speaker 16: Had a very long conference call with then in order to understand their approach with a representative from the East Coast. That was a very long meeting in order to understand what they were proposing. I had a physical meeting in in the Westin Hotel at the airport with three representatives from Unite here. And after that meeting, I had a very long conversation again in order to provide feedback about that meeting.
Speaker 11: Now, do you. Were there any kind of middle ground that was achieved? Was there any kind of I don't want to say this is believed to be redundant, but was there any kind of concession made or any kind of middle ground achieved? I mean, it seems like there's been ongoing conversations. Has there been any proposal?
Speaker 16: Basically, we council member. We received an email you. From Unite here. What we were told was that if we were going to if we could accept that you. Completely that John would support from really in this process. There were a number of clauses in that MRU that I don't understand if could be cited through negotiation or not . That's that's something that we don't that we've been approached that would not be acceptable, especially neglecting the rights of the future employees of those concessionaires to decide who is the right representatives of those employees.
Speaker 11: Now I understand that ask for unique exclusivity. I want to get away from union exclusivity. And, you know, I don't want to it's a slippery slope. And when it starts using language that third parties, workers in the union, I don't like that. I think it's. You mean we don't throw our third party ourselves as folks in the United States? Right. As one union. And I want to in unison and I want to focus on that word, but I. I mean. Were there any counter offers or proposals? It was. I mean, we understand that retention is an issue. We understand that that wages are an issue. Have there been anything any commitments to those issues? Not necessarily to to an organization. But to have those issues out there that they are bringing up. Right. And what are those what are those proposals or what are those counter ideas or offers?
Speaker 16: We we understand with respect to jobs that the issue that the concessionaires are going to have in the Great Hall Project is to attract and retain talent, as far as we know. In the airport, there are more than 400 job opportunities available. So we all understand that the problem is going to be job destruction. There is going to be job retention and attraction. That's why we are focusing all our attention, commitment and investment in developing that training center. That is an obligation for our team according to the development agreement that you will have seen. With respect to your second question. Could you please repeat your point?
Speaker 11: Councilmember Yeah, I'm wondering since in talking about the issues of retention and talking about the issues or mostly job retention, then and then, you know, the living wage piece, right? Aside from exclusivity with a union? Yes. Right. Have there been any commitments to meet those two concerns? Right. And what commitments are those are those written commitments? Is there something in writing that says that this is something that you will honor? Right.
Speaker 16: But prevailing wage obligations are included in the development agreement. As you know, council member. So that's an obligation that our thing will have to comply. That's an obligation that we are used to complying in every year where we work. As I was explaining to Council member Kanis before.
Speaker 11: And that that applies to the concession workers.
Speaker 16: As far as I understand those, cos those workers are workers of the concessionaires and they will have to deal with their employees the kind of salaries that they will have.
Speaker 11: Access to and as those jobs are coming up. The retention issue. Is there a commitment of ferrovial or operators to those employees to keep them? To give the first right of refusal, what they brought up is their commitment.
Speaker 16: We have a commitment to make interviews, at least three interviews. That is going to be done by the future concessionaires to those persons that have lost their jobs because of this project.
Speaker 11: What would be in a circumstance where they would not be employed anymore? Like you said, it's three interviews. Is is there something that would prevent them from gaining employment if they've been working at a concession in the airport for a long time? And let's say that the concept changes or whatever. Is there anything that would prevent them from getting that?
Speaker 16: As far as I understand, the issue in the airport is retaining. So having an employee that is available to be recruited, that has experience working in the airport, that has been but not not getting a job when there are now more than 400 job job back answers. And we are going to develop through the future concessionaires on 800 positions. I think that is a very unlikely scenario, taking into account the skills of that worker that has been there for ten years. Yeah.
Speaker 11: I understand. I just. And, Mr. President, if you look. I understand that. I just want to make sure that that that that that that employee that worker knows that because, yes, there they're going to be 400 jobs. As you guys are talking about. There will be 400 jobs. Like, hey, man, there's there's a bunch of jobs for you to choose from. Don't worry about it. But that doesn't necessarily get the guarantee then the first right of refusal. Is there any been any kind of agreement that addresses the first right of refusal? Right. Aside from the three interviews.
Speaker 16: There are no more counter guarantees in the development agreement on their behalf.
Speaker 11: Okay. Thank you. Thank thank you so much. And, Mr. President, if I just have one more on another topic, that's fine. This has to do with contracting with mwb and also well, in this case, activity. Right. The program and I don't know who's most appropriate to answer this question, but 34 years, right. We we all talk about, you know, 34 years. I think, you know, my daughter's ten now. She'll be 44 when this when we have a next the next crack of this. In those 34 years as minorities and as women, we would hope that, well, as the population grows. We would hope that the the number of entrepreneurs that are women and minorities also grow. What are we doing to make sure in that 34 years that where we're at right now, that that number, whatever it is, 33%, whatever percentage that that number doesn't stay flat. Those 33, those 34 years that it grows with that. And what are the determining factors and what's the commitment from the airport and ferrovial, I guess, with this with this contract to ensure that that stays in pace with population changes and growth.
Speaker 14: So Councilman, to answer, I just want to separate the maybe be ordinance from the act.
Speaker 11: And that's why you asked it in both the MWB and then KDB program.
Speaker 14: So that the maybe ordinance clearly applies to the design and construction, the four year design and construction phase, the $650 million project that the CEO described before goals have been established 33% for design, 18% for construction put forward by the Office of Economic Development and presented by the Mayor. So those goals apply to the design and construction phase of the project as KDB, the AC, KDB, the Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program, which is a mandate of the Department of Transportation. That is what will control active participation in the concession program going forward during the 30 year operating period. That goal has been established within the development agreement at 26%.
Speaker 11: So would you say that the feds control that? We don't we don't determine that.
Speaker 14: That the number is a locally derived number based on disparity and other factors. The program itself is overseen by the Department of Transportation in the Federal Aviation Administration. So that goal has been set at 26%, but that goal will be revisited. So what I'm trying to get at is the answer to your question with respect to KDB. The goal will be revisited during the operating period and we've set that that period at ten years to correspond to the likely length of the individual concession agreements. The contract requires that concession agreements be no longer than ten years. And so we've set ten years. So the AC DB goal will be revisited during the operating period.
Speaker 11: Okay. I appreciate that. And, you know, council president, my concern with this questioning is that it would I'd be hopeful in 34 years that there is no more disparity to have to argue about. But as you've seen and the disparity continues and I don't want to pretend like there wouldn't be disparity in 34 years. Right. It hasn't gone away recently. And I don't want to I want to make sure that we keep that in mind. So that's an important value of the city in this council. And I want to make sure that that's reflected in every movement that we do in this.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. You're getting in the comments there. All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't see the fellows here from. Ask me, are they is anyone still here? That was Nick Hostetler. Okay. He had made a statement that I maybe I wanted to make sure I understood it correctly, but he seemed to indicate that there were city jobs that were in jeopardy.
Speaker 1: He left. Okay.
Speaker 6: Yeah. There's Kim. You don't know what that was about, do you? I can't imagine that we would be reducing the number of city jobs on this.
Speaker 12: No, not to my knowledge. Is there any discussion around that?
Speaker 6: Thank you. And Mr. Jack Quinn from United might be able to answer this along with Kim. In your talks, you've made some progress. But if we vote on this tonight, the agreement is is approved. And what I'm wondering is, do you see is there room within this agreement after it's approved, assuming it is for you to conclude what the matters that you are after? Within the framework of that agreement. Once it's at once it's approved, because once it's done, we live by those rules.
Speaker 9: This.
Speaker 10: So to make sure that I answer your question properly, just to restate what you said. Are we comfortable that if approved tonight, that there's enough within the existing format to be able to affect the change?
Speaker 6: Yes, of course. I wanted to reach to reach a satisfactory conclusion to your issues.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Actually, Gavin would probably be better for that.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 8: I think the short answer is it will require change orders. If we were to implement any of the levers we have identified, they are not in scope of the current contract and I know that they could be treated as a different project, but at the end of the day, there's one payer for that and that's the airline community. So it will cost more money to implement any of the changes that we've suggested.
Speaker 6: Okay. Kim, would you agree with that?
Speaker 12: If. If we were. If we get to the point that we believe we need to implement them. Now, that would be true, I think, though. Well, let's start with we're still working. We're still trying to define them. Number two, the question is, do they need to be built now or not? I think we as the airport have a great deal of faith in the work that we've done with the planners in the simulation that we can't see today, investing millions of dollars into something as a relief valve when when we don't see a need for it. Right. We also because this project is being done in phases. The ticket lobby will be up and running while we're building the the checkpoints. So I think we feel there is a period down the road where we can evaluate this and see how it's all working. So I would say to you in our mind, it's not something we would do to modify the contract today. More likely, if a few years from now we decide we need to do it, they would be standalone projects if indeed they're done.
Speaker 6: Okay. And I think what I'm hearing is there's a couple of ways to do that. We could do it as a separate project. We could do it as change ordering through the through this contract. But either way, approving this tonight doesn't stand in the way of resolving these talks.
Speaker 12: It does not. And I'll just remind everyone, you know, United is our major carrier. We know they're our future. We know they're growing here. We want it to work and to succeed with them. So we're not fighting that. We don't want United to be successful and grow and have the the space that they need. We just don't agree on how this plan impacts them right now. But we will do everything we can to make sure united to successful here.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Kim, on the in the concessions development and the management program, there is a every two year review of market trends and ability for ferrovial to modify the direction it's going in consultation with with us as the owners. I correct.
Speaker 12: That's correct.
Speaker 6: So. So in approving something that will be in place for 30 years of the of the on M period does not mean that whatever is there on day one is there on year 30. In fact, would probably be highly unlikely that it would.
Speaker 12: Absolutely. And we are sharing the benefit of the revenue. So both parties have incentive to work to continually improve what we have there in the Great Hall.
Speaker 6: Mm hmm. And could you describe briefly, just briefly, the recourses that the city has for nonperformance or, you know, for. My understanding is there are penalties for nonperformance. And remarkably, in my view, there's no bonuses for for better performance. I'm reminded that you might have negotiated that.
Speaker 12: Yeah.
Speaker 14: So to take the last part of your question first, with respect to bonuses, there is only one bonus, early bonus, which is early completion of the TSA security screening checkpoint. That is the only financial bonus with respect to payment deductions. There is a scheme in place where if the developer fails to perform in the manner that's prescribed in the development agreement, then there will be payment deductions made against their supplemental payments. So they they do have to perform. There has been some confusion about the guarantee of their profit. It is not guaranteed in the sense that if they fail to deliver and make the project available according to their standards, they will not achieve that anticipated rate of return.
Speaker 6: Right. And just one word of advice. I won't use the word scheme when talking about this. Kevin Abels calculation. I've I've met with you several times. I've also met with the concessionaires in the airport. I'm having trouble understanding. So I keep hearing that the principal problem with the concession operations is keeping people there in the first place. And the concessionaires are telling me that they can pretty much guarantee that workers will be displaced and terminal will be able to be positioned elsewhere. And if it's not on the airside, if that person can't get an airside badge for some reason that most concessionaires have operations in town and would be able to place them in town. Do you have any notion of how many workers you think unite here? Things might not be placed.
Speaker 8: Well, I mean, this the renovations in the very terminal will impact between two and 300 existing workers. Mm hmm. Whether or not they are placed or not is now, you know, totally at the hands of chance. The agreements that we've come to with other, more responsible airport companies like the Westin and midfield create a pipeline and a system for people to land in a job that they're qualified for that that simply will not exist in the Great Hall Project, unfortunately.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. That's all for now.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I have three questions, but I'm going to add one for a fourth to follow up on Councilman Flynn's last question. Can someone from the airport comment on what Kevin said about there not being a pipeline? Because I thought there was a direct pipeline to provide jobs for the displaced workers.
Speaker 1: For.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm George Merritt with Airport Government Affairs. So we spent last fall working with our concessions association and to look at the number of employees in the Great Hall and working with them. What we found is that most of the concessions there were part of an ownership group that were ready and willing to bring those workers out onto the concourses, or, as Councilman Flynn said, moving downtown. And for those that were not part of the of that of an ownership group, we even instituted programs at the airport specifically with those people in mind. So we created that website that all of you have seen a job website at the airport to bring people out there. And then again, our concessions association is eager to talk about. There are 400 vacant jobs ready for people to fill at any given moment. So I think it's fair to say that our concessions association has embraced this challenge to make sure that the people that want to work at the airport, particularly those that are badged, are valuable commodities and we want to keep them out there.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 1: And number two.
Speaker 3: That? No, that one didn't count. Okay, one. I know I've heard about three different opportunities for professional development, the Great Hall Academy, which is in cooperation with Metropolitan State University and Emily Griffiths Technical College, and then apprenticeship programs. And then also about an engineering apprenticeship program with the Colorado School of Mines. So is there someone who can just talk about some of those professional development opportunities?
Speaker 16: Council member and I can talk with respect to the Great Hall Partners Training Center. That's a. And a training center that will be developed, by the way, told partners that that that activity has been included in the development agreement. As part of the document that was referring, Councilmember Flynn of the Council of the Concessions Development Management Program. So that's an obligation on our site, although was something that we already proposed one year ago as part of our proposal, our bid to the airport of our to Denver International Airport, that training center. I would say that if this project is approved is a reality. There is a budget already allocated. We are committing $100,000 on day one and 50% of the marketing fund to that training center. We have the tools and the partners, the tools we have been working. Without different associations, the concession associations and the existing concession as the airport, in order to identify the right framework and the right needs to recognize that training the standpoint of the future employees of the concessionaires. And secondly, we also have the tools with respect to the partners. We have been working with Metro State University, with Emily Griffith Foundation and with the community college in order to have the right partners that can help us put in a facility standpoint, logistics and also to put the courses together. We have also had discussions with the airport in order to have venues available in the airport, in order to get the most efficient training and avoid that the concessionaire employees can use, that time can waste time going from one place to the other for training purposes. We think that we can develop these 14 years ago. We start something similar like pivotal right now that Heathrow Academy has been able to put into work more than 30, more than 3200 employees because of our efforts putting that together. We also have an internal university call for our university that has a massive institute and developing this training center. So with the right partners, with the right assessment and with the Budget Committee, that we think that this can be a reality if these facilities of.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Is there someone who can comment on those other. Apprenticeship and car. School of mines.
Speaker 1: I think I think Howard talked about apprenticeship.
Speaker 6: Councilman. Councilman Black. Councilwoman Black. So apprenticeships are a great, great tool for us and for a lot of people. And really and I'll speak specifically about the Pipefitters because I know about that apprenticeship more than I do the others, although they're they're all based pretty much the same way as I understand it. And what happens there is is it's a five year apprenticeship. It costs the student $200 a year for books. The local union subsidizes the rest of the cost of that school year. And it's an accredited course. It's an accredited college course. So at the end of five years, they have 45 college credits for about $1,000 and no student debt. They actually get a raise every year, a pretty good raise to 10% a year, which and 15% the last two years. So it's a really a pretty darn good deal. You could actually get your associate's degree with just the general education classes. There's 17 general education classes that that if you could take them, Simon Tinsley, if you'd like to, you could also come out. And if you get the right jobs and you hit their breaking up over time in the right places, that you can make a pretty darn good living. $100,000 is not unheard of. So it's apprenticeship is a great a great opportunity for a lot of folks.
Speaker 3: So are you going to be actively recruiting people to be apprentices to do work at the airport?
Speaker 6: Yes, ma'am. We already are in airport in many other places, too. We are actively recruiting every day. So that that's one of the reasons we have a grant with the state to do community outreach, specifically to reach out to folks that have been disadvantaged for one reason or another, whether it's where they live, whether it's they're a minority or whatever that might be. It lists people into the middle class. This route is truly transformational, and not just for that job. Oftentimes for generations down the road, it's made a difference in people's lives. And we had members here today that could tell you that they retired and went home. So but I hope that answers your question.
Speaker 3: Thank you. I think that's great. Right. Thanks. That was only two. So the last question is for someone from the airport. And it's a two part question. Eisenberg said his is the Union Station public private partnership was 99 years. And at the committee meeting we talked about how, for example, the Elway's concession agreement was for ten years. So can someone come in and why this agreement is for 30 years?
Speaker 5: So, Councilwoman, typically when you invest in a project, you depending on the size of the investment, you need a certain amount of time in order to recover that investment. So if you take some of our smaller concessions that may be, let's say, 100,000, 200,000 or even up to a million or two that we'll invest to outfit a concession at the airport. Typically, 7 to 10 years may be adequate for that. But if you're talking about a project that's in the hundreds of millions, it is not unreasonable to have a 30 year return. If you think about the bonds that we issue at the airport to fund our projects. Those are also in the hundreds of millions. Those are 30 year bonds. And that gives you the appropriate period of time to ensure that you can recover your investment and make the payments. So it really is tied size of investment, length of return.
Speaker 3: Thank you. You're welcome.
Speaker 1: Ah. Anymore. Okay. Uh, kill some black councilman Clark.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Sorry to keep bringing us back to some of these. First of all, I just want to thank the entire team for being available for questions and helping us navigate through this contract. I want to start with airport. I'm guessing this will be a George Merritt question, but I'll let the airport team pick back two workers at the airport. You've heard a lot of questions about this is obviously something that's really important to a lot of us. And, you know, I had had the opportunity to meet with people, some of the awesome people who work at our airport and make it the great place that it is out in the Great Hall. Also concerned that Great Hall closes for four years. That's a long time to wait in line to have a new job in that same space. So I just want to get real. You know, we've talked a lot about it, but people right now who are employed in the airport, in the Great Hall, will they have a job when this construction goes under? When this goes under construction?
Speaker 10: Thank you, Councilman. So the short answer to that is yes. We worked very hard last fall with our concessions association to look at, and you've.
Speaker 11: Already covered that. I'm looking for a commitment here in public. Well, the workers who are in the Great Hall, who want to continue working, will they have a job.
Speaker 10: Particularly if you can pass a background check to or B badge to go out on the concourses? You know, if you had to move from a from a great hall out to the concourses, that that would be the hurdle. But, yes, I think if you are ready and want to keep working at the airport, we've put in place several systems. So that.
Speaker 8: Yes, that is absolutely correct.
Speaker 11: Okay. And then for Ferrovial. Yes. I know that there were issues and negotiation and things that you didn't want or feel comfortable committing on behalf of future concessionaires. But will ferrovial respect workers rights to organize and form a union should they choose to? So will Ferrovial respect workers, the workers right to organize and form a union should they choose to. And will ferrovial interfere in any way with the workers rights to organize and form a union so that you.
Speaker 16: Will not.
Speaker 11: Interfere? Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Wow. Councilman Clark, that was quick. Okay, we are back to the top. Councilman Castro.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Someone from the airport. About the concessions. So, as I understand it, part of the agreement is in the Great Hall. No one can have more than 20% of either the restaurant side or the retail side, and no more than 30% combined. Is that correct? My understanding that correct.
Speaker 16: Yes, that's.
Speaker 10: Correct. Okay. And for for someone from the airport. So does this agreement allow Ferrovial to be a concession owner in either the Great Hall or on the concourses?
Speaker 14: No, it does not. So two part question. With respect to the concourses, the development agreement has it says nothing about and provides no rights, contractual or otherwise, to the developer in connection with concourse concessions.
Speaker 10: But it doesn't prevent them from bidding for the concourses.
Speaker 14: No, it doesn't prevent them from from bidding on on any concession contract. But the second part of your question, the development agreement does prohibit the developer from being an owner in concessions in the Great Hall. So they are not, as the representative from Ferrovial explained, they are not a master concessionaire. Typically a master concessionaire is the owner and operator of some number of the concession locations. The Great Hall Partners will not be the owner and the operator of individual concessions.
Speaker 10: Okay. And I think you alluded to it before. Michael Kiley made this statement. Why are we guaranteeing of overall a profit? Are we guaranteeing for overall a profit?
Speaker 14: No, we are not guaranteeing ferrovial a profit. One thing I would be clear on is that there's always mark up in construction contracts and various contracts. So we do guarantee profit in the same sense that we are guaranteeing profit here. But my point before was simply that the 10.8% return is realized only if the Great Hall Partners team performs at the level that is identified within their baseline financial forecast, and that includes their 20% of the concession revenue. So that is doesn't come close to being guaranteed. They absolutely have to perform in order to get to that rate of return. Even with respect to the 4.8% rate of return, that is contingent upon great hall partners delivering and making the facility available and satisfying the performance standards. And if they do not, then there will there may be performing payment deductions that would take them below that 4.8%.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. And one question for Ferrovial. One of our speakers alluded to the fact that you may be ending contracts at UK airports. Can you address that?
Speaker 16: Yeah. Thank you for the question. Council member Ferrovial led the consortium that took over a company called B.A. in the UK in 2006. That after we after that transaction was completed, the antitrust authorities in the UK forced our company, that consortium, to divest a number of airports in that country because of a potential monopoly, because of a potential monopolistic situation in two areas of the UK, in southern England and in Scotland. Because of that decision of the antitrust authorities, we were forced to sell two airports in England, Gatwick and Stansted and one airport in Scotland, Edinburgh. So yes, there were those divestment, those day when this happened that we were forced to sell those airports because the antitrust authorities of the UK forced us to do it. And that's right.
Speaker 10: When was when did you get out of Stansted?
Speaker 16: Stansted transaction if I am not wrong happened in 2000, late 2012.
Speaker 10: Okay. Thank you. That's all for now, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Catherine. Catherine, council member. Take a back up.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So I want to go back to the. Issue of potentially solving some of the airline concerns by looking at level four of the hotel and transit center. So I would like to know and know it's something that I was able to see and it was talked about when I did a tour of the airport as a potential future project that may come on. But it was not part of the discussion of the build out of the Great Hall. And so, number one, is any of that covered in the existing costs for the Great Hall right now? If that ends up being a solution for how to address some of the throughput issues raised by the airlines?
Speaker 12: No, it is not in this contract.
Speaker 9: Okay. Does that require TSA approvals and or financing? What if we move down to to proceed with that?
Speaker 12: So any time you inject baggage into the system that then screens baggage, we would certainly be working with TSA to make sure that they agreed with the system that we designed and built there. Not sure if that answered your question.
Speaker 9: Well, we would need their involvement if we're looking at any TSA check in point under level four or are we only looking at baggage? We are only one point. There was some discussion about potentially some TSA lanes, if you will. Yes.
Speaker 12: Level four two, we are not looking at putting in TSA lanes that would actually check people in. That's not part of what we're talking about with the United. We're talking about ticket lobby, space and kiosks. That's what we're discussing. What you're talking about in terms of TSA use of level. Four years ago when we built out the HTC, we thought that the fourth floor might be a place where we could relieve TSA by adding additional checkpoints. Right now, using these automatic screening lanes that we're proposing, we don't need to use that space for checkpoints. So we're talking about ticket lobby space in level four.
Speaker 9: Okay. And in doing that, it would free up some of the space on level six if that were to be done as a.
Speaker 12: Potential no, this would be in addition to what we're building on level six. Okay.
Speaker 9: All right. Let me go to my next question. I had a comment on that one, but I will leave that for later. I want to ask Diane Durfee if she wouldn't mind coming to. The microphone. Deanne was brought on to assist some of us who had additional questions around the review of the contract. And I know you had an opportunity to look at that. So my first question is related to a comment that was made earlier by Mr. Reimer about. Let me make sure I've got the right question in front of me. So transfer of concessions. And I think Councilman New asked this question. It's my understanding that any concession that would be. Transfer the ownership would be transferred would require our DSB office involvement. Is that correct? Because I know you work directly with our oversight of our DSP office. Can you can you respond to that?
Speaker 5: Greenly Diane Durfee with the city attorney's office. We have, as was discussed earlier and Mr. Reamer already discussed, this contract involves both the CDB program on the concession side and then on the construction side, our MWB program and has established goals for felt for both of those aspects of the project. The activity is a federal program, as Mr. Bremer identified.
Speaker 3: The MWB as our local program.
Speaker 5: So with respect to your question on transfer of concessions, I think that the concession and I'm not as.
Speaker 12: Familiar with the A.C.T. program as I am with the MWB.
Speaker 5: Program, but my understanding is that they would still have to comply with all the federal requirements.
Speaker 3: Regulations regarding how the ACP programs.
Speaker 5: So nothing is being done in this contract that alters the federal requirements.
Speaker 3: And rules and regulations that have to be followed.
Speaker 9: And same with our BWB.
Speaker 5: And that is true. We added as part.
Speaker 3: Of the contract a compliance plan on the Mwb side for the construction.
Speaker 5: Establish the goals for that, and we have not altered anything in that compliance plan that runs with our current laws on the MWB program.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you, Dan Reimer, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. So I want to get back to the issue of concentration of ownership. Someone who currently may already meet that threshold, that 20%. Limit for concentration of ownership. If they meet that on A, B or C, are they then allowed to also have a concession in the Great Hall? So are we playing with two different standards for both locations?
Speaker 14: So we may need to call up Patrick Hecht, the chief commercial officer, who's more familiar with how that concentration of ownership would would work under the development agreement.
Speaker 9: Okay. As a practical matter, that will be helpful, because one of my concerns is that we have ongoing changes that happen with how we have regulated the the concessionaires. We've had changing rules, I guess is is the terminology I want to use. So can you help clarify the answer to my question?
Speaker 10: Sure. Thank you. Councilman Patrick Hecht, chief commercial officer for the airport. We have a concentration of ownership policy that dictates how much a any one concessionaire can own of our concession program that we have under our control and concourses.
Speaker 8: A-B and C for OVL is going to have a very similar.
Speaker 7: Program, but the two don't have.
Speaker 10: Overlap. So someone has 20% on A, B and C and couldn't necessarily bidder would have to divest in order to bid on A, B, and C, they could actually get 20% of the program in in the Great Hall as well without having to divest in A, B and C. So the two programs operate separately from that respect, but they're modeled very similarly so that any one person in Great Hall can't.
Speaker 8: Control, say, 80%.
Speaker 10: Of the Great Hall Project under under for obvious proposal.
Speaker 9: But potentially somebody could control 40% and total at the airport 20% on the. Main terminal and 20% on A, B and C.
Speaker 8: Yeah, but the the main terminal isn't even.
Speaker 10: Remotely close to half of the.
Speaker 4: Concession.
Speaker 10: Space at the airport, something a bit closer, say 20%. So you're talking about 20% of 20% that they could control. So they wouldn't control 40% of entire airport space. They'd still be limited to what would be 20% of the airport space in that case.
Speaker 9: Yeah, I guess I'm talking concessions as opposed to space.
Speaker 10: But I'm in our our programs are built around space, so it's built around square footage.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. And I do have just a couple quick more, if I may. So. Mr. can stay home, if you wouldn't mind coming back up. So it's my understanding that some of our labor unions have been in conversation with you there. I don't know that there are actual agreements, but I'm not sure that all of our trades, both labor and non union and nonunion apprenticeship programs, have sort of received the green light permission approvals, whatever the right terminology is that Ferrovial will work with have have your contractor work with all of the apprenticeship programs that exist in the city. So can you tell me if this is something that you all are asking your contractors who will be doing the work to be working with our trades? And this is this does not take away from any of our in the DWP programs. This, you know, I see this as complimentary. So.
Speaker 16: Thank you for the question, Councilmember. I would calling someone from the BJP that can help us to address this question. With respect to apprenticeship programs. With respect to apprenticeship programs that are sort.
Speaker 9: So what I'm asking is if Ferrovial is committing to. Ask your contractors who will be working on the project to work with the Colorado approved. Apprenticeship programs. And why this is important is because we have a labor shortage of skilled workers in this city with all the construction that's going on and where we can ensure, especially with publicly financed projects, which I consider this to be, we should be doing everything we can with all of our trades to. Develop those skills, ensure that folks in our community who are sort of left behind have that opportunity to be raised up. And so I'm asking the question of you, because you've selected that team of contractors and subcontractors that will be working on this project.
Speaker 16: Okay. May I ask? My understanding is that. That's correct. But if you can please confirm.
Speaker 12: Good evening, council. I'm Angela Berry Robertson, the director of diversity for Ferrovial. I can say that we've worked with the apprenticeship programs and workforce initiatives for this project, so I can say that we will definitely actively work with the apprenticeship programs as well as not in lieu of and in consortia with the MWB programs that we have on the project.
Speaker 9: So any that are not already connected to you all, you you have that open door is what I'm hearing you say. To work directly with them as well.
Speaker 12: Between ourselves as well as our contractors, we would definitely encourage the utilization of apprenticeship programs and understanding the Labor needs as well as initiatives here in this in the city and county. So. Yes.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. My last question is, it's actually for Gisela. Who wouldn't mind coming up? So I know Councilman New as sort of a version of my question, but I'm wondering exactly how DeLay plans to track the spin on this project, especially given that part of the funding for. Some of the build out is being included in bond financing that has moved through this council. I want to make sure that we're able to track it in a similar way that we did with the Hotel and Transit Center, even though it may have different funding sources. So can you just sort of elaborate on that in a. I mean, you may have already said it and I just didn't hear it in the same way.
Speaker 5: Absolutely. So we'll be tracking the expenditures of this project like we do any other project. We have a number of requirements through accounting standards and the city's fiscal policies, which require us to track the value of any asset we build, regardless of how it's funded. So whether it's airport bonds, airport cash reserves or actually funding that the developer brings to the table, much like when the city has developers put in infrastructure that then comes to the city as an asset to maintain. The exact same arrangement exists here and we will make sure that we track every dollar spent on the project. We'll have a project controls team can mentioned earlier that will be very much engaged on a regular basis to review all of the invoices that come through the project design and construction phase. We will be paying our portion of the progress payments on a monthly basis. A requirement of that is a very stringent report that we placed as a requirement on the developer that they will need to provide to US monthly because we will not make the progress payment until our construction team is assured us on the financial side that the work that the invoice represents has actually been done to the performance standards that Dan mentioned earlier. So there's a number of checks throughout that process. Performance standards, construction standards, financial spend, all of that will be reviewed on a monthly basis during the entire four year construction period.
Speaker 9: So is that a city team or does that a combination of city and consultants working with us to.
Speaker 3: A common mission?
Speaker 9: Okay. And then this is just part of this. So. In addressing the issue of change, order or change directives. In the past, there was someone who had served on that committee that was actually the requester of the change orders. And I know there were changed recommended changes by the city auditor around that. So can you tell me who the Change Management Committee is made up of that is supposed to look at those change orders or change directives? And again, this is important because this is where we begin to eat into the $120 million jersey.
Speaker 5: I agree with your concerns as a CPA and a prior auditor myself. I share that concern and separation of duties. I think all my colleagues at the airport can tell you and probably a pain for them on most days, because I do have that concern. So we will have a committee that has no one from the construction side serving on the committee, which includes our internal staff. I respect very much to William and his staff, but they will not be on that committee. There will be finance staff from the airport. There will be a representative from the auditor's office. There will be a representative from the Department of Finance within the city. And we will also have some outside experts yet to be identified. But to your point, there will be no conflict of interest.
Speaker 9: Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman. Councilwoman can eat your up.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to go back about, oh, I don't know, 20, 30 minutes to clarify something that occurred in the exchange with Councilman Lopez. So I think it was you, Nacho, where he asked about the cause that you mentioned this not a question for you, actually, but you stated that the prevailing wage applied and he asked. That covers the concessionaires and almost the whole front row nodded. And you said Yes. So can I get please Dan Durfee or Dan Reamer to clarify what, if any, wage policies apply to the concessionaires at this airport?
Speaker 16: One sec. Sorry. Then I said. I didn't say yes. What I said is, as far as I understand, those salaries would be negotiated between the concessionaires and the employees. The prevailing wage, according to my understanding of the agreement, will be explained by by but would apply to the NC works and on M works.
Speaker 14: Okay. So there are a lot of different workers and there's a lot of different pieces of the project. So what I think we've tried to work through is the application of the prevailing wage ordinance during both the design and construction and the O&M phase. And what I have assured the Council and we've worked through the development agreement with the developer is not just agreed. The prevailing wage ordinance in the development agreement clearly applies to the extent it applies during both the design and construction and the onam phase. So great hall partners will have workers, they have O&M responsibilities, there will be janitorial contracts, there will be other classifications of workers who are subject to the prevailing wage ordinance. And so prevailing wage will apply to them. Prevailing wage right now does not typically apply to the concession workers themselves. That's not a category of worker that is subject to the prevailing wage ordinance. So again, I don't mean to sound too much like a lawyer, but the prevailing wage ordinance will apply through the development agreement to the extent that it applies, but won't cover additional workers beyond what's provided for in the ordinance.
Speaker 3: Okay. And I think that's a really important distinction. So and here's my shorter way of saying it back. If concessionaires do construction work. You know, to build out their space. They will be covered with that wage ordinance. But their servers, their retail workers, the folks who clean their they're they're they're bus people, the service workers who are employed in concessions do not have any wage standards at the airport at this time.
Speaker 14: They do not have wage standards. They have market forces. And market forces right now affect wages and are right now in the process of increasing wages at the airport.
Speaker 3: But correct over 34 years, I think we can be guaranteed that market forces will change. And so I want to ask Kevin Abels to come up. I know a lot of my colleagues have been asking a lot of really detailed questions about proposed agreements and what folks liked and what they didn't like. I actually am not interested in that so much. I've approved many contracts in this chambers where there were no agreements. What really I'm trying to get at and I still am not quite satisfied with, is understanding this idea of whether or not people are expected to meet and talk. And so I just want to ask you very clearly, did you receive any ideas, proposed changes, suggestions or any constructive ideas from Ferrovial or the airport and how the ideas you had proposed might become more acceptable?
Speaker 8: No, we didn't. And we specifically asked for them. We told them that the agreements that we were offering and the ideas we had were but a starting point and that we would really look forward to a constructive conversation. But they chose not to give us anything concrete back.
Speaker 3: Thanks, Kim, and I appreciate that. So, Kim, I want to just chat with you a little more. And so I have seen you all meet with concessionaires who have sued you. I've seen you meet with groups of minority contractors who have done press conferences and rallies criticizing the airport. I'm imagining a scenario whereby you would say to United, I don't agree with your idea that we shouldn't move, you know, some of this security to to level five. And so therefore, I won't meet with you. I've never seen the airport say because I don't agree with you or because you've criticized me. I have no obligation to be in dialog. I've never heard the airport say that. And so here's my question. You're asking us to approve this partner stepping into your shoes. Who else are they allowed not to agree with or to meet with? Who else might they say? I don't have to meet with you. You've criticized me. I don't agree with you. I guess I want to understand where the limits are, because we now have one situation where there wasn't. They didn't agree with the first idea. There was one in-person meeting, two phone calls, but there was no desire to continue. I guess I want to understand who else would that could that happen to in the course of 34 years and how or why? Or help me understand. Are we okay with that when it's not the way that you all do business? I am struggling and I want you to help me.
Speaker 12: So. So. I was not part of any of those conversations. So I can tell you what went down there. What I can tell you is in the last two years, as we have worked with this developer, we have found a group that supports our value system that has ad nauseum held meetings, listened to people, listen to us , allowed us to change things. I think this is a very open team of people that we have a great deal of confidence will be a good partner for 34 years. I just can't comment on this specific thing because I have no personal. I wasn't there. I just don't have any.
Speaker 3: What if it became a pattern? I mean, is there anything and if they if there was a pattern of them refusing to meet with and I mean, we've all in my six years, I have seen more concessionaires and groups of contractors criticize the airport and criticize the contracting process. It's going to happen when they start choosing who's didn't do business with them and who's not. There will be folks who are upset. And I guess I guess I just want to understand, is this what if it became a pattern?
Speaker 12: So what we have to we have the right to terminate for convenience. And that might be, you know, one of the reasons it's since us to that termination. I hope we never get there because I truly do have faith in these guys. But we do have outs. We are not we are not stuck for 34 years. That's not what you're doing tonight. You're you're voting on a contract that has lots of out if things do not turn out the way we anticipate them being.
Speaker 3: So I just want to ask one more question in our show, and then I think most of my questions have been answered for tonight. So can you tell me. Yes. Do you believe you have an obligation if you step in and serve as our public airport manager, do you have an obligation to meet with external stakeholders with whom you may not agree or who may have criticisms about your company? Do you have that obligation under this contract?
Speaker 16: And I have had that obligation for the last two and a half years in which I have been working in this project.
Speaker 3: Will you meet with Unite here following this meeting, regardless of the outcome?
Speaker 16: We have met with Danica as explained before, the point that you were making with respect to trying to develop or making counterproposals. The core part of their agreement proposed by that association to us was forcing the future concessionaires to have an exclusivity with respect to the session or the choice of those employees that will be working at the concessionaires. That was the whole point of that union. So that was something that we could not accept. Secondly is very easy to say that there cannot have a meeting. In a meeting that we are not taking as many meetings as we are requesting and simultaneously having a campaign in the press against our company and simultaneously having that union protesting and picketing in the airport against our company. So in order to have meetings, you must have a friendly approach for both sides. And we didn't see that friendly approach from Unite here.
Speaker 3: So you will not meet even after this meeting, regardless of the outcome you will not meet, is that. I just want to make sure I understand.
Speaker 16: We are happy to take meetings in a friendly way, you know, to understand the request of anybody so we can address their concerns and try to reach a common position as simultaneously we are continuously attacked by that party. Can be difficult to have a meeting in that context because you are being threat.
Speaker 3: Through the meeting. We know a little bit about having meetings with folks who are mad at you and attack you up here. So that that's a part of what we do every day in the public sector. We take meetings with people who have really harsh things to say about us. And if you have this contract, that is what you're signing up for.
Speaker 16: And we have taken those meetings despite those attacks.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Okay. Council members, it is 11 p.m. and we're starting to get down to the nitty gritty. So now we have council managers gone. Councilman Espinosa, you're up and then Councilman New. This is that's interesting. This talk about this conversation or lack thereof with Unite here sort of illustrates one of the core problems with this whole. Structure. People go to their representatives on council in the elected government to listen and hopefully affect change and answer the question in that. Well, no, but. So remember that I'm going to come back to that because, you know, it's it's worth saying. So the question I have. Let's start with this one. This and you've mentioned that you've been working with them for two years. This RF process predates my time on council. So the wheels were set in motion for ap3 years ago. Where were those? The RFP is that you you obtained and you shortlisted and got to ferrovial. Were any of them at this to this magnitude on cost? You know, at the 650 to $770.
Speaker 8: Million range.
Speaker 1: And delivering essentially the same thing, you know, because we have this issue of going from 400 million to 770 million is the top end. What did you see back then that did that mean was there any indication on those prior proposals?
Speaker 12: So maybe it's worth me just taking a second to explain the process we've been through for the last two years. We first put out a request for qualifications. We asked for teams to submit their qualifications. They came to us as entities that had a contractor and equity partners. From that RFQ process, we then a short there were, I believe five five that that first applied and we shortlisted to four. We then worked to work independently with each of the teams over the course of nine or ten months. We met with them independently. We told them what we expected in terms of the physical plan. We told them what we expected in terms of the agreement we would have to operate it. We specified certain things like the length of term. We eventually got to a point where we specified some physical requirements, but we basically let each of these teams develop an independent design and put in an independent proposal to us that had a deal structure that they preferred, a financial structure that they developed. So we didn't lay out a requirement necessarily. We then took the proposals and evaluated them. Out of all of that process came our selection of the Ferrovial team to be the best person partner for us to then go to the next phase, which was the pre-development agreement, which was an attempt for us to negotiate exclusively with our number one choice to see if we could get to a deal that we could then bring before this council. And that's where we are today with this deal that we have negotiated with Ferrovial all of this time. My point in going through that is this is sort of evolved and the design has been done together. The $650 million construction cost is related to a project that we have designed with FERROVIAL over the last six months or nine months. I hope that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that does. But what worries me in that process is not seeing. Having not been privy to all the work that you did with all the four that were shortlisted and seeing essentially.
Speaker 8: You know, where they ended up and how you ended up selecting Ferrovial.
Speaker 1: Is, is, is, is sort of concerning because, you know, last year you came to us with a different sort of end game, essentially a much lower cost total project that would have had a much lower cost to two, you know, much lower impact to your bottom.
Speaker 8: Line.
Speaker 1: This and we ended up here and so I just wonder if if there was any information in what was submitted back then that would have given us any indication that this is this is where we would be.
Speaker 8: Where we would end up.
Speaker 12: So let me say we can. My recollection is there was no real cost talked about when we brought the PDA contract to you at that point in time. We so I'm not sure where this 400,000 or 400 million is coming from. There was a there was a letter by a proposer that we did not choose that had some numbers in them, but we did not bring you a cost when we brought you the Ferrovial team because we didn't have a design at that point in time that was finalized. What we wanted to do during this period, which we have used in the last year, was to design the right project and then price it out. I will say we've had independent review of this price. Stew Williams, who is the program manager, has brought in an outside third party. They have sat for hours and hours and hours. They've gone through unit cost and and refined the scope and made sure that this is a tight price and a tight project.
Speaker 1: Why don't we? So, again, you've made a commitment to to calcium and knew that you would do some sort of update. The fact that we are.
Speaker 7: We weren't updated when you were doing the maybe you were. I wasn't here.
Speaker 1: And the fact that it feels like we were not updated during the negotiations about the different models and the different things that were being presented, we weren't.
Speaker 8: Updated about.
Speaker 1: The the order of magnitude that might be in the final. The proposal, as this thing was being developed over the last six months, I mean, we could have done a monthly report or even two quarterly reports that said, look, are the scale of this project is is on the order of magnitude of this. But this is we're only 15% designed.
Speaker 8: And we still have all these unknowns.
Speaker 1: The you know, to me. Might be indicative of how transparent you will be going forward with with the.
Speaker 8: With.
Speaker 1: The amount of latitude that we're getting. Can you because of lot in the contract for OVL is required to do a lot of this reporting on a monthly basis in a sort of real time. Could you commit to a sort of written report on the contingency, a written monthly, monthly written report on the contingency status, along with a quarterly report at Committee on the Status of the Contingency and Construction Progress.
Speaker 12: A happy to do that. I do want to clarify two things you just said, though. So last year when we brought forth the contract to negotiate with Ferrovial and the PDA, we showed you in the in the in the business committee at that time that the other proposers designs, we have not hidden that from anyone that's been that's been out there for anyone to look at. I would also say that what we've been doing in the last nine months is negotiation. And so we have not been sharing this information because it is a negotiation. It is confidential. We have allowed various sources to participate after signing a non-disclosure agreement, but we really have had this under wraps for a very good reason, and that is so that we could negotiate the best deal for us going forward after today. Yes, everything is public. Yes. We're happy to give you a monthly report. We're happy to go to the committee and brief you on a regular basis. We'd be more than happy to do that.
Speaker 1: What's frustrating there is, is even members of council after the contract was was in our position, it was in our wheelhouse for consideration. Members of council asked for essentially the let you not issue enter into the non-disclosure agreement to sort of review everything that was reviewed that was never offered, you know.
Speaker 12: So I'm not sure what was offered, you know, in the reading room we had.
Speaker 1: You had everything.
Speaker 12: We had extraction. We had financial models.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but people were doing other people in the city were reviewing these things over the course of those nine months that you were doing and negotiating. And no member of council was and no member of council will be part of the committee, as far as I know, unless you're going to commit to it right now that a member of council will be part of the committee going forward.
Speaker 12: We have had to, I believe both council member Herndon was and Councilwoman Ortega have been serving on the executive committee for this project. And we we will agree to go forward with that same group.
Speaker 1: Wow. Why don't we have an updated maybe. Maybe I'm in the wrong committee to have gotten that update. So then one last question on sort of related, Debbie Ortega. I mean, Councilwoman Ortega had a.
Speaker 7: Question.
Speaker 1: In writing that said, I am reading the contract. Am I reading the contract correctly? That Den will pay ferrovial $1.8 billion.
Speaker 7: Over the life of the agreement, plus 20% of the.
Speaker 1: Concession.
Speaker 7: Revenue generated by the Great Hall.
Speaker 1: The answer was yes. The airport will pay $1.8 billion over the life of the development agreement. Airport payments were split. Well, then there's detail on the airport payment. The a member of the administration just this morning in response to a similar question, said the developer takes all the risk for the price of the schedule and construction. The airport pays back the developers $380 million investment for it at a return of 4.8. Is that. Is that summary, get us to $3.8 million. Is that accurate portrayal?
Speaker 12: Does that get us to the 3.8 million billion.
Speaker 1: Three $1.8 billion. So 380 million at 4.8%.
Speaker 12: So the 1.8 million is the construction cost. It includes our contingency. It includes 30 years of operating repayment, of financing, which is the 4.8% return, plus us reimbursing them for operations and maintenance. That is what is in the $1.8 billion contract.
Speaker 8: Can you elaborate on maybe.
Speaker 1: Where the number is, 380 million and a return of 4.8 came from is a response to.
Speaker 12: The developers investing $378 million. I think we have rounded that up to the three eight.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 12: That's a combination of equity and debt.
Speaker 1: Okay. I just take it that the rest of that will go into comment, but it just seemed to imply that that was essentially it was sort of minimizing the cost of this when instead we are proving if we approve, this is a $1.8 billion payback.
Speaker 12: That is the contract that's before you tonight.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. No further question. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, California.
Speaker 13: Real quick, Gisela. Please. Let's go over some numbers real quick. Okay. If you split this the split contract into the construction piece and the concession fees. Okay. And we're looking at our contribution of, say, 600 million and the partnership put in 170 million for the seven services, assuming we spend all the contingency. Okay. And that's so our contribution is about that 78%. You know, on a on a non P3 contract, what would that percent be? 100%?
Speaker 5: It would be 100% unless it's funded partially by the FAA via grant or another granting agency.
Speaker 13: So strictly from a financial viewpoint, that's the vantage of the P3 agreement that we're actually spending less on the construction than we normally would in a street construction contract.
Speaker 5: That's correct. That allows us to use our resources in other projects.
Speaker 13: Of a concession agreement where, you know, it looks to me, you know, the numbers we've been working with, the profitability is coming out of that concession agreement. And so and FERROVIAL has value. It looks like what what I've been told is, you know, we're on the existing concession agreement. We're getting about a dollar $0.41 per square foot.
Speaker 5: In the Great Hall concessions. That's correct.
Speaker 13: And Froebel is going to be able to generate $3.34 about, you know, two times.
Speaker 5: What, approximately.
Speaker 13: Less so. And we're going to get 80% of that increase in the revenue that they're going to generate through their rental arrangement.
Speaker 5: Yes, 80% comes to the airport.
Speaker 13: So in a normal. And in what kind of arrangement is there with the concessionaires on the concourse? Is it what percentage do we give there?
Speaker 5: So the percentage of the sales that the concessionaires generate is approximately the same collected by the airport versus the developer. The difference is the airport retains 100% of the percentage that we get from the concessions in the concourses, and we receive 80%. In the case of the Great Hall via the current arrangement under the development agreement, so approximately 20%.
Speaker 13: Okay. So just from an existing standpoint, we're going to earn more money from the concession agreement through the Great Hall. It looks like to me and you're estimating about $100 million profit on this whole project. And, you know, which I think is typical CFO, very conservative. And I think it's going to be a lot more than that, but it's going to be I want to assure the public this is a very profitable arrangement that we're entering into with this great hall. So correct.
Speaker 5: That's correct. So we are able to generate revenues that flows into the top of our waterfall, which gives us additional capacity not only to cover our current debt obligations, but also to reinvest in our facilities. And then we make the payments at the lower end of our waterfall or the way our funds flow through, which again gives us the flexibility to make sure that we can use our resources where best deployed. But yes, we do anticipate currently, based on the base financial model, that we will have additional funds that will be generated as a result of this project. We will then reinvest in the remaining programs, which includes gate expansions for our airlines, widening of Penn Boulevard and other projects that will help make the customer experience at the airport much better. All right.
Speaker 13: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman and Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: I know maybe the third time's the charm. You know, sometimes you're in the game and you're watching your teammates strike out, but it's your turn up. So I'm going to give it one more try. Ferrovial. The whole thing with Unite here. It feels like a schoolyard fight. It's where somebody says something and the other person gets hurt. And that's it. You won't talk anymore. And I'm aware of the aggressive campaign that Unite here has waged against your company in an attempt to stimulate negotiation. Yeah. I'd be angry, too. It got pretty tough. The problem that I'm struggling with. Is that Mr. Ables and the management of of. That union represents several hundred people. That have legitimate concerns. Over their future employment. So I'm going to ask. Is there any way? That you. Recognize that sometimes things get heated. And that you can agree. To reopen. Communication. You're an open spirit to try to hear their concerns at a new level. Or if you just refuse to talk.
Speaker 16: We are happy to open any channel of communication and understand their requests and try to address them. That's why you have our commitment for that, for communication, collaboration and trying to understand and address the legitimate needs of every stakeholder in this community.
Speaker 10: Including you. I appreciate that. I feel like that's some degree of movement. But I want to be real clear, because I think it's important. Would you say? Commit to. Six meetings, one a month. Six one hour meetings one a month with unite here with an open spirit. Putting that. Difficult time. Behind again. If it were just one person involved. I probably wouldn't be as concerned. But it's a few, several hundred families. And while I understand there's processes, I mean, I look at the job market and I figure it's going to be a lot of jobs. But I'm also looking at as counsel McNeil said you as the face. If not at the airport of the Great Hall of somewhere. And I'm getting lost in the in the in the number of 10 to 20% of the concessions in the airport, depending on when we build out the the concourses. So yeah, six meetings, one a month, one hour in person sitting down with.
Speaker 16: Mr. Abels you have our commitment for that council member and I understand your query.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much for that. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilwoman Ortega, I'm not sure we've heard from Councilman Herndon yet. Are you? That's fine. Has been heard in.
Speaker 7: Kim Are we asking Ferrovial to do our current concessions that we have at the airport? Do they require worker retention with the concessions?
Speaker 12: No.
Speaker 7: So what the current policy is right now at the admin, we're asking for over all to do the exact same thing.
Speaker 12: Yeah. In fact, we were we were very careful to do pass through of all the requirements that you have given us. We have passed all of those through to Ferrovial.
Speaker 7: So Unite here is trying to get ferrovial to do above and beyond what every concessionaire on A, B, or C concourse doesn't do right now.
Speaker 12: So cancer. I haven't been in those meetings. Understand? Tell you what, you might hear us.
Speaker 7: Asking, but that is certainly mine. So if there if there's an issue, why wait? I'm going in the comments. I'm done. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I, i respect the ability to catch yourself. Councilman. All right. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Okay, this is my final question. And it's you know, I've raised a lot of questions about the risk to DIA, and I would like to know what contingency plan the airport has if the Great Hall does not operate as designed or simulated. And so what I want I'm aware that we have step in rights for the contract, but. I want to know that we actually have a step in ready plan if you know the wheels fall off the bus and we have to step in. Do we have the wherewithal, staffing expertize to to be able to do that? At whatever stage we happen to be in, whether it's, you know, during construction, during the operations, do we actually have a real plan that we can just step in and do that job?
Speaker 12: So I'm to let the city attorney talk about, you know, our rights in terms of the contract. We are not sitting with 20 plans in the drawer that we can just pull out. But things like this don't happen overnight. If we see a trend that something is happening, we're going to go put a plan together. That's what we do.
Speaker 9: So so Kim, let me just address that briefly, because we rely on certain aspects within this contract to. We rely on self-reporting. And if things are happening and they're not reported, how do we know what's going on?
Speaker 12: I'm not sure we're looking each other. Maybe you could ask that again. We're not really understanding.
Speaker 9: Okay. So if there are, I don't know, breaches of the contract or we're not meeting the I don't know the goals of what is anticipated to be collected in terms of revenues or you know, I'm just making some of this up, but under the management of these concessions or oversight. We rely on self-reporting from this contractor. From the from the developer. But if those reports, those self reports are not being forwarded, we were not aware of certain things going on. That's what triggers any of the step in rights if there are certain things that are not. Reconcilable. Right. So my question gets back to what contingency plan do we have that? You know, in place to be able to step in and take control. I mean, I get we have step in rights, but what is what plan do we have? Do we have the expertize in staffing and in. You know. Just the skill sets to be able to keep this we'll keep this bus rolling if some of the wheels do fall off.
Speaker 14: So I just I want to be clear about the manner in which the wheels may fall off. So first, the airport believes that they have a plan that will work and can be implemented. The developer's responsibility with respect to the level six improvements is simply to design and construct those improvements. And they walk away from those areas outside of any warranty work. So if future changes are required, particularly to level six, the ticket lobbies, the security screening checkpoint, the airline offices, and those improvements on level six, public circulation curb that all remains within the discretion and exclusive authority of the airport to bring another contract to develop it through the AIM team to engage in planning necessary to put forward a construction contract and a plan that would be presented to this body. That is not a matter of step in rights. That is a that is a question about the termination of the developer's responsibilities. So with respect to level six improvements, their responsibility will terminate upon substantial completion and the expiration of any warranty work. So if the wheels come off of that bus, then the airport would deal with that through a separate contract with.
Speaker 9: So we're looking at them exclusively then. Is what. What I hear you saying in terms of the construction of the build out of level six. From the construction of the build out of the concession area so far.
Speaker 14: Correct. So with respect to level five and the island that the developer will be responsible for, they will be responsible for both designing and constructing those commercial areas, as well as managing those commercial areas during the operating period of the agreement. If there are shortfalls in revenue, the development agreement provides mechanisms by which the airport and the airport's consultants can review the plans and the documents and that concession development management plan to try and establish why the developer is not making the revenue that they had forecast. So there are there are provisions for both minor shortfalls and material shortfalls, and the airport's responsibilities obviously increase in the event of a material shortfall. So if the wheels come off the bus in the sense that developer is not performing and the sales are not what what have been anticipated, and that is attributable to acts or omissions on the part of the developer, then we know precisely what will happen. It will be a combination of the airport and its consultants that will review the plans and develop a remedial plan to try and get those revenues back up to where they should be. It is also important to note that the Concession Development and management plan is intended to be a living document. It's already been mentioned here, but with respect to brands and brand mix and and performance and what's working, the airport and the developer will have that opportunity on a on a two year basis every two years that CDP document will be updated and that will be an opportunity to review maybe, maybe not terrible deficiencies, but sort of minor tweaks that may need to be made in the program in order to make sure that it's achieving its maximum potential.
Speaker 9: So if for whatever reason. We've got legitimate reasons to terminate the contract because of all the out clauses that are in it. After that point, if there is some new entity brought in, does that reengage council in the process? Because technically this deal would be null and void at that point, correct?
Speaker 14: Well, there are a couple of different termination provisions. We've already talked about termination for convenience. So that's the airport's option to terminate at any time for any reason. And there is a formula for calculating what would be owed to the developer in the event of termination for convenience. If it's termination in the event of a default, then there is a separate formula that would be established for for termination. But the short answer to your question is it if the agreement if the development agreement is terminated. Then the airport has every right to do whatever it wants, whether that's to take on the management of the program itself or to find a master concessionaire, to find a new developer, to find somebody who would who would satisfy the need, whatever it may be at the time that the development agreement terminates.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 12: Can I just add one thing? Sorry. I just wanted Patrick to come up. We obviously do have the talent and the ability in-house to run a concession program. And so, Patrick, maybe you could talk about stepping in if we had to.
Speaker 11: So, Councilman, I think to Dan's.
Speaker 10: Point, there's a number of different ways. If we got to a point where Ferrovial is no longer involved in not running the program for us, that we could go you could certainly replace Ferrovial just with someone else who is very similar to Ferrovial. But I think in the case where from a contingency perspective, how we would actually step in, we run 150,000 square feet of concessions on the concourses. Now in this contract, we have required for OVL to have a lot of things that look and feel a lot like us. The concentration of ownership we talked about PDC program as a number of things were required.
Speaker 7: And I think very importantly, a contract that has a number of provisions that are exactly like our provisions in our contracts that have to.
Speaker 8: Be in their contract with their concessionaire. So if we take it over, it is now essentially.
Speaker 7: One of our contracts and we have staff because we do that on the concourses that can now take it over. Would I maybe need more staff potentially to run this program now as part of it? But in all ways, it's.
Speaker 10: Going to look and feel a lot like what we do today. So I feel very confident that we could take over and run this program because it's very similar to how we actually operate in the world today. Okay.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Two tiny one, tiny one. One ones are the single standard de. The model. The mountain. The model with the single standard de. Does does that. What was mentioned in the comments was at 28, you require it requires 28 lanes. Is that true?
Speaker 12: So. So we. I'm not sure exactly how to answer this. We're designing a facility that has 32 automatic screening lanes. They are they have a lot more throughput, almost twice as much as our existing checkpoints. Do we believe that with the 32 lanes, we can get to about a 30% increase in capacity over what we have in our terminal today? It's not based on a given day.
Speaker 1: So when you model it, you don't model for a typical day and model for sort of different conditions.
Speaker 12: And so when they do a simulation, they do simulations for different conditions, right? Peak peak hour of an average day, things like that. So they model all of those elements.
Speaker 1: So how many lanes are needed on a typical day?
Speaker 12: I wish there was a typical day. That's the problem with this question. It isn't a typical thing. We don't designed to a typical day. We designed to a peak hour of an average day.
Speaker 1: And so how many lanes in a peak hour on an average day.
Speaker 12: So to get a 30% increase in the capacity of the terminal, you need 32 lanes, which is what we're putting in, 34 lanes, I'm sorry, 34 lanes.
Speaker 1: On an average day at your peak.
Speaker 12: Our peak hour. Your average day.
Speaker 8: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Sorry that got they got to five.
Speaker 12: And each day of a peak month.
Speaker 8: So my concern is.
Speaker 10: I'm looking based on.
Speaker 1: A lot of the conversation. I'm looking for a commitment from built in which always does it and ferrovial who's new to this game to work with the airlines. It sounded today or in our earlier conversations that, you know, there are concerns that we're close to resolution. Since you have 70% of the design to still complete, can both Dan and Ferrovial agree to absorb the changes needed to address the concerns that have been raised thus far with Arrow by the airlines?
Speaker 12: So we're continuing to try and get to a place where we understand the plan and how it works. We've done simulations. We are looking at these relievers, but there isn't. There is nothing that I can stand here today and say we could invest in and that would solve the problem. We are still in a study phase. So I can't commit to you that we are that any of these elements are going to be built. We're just not there yet. What I will commit to you is we have spent the last two weeks working very closely with United. We will continue to work with United. It's really important for us that they agree with us that we're building the right thing and that this is successful for them. We will get to that point. I can't tell you, though, what the answer is to get us there, whether it is changing the design or building something else or just doing 20 more simulations so that we all agree. We've tested all of the possibilities and we feel comfortable in it. And as I said earlier, that the ticket lobbies are going to open before the security screening checkpoint. So we have it we have an opportunity there to test it, really to make sure it works.
Speaker 1: So that's your that's the track record. I mean, we obviously care very deeply about United as the given the number of gates that they have. And I assume Ferrovial is also very much aware that the traffic that goes through that the main terminal is largely driven by United in their success here. Can I hear the same comments from Ferrovial because that has been the concern today.
Speaker 12: So just keep in mind, we will contain ownership and operation of the ticket lobby. All they are doing is building out what we are asking them to build. They really don't have a dog in this fight.
Speaker 1: So you're going to continue to listen and capture these needs. Okay. All right. Think they don't have any more questions? Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Most of my questions. It's my turn and most of my questions were answered. I have some very specific questions for you, Kim Who is actually the dad PM on this? Williams Mr. WILLIAMS Great. Who is the security consultant on the project?
Speaker 12: Who is the security?
Speaker 1: So when you, when you, when you start looking at the security lines and things like that, not that TSA, but are you do you have a consultant that you're working with to for the feel of the rooms, the you know, the esthetics of the location? Good evening.
Speaker 10: Stu Williams.
Speaker 8: Senior vice president of special programs in the Great Hall. So, Councilman, to answer your question.
Speaker 1: On the Ferrovial design.
Speaker 10: Team, they have a company that.
Speaker 8: Is done all the modeling and has done additional modeling.
Speaker 10: As we've been working with United to try different scenarios.
Speaker 4: To come up with this. So they do.
Speaker 10: Modeling of both ticket.
Speaker 1: And security lines nationwide. You answer it. Thank you. That's what I want to know. We didn't get to that. And I wanted to make sure. And so last question is around equity partners. And so, Natalie, I think I'm going to ask you this. So, I mean, we've been asking questions for 2 hours and we really haven't got into the equity partners. And I really want to answer I want you to answer this question of the equity partner Saunders and Magic Johnson Company. What kind of role will they have play in shaping the airport? Are they silent partners or they just investors? Obviously, Saunders is doing construction as well, but what kind of role will they have?
Speaker 16: Thank you for that question, Mr. President. We have a set of hold this agreement executed among federal airports, GRC and Sounders, and that agreement is confirm that we retain 80% of the equity and 20% is owned by a baseball owned by GRC. And Sounders GRC has 95% of that vehicle and 5% is owned by Sounders because of the agreements that we have as part of that sort of hold this agreement, Sounders FC through that they call, we have a number of rights in the corporate in the future corporate governance of the SPV that will be the developer signing the the concession agreement. That is.
Speaker 1: Right. So what I'm trying to get to the crux of it is Sounders a local company? Yes. Well, they. And I'm assuming this is. Yes, but will they have the right to get their subs? Get their folks connected who are connected here in Denver? Make sure they're employed? Are they they're okay to do that?
Speaker 16: Sanders is also is not only part of the developer, he's also part of the DJT that's design and build joint venture. Get that so they can hire.
Speaker 1: They can either subs down.
Speaker 16: Joint venture is owned 70 70% by federal agreement and 30% by Sanders because of the algorithms that they have among the two companies. I'm sure that Sanders will be heavily involved in the future development of the program. That's why that was the most important reason why more than two years ago we decided to work with then and they decided to work with us.
Speaker 1: Will Magic Johnson's company be able to with concessions and folks like that? You know, I want to see will they be able to have influence over the concession individuals that we bring on specifically with AC DC.
Speaker 16: That's our intention and commitment. And I would ask you to, you know, to confirm that because we have.
Speaker 1: Great.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Councilman. Jim Reynolds, managing partner.
Speaker 6: With Johnson Loop Capital. We have approximately.
Speaker 8: 19% of the equity asanas as 1% of Rossville.
Speaker 6: Has 80%.
Speaker 8: I think my partner.
Speaker 6: Magic Johnson came and addressed this body around our commitment to Mwb and HDB at the airport and in the city. And we expect to have a very prominent and active role and working with, selecting, speaking to and encouraging the growth of Mwb businesses here in Denver. It's our view that just as this will be an absolute showcase.
Speaker 8: For the Denver International Airport.
Speaker 6: We expect that for Mwb participation, it will match that same standard.
Speaker 1: Great. And specifically, the folks in the community want to know. Access for black businesses. Access for Latino businesses. Access for female women owned businesses.
Speaker 8: Well, it's not lost on me that nine nine out of your 13.
Speaker 6: Members are minorities and women. And in my conversations with the mayor, he made it very clear that this is one of the most important issues on his plate. And we absolutely agreed that it is one of the most important issues on ours. I had an opportunity to speak to maybe a couple hundred folks that either were concessionaires wanted to be concessionaires, wanted to grow their concessions.
Speaker 8: I know my partner, Magic Johnson came and also spoke. I know several of the council people were there.
Speaker 6: With also groups that wanted to be.
Speaker 8: Concessionaires.
Speaker 6: And so we have been very.
Speaker 8: Active in that role. Magic himself also owns concessions at airports and has built them. As you know, I'm an investment banker and has built businesses. We also are both mwb businesses that both started our businesses from scratch and built them to pretty substantial businesses today. So we understand how is done. We understand the commitment. We also understand that the biggest impact on the city of Denver is going to be growing those businesses here in Denver. It's not our expectation that you will see a lot of mwb come from outside of Denver, although you may see some.
Speaker 6: It's our expectation that the growth will come from right here, from every forum that we've given.
Speaker 8: And there have been several. The appetite and the energy around the minority and women owned businesses around this project has been about the highest I've ever seen, and the focus and the commitment from them is here. So I think you'll see an amazing result from from this project and our participation.
Speaker 1: Mr.. REYNOLDS Thank you. You answered my question. Thank you. All right. The public hearing is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 7: Yes. Okay. So don't get too excited because this is the easy part. Thank you, Mr. President. I need to offer a technical amendment to this resolution so I move that Council Resolution 820 to be amended in the following particulars. On page one, line 18 Strike City Clerk's Filing number 201735867. And Replace with City Clerk's Filing number 2017-0375.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and second it. Tell us what happened. You want explain that.
Speaker 7: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. The purpose of this amendment is to correct the clerk's filing number and to fix a typographical error in the development agreement.
Speaker 1: Okay, great. Other members of council. Can we correct this without going into comments or.
Speaker 8: Is that right?
Speaker 9: Um, I have a question about this because I think it was more than just one typographical error.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman. Well, other folks have questions on this. Okay, let's do. I'm going after them. Councilman Cashman. No question. FLYNN okay. LOPEZ No, not on this. Uh, Councilman Gilmore.
Speaker 12: President Brooks, I have a comment I need to make.
Speaker 8: Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 12: Go ahead. All right. I will be abstaining on voting on this due to my.
Speaker 3: Brother in.
Speaker 12: Law having an interest in the Great Hall Project. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And thanks for sitting through this public hearing. Okay, let's see. Council. Councilwoman Canete. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Okay. So I'd like to ask you, if you wouldn't mind coming up, because it's my understanding it was a result of your review and finding some of the issues that resulted in this change, this amendment. So will you just clarify that it is more than just a typo?
Speaker 5: There were a handful of typographical errors that were found in our review that were cleaned up as a result of discussions between myself and Dan Laycock. Yes.
Speaker 9: But. It's my recollection from our discussion that involved a little more than just typographical.
Speaker 5: I'm going to defer to Mr. Remer, if there was one there change that was made with respect to the last section in the contract regarding the delegation.
Speaker 14: There were maybe two changes in the amendment that are. More than typographical errors. One has to do with the proper articulation of the nondiscrimination requirement to make sure that it it it accurately captures the the the direction that the city is moving with respect to gender variance and gender expression. So that may or may not, depending upon your point of view, be a typographical error. And the other change that borders on substantive or materiality is a request to simply delete a provision about council's delegation, something that is already covered within the Denver Revised Municipal Code. And it was something that we was put into the development agreement to add clarity and turned out to increase confusion. And so we've struck that provision. I think they could generally be within the realm of typos, but that I understand that's a subject of discussion.
Speaker 9: But I think that is. I appreciate you explaining that because the last two items clearly explain that it's more than just typographical errors in in wording that is in the contract. So I think it was just important for my colleagues to hear that. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman do. Councilman Herndon, I think. Okay, it's been moved. And second, it we're voting on the amendments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 5: Herndon. The freshman carnage. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Did you say no? I like black eye. Clark, I. Espinosa, I. Flynn. I feel more.
Speaker 12: Than.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I police force following announced results.
Speaker 5: 12 one abstention.
Speaker 1: All right. 12 eyes, one abstention. The amendment passes. Councilman Espinosa, we need you to make a motion to adopt an amendment amended. Sir. Bill number I. I move that we. Eight 2230 a move the council adopted Resolution 822 as amended. It's been moved and seconded. All right. Now we are commenting on this bill as amended. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. And I know what you all are sitting there thinking at almost midnight. That was a great video Councilman Herndon showed at the beginning of this council meeting. You know, so everyone has experience with the airport, but mine is pretty substantial. I represented the airport for four years and I worked at the airport for for two with United Airlines. So I know the airport extensively. I could tell you a bunch of boring facts that would be great at trivia. If you're wondering about the spinning fans as you drive through from the Great Hall to the different terminals, we have 5280. In case you're wondering, because we're 50 to 80 mile high. So I've been at the airport and I think about how good of the how important of the project this is what? Kills organizations is complacency. The belief that you don't need to improve and that you need to continue to find ways to better yourself. And I applaud the airport and the team that we've had over the two decades that the airport has been around, because we have always sought ways to better our airport. And the amazing thing about this is that we have a huge reason why we cannot be complacent when it comes to the Great Hall Project. And that's my first reason why we need support. This is safety and security. And you cannot overstate that the vulnerabilities that we have with our current configuration need to be immediately addressed. And that is the main reason why this should move forward just from a safety and security standpoint. I think of many days that I've walked around that airport and I just stand on level six as a veteran and look around and thinking we have some challenges that need to be addressed. And shortly after getting elected to represent the airport in District 11, sitting down with Kim as she explained her vision for how this needs to move forward, it was very refreshing. So safety and security is, number one, why we need to move forward with this project. Number two is modernization. We have a 1990s configuration and a 2017 and beyond airport. It just doesn't fit. And there's not a lot of minimal things that you can do to fix that. I thought a great slide that came out in committee was when Dan showed the other airports that are investing billions of dollars in infrastructure. Los Angeles, 14 billion. San Francisco, 6 billion. LaGuardia, 8 billion. Billions of dollars in their infrastructure because we need to improve that. The airlines have given back 150,000 feet of ticketing space, 15% that they have given back to the airport because they don't need anymore. You see that when you are walking on level six, all of this empty ticketing space. What are we going to do with that? We have to modernize. Kansas City, where I'm from, is having a conversation right now about creating a one main terminal. And I remember being in Kansas City. I was either reading about us talking about on TV. They were talking about the pros and cons and the con was not to do it. They said, We don't want to be Denver because you have this idea when you come out to level six and you look down and this is my third reason why this is important for efficiency and improvement, because when we take TSA and move them up to level six, we're not using the same technology that we're going to have right now. We're using state of the art. We will be the first airport to use this technology in this country. As Kim was talking about working with the TSA to make sure that this works. Had the pleasure of traveling overseas to Europe to see how modern it is, how efficient it is, the throughput we will move people through quicker. So from an improvement and efficiency standpoint, that's why this is so important. Airports create experiences. It's more than just people getting on a plane and traveling. We are competing globally with airports. The Houston's the LA's. They're not our competitors. We are going against Munich. We are going against Incheon. We are going because those international airports, because that's who we want to be. The world class airport. If you think about Skytrax and if you're not familiar with Skytrax, that is the standard when it comes to airlines and airports, when it comes to ratings. If you think about the top ten airports in the world, none of them are in the United States of America. If you think about five star airports and none of them are in the United States or in this country. But when Skytrax did the 2017 top airports, one I want to congratulate then because they were fourth when it came to regional airports. But number nine of the best airports in the world was London Heathrow. Guess who runs a terminal at London Heathrow? Ferrovial. If you want to be the best, you hire the best privately. Now, let me quickly talk about some of the reasons, if you will. This is a great deal. But if you're striving for perfect, we're not going to get there. Do not let perfect be the enemy of great. And if you look sure, there are things you can find wrong with this. Why is it 30 years? I think he's like, I have a great answer for why, for that time period, this council in 2012 approved a ten year contract for L.A. and also threw down 2012. This council will not weigh in on that. The next council is not going to weigh in on that. So we have already made decisions that future councils aren't going to be invested in. We don't choose every retail right now. Provenzano The seven year contract. 40 kiosks right now in our airport. This council has never weighed in on it. So the implication that we always make decisions is not accurate. But if we are going to give away that ability, we have hired a partner who knows how to run and manage airports, and their experience is a testament to that. And the last point I will say is this. The concessions. Why would we ask a ferrovial to do what we don't ask of A, B and C concourse? If you enter with all due respect to the unite here, what they are asked are they are trying to do is change policy. That is our job. Sit down with council members and push for a new policy with concessions that does that. Let's have that conversation. But to make Ferrovial do that and actually not ferrovial future concessionaires, because as they said, we're not going to run them, but we're going to hire companies to do that. Why would they do that? Why would we create that double standard where it's one standard on the main car, on the Great Hall and not on A, B and C. But that's a good conversation to have. We have had it. Previous councils have talked to us about it because I remember those conversations and briefings from David Rodwell. So that's why to me that doesn't make sense. Yes. Sit down and have a conversation with them. And I appreciate you doing that. But if you reach a fundamental disagreement. I'm not sure how you go forward with that. But I appreciate you having those meetings and explaining why this is why you're choosing not to do that. So thank you, Mr. President. I'm a huge supporter of this. I would urge my colleagues to do so for the reasons that I noted. And I look forward to voting, hopefully before 1:00. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. We all hope to do that. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. And I only wish I could be as in as energetic as Councilman Herndon just was, but I'm a little more tired than he is. Last week I met here in this room with students from our sister city in France, the city of Brest, which is a very old city in northwest France on the Atlantic Ocean. And we talked about the similarities and differences between Denver and Brest brass. Entire history has been formed by the fact that it's on the Atlantic Ocean. It's a port. It's a naval city. And we talked about what it means to be a landlocked city like Denver in the center of a continent. And how does Denver connect to the world? So a century ago, it was railroads and later interstate highways connected us. But it was our visionary mayor, Federico Pena, who asked Denver eight to imagine a great city by investing in our city and in a new airport. I'm a Denver native and I grew up in southeast Denver near Monaco. So for a lot of my life, when we went to the airport, we left, I don't know, an hour before our plane left, drove down Monaco, jumped out of the car, random airplane. I thought it was great. I didn't understand why we needed a new airport. But it didn't take long for me or the critics to see that Mayor Pena was right. Our new world class airport put Denver on the map and it connected us to the world. It invigorated our economy. And according to an article in the Kansas City Star, DIA is the linchpin of Colorado's tradition to a global 21st century economy flush with high paying jobs. The airport is our port. After 22 years, Denver remains a world class airport, but the world is changing. It is much more connected. Airports are different today. Just as Councilman Herman Herndon pointed out, retail is changing and airports are more than just places that you pass through. They're becoming places that you want to be with movies, bowling, beer, gardens, and so much more. Investment in infrastructure pays off, and it's important to maintain and update our airport to keep it fresh so that airlines and passengers want to fly to and through Denver. Like Mayor Pena, our airport leadership is visionary and is anticipating the future and planning for increased security and for 80 million passengers just to go over what we've been going over for 3 hours. First and foremost, security is the driving force of this project. But there's really two parts of it. And I have explained this in phone calls and emails to constituents who have contacted me, but there is the remodeling of the terminal, and I explain it as a 66, $650 million gutting of your house . You're redoing your bathrooms, your floors, your walls, your stairs, your elevators. You're redoing it all. And most importantly, we're moving and redesigning security to increase. Safety. As we've already said, Great Hall Partners will manage the entire project and guarantee the $650 million price tag and a completion date. The risk is theirs, not ours. The local construction company, Saunders, who will hire local subcontractors, will build the project. They are honoring prevailing wage, minority and women owned business contractors. Trade unions are in support. We talked about the professional development opportunities, which I think are really terrific and also any future changes, as Councilman Herndon pointed out, to any policies that we might make about minimum wage or any labor agreements would apply to this contract. In addition to this. The airport is also doing other capital improvement projects. And when Councilman Herndon just listed how much all the other airports are investing, we're investing more than the 1.8 billion. I think it's three and a half billion because we're we're adding 26 new gates. We're widening Pena Boulevard, major runway maintenance, name maintenance, redesigning baggage systems. Lastly, the other part of the contract is for the Great Hall Partners to manage and maintain the concessions. We've we've already talked about it. They're motivated to to succeed. They only make money if it succeeds. So what's best for them is also best for us. Lastly, I know you all have met with us so many times and have answered so many questions and I have a lot of confidence in you. I also know you have relied on the top experts in the world and the country. You hired the top three law firm in the country to develop the contract you're working with to, say, the airline's top engineers and designers. I have confidence in our design team to do what's best for our airport and for Denver, and I will be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilwoman Black, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. And I was right. I was telling people yesterday we would not be voting on this Monday night. We're not going to be. This. This has been a fascinating process of trying to come to yes or come to no on this contract. I've spoken to people I have great respect for who think this is a terrible idea. And I've spoken to people I have great respect for who think this is a spectacular idea and that complicates things. I've spoken to experts on legal matters, financial matters, labor issues, business practices, both on city staff and outside of city staff. And I'm pleased to say, you know, my my friend, Councilman Herndon and I often find ourselves on different sides of issues. But what I agree with him wholeheartedly is and have from from the first time I heard about this is this project needs to get done. As has been talked about, our security process has for flaws as far as crowd safety and control. Our screening process compared to other airports we've seen is antiquated. At this point, we can get people through the TSA lines more quickly and with so much less stress. With with new with new technology. And to use the the entire floor of the Great Hall for a travel related cattle call is is offensive at one level. I mean this is a world class beauty. You know, the are the jets and terminal is just stunning. And we it should be a place where people can relax, wander, shop if they care to have a drink while waiting for someone to come in off a plane. The interior of the Great Hall should at least begin to approach the elegance of the roof above it. So as I said, I'm clear the project needs to get done, but the project is only part of the equation. The big thing is the deal and trying to understand if this is or is not a good deal. I mean, first of all, what kind of lunatic would sign a 30 year contract? Right. Many of us, many of us buy our homes on on 30 year mortgages. And over the course of that mortgage, you know, I'm still I think I have about eight years left to pay on my home. The past couple of months, I bought a new dishwasher. I'm paying off my mortgage. I bought, you know, a new a new refrigerator. And I'm going to paint my house. And in the course of the 30 years that this contract runs, God knows what's going to happen to that airport. I mean, we may be building an entire other terminal within 30 years. It's almost assured we're going to build at least one more runway and things are going to break and need to be repaired while we're doing this. So that concept is not all that far from. The good thing that I've come to to believe about this contract is as opposed to my mortgage, there's a lot more protections built in for the airport in this contract than I have in my mortgage. If the economy goes south, I could be in a big time jam. If I get sick, I could be in a big time jam. I doubt any of the staff sitting here today is going to be here working at DIA in 34 years. But there are protections for the airport during construction. If something goes awry there, there are protections for the airport. If three years into it, Ferrovial decides they've got another project and they want to head south. So I think that is awfully important. The taxpayers. This is important to me as I look at this contract is DIA and I excuse me for a day and then I'm still back in the old school days of DIA. The airport is an enterprise, and this project, if something happens that we can envision and it becomes a big problem, that does not roll back on Denver taxpayers. And right now that's important for me because this for me is a test case for P3. And I know we've had others, but this is this is a whole different level and. You know, I look at the fact that and I appreciate ferrovial expressing a willingness to reopen contact with our friends at Unite here . But, you know, I don't know you guys. And if this were a contract where Ferrovial was going to have control over 40% of the concessions or 60% of the concessions, I don't think I'd be considering this contract. This this is, as I understand, this Ferrovial will be looking at around 15 to 20% of the concessions. Okay. We we've got full ownership over the airport. We've got full ownership over the Great Hall. We're trying this out to see how this goes. I remain I have concerns over. Giving up that oversight. While I fully agree with Councilman Herndon's interpretation of exactly how much oversight we have currently, but it is a give. We're all learning about P3 and what that means, and I've said it before, but I feel it's important. I mean, I see this as a major alteration to the way we do government. You know, we we've added to the judiciary and the executive and legislative, and we're bringing private business into an area making decisions that previously have been legislative. And we're going to have to see how that goes. So. You know, I came in here tonight leaning towards. Yes. And that whole discussion of the labor issues. Your answer, sir, was really important to me. And I appreciate that. As I said, the project needs to get done. I feel we have enough assurances that it's financially sound, that the airport's protected and the taxpayers are protected. So. I'm leaning towards? Yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. Castro. Okay, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. And I appreciate Councilman Herndon's recounting as he represents the area where the airport is. He's naturally very familiar with it. I could probably tell him where the where the aliens are hiding out, though. Councilwoman Ortega and I probably recall the groundbreaking back in 89 and going out there almost every day. When there was nothing but a Grange Hall at some lonely country crossroads. And this this last major airport to be built in the United States. Since then, no other airport has been built new from the ground up. And it's become, what is it, a $26 billion economic generator annually for the state of Colorado. And I remember those first years. I remember those some boneheaded decisions. The toll gates. Everybody remembers the toll gates. Everybody coming into the airport had to pull a ticket even if you didn't have to pay on the way out. It took about an hour to get out. I remember I remember asking the mayor why you were putting a fountain in the middle of the terminal overtop of a 25,000 volt electrical train system, and they ended up putting a stainless steel drip pan under it so that it wouldn't short out the train. But by and large, it turned out to be. You remember that, right? By and large, it turned out to be a very good decision. And and I think it proved it refuted most of the criticism. It didn't go financially belly up after 18 months. You know, we've had some issues with the soils. We've replaced a lot of concrete, but it is 22 actually the concrete's, about 25, 26 years old when that went in. And Councilman Ortega probably remembers going out there in the first years and enjoying the gypsum terminal as this wonderful place to go and sit and wait for your wait for your party to arrive. And and then one one day in September of 2001, some al Qaeda terrorists hijacked four jet airliners and changed our world. We designed an airport for the days before 911. And suddenly that airport had to adjust and we couldn't use the jets and terminal for the way it was meant to be used anymore. It became, as Councilman Cashman so aptly put, a cattle call. When I look when I look in there and I don't remember the days where we used to be able to go out and enjoy that space, it's just amazing that we're we're cramming this function into a space that was never designed for it. So for the folks who think that we're changing the Great Hall and we're messing with the airport. The Jeppeson terminal already was messed with. It was messed with on September 11. And I see this project as us reclaiming the Great Hall and making it better than even than it was in those first days. 911 changed where the hotel went. You know, I wasn't real happy when the whole I actually ran into Kurt Fentress last night and I knew who the architect for the airport. And I'm not real happy that the hotel went there, but where we were going to put it initially, 911 said, we can't do that anymore. So we had to adjust to make changes. So I believe what we're doing today is taking the Great Hall back to what it was supposed to be when it opened in 1995. Long term contracts, as Councilman Cashman mentioned, the 30 year mortgage. The same thing applies to the $1.8 billion cost because that's not $1.8 billion today. That's over the 34 years, just like my home mortgage. In addition to paying the mortgage for 30 years, I'm also paying the heat, the light, the gas. I'm fixing the roof. I'm changing out the kitchen over time. This that 1.8 billion includes 38 years. When you go out, the other three, the one on which I worked after the newspaper closed and I worked at RTD, the Eagle three project, the train to the airport, the 34 year cost of that concession agreement is significantly more than this $1.8 billion paying for 30 years of operations and maintenance, running electric trains in and out of the airport, and then Arvada and Westminster. So it does not scare me that this is 30 years. It has to be 30 years. There's a reason mortgages are 30 years in. Car payments are well, they used to be three. I don't know what they are now. Seven year car loans. There's a reason for that is because you need to earn back the investment. We have made long term deals before. Bill McNichols, when he was mayor, made a 99 year deal with the Winter Park Rec Association. Are we still in that agreement? No, we're not. We've renegotiated that, I think, twice now. The Denver Broncos are no longer playing in Mile High Stadium. But guess what? The lease that they signed in when they added the skyboxes was supposed to expire next year. That stadium hasn't been there in 15 years. Walter Eisenberg stole some of my script earlier today when I was going to point out that the Union Station Alliance has a 99 year lease on on Union Station with an extension. In 1990, we entered into an agreement with the National West, with the Western Stock Show Association for the Stock Show to keep it in keep it in Denver for 50 years. And right now, we're renegotiating all that as as we speak. We've renegotiated the Winter Park deal in 2002 with interest, and that's now a 50 year lease. So the long term nature of this contract is is just an essential part of it. It's not something that should scare us off. If you were troubled, if you're out there watching or if you're sitting here in the chamber, if you are troubled by some of the cost issues, the cost increases on the hotel and a transit center project that we did. You should like this deal because now we're turning that all over to Ferrovial for a guaranteed maximum price, and they are responsible for any of those cost increases unless we add some scope out of that contingency. You should like that because hopefully you won't see those kind of headlines from our management of this project as we deal with the inevitable changes. When Ferrovial takes down a wall and finds something that. Is that their risk? That's their issue to fix. The biggest concern that I had going into this was that this takes away the city council's authority to approve or disapprove concession contracts for the 30 years of operations and maintenance. And as I sat down, I read through the concession agreement and found it is a living document that the the pyramid that the Ferrovial and the airport will sit down every two years and say, where are the trends going? How can we changes? How can we maximize the return on this project that makes more sense than what we're doing now because we lock in our concessions for much longer than that. And they're all staggered. This is a much more coordinated approach to doing to redoing that great hall and managing it in a more holistic way. It makes makes much more sense. Great hall partners can have much more flexibility and be much more nimble in responding to market changes than we could be even out on the concourses. And then I realized that for as long as I've been here covering airport concessions here on the council or at the newspaper. We have never turned down a concession contract at the airport brought to us. Not that that's a reason to turn it over to you. But the only two contracts concessions I can recall being pulled were two concessions in 1993 that that I and my partner, the Rocky Mountain News, wrote about some some kind of issues that had that existed with the proposals. And I see you laughing again. And Mayor Webb pulled them. Those are the only two concession agreements I've ever seen not go through and had nothing to do with the council. So turning this over to Ferrovial for that 30 year old M period, along with the parameters and the safety that we have in the concession development and management program. I have a lot of confidence that that this will be a very good and beneficial project for the city. And so, Mr. President, I'll be happy to support this. And I'd ask my my colleagues who are still on the fence to consider all the all that I've just said and vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Flint. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 11: Thank you. Council President Brooks. I had to struggle with this decision and have made my myself clear to the folks in the airport community. The advocates. For me, having a say is a big deal. Not because. Because of a power dynamic. Because it's public. Because this is a public airport. It was our time as a public that built this airport. And it is our oversight over the years that built the airport, the public. At this council and one previous but us. And that that's that's who we are. You know, I did get an opportunity to see some of the other airports. And I was impressed by so. But their private. And we cannot compare apples and oranges when it comes to private and public facilities. I want to make something very clear before we start and before I make some additional points. Being that we are a public airport. However this shakes out. We are the public. This council represents Denver. That's the interest that we have at this table. And it's nothing to laugh at. It's nothing to sneer at. It's nothing to be taken lightly. This is something that is sacred to us and our say. In these matters are absolutely sacred. And that's something that you can't take lightly. And not only affirming that we are public, but we are also watching. A Labor violation, we will know about it. Discrimination either as a concessionaire. In a contract, an unfair process and unfair labor practice. We're watching. And we have the authority to act and we will maintain the authority to act. And that's something that we will always have. That is the difference between a private entity and a public. And let's not get that confused. Right. This is a contract. But we don't give up our ability to make policies that govern the our our our asset as a public. So I want to make that absolutely clear. And knowing that, have a little bit more assurance. Of our role. Now, 34 years is absolutely a long time. My baby girl will be 44. Right. But what are we getting for those 44 years? You know, I know some houses that I wouldn't. But I would detest. Having to pay for for 34 for 30 years on a loan like that. There are some bad deals that we can get locked into just because, you know, there are other deals out there with the same amount of time doesn't mean that we can. My other issues labor. And it's dear to me because I've organized workers at this airport in my previous life. I know what it is like. I've seen it. But I also know what it is like when somebody is respected on the job. You've had a lot of different fights. And every single one of them, they've been settled. Why? Because it's public. We don't have the. The the. If you would call it. Right. We don't we don't have the the luxury. I wouldn't call it a luxury. They just ignore it. Right as as some practices are in the private sector, I will just ignore them, let them scream their lungs out. We'll have security deal with them. Absolutely not. This is a public airport. And in this public airport, the dishwasher is going to get the same amount of respect as the ironworker, as the greeter. A job is a job in the eyes of the airport and in the eyes of the public. And it is with the exact same dignity that we treat those jobs. So although I very much applaud the what's written in the contracts, the prevailing wage, you know, the incentives, the benefits, the apprenticeship opportunities that's given to one part of labor. I would expect that to extend over to the folks that are making a third of the way. Your dishwasher's. Your cooks. Your preps. The cashiers. We brag all the time about how our airport is beautiful and sparkling clean. Well, it doesn't happen automatically. It doesn't happen with elves at night. These are real people. My father was one of those real people in downtown. Let me tell you a little story. Every time my dad and his company as a janitor making minimum wage. Would be outbid at a building. They'd have to leave. He'd have to find another job. And with that, we'd have to find another house. I look at George because he wrote about this one time when he was a reporter. There's no secret. That I bounced around from one place to the other to the point where it was actually an issue when I was running for office, because they couldn't determine exactly where the hell I lived. That is because my father had to change houses every single time to the point where we actually moved in a home where I didn't fit anymore. And with that was a new level of poverty. To the point where I was out by 17. That's what happens when you don't have retention. That's what happens after ten years of or a few years of working. And then all of a sudden you're let go and you've got to start anew again. Making minimum wage. These aren't just issues of ideology. These are real lives that we're talking about. And in 34 years, that's a few generations. And are we going to sign a contract that's going to be 34 years of poverty or 30 years of 34 years of prosperity for people who are working at the airport. Right. These are the maintainers of our airport. When it comes to the concessionaires. I want to make sure and I've made this clear. That if you're a CDB. You or a small business person in Denver. Whether you sell burritos or hamburgers or yoga or whatever, you have that idea. When somebody asked me, Hey, how can I get into the airport? How can I work at the airport? Oh, my God, that seems like a killer opportunity. I said, Well, first you got to win the lottery. You have a better shot at winning the lottery than working at the airport. I'm sorry. As a concessionaire that needs to change. And this this program needs to be. Impartial. Right. When I go to different airports, I don't want to go to the same old stores at every airport in every city. I want to see I want to taste that city if I'm if I am there just on a layover. I want to experience Denver. Right. That's what it's about. I. I wasn't. No. I want to make sure. Ferrovial. You were on record. People here testified on record. When it comes to somebody wanting to organize. I don't believe in exclusivity, but I believe in Fox's opportunity and the right to form a union. I don't care if it's at an airport. I don't care if it's at a farm field. I don't care if it's in one of our buildings in this very building as well. That needs to be maintained. That needs to be defended. And again, in the public sector, there are other practices. But here, that's not our practice here. That's a value of our city. Right. And you're seeing this over and over again. And I've been part of different councils to see how this has grown. It is essential. That freedom, that opportunity. Right. And. With that. And we have our job to do as council now, as council members announced to be that check and balance. Now, last thing I will end with. We will have a retention ordinance. If you cannot create that policy. Which was told to us in committee. We will. And as a matter of fact, we have begun. And so that is something that is that is essential to us. I don't want to wait till you have to do it. I want to see the steps being taken before we have to make it policy. And that goes. Also, it surprised me that the prevailing wage that we offer for some folks in the building aren't extended to the least among us. The least paid. Right. There's a lot of people that look like me. I want to make sure that they have that that. That opportunity as well, too. We can we shouldn't pick and choose what jobs deserve, prevailing wage and what don't. So I think that's something that I really, really want to look into at the end of the day. I am leaning towards a yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Candace, let me just say this real quick. The air is off in here and we're working on getting it on for you. Incredible people. Okay. One thing.
Speaker 3: I noticed that as I took my sweater off and it's a very strategic move, Charlie, to get things get things.
Speaker 1: Going. Turns off it at midnight.
Speaker 3: I've got zero steps up here for the this state in August. So thank you to all those who testified. Thank you to the contractor and the team and to to the good good questions from my colleagues there, I think, are three things that we're obligated to explore here. One, is this the right project? Two, is this the right contract? Three, is this the right partner? And I think that from the questions we had, you may not think that we're concerned about some of the financial components. That because for me personally, I didn't ask a lot of questions about that. And that is because I spent about 6 hours of time, both with various members of the team and talking to other folks and experts looking at that. And what I found was really encouraging. Councilman Lopez described the checks and balances, and I start with a fair bit of skepticism about P threes because they throw off the balance of the public sector transparency, accountability, ability to control and evolve. And so I start with skepticism about that loss of balance in that check in the system. But here are some of the features that that I think are important to note. We retain ownership, right? We're not turning over the asset. We get approval over a number of components, the concession plans and other things. That is not a feature in all of these agreements to be able to have approval rights over some of these personnel and especially over policies. Our key policies do apply, be them contracting policies or the auditor's ability to audit worker policies. I shared a lot of concerns in committee and probably spent a lot of time asking questions about the compensation event. One of my top concerns with privatization of public assets is the fact that if we have to change our approach, then I it appalls me that we have to pay a contractor for things that we have to do to protect the public interest, safety, whatever it is. So I spent a lot of time and even as late in the day as I forget what it was. 420 today learned that the compensation events do not require us to pay this contractor if there are changes in policy that apply to the entire airport and aren't just focused on them in terms and it took six definitions sorted out at the exact same time to get there. So in my defense, that's why I didn't get it till 420 today. But but because it looks like we'd have to pay for those things. But when you sort through the definitions, we can change the policies we need to. To Councilman Herndon's point, there is responsibility on the part of this council to take responsibility for policy, not just on worker issues, but it might be on other issues, safety, for example, in the future. But we will not have to pay for those changes. That is a key. I could not vote for this contract if that were the opposite. And we are going to have public auditor access, which means beyond my expertize during the years of this contract, if something's going awry, there's an.
Speaker 12: Expert team that can have.
Speaker 3: Access. So that is a fair bit of protection, control, influence and standards for a deal like this. So I appreciated Councilman Herndon's comment that no no deal is perfect. The part of this deal that is concerning is the lack of a final design on the airport pieces or the airline pieces. That's a concern. If there were support in this council to delay this contract to get that resolved, that would be the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do would be finish your design, enter into your contract. This is not a best practice to be knowing that you're looking at changes when you sign a contract. It's just not. Having listened to the comments tonight and watched the vote in committee, I don't think there's the votes for that delay. So this contract isn't perfect, but but I am weighing that risk right about that piece. The design. Is this the right project? So we talked about the deal and it's a it's a better deal than many public private partnerships. Is this the right project? I share the analysis of my colleagues about the need for the redesign of security. I spent, what, 36 minutes waiting for it for a6am flight to get through security? That's not an acceptable wait time, I don't think. And I think that I was not a fan of the walk through retail. I will share the key factor that got me there because I and I heard from constituents on this, I probably heard from more constituents on that fact than any other aspect of this deal. Right. And there are wide walkways and we actually have a written standard about how wide the walkway has to be. So people actually aren't trapped in a sense that they can't get through with their bag. They are trapped in a in a narrow mall place that they can't get out of. It's not like an IKEA. Right. And so I don't love that piece of the design, but I am satisfied that we have a standard so that people who are in a hurry can get through quickly. And so I'm there on that piece of the design. Obviously, the airline piece applies to this project as well, so then we get to the point of the partner. So I was surprised how far I was able to come on this contract. Coming into this meeting today. But I was stuck on is this the right partner? And, you know, again, I just want to clarify for members of the public who may not be aware, why is the council asking all these questions about workers and labor? There's values involved, as Councilman Lopez said, but there's actually an economic interest. The airport is a revenue generating economic enterprise for the city and county of Denver. We have a labor dispute going on. That labor dispute has resulted in bad media. It has resulted in protests and, you know, other actions at the airport that are, frankly, a turnoff to the traveling public and they represent an economic threat to our asset. Right. A major I mean, in fact, labor disruptions are such a risk. They're named in this contract as an economic risk. So we have this financial interest in the airport and disputes, lawsuits, things like that are a risk to us. And I believe that risk needs to be managed. We are neutral on what the outcome of these conversations are, right? That's for the parties to figure out. But the fact that it's my expectation that public entities sit down and talk and they sit down and listen. That's the kind of partner we need to be doing business with. And I you know, it's rare to see a conversation move in this chambers the way that this one did tonight. But but I think that is is really for me, the important part is that I got to know because we I mean, I meant what I said. There will be people mad at this contractor. There will be there will be legal threats. There will be disputes. And I need to know that no matter who those parties are, if they are minority contractors, if they are my active contractors, concessionaires, that this partner will do what our airport would have done, which is to meet , talk, listen and not a not not shut the door. And so so that's the part I was stuck on and I heard move movement on that tonight. So. So I am ready to support this agreement. It's not perfect, but it is strong. And the agreement, you know, the project is strong. And I got to get to know this partner better. Councilman Cashman, I hate following you because you cover everything, but I too, you know, need to get to know you better and know that this commitment isn't a fleeting in the chambers kind of moment, but that it's really who you are and that you are going to stick through hard conversations. So. So, you know, I'm taking that leap of faith, but and I expect the folks you meet with to do that in good faith and to call a cease fire on, you know, negative press and other things and have a quiet, private conversation. So I expect that of them to. Okay. With that, I'm ready to say yes. Thank you.
Speaker 1: All right, Councilwoman, can each thank you. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry that we're spending all this time doing what most folks would observe as committee work on the floor. I appreciate the time that we are taking because we actually only had 30 minutes of discussion when this came to our committee, and it only came to committee one time for us to actually see the. Tales of this steel. So the fact that we're having that we have this many questions and we're having this much discussion is a result of of feeling like this was a rushed process. We did extend this contract one time at the request of the contractor because there were some things that were identified that resulted in, you know, having to make some additional changes to the design. And we could have done the same thing by this council asking for an extension to allow us to get all of our questions answered. I think the fact that we had an extra one week delay because the public hearing was postponed until tonight, gave some of us a little bit more time to get our questions answered. I do appreciate the time that airport staff has spent with me and and others within the city to get my over 70 questions answered. I tried to do my best to plow through the contract. There were several of us who. We're really feeling under the gun. So we actually hired an attorney or we consulted with an attorney who had followed up with our city attorney's office until we were told that we had no jurisdiction to. We didn't have the authority to do that. But that's how how. I guess uncomfortable some of us were in trying to really understand the details of this legal document, this legal contract. And it was very much written in legal terms. You know, you read one page and it refers you to several different sections. And unless you had a hard copy in front of you, it's hard to do that. Or you have to have multiple screens to be able to jump back and forth to the different sections to really completely understand what we were obligating the city to . I have no doubt that Ferrovial brings the expertize to the table. Having seen the work that they do at the Heathrow Airport, and I appreciate the fact that DIA took several of us to see the security systems in both Heathrow and Schiphol Airport to understand what we were looking at as part of the new technology for this airport. I think that will be. An incredible. Improvement in addition to to our airport that will, to a large degree, help with some of the throughput concerns that were expressed by our airline folks. But I think we're still sort of at the mercy of TSA to have adequate staffing to ensure that we can move and process people quick enough to ensure that we don't have the backup and the co-mingling of traffic on level six. Everyone that I've talked to that's had any direct involvement with P3 deals has been very clear, and we've read this in many of the articles that it is more expensive to finance these deals privately than it is to use our public financing tools to do them. I understand why DIA is looking at this because of the other improvements that we're looking at that will add more debt to to this important asset. I am the sole member on this dais who was actually here when we built the airport. I serve on this council with a team of colleagues who believe that this. Airport was going to be the economic engine that it truly has become and will continue to be for for a very long time. And I don't think there's anyone here that's more committed than I am having, you know, had that history and involvement. And, you know, I take the time to go out to the airport and to meet and talk with some of the concessionaires and to to better understand what some of the issues are from from their perspective, as we have, you know, those contracts that move through our process. Councilman Herndon mentioned that. You know, we shouldn't have complacency. And I don't think anyone here who is raising questions about this particular long term deal is is saying that we're settling for mediocrity or that we're not committed to some of the changes that I think are important that need to be made. And, you know, over time, we've seen many changes to this airport and will continue to do so. As we expand, we build the seventh runway, we add the extra gates to keep growing as this airport has. So I don't you know, and when you look at the fact that we have had some ten year contracts, those are basically for those concessions that are doing restaurants because of the capital investment that they have to make and looking at the opportunity to recoup some of that investment over over time. Some of the key elements of my concerns have. We're raised around transparency and the process. Councilman Herndon and I did sit on a committee. This was completely different than a negotiating committee that Kathy Reynolds and I sat on where we were basically closing down McNichols Sports Arena and working with cranky sports to open the Pepsi Center. We were actually members of that negotiating committee. We were thoroughly familiar with the details of the deal. We were keeping our colleagues, you know, informed of the changes as they were moving through the process so that we didn't get so far out, that we had to take, you know, ten steps backwards to bring everybody along. This process was informing us of some of the timing changes that were that were happening, but we were never involved in any of the details of the deal as it was moving through the process. I think that might have been extremely helpful to, you know, better understanding this. Obviously, taking the trips, looking at the the technology we were looking at was extremely helpful in understanding the the technology that that we wanted to install at our airport. That, again, I think, will will move traffic quicker. But. The fact that we're only at 30% design, we still have not addressed the airline concerns thoroughly. I'm concerned that we will begin to eat into our $120 million contingency fund. We don't know what that is going to look like until those discussions and those issues get resolved. But the fact that we're. Moving this forward with that completely unresolved is is very concerning to me. The fact that we had a 15,000 page contract that we basically had a week to review before it came to committee. That was part of why some of us looked at, you know, trying to get some additional assistance to help us figure out, you know, what this this obligation meant. I appreciate the fact that there are provisions in the contract that provide greater protections for the city of Denver and for for the airport as. This project moves through its various phases. But I, I don't have that comfort level that some of my colleagues do in terms of. Where where this deal is at. And I appreciate the work that everybody has put into it. I guess the last couple of things I want to say is that. When you look at the fact that we've got additional expense that we're going to incur at this airport, we are extending a lot of debt on this project and would. You know, and again, it's part of evolving and the airport wanting to. Be able to be that magnet for the region and be able to bring in more more airline traffic. Both. You know, domestically as well as internationally. But. I want to see that our concessionaires. So so one of the issues that we talked about earlier is the fact that we will allow a concessionaire who may already be at that concentration of ownership in our terminals will in our concourses will be allowed to bid. And I would love. I think it's important that people who have concessions on A, B and C can bid to be operators on the main terminal. But at the same time, if you already have a concentration of ownership, you know, I think that gets to a place where maybe we're looking at more of a monopoly for some of our concessionaires. And I don't think that's fair as we want to bring in more of our local businesses to participate in this airport. So I you know, I could probably go on and on with some of my concerns. I've been very vocal in this process during. You know, during committee in when this came to us last week about some of those issues. But I am just not there taking counsel out of having any review. And in really it's future mayors and city councils from being able to look at the concessions that will be selected. And I just want to say, having having met the folks that are part of the Ferrovial team, I think you all are nice people. I appreciate having had the opportunity to to meet with you, to ask questions. But. That that doesn't have anything to do with where I've landed on this. And so I just am not going to be supporting this tonight. And again, thank you, everyone, who has taken the time to be here until this late hour. But. I will not be supporting it tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Nu.
Speaker 13: Thank you, Mr. President. I think we've had very little discussion about the safety improvements. There's no question we're all comfortable that it's going to be a much safer environment for all our passengers and residents. So I think we're all very clear about that. The also, we've had very little discussion about the quality of four wheels merchandizing. I think it's going to be a higher level of quality operation there. And so to me, a safer environment and a greater customer satisfaction to me is going to lead to greater profits in that and this whole deal. So I think it'll be a better experience for all customers. It will lead to greater profitability. And to me that profitability is the future of our airport. We need those resources to help develop our airport and accommodate our growth and expansion. So I'm just pleased with the deal and are pleased that we're going to manage it because most important to me and to our citizens is this whole review and evaluation system and this process we're putting in place. I'm very pleased with Gisela and her financial staff. I trust them. They're going to be very good to help monitor this. Our CFO, Brendan Hanlon, is a great guy and he's so sharp he's going to be involved and our city auditors, unbelievable. He's going to be ordered in. Right, left. Paul, for Kim I to stay up late at night worrying about what he's going to look at. And most important to me is, is we're going to include the city council in this review process, give quarterly reports, answer our questions, everybody monitoring issues. So I'm very comfortable with this whole arrangement. And and I think it's going to be the Air Force, just such an asset for our city. And I think this investment in infrastructure is just going to bring us up to a higher level of quality and recognition of the city, which we deserve. So I'll be glad to support us tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Espinosa with 3 minutes before one, you know.
Speaker 8: Sorry, Chris.
Speaker 1: Councilman Herndon. I'm going to eat up here. Your goal. First, I want to thank Dan, Kim, Stu.
Speaker 8: Aaron, George Keesler, everybody.
Speaker 1: You know, if you've anybody has seen me in meetings.
Speaker 8: No, sort of.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm fairly abrasive at times. And that was no different here. But I appreciate you sort of entertaining me time and again, both here.
Speaker 8: At my own home and out it.
Speaker 1: Out at the airport to sort of scrutinize the design.
Speaker 8: You know, like, you know, I've.
Speaker 1: Lamented not having a similar sort of time with the contract, not that you guys haven't been available.
Speaker 8: But it's just that and my district has a.
Speaker 1: Lot of things going on with it and a lot of irons in the fire, no different than anybody else, but I really still wish.
Speaker 11: I had more.
Speaker 8: Time.
Speaker 1: That said, I don't think it would change anything because.
Speaker 8: I want to also.
Speaker 1: Extend some appreciation to the Ferrovial team. Talking with you guys on the three occasions that we did sort of more in detail dialog.
Speaker 8: I felt like I always got.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 7: You know, very, very.
Speaker 1: Quick, capable answers from very professional people that understood what exactly what it was that they were trying to deliver. And and so I just want to before I go further in my comments, just to express my complete and utter appreciation for the the involvement in this very intense time period. And you're willing your willingness to sort of accommodate us in the capacity that you did. But for me, private money isn't cheaper than bonding with our stellar credit rating. I know that we can pay the $9 Million termination fee, then design and deliver this project without a P3 arrangement. That position is actually a consequence of your work. Denver Airport near the victims of your own success. This is not the first time I said that you put it best when you said regarding capital projects, quote, Dyn is extremely well positioned due to its size, thoughtful planning and financial stability. You guys Denver Airport achieve that without any P3 arrangements. Today, Dan is ranked by industry publication, their World Airport Awards ninth. Best airport serving greater than 50 million passengers. Third best airport staff in North America. Second best domestic airport. Second best airport in North America. Third best regional airport in the world. And first best regional airport in North America. Those are titles, you know, that you guys achieved today without any three arrangements. And so congratulations and kudos. We really appreciate that because it is the economic engine that it is and vital to this area. I agree with the landside concept completely. You know, the physical design of this in approach and solution is, is, is, is. Is. Is, is. Stellar high, but its success is vulnerable to TSA performance, and that is an unfortunate reality. The contract is not an issue from a technical standpoint as it is very, very good. I mean, I have no issue with the documents that I have reviewed. And the whole thing as as stated and presented here today is very, very, very doable, exactly as promised in the timelines and the terms. And there is a clear availability for the airport to avoid a boondoggle or to address any impediment. So I don't fear going forward with this. But given the strength and given the strength of Din, if I was the seventh vote, I would be hard pressed not to support you guys in this request. But admittedly, I have the luxury of being able to vote my conscience on this one. And because not every loop is closed.
Speaker 7: Labor Airlines.
Speaker 1: TSA design and the transfer transfer of risk means an expensive delivery method. This approach is not about to me. This approach is not about saving money. It is simply providing predictability at the expense of hundreds of millions of dollars. Now I get why you would want to do it this way, but I still don't see any need. Cutting out council is to me authority like. And it puts distance between people and their assets. And that is not what my constituents are asking for. I'm glad that the analogy of the House was brought up, but to me it's more like giving a contractor with worse credit than you a bedroom in your house to operate an Airbnb for 30 years and to all to help pay for the kitchen remodel you really need. That is to me in a nutshell, what this arrangement is and unnecessary.
Speaker 8: So again, everything I've said it for that I'll, I'll be voting no. But it's not, it's, it's not lightly. And so I do. I don't fear going.
Speaker 1: Forward if council chooses to move in that direction. Thank you. Thank you. Guzman. Espinosa. Guzman. Clark.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Councilwoman Kennedy said about five people ago how hard it was to go because people have covered everything that you had to say. And I think people up here have covered a lot and it's late. And so I just wanted to say thank you to the air. I guess it's technically early. I really want to say thank you to our airport team. It is it was not an easy process to get this put together. It was not an easy process to get to here. And it certainly was not an easy process to get the 13 of us with our unique personalities and unique needs and how we needed to dove into this all of the information that we need to be able to vote on this tonight. I remember one day after having a bit of a mini meltdown on how many trees were being killed with the pages of print documents that were being brought to me. And I had a little mini meltdown on air and back there. And then I ran into him in the hall the next day with just boxes.
Speaker 6: Full of binders.
Speaker 11: And I my eyes got this big and then his eyes got this big and he said, There are other people who asked for this. There's not one here for you. And it just put into clear perspective just how hard a job you have and in getting us what we need. And you did a spectacular job of of that and making yourselves available at the Duffy role in the spare room here. And so I just wanted to say thank you. I will say that I don't think that it's. Possible that any of us could fully understand the 15,000 pages. It needs experts. And you are experts. I think it's even challenged Councilman Flynn, who generally catches all of our typos in the back parts of the document. And so anyone who's voting yesterday, as I will be, is doing it in large part because we are putting a lot of trust in our airport team. And and I think that you have shown time and again that you have earned that trust in running the airport and how you've brought this forward and the hard work that you've done to help us understand this work. So I just wanted to say thank you and thank you, Mr. President. All I have.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Clark. All right. Say a couple of words in this. Thank you all for being here. You went through security. Some of you pay for parking and you sat and wouldn't seats for a long time. So I really appreciate you all. And I think on behalf of all the council, we really appreciate you guys. You know, I think about what we've done tonight. We approved $937 million in a very equitable and inclusive fashion for the entire city through our go bond. We approve over $300 million of of wastewater redevelopment opportunities for the worst basin in the city of Denver. And we're taking the sixth busiest airport to the next level in the country. And there's a lot of concern over those things. And the community is obviously alarmed because we're going from a small town to a small, big city. We are becoming an international destination. And this is what international cities do. They make bold moves. And this is bold. But in the in the grand scheme of things of of international destinations, New York, LaGuardia just approved a $4 billion . And they need to do it a $4 billion improvement to their airport. So I know a lot of us keep doing those comparisons to our homes and our living rooms. It's not apples to apples. We're on a new level. We are competing globally. So the vision that our great mayor, Mayor Paine, you had is coming to fruition. And so it's hard for all of us, but this is the right direction. Let me just tell you why I'm supporting this. Authority versus influence. See, we have authority over a lot of things. A city council. And we think we have authority. But really, what we do is have influence and this P-3. Gives us and remains, you know, maintains that influence. I think. The authority of having every ten years a concessions agreement come through city council. We will lose that. But the influence for me to sit with Nacho and his business partners and say, I don't like how this is being run, I will still have that ability and I don't think people understand that or get that. I still can go to any. Even though they may not come through city council, any agency, head and even business in the city and say we need to get this done for our community. And that is the influence which we hold as City Council. So to say that you've taken our power away is not accurate authority versus influence. We still have an incredible influence. I talked about the world class airport, Sanders construction as a kind of clean it up a little bit in Denver and I love what you guys do. I love that you connect with local contractors. I love that you connect with local unions. And to have these contracting unions come in and speak about you being connected to them, I mean, that already had me so excited. So thank you guys for being a local organization that is serious about employing local folks and contracting business. And then no one really has been talking about this. And I think people are afraid to talk about magic. And but I'm a I'm going to tell you why I'm excited to talk about an African-American investor in this city for the first time at this level, I am a static because there are African-Americans in this city to do not feel like they are a part of the success in Denver. And I'm holding on to it because now there is an there's a gateway. There's an opportunity. And we have. Research Magic Johnson, not just when he played, but his actual business and his actual dealings in other cities. And we're excited about that opportunity in Denver because it's much bigger than just the airport. It's about the community. And thank you for already coming to the community and engaging in the community and Ferrovial, I appreciate you being honest and working with the community. I think Councilwoman Canete had some points of, yeah, we got to continue to work with folks even when they're not. Being the best. You know, they're they're protesting against us and things like that. We deal with that all day. I got people protesting me right now. Right. But we continue to engage because in public life, it's our duty to be kind to people in their misunderstanding or their understanding of us. Right. And so that's the way we want to be. That's who we are as Colorado. And I sense that you're going to do that. I sense that you're going to be a part of that. And so to the airport, thank you so much for your hard work. I feel like you guys worked like crazy. But now the real work begins to get this thing done. So thank you all for being here. We are going to move this thing for. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 5: Clark.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 5: Espinosa. Hey, Flynn.
Speaker 6: Hi.
Speaker 5: Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Abstain.
Speaker 5: Herndon high fashion can each.
Speaker 11: Lopez right.
Speaker 5: You. Something happened. Okay. Ortega. No, Sussman. I. Mr. President, I.
Speaker 1: Got the following results.
Speaker 5: Ten eyes two. Nays one.
Speaker 1: Abstention two. Nice to net two names. One Abstention Council Bill 822 has passed. Congratulations. See no other business before this body was manager.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Denver Great Hall, LLC concerning design, construction, finance, operation, and maintaining certain areas of Jeppesen Terminal at Denver International Airport.
Approves a thirty-four year contract with Denver Great Hall, LLC in the amount of $1.8 billion to design, construct, finance, operate, and maintain certain areas within levels 5 and 6 of the Jeppesen Terminal, and the corridor from the terminal towards Concourse A, which includes the airline ticket lobbies, passenger screening checkpoint, concessions space, baggage claim area, and all associated public circulation space for a guaranteed price and schedule at Denver International Airport (201735867). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 7-26-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, August 7, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0809
|
Speaker 0: Can we give it up to our Secretary General? Wish you could have the night off after that, but we still have a lot ahead of us. Council members councils now convene as the board of directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District Bills for Introduction. Madam Secretary, will you please read the bill for Introduction.
Speaker 3: For Finance and Governance? 809 Bill for the Council, the city and county of Inner City Ex-officio of the Board of Directors of the Denver 14 Street General Improvement District, making certain findings and approving the issuance of 4 million principal amount of refund of revenue notes and approving and adopting a supplement to the work plan amended budget for the 2017 fiscal year.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Gilmore, where you make the motions for us this evening.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Since we are sitting as the ex-officio board of directors of the 14th Street General Improvement issue, we will need to consider this bill per a separate vote to be ordered publish. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 809 on the floor for publication?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 809 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, it comes for members of council. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Clerk.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Espinosa Flynn, I, Gilmore, i. Herndon, I. Cashman, I. Carnage Lopez. All right, new Ortega. Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please cause voting in US results.
Speaker 3: So once again, they're not filled in 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. 13 eyes control. 809 has ordered publish council is now reconvene into its regular session customers. It's your last opportunity to call out an item. I'll do a quick recap on the resolutions. Councilman Flynn has called out Council Resolution 806 regarding Hong Kong Call Contract with Meet and hunt for comment Council Resolution 822 regarding Denver International Airports. Great Hall Proposal for postponement. Councilman Cashman has called out Resolution 807 approving the Contract with Paradise. Um, and at Denver at 1217 for a comment, Councilwoman Canisius called out Resolution 811 approving cooperation agreement with Denver Renewal Authority and Emily Griffith for postponement. Councilman Espinosa has recently just caught a council. 825 Zephyr. QUESTION Just for question. QUESTION Great. And then council and Councilman Espinosa has also called out 823 824 826 for a vote and postponement. Is that right with everyone? Okay. I just want to make sure on a bill for introduction, as has been called out in front of consideration of them being called out and under pending. Nothing has been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen.
|
Bill
|
A bill for the Council of the City and County of Denver, sitting ex-officio as the Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District, making certain findings and approving the issuance of $4 million principal amount of Refunding Revenue Notes; and approving and adopting a supplement to the Work Plan and Amended Budget for the 2017 fiscal year.
Approves the issuance of $4 million principal amount of refunding revenue notes, imposes capital charges, and approves and adopts an amended budget for the 2017 fiscal year by City Council sitting in its capacity as the ex-officio Board of Directors of the Denver 14th Street General Improvement District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 7-25-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0806
|
Speaker 0: I just want to make sure on a bill for introduction, as has been called out in front of consideration of them being called out and under pending. Nothing has been called out. Madam Secretary, please put the first item on our screen. 806. Councilman Flynn, go ahead. Make your comment.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I this is another one of those contracts that started out just below our threshold for initial approval at $450,000, and we are adding an amount to it. So that's two and a half times the original amount by adding 700,000. But we're not adding to the term. We're not extending the case. It's the same it's the same term of the contract. So what I would like to I would like to request, Mr. President, that Aaron Barrasso on the who's on the hot seat could prepare a memo for me and the rest of council. A number one. Mr. President, the contract that we have in our system doesn't have any information about the original contract, about the term of it when it expires, how long it goes on. All we see is that it was dated June 20th of 2016. Could it could you prepare a memo for us detailing why we misjudged the scope of this initial contract? Why are we adding two and a half times the original amount? What are they going to do? In other words, Mr. President, when we have these contracts that come to us where they're an amendment to an existing contract that was under our threshold, we have very we find ourselves with very little choice but to approve the folks who are already on board. We have no idea how it was procured initially. And and sometimes it appears as though it was done in order to camel's nose in the tent. There might be a very valid reason for doing for doing it this way, but I'd sure love to know what it is. These things should be if they're going to be a million, $150,000 in the end, they should probably come to us with the original procurement so we can see how it was done. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Aaron Barraza. That's okay. Get that to us. Thank you. All right, let's put up the next item. Councilman Flynn, go ahead and make your comment on resolution 806.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed First Amendment between the City and County of Denver and Mead and Hunt, Inc. concerning on-call professional environmental and sustainability planning services at Denver International Airport.
Amends a contract with Mead and Hunt, Inc. to add $700,000 for a new contract total in the amount of $1,150,000 to perform required National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) environmental review for development and redevelopment projects including concourse expansions, and anticipated Peña Boulevard expansion projects at Denver International Airport. There is no change to the contract duration (PLANE 201628003-01). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 7-26-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0822
|
Speaker 2: I think, Mr. President, this is the this is the 34 year concession agreement with.
Speaker 0: 822 822 I'm sorry, that's my mistake. 822. Thank you. Okay.
Speaker 2: This is the 34 year concession agreement with the Great Hall Partners. And as people have become familiar with it, out in the public and here on council, it's about 15,000 pages. And, Mr. President, I'm only on page 10,233, so I'm not yet done. So I would like to request, under our Rule 3.7 that we postpone this for one additional week. And as you know, we already have a courtesy public hearing scheduled on this for next week. And with with a contract of this magnitude and length, I think it's only proper that we that we take the full amount of time that we have available to us. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Per Council Rule 3.7 Council Consideration for a Resolution 822 regarding this 34 year contract. Denver Great Hall will be postponed to Monday. That's next Monday, August 14th, after the conclusion of a one hour courtesy public hearing. And we want to make that known to the public that we will be debating this next week, one hour for the public. All right. Madam Secretary, Madam Secretary, put the next item on our screen. Councilman Cashman, go ahead and offer your comment.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Contract between the City and County of Denver and Denver Great Hall, LLC concerning design, construction, finance, operation, and maintaining certain areas of Jeppesen Terminal at Denver International Airport.
Approves a thirty-four year contract with Denver Great Hall, LLC in the amount of $1.8 billion to design, construct, finance, operate, and maintain certain areas within levels 5 and 6 of the Jeppesen Terminal, and the corridor from the terminal towards Concourse A, which includes the airline ticket lobbies, passenger screening checkpoint, concessions space, baggage claim area, and all associated public circulation space for a guaranteed price and schedule at Denver International Airport (201735867). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 7-26-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Flynn called out this resolution at the Monday, August 7, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0825
|
Speaker 0: Hopefully that can come to me through other channels. And because of this concern now I will actually now I should probably call it out for a vote so I can abstain based on this information. Late information. Yep. So. Mr. President, I hope that. Oh, yeah, that's. That's my. That's my part. Madam Secretary, how would you like to do this on a final consideration?
Speaker 3: So do you. You want to vote?
Speaker 0: I do now. Yeah. He wants to put it on the floor.
Speaker 3: Okay. That can be done.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. So, Councilwoman Gilmore, please put 825 on the floor for funding consideration and do pass.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 825 be placed on final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved and seconded. Councilman, you made your comment. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 7: Sorry.
Speaker 5: Espinosa staying. Flynn. I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman.
Speaker 2: Abstain.
Speaker 3: Kennedy. Lopez. I knew. I'm sorry. Was that a no?
Speaker 2: Huh?
Speaker 3: I. Ortega, I. Sussman, I.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 5: Clark, I.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. All right, please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: Lebanese two abstentions.
Speaker 0: 11 eyes, two abstentions. Eight. 25 has passed. Okay. All right, Councilwoman Gilmore. Uh, Madam Secretary, please bring up the next items. 823 824 826 in a block.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed purchase by the City and County of Denver (“City”) of insurance coverage from: Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado; United Health Care Insurance Company; Denver Health Medical Plan, Inc.; Delta Dental of Colorado; Standard Insurance Company of Colorado, Inc.; Vision Service Plan Insurance Company.
Approves the recommended 2018 changes to City and County of Denver healthcare benefit plans. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 7-25-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0823
|
Speaker 3: Yes. Sorry to find them again. Okay.
Speaker 0: And Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolutions 823, 824 and 826 be adopted in a block.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved in second it. Councilman Espinosa, your motion. I move that council resolutions mean I move that adoption of council resolutions 388 23, 824 and 826 be postponed to a date certain to Monday, August 28th. All right. It has been moved in second to comments by members of council. Councilman Espinosa, just asking my colleagues, I'm I think I'm probably the slowest one on council getting to sort of the comfort level here. A lot of input this weekend and some concerns that I have that that I developed over this weekend. I need some additional time. I'd like to actually work with the administration, if at all possible, to some sort of to amend these contracts or somehow put in some language that will actually allow us to not do any sort of reverse irreversible changes to the course. I mean, mainly the trees, the mature trees that are 100 years old and hard to replace before we have absolute confirmation that any appeals process and pending litigation on the question around the legality of this is resolved. I think it would be sort of you know, it would be it would be wrong for us in our position as stewards of everything in the city to sort of rely on the court process to stay and preserve trees that way when we actually fully are within our capability to just put it, codify it in an agreement, that we're not going to start grinding up certain amenities and assets until such time as we know it's it's perfectly legally in the clear. So I would rather I'd like some time to work with that because this is really literally coming to the.
Speaker 5: Administration right now because it's an idea that essentially I would.
Speaker 0: Vocalize a concern I vocalized in committee, but we obviously didn't have the votes there to postpone and get this clarified. But hopefully my members, my colleague, colleagues on on this.
Speaker 5: Dais.
Speaker 0: Will recognize at least a couple of times I mean, a couple of weeks, which will still allow this contract to be executed on time if it were to pass on 828 as is. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Castro.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Since I've been in this seat, I've spoken consistently that I'm I'm not a fan of the Central 7570 project. And I've spoken consistently that I believe that this project, the Platt, the Park Hill project, is intimately related to I-70. So I had intended to call these out for a vote to have the opportunity to vote no, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the councilman's request for additional time. So I'll be in support of that.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And Councilman. No.
Speaker 8: When asked Mr. Broadway a question, I figure give us a little history on the litigation on this issue up to date and and when the next trial will be and what the effect would be is postponing this.
Speaker 2: David Broadwell, Assistant City attorney. Councilman, we have attorneys in the room who are actually helping to handle the litigation. I would invite one of them to come to the podium and give you a quick update. Good.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Good evening, members of council. My name is Jessica Brody. I'm an assistant city attorney and I'm one of the attorneys working on the litigation as well as the contracting for this project. We will be going to trial in two weeks. It's scheduled for a four day trial. The city is ready and eager to get going with this case.
Speaker 8: So if we approve this tonight, what effect would that trial if we lose that trial, what effect will it have?
Speaker 4: Well, first of all, I'll say we feel very optimistic about our chances at trial having gone through many months of discovery, evaluating the plaintiff's claims. We think that the project that's being put forth for approval is entirely consistent with the Denver charter and the Denver zoning code. So I'll say that first in terms of what happens at trial. I mean, obviously, in the event that we're wrong, we'll have to see what the judge's decision is and determine what, if any, changes need to be made. But at this point, we're not anticipating any.
Speaker 8: Being a factor delaying this counsel, Espinosa suggests. Just to clear the air on this.
Speaker 4: I don't believe that's necessary in this case or helpful to the the process. The contract, like all of our contracts, has plenty of opportunities for the city to seek delays or termination if necessary. I will add that no onsite work on the course is anticipated for a few months yet, so certainly we'll know well in advance of that what the outcome of the case will be.
Speaker 8: So whether we delay or not won't have effect?
Speaker 4: Well, it will have effect on the project because the project is being very carefully timed in order to minimize the amount of golf season that's disrupted. If we delay the contract, then all that planning work gets delayed, which could have a significant impact on the schedule for the project.
Speaker 8: Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Jessica, could you come back to the microphone? Sure. I think the motion was to or Councilman Espinosa's intent is to try to have the administration amend the contract so that actual physical work doesn't commence until the end of the appeals process. In your experience, the outcome of a trial, of course, doesn't. That only begins the appeals process. How long could that take in your experience?
Speaker 4: The appeals process can take months, two years, just depending on what the nature of the appeal is, what the court's docket looks like. So again, it at this point is pretty much speculation in terms of how long that would involve. But I would say in general, it's it's months, two years if you wait for every potential appeal to run.
Speaker 2: Mm hmm. Thank you, Mr. President. I had another question. And for Jen Hillhouse. Could you come up for a second?
Speaker 0: Go ahead, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Jennifer, I'm wondering what would be the impact of a delay in this contract to the project, if any?
Speaker 1: Good morning or evening.
Speaker 4: Members of Council Main. Jennifer Hillhouse I'm with Public Works and we have procurement. Steve Coggins My best answer that, but I get as he comes up, I can give you a little bit of indication if we delay this, this contract, as Jessica mentioned, we will lose an entire season of golf and our commitments that we've made to the public would be hindered. And so it's it could be a substantial impact to us.
Speaker 2: So we expect work on the site. If things went according to schedule right now, we expect that the work on the site would begin in November. That's what I recall. That's correct. Okay. That's all, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilman Espinosa, I'm going to jump in. So I just want members of council and the public to know that Councilman Espinosa, with this motion, has exercised a rule beyond our rule of 3.7, which delays a council bill one week. And so this goes above and beyond. I'm not comfortable voting on that. We've been. This project has been talked about, worked on. Had a conversation with her last year. And all of us stay here to midnight for the water rates increase as well. And so I think Councilman Espinosa knows a lot about this project, actually, and is very well attuned to it. And we got many emails from residents saying we should wait for the ruling and for the judge to rule on this. Well, this is the legislative branch and we take on our legislative process as such. A judge can can issue a stay on any of these projects, and we will not be able to move forward. So we're going to go I am as a district representative who was knocking doors in our city park in Skyland last night, 7 p.m. talking about this issue. I feel comfortable moving forward with this, knowing that the judicial process is going to take its course. So, Councilman Espinosa, let me get to Ortega and then I'll pop back to you. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you. I have a couple of questions. The first one is Katzman Espinosa. Did you postpone to a date certain? Yes. What was that date? Well.
Speaker 5: It's 828, so August 28, two weeks.
Speaker 9: Okay. And to the city attorney, Jessica, if you don't mind, coming up, when does the 30 day clock expire on the contract?
Speaker 4: I believe that would be the last day to take action.
Speaker 9: The last day. So if we took action on that night, it would still be allowed to move forward.
Speaker 4: It would be within the 30 days. But again, it would cause delay to the contracting process and to the start of the project.
Speaker 9: How so?
Speaker 4: Well, probably the procurement team is best to answer that. But my understanding of the schedule is that we're hoping to issue a notice to proceed to the contractor. So again, they can start their preparatory work as soon as possible in order to take advantage of that November 1st onsite start date and minimize the disruption to the 2019 golf schedule.
Speaker 9: So if if the ordinance moved forward on the 28th. I don't understand how that affects the contracts schedule, the construction schedule. And so help me understand that. Sure.
Speaker 4: So, Councilman Ortega, this is a design build contract. So before they actually start any onsite work, the contractor will start preparations of the design of the project.
Speaker 9: So and you've been doing that all along.
Speaker 4: We've done preliminary design, but as this is a design build contract, there's still a lot of work for the contractor to do before they start any onsite work in November.
Speaker 9: Okay. I have no further questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. All right, Councilman Espinosa, back up. So I do want to clarify something, and I understand how this happened. I did. I was asking for two weeks. So that's actually August 21st, not August 28.
Speaker 5: But less my watch is wrong.
Speaker 0: And so I would like to change that, that request. I would like to change my motion to.
Speaker 5: To from August 28 to a date certain of August.
Speaker 0: 21st. With that said, I don't believe any concrete, any work that a contractor does between now and the executed contract, which we aren't required to act until 828, would be at risk. And up to them, it would be.
Speaker 5: Sort of wrong to assume that just with our vote, they start work because I mean, is.
Speaker 0: That true or should they wait until they have an.
Speaker 5: Executed contract before beginning work?
Speaker 4: We always advise contractors to wait until they have a signed contract. But if this action were to be approved tonight, we would hope to get to a sign contract as early as later this week or early next week.
Speaker 0: But this body has technically.
Speaker 5: Until 828 to act, correct?
Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, you do.
Speaker 0: So if we were to take our full allotted time that was anticipated by the contractor would not have been.
Speaker 4: Well, that's certainly your prerogative. But as far as the anticipated schedule, again, our hope is to get the design underway as soon as possible so that we don't cause delays on the back end of the project.
Speaker 0: Again, I would like to change this behavior. If you want a contract executed by eight seven, then you should start this contract 30 days. I mean, we should be seeing this 30 days.
Speaker 5: Ago and not, you know.
Speaker 0: Telling us that your entire schedule is contingent on us acting to meet three weeks ahead of when we're required legally to act. So I do have a question. What is the is it possible that a contract I mean, the contractor could proceed then during the appeals process and trees be removed.
Speaker 4: Well, at this point, yes, because no injunction has been sought by the plaintiffs in this case.
Speaker 0: Okay. So failing that and sort of putting it on the citizens who are making this case rather than on this body, who can actually compel the administration maybe.
Speaker 5: To.
Speaker 0: Put this language in the contract, what is the how do you resolve that situation if 100 year trees are removed? How do you replace those?
Speaker 4: Well, I think as you can anticipate, you can't put the trees back once they've been removed.
Speaker 5: So that is the core of my concern.
Speaker 0: And so then the last thing it's related to these this ballot, I mean, this this battery of contracts. How the Parsons contract actually is for both City Park and Park Hill. Those are two separate projects. It's sort of difficult for me to say, you know, one should be able to move forward while the other one sort of tries to resolve this issue.
Speaker 5: In my book.
Speaker 0: Why are the parsing contracts essentially linked and how do we you know, if City Park and Park Hill are two different things?
Speaker 2: Jamie Price. I'm with the Park Hill team. Councilman wanted to try address your last question and then also the question about the appeals process. We're somewhat fortunate in that the trial date is very close to when the A.B. date is for the contract, and we will know the result of that trial before physical work begins on site . After that, yes, there could be an appeals process. But at that point or now there's risk in every project. Right. And we're now weighing the risk of not moving forward with with that of moving forward. And there's going to be significant costs and delays and impacts quite a bit beyond the risk of moving forward. Based on what we know about the case and the strength of the cases. The City Attorney's Office has consulted us so wanted to clarify our impression of that somewhat unlikely event happening. The Parsons contract. Your second question. They are being retained to help with extension of staff services for construction management and project management, so they will need to be in place at about the same time as we engage with the contracting team, the design build team, the Saunders team to help with contract administration inspection, oversight of the project safety, all those things that go with the owner's role.
Speaker 0: So were the durations. So there's a contracting period. I mean, it's it's going to be a required amount of time to build this course. Does the duration of the construction change at all? Because, yes, there's a delay in the start. But the overall time it takes to complete the work is still the overall time it takes to complete the work, because they're doing it over the winters.
Speaker 5: As opposed to over the summer. It's doing both.
Speaker 0: But so, I mean, I'm I'm a little bit worried that you're you're you're addressing this concern by saying that there's risk, but moving forward with the contract, as is if there's a sort of.
Speaker 5: Of.
Speaker 0: Sort of confusion caused by the litigation or, you know, some sort of, you know, what you're relying on in predicting is is is monkey wrenches thrown into it. You will then be under contract and will have to amend those contracts. And that would cost money and delay the project. So why wouldn't it be prudent to actually just say, look, let's get let's continue the design because the design is not complete. That's work that has to be done and hold off on the construction with Saunders until such time as we have resolution. I mean that wouldn't that be the safe, most conservative way to go.
Speaker 2: Not necessarily. We have a design build team that's ready to work on a particular schedule at a particular cost.
Speaker 0: Again, changes to that will then cost money.
Speaker 2: Sorry.
Speaker 0: Changes to that particular.
Speaker 5: Schedule.
Speaker 0: Would then cost money. Councilman, let them. Let him finish what he said, and then you can respond.
Speaker 2: Go ahead. Yes, sir. I assume we're talking about both contracts now, both the Parsons contract and the Saunders design build contract. There's risks either way. The team believes that there's much greater risk to the city in terms of delays and cost overruns by delaying at this time with little benefit as we understand the status of the lawsuit as the city attorney's office has represented.
Speaker 0: Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I sort of beg to differ because it is a significant impact to the quality of life, to the environment. To lose mature trees, if, in fact, we do it.
Speaker 5: We end up being wrong. In this case, it is very.
Speaker 0: None of our lifetimes here will see those trees, any new trees get to the size that they are today. That is two generations from now. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. By the way, there was a question before I'm going to go to Councilman Clark, because he has not said anything but the percentage of trees that would be saved on City Park.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we have an estimate on that. Just you want to just make sure I got that right. I believe what we said in committee was well over 70% of the trees will be saved, including the significant older growth trees on the perimeters that are valued so highly. There will be tree loss. We know that that tree loss will be some of the smaller trees or the trees that will be internal to be mitigated. Every tree will be mitigated to City Standard.
Speaker 0: And there's a there's an effort to preserve older trees on the perimeter. Just I just want to make sure you say that again. Okay.
Speaker 2: Very big effort, sir.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to jump in. This one's hard, obviously, because there are a lot of people who feel very passionately about this issue. I just wanted to jump in and say that I agree with Council President Brooks about our legislative process versus the judicial process. I also think that it is it makes me uncomfortable sitting up here that anyone who filed a lawsuit on anything that we do, we would just freeze and not take action on anything, because I think it opens the floodgates. Anybody can sue the city or anyone else for any reason at any time. And there is a process by which the judge could say, this just needs to stop. And I think that's the process to get that to stop. Otherwise, I don't think we should be delaying just because there's a lawsuit. All of that being said, I also want to clarify, because I don't think I'm buying the storyline that a two week delay when you know any one member of council. Councilman Espinosa, if this is not successful, can simply ask for one week. You can get a one week delay. And the statement was made that we will lose the entire season of golf and everything that we've promised our golf and our community over two weeks. When I would hope that this team has anticipated that someone up here at their discretion with no vote could delay for one week. So you're somewhere there's a magic number between seven and 14 where the whole world comes to an end. And I guess I'm not buying that either. So I just want to clarify again, I don't think we need to postpone and I back what Councilman Council President Brooks has said. But I do think for the record, we should clarify that this is really only seven days longer and still within the window of when council has its prerogative to approve this contract. And I would hope that our team, very smart people that you all are, have anticipated not losing an entire season up to the date at which we could take action. But certainly the difference between seven and 14 days. So can you clarify for me that that that you're you're really making the statement that that extra seven days will lose an entire season?
Speaker 1: So first of all, just to clarify.
Speaker 4: When we were speaking about the original DeLay requests, we thought we were addressing a three week delay as opposed to a two week delay. So just to clarify that, we certainly had anticipated that there could be a one week delay. We've included that in our schedule, but beyond that does jeopardize the contract.
Speaker 2: Still not 100% sold on that, but I don't smoke. Can I? Jamie, perhaps. Could I clarify? Once we get beyond one week delay, the contract is still whole and viable. We're going to complete. It just starts to impact a lot of things that are happening on the backend in terms of how quickly we can return this golf course back to the golfers and then those and I understand your your preference, but I would certainly hope for the citizens of Denver and for all of us that when a contract is brought in front of us, that we have until a certain date to approve, that the whole thing is not shattered for an entire year. DELAY If we if we don't vote on it, the first chance we get versus the 28th, I hope to all the city agencies out there that the way we're doing business is in anticipation of that last day. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Flynn and Cashmere, are you still there? Okay. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, if I could have a point of personal privilege, I want to recognize the presence in the chamber of former Councilwoman Cathy Donohue, who served on this body from 1975, I think, until 1993, when she joined the Webb administration. And welcome you. She served as council president on at least one occasion that I can recall, at least three occasions that I now recall that she's raised three fingers. And so I just want to acknowledge her presence here. But on the point of the of this motion. I really don't like this this project. I voted against it last year when we had the wastewater fee. I think Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Cashman joined me. We were we were the only three votes against it. Councilwoman Ortega was absent that evening, but she would have been a no vote had she been here. We could have killed the project then if we really wanted if we really wanted to kill it. I thought it was much too big going by a factor, I think of ten or 12 times larger than anything wastewater had ever done before. I thought it should have been done more incrementally and with more planning already in place, but that was not the case. We were outvoted and the bonds have been issued. And I think our responsibility now as fiduciaries of the city and the taxpayers and the ratepayers into wastewater is to make sure it's done efficiently and at the most efficient cost, particularly. Mr. President, on the matter of the contracts themselves, they do contain the standard provisions that in the event the court would rule in favor of former Attorney General McFarland, who's the plaintiff in the case and whom I wish a lot of luck. I, I do know that the contracts contained both suspension provisions and termination provisions, specifically in the event that there's a court ruling against it. If there's an injunction, for example, and if the plaintiffs should move for an injunction, should we approve this contract tonight or in two weeks? The plaintiffs can take advantage of that. And I think that's as the. Mr. President, I think you've already hinted that it would be the proper avenue to do this. I really dislike that this is going forward in the manner it is. I wish that we had done it more incrementally and with more forethought a year ago, but that that wasn't the majority decision of the council at that time. And I believe my responsibility now is to make sure it's done right. And just to one other point, it is I know that in the public mind and the minds of a lot of folks, this is so intimately intertwined with the I-70 expansion. But the plain fact is that the I-70 project is not dependent on doing this drainage project. We are not doing this project in order to enable the I-70 project. The I-70 project can go ahead. If we didn't if we didn't even think about doing this and conversely, if there were no I-70 project, we could still be doing major drainage improvements in the Park Hill and the Montclair Basins, which are needed separately. What happened last year was the prior council locked us into an idea before the seven new members came on, locked us into an idea that says we will cost, share and take advantage of those efficiencies and do a project that we think will benefit the wastewater ratepayers in Park Hill and Montclair, as well as the as well as the CDOT beneficiaries, the public, the traveling public, the people who pay their faster fees and their gas taxes. So that's how they that's how they are married. But each of them is independent of each other. So with that, Mr. President, I would my principle that I like to act on is we should take as much time as we can take to to approve contracts. And I would I would not be opposed to a two week delay as well.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm going to woo. Okay. We got some new ones in here. Let me, Councilwoman Sussman first and then I'll pop to you new and then for the councilman.
Speaker 1: You already have a chance to speak on this one.
Speaker 0: He spoke already.
Speaker 1: That's okay. Yeah, I wasn't really going to chime in, but I really like what Councilman Clark said a. You know. A one week delay still makes him a state councilman, Clark says, which is. We delay things just because we've had a lawsuit filed. I mean, whether we do it two weeks or one week, we're still responding. Oh, dear, there's a lawsuit. Let's delay. And as a legislative body, I just don't think that's a correct motion to take. And so either the vote for a two day, two week delay or a one week delay seem hollow and useless. And I it's interesting that we're talking about the bill tonight. Which is if we're going to delay, we should talk about it in another time, because I think the thing down on the bench is, are we going to delay or not? But delaying it doesn't change. The the fact of what of what's going to happen when we do have that debate. So and it's still whether it's one week or two. It still has the problem that Councilman Clark suggested that we can't delay things just because we're being sued.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman, you.
Speaker 8: Just had a question on the attorney about Councilman Flynn's comments about the contract having a clauses there that if the ruling goes against the city, that there will be a. Opportunity to terminate the contract or suspend the contract.
Speaker 4: I'm going to invite my colleague John McGrath to come up because he is the lead on the contract.
Speaker 5: Strom McGrath Assistant City Attorney Yes, we have a standard set of general contract conditions for all construction contracts that the city enters into, and they have a number of rights that would enable the city to either suspend, cancel. And because we have those rights, we could also then sort of open a dialog with the project team to figure out exactly what the best path forward would be.
Speaker 8: And who would make that decision to cancel?
Speaker 5: So would the client public works and in consultation with the city attorney's office.
Speaker 8: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. With all due respect to my ex journalist brother, Councilman Flynn, there is opinion and evidence on the other side of the argument about whether Platt, the Park Hill and I-70 are connected. But the thing I just can't let go of is a one week delay. Delays your project a week, a two week delay delays two weeks, a three week delay, delays at three weeks. Maybe you're going through the winter. You have no idea what weather is going to do to this. And the reason I bring it up is a large part of the disapproval of this project is among the constituents that I talked to came from that insistence during the development of the project that this has nothing to do with I-70, when again, there's evidence on both sides, depending on how you interpret that. And to stand here and intimate that this the delay that Councilman Espinosa requests, regardless of how you feel about this project or his reasons for delaying this project to intimate that it's going to have some sort of major effect on your pride, on your project is disingenuous. It just is. So I don't think it's wise to take that tack in something that is this project is extremely important to the community. Again, depending on which side you're on, so let's argue on the merits of the project. And, you know, as far as it being shallow or not shallow to ask for a delay, I don't want to psychoanalyze any of my colleagues reasons for for asking for a delay. And so, as I said, I'm in support of this.
Speaker 0: All right. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you. So as Councilman Flynn said, I was not here the night of the public hearing on the wastewater increase, which basically created the funding that allowed the project to move forward. And just to go back a little bit, some members on the council tonight were not here when this body was asked to vote on the original . So it started with both a proclamation and then later followed by an idea, an intergovernmental agreement between Denver and DOT that clearly tied the funding that Sea-Tac was going to spend for drainage on I-70 to the drainage project that Denver wanted to do on this area. And initially, you know, when when it came forward, it was a $40 million span CDOT was going to do. When the AG came forward, it was about 180 some million dollars. And then when we had the wastewater increase, it was $300 million. So the project scope just kept growing and growing and growing. Now, maybe it was the intent of folks from public works to always bring this forward as a, you know, a bigger scale project. But the problem I had was we did not have a public input process on any of the drainage projects before the decision was made that this city was going to move forward with the Twin Basin, which is what it was called initially and then later changed to the Platt to Park Hill project. So. You know, in these big projects, typically you have an EGIS, an environmental impact statement. And when you look at the cost of the funding that was spent on all of this. Folks will say we did that, but it was not called. And it's during that part of the process. And so, you know, people who are in the neighborhoods who have this these various aspects of drainage that are going into their communities feel like they had the project shoved down their throats, just to be blunt, because. The input came after the fact and the decision had already been made that the city was moving forward with the Twin Basin Project. The plot to Park Hill and the East Montclair Basins. So. I would have voted no. Then I plan to vote no tonight just because I think we don't do things backwards. It's important for us to follow procedures and to do them right in making sure that we do have genuine community input. And again, that's not what happened in this case. So I just want to ask, Jamie, were you clarify your role in the project? Are you are you a city employee? Are you a contractor to the project? And will you just explain what that role entails?
Speaker 2: Sure. Councilwoman Jamie Price. I'm with the Plat to Park Hill Project. I've been serving as the project director to the project for the past almost two years now. I am a contractor to the city.
Speaker 9: And the company I work for.
Speaker 2: I work with Matrix Design Group.
Speaker 9: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. I want to focus this back on this delay. Councilman Espinosa, you have on the floor a 2828, so a three week delay. But you wanted to change that to a 21? Correct? That's correct. Can we. Councilwoman Gilmore, can we move to change this back to.
Speaker 3: Just the permission of the river in the second or the second year? Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 0: Councilman Turner, do you have permission to move it back a week? I did not second that. So this is flim flam. Councilman Flynn?
Speaker 2: Yes. Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. So just just again, Councilwoman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore, it is Resolutions 23, 24, 26 be postponed to Monday, August 21st.
Speaker 6: All right. Thanks President Brooks I move the that the adoption of council resolutions 823 824 and 826 be postponed to Monday, August 21st.
Speaker 0: We have a first mover and a neo seconder. President Brooks. I should be the mover on that again. Okay. Yeah, it truly matters, but. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, are we ready to vote on this? I do have one more question for city attorney. Okay. Um, so if you were asked to produce article A clause and for the on the contract to preserve to to preserve trees until. Until, you know, a certain date. Uh, could you have done that?
Speaker 5: Um, I think we essentially have those rights in the contract as it is today. The city is in control of the timing of all phases of the project.
Speaker 0: Would that make a little closer area?
Speaker 5: Geographic and City Attorney's Office. We have suspension rights and we have termination rights and we have other rights to have the program unfold in a way that suits your needs. So I think that with those rights, we can delay certain phases of the project on site if events suggest that, that would be prudent to do.
Speaker 0: I recognize that all of our contracts have the ability to amend and terminate. Pretty much standard boilerplate language that then we revise project specific. I'm asking if somebody had directed you to specifically address preservation of mature trees until such a time when we're free of litigation. Could you have produced such a language.
Speaker 5: And put it in this contract? Sure we could we could produce other clauses that that either are or aren't. And so, you know, of course.
Speaker 0: So to to close out that that was all I was asking for. This was not a whim. It was really to to to spend a couple of weeks making that ask of our city attorneys who are fully capable of doing this, the administration who is fully capable of incorporating this, because this is not I think Councilman Clark sort of explained a false equivalent that this would be something we could always do. We're talking about preserving an irreplaceable asset. These are trees that we cannot grow tomorrow. We cannot grow in 30 years. We cannot grow in 70 years. We need 100 years to produce these things. And so if we set a threshold and made a commitment, we could codify that in in in language. And I don't think that's far fetched idea for this council or the administration to to protect. I mean, those trees can then ultimately be removed once everything's a go. Yeah, it would be painful to work around, but it's we really shouldn't be marching until such time. And I recognize that the comments have made that we have the right to terminate, we have the right to amend, we have the right to do a whole bunch of things. But it's very clear in all the city statements that that desire to postpone or delay or keep these projects is independent, as has been stated previously for for a year. And as Councilman Flynn sort of reiterated, you know, if they're truly independent, then we should be able to say golf course, you stay on hold until we have clarification that we, in fact, can disturb that historic golf course. And that wouldn't be so wrong. So did you want to. I would just say that a no vote is to not allow a representative of this body to seek time to to at least make that ask. Okay. I think we want something from the legal team.
Speaker 4: Yeah. I just wanted to briefly address your concern about the tree preservation. We do believe we already have the language and the authority in the contract as written, in addition to the standard suspension and termination clauses. The city has the rights to approve all phases of the work. One of the requirements of the contract relates specifically to tree preservation and any tree removal and replacement plan would need to be approved by the city forester, among others. I think.
Speaker 0: Again, all of that is known. That's all very clear. What you're obviously obfuscating here is the fact that that tree removal plan basically says you remove this tree, you replace it with these. And and I'm saying that it is not the same to put three new trees in to replace one large mature tree. If you were telling me that it was only removing seven inch caliber trees, that would be one thing. But we know that they're more substantial trees than that, and those are the.
Speaker 5: Ones that are hard to produce.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly, I appreciate as council president was saying, I don't think we should let a lawsuit dictate our timeline. And in the end, does it make a difference? No, but the principle of it, as legislators, we are moving this city forward and we should not start because of fear of litigation. And let's be real. If the judgment comes down in support of the city, there will be an appeals process. And will we be getting more chain letters saying that we should wait for the appeal to go through? I just don't believe that is something that we should do as a city. So I am comfortable moving forward with this and I would hope that our council members support it. But in the end, it, I don't think will make that significant of a difference. But for me, it's the principle that who dictates how we vote. It should not be based off of who chooses to sue the city. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, just to remind everyone we're not actually vote on the bill are now are voting on a delay to 821. It's been moved and seconded. Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 2: Mr. President. Of all three of them or just one?
Speaker 0: Yes. Thank you for for pointing that out. This is all three of the bills. 823, eight, 24 and 826.
Speaker 3: Espinosa, I.
Speaker 5: Flynn I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore No. Herndon. No. In. Can each. No. Lopez.
Speaker 5: I knew.
Speaker 9: Ortega, I.
Speaker 1: SUSSMAN No. BLACK No.
Speaker 3: Clark.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: No, please, cause very nice results.
Speaker 3: Six, eight, seven, eight.
Speaker 0: Six, eight, seven. Nays. The postponement to Monday 821 fails. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. President. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, I would like to postpone the adoption of Council Resolutions eight, 28, 23, eight, 24 and 826 to Monday, August 14th. And just as a reminder, that can happen again next week.
Speaker 5: By a different member of council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Now, under the rule, that can only be one discretionary lamictal i i just.
Speaker 5: I just.
Speaker 0: I just wanted to keep this thing going. Thank you for city attorney.
Speaker 2: I thought we were in new rules.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Thank you. City attorney David Broadwell. What will we do without you? Um, just. Just for folks. There are folks who are watching and who probably took that comment serious there. We are not able to do that next week. You can only do it one time and postpone it a week pursuant to Rule 3.7. Our jokes aside. Okay. Well all of their bills for introduction or order publish except for council bills. Eight, 12, eight, 13, eight, 14, 15, 16, eight, 17, 88, 18 and eight, 19. After recess this evening, there will be one hour courtesy combined courtesy public hearing on these bills. After the public hearing has concluded, Council will separately vote on each of these bill. We are now ready for the vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call it an item on a separate vote. Councilwoman Gilmore, where you put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor.
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration do pass and a block for the following items. 071607970806080707910793079507960808080107630780. All series of 2017.
Speaker 5: Excellent job.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Black. Clerk Espinosa.
Speaker 0: But. I. But it's a black vote. Oh, sorry.
Speaker 5: Hi. Hi, Lynn.
Speaker 0: Okay, great.
Speaker 3: I gillmor I heard in Cashion.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Susman, I. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. I. Please close. What was the voting or announce the results? 1313 ies The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed on final consideration and do pass. We recognize former Councilwoman Cathy Donahue here. Thank you for being here. There are some other former councilwoman in the place to Councilman Elder Debra Wedgeworth, former district eight, and also the president, also former Councilwoman Harvey Haynes, who still in here. Okay.
Speaker 10: Got the council. Yes. We also Councilman and.
Speaker 5: Councilman Sanders is the mayor.
Speaker 1: This is anybody else here?
Speaker 5: Councilman Sanders is in the back. He's down. The staff is a coup to town. It's a good idea. Oh, my goodness. And look.
Speaker 10: Alyssa McKenzie.
Speaker 0: Can you. Okay. And Councilwoman Mackenzie, thank you for being here. This is five I think we have a yeah, a quorum. A former council speaker. Wow. Did I miss anything else? All right. Okay. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 728, providing an extension of approximately ten months of an existing moratorium on the
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed On-Call Program Management Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., for program management services of the City Park Golf Course Parks and Drainage Improvements Design/Build Project and the 39th Avenue/Park Hill Parks Drainage Improvements Design/Build Project.
Approves a contract with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. for $6 million and for three years for program management services of the City Park Golf Course parks and drainage improvements and the Park Hill parks and drainage improvements projects as part of the citywide Platte to Park Hill: Stormwater Systems project (201735100). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 7-25-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, August 7, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, August 14, 2017.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0728
|
Speaker 0: To your left. To your right. Or right. And. And left speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to members of council. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to us as a whole, not individual or individual or personal attacks. Council Woman Gilmore. Will you please put Council Bill 728 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 728 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Bill 728 is now open. Councilman? No. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 8: This is an issue that started about a year ago in August when we had a garden court building form that was being used to build some slot homes and a couple of areas. And so at it we decided to do the moratorium. So it gives people the opportunity to reevaluate the garden court building for them as well as to consider a new building for them with the slight homes. CPD has done a great job. They started last fall and and it's taken a very long time to get all the discussion on the garden court building form as well as the smart homes. And, and so CBD is requested that we ask for just a, an extension of the moratorium for nine months. We feel like it may not go that long. The discussions are going along very well and we'll probably end up with two decisions on both forms down the road. So we're looking forward to seeing the resolution of this and I'm sure it'll it'll occur in the next couple of months, hopefully. Right.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. New. Very quick. We have one person speaking tonight. None other than Chairman Seiko. You have three, 3 minutes, sir.
Speaker 11: Oh, yes, but you know. Yes. My name is Chairman Steve Hukou. I'm the founder organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. And we will keep this real short. We do support the extension of the moratorium. Well, the stated and above reasons. And thank you for your work. I also want to take this opportunity to thank our office folks and Kelly and Makhija for doing an outstanding job and being that first line of customer service, which makes all of this doable. Without them, it would be very difficult for me to come in here smile. But because they give me the optimistic self determination to come on through the door and participate. I want to thank the staff and also want to thank President Brooks. Outstanding job in keeping this serious, but not too serious, you know, and giving us some levity so that no one leaves here with a nightmare that they can't sleep at night because they went to city council. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Councilman. I mean, I say count. Wow, chairman. Say COO. Thank you. This concludes our our speakers council. Oh, actually, you know what? I'm sorry. Questions by members of council. I want to make sure there weren't any questions. Okay, great. This concludes the public hearing. 728. Comments. Members of Council Councilmen, new councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 8: I think I went ahead and explained pretty well. I think I'm real pleased with the process. They're doing a great job, well designed, and we've got a lot of good input from all different parties involved with from architects to developers to community residents. And so we're looking at the neighborhood character as well as what fits well in those neighborhoods with these building forms. And look forward to the resolution of this and see what happens with the Garden Court as well as the new building form, which I see will boost light homes. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, councilman, new councilman as well. First, I want to thank Councilman New for his work and sort of, you know, follow through on this and sort of persistence on on and on. This whole garden court issue and making sure that we have a timely extension to this moratorium. And then I want to thank CPD staff on at least for her leadership in the slot Home Task Force, which is having conversations about this form and you know, will will result in some sort of change. But we need this moratorium, as you know, to buy a little time for those final solutions to to to be written up and voted on by this body. But I do want to let everybody know that that slot home task force is proceeding right along. Those are public meetings. We probably will have a another public meeting, I mean, a larger public meeting to sort of update the public in the not too distant future. But they're good conversations. And we will be coming up with some good ideas at some point in the not too distant future, probably early next year, for sort homes across all zone districts, including garden courts, as as we know them. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, thank you, too, for your work on this and being inclusive of the entire city, allowing folks from even my neighborhood to be a part of this. And Chairman Sekou, always good to get a compliment from you. I mean, this is a good day. It's a good day in Denver when that happens. All right, senor, the comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: New Ortega by Sussman I.
Speaker 1: Black Eye.
Speaker 3: Clark.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Espinoza i.
Speaker 2: Flynn, i.
Speaker 3: More i. Herndon, i.
Speaker 2: Cashman, I can each.
Speaker 3: Lopez Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close voting announce results.
Speaker 3: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 Eyes Council Bill 728 House Pass. Congratulations, Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 729 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance providing an extension of approximately ten months of an existing moratorium enacted by Ordinance 20160541, Series of 2016 on the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of certain buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code.
Provides an extension of approximately ten months of an existing moratorium enacted by Ordinance 20160541, Series of 2016, on the approval of site development plans and the amendment of approved site development plans for construction of certain buildings using the Garden Court building form in the Denver Zoning Code. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-27-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0812
|
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. Council Bill 729 has been adopted. Congratulations. And just like that, we are on to our last bill of the evening bills, I should say, of the evening. Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 812 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 812 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: It's been moved and seconded because for Lopez, it's council's understanding that after the courtesy public hearing, you and Councilman Espinosa will be offering an amendment to Council Bill 819, which designates the project's level of funding to be undertaken. So the speakers may address the amendment during the public comment section if they choose. Actually, I'm going to ask you to hold and let let take this. Go ahead and deliver the entire. Go ahead, councilman of it.
Speaker 10: That's fine, Mr. President. And only because I know we have this in the chambers right now. If you want to also announce that we have a translation, simultaneous translation taking place for folks that are coming. Great on the amendment.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Just as Councilman Lopez has mentioned, we have a translation taking place for the entire council, for those who need it. If you need translate. Translation monitors are there in the in the back over here. All right, take us away. Take it away.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Council President Brooks and members of the council. And take us all the way the deputy chief projects officer in the mayor's office. I'm joined here by Laura Perry in the Department of Finance. And what we'd like to do for a few minutes is just give a key highlights of the process that have led us to this evening, where you're going to be considering the various bills for the 2017 G.O. bond.
Speaker 0: And take us let me let me just just state it for the record because they're only set for Council Bill 812 to be order published. But this is 812 through 819 and we're having the staff report by Typekit Holloway. Go ahead.
Speaker 5: Thank you. So as you all recall, we began this process back in 2016 where we started to develop the list of projects that were going to be considered as part of the 2017 Geo Bond. We began by using Elevate 2020, which is the city's six year capital improvement plan. And then we added on input that we received from the city's cultural institutions and Denver health, plus input from City Council and the public. From there, we went to the next phase, which was the evaluation and recommendation of list of projects that again, you'll see this evening before you. The foundational document that we used elevate 2020. Again, that capital improvement plan for the city actually has a culmination of projects that have received input over a series of years from neighborhood plans, community meetings, city council members, as well as city agencies that have taken technical analyzes and created projects out of those for our city assets. Then, starting in 2016, over a year ago, we began six citywide public meetings co-hosted with City Council. Through that process, we received over 3000 ideas about potential projects which were part of the evaluation and ultimately either screened out or included in the final recommendation. Over half of those comments were received were about transportation and mobility, which also was one of the initiatives that the mayor wanted to see a focal point on was transportation mobility. And then in 2017, as we entered into the evaluation and recommendation process, we've continue to take input from the public and have received, again, over 1000 comments to date associated with this list. So we in the evaluation and recommendation phase, we had over 60 volunteers, stakeholder committees within five discrete areas, transportation and mobility, parks and recreation, safety facilities, city owned facilities and arts and culture. And those five subcommittees made a recommendation to an executive committee who then in turn did additional analysis and evaluation and made a recommendation to the mayor. The mayor then worked with council leadership to incorporate City Council's thoughts on the 2017 G.O. bond, which ultimately culminated in the list of projects and the bill ordinances that you'll see this evening. They started with over $3.6 billion worth of projects, had a very difficult task. We are very appreciative of their work as well as the input received by the public in council members. By the numbers, the total project value in the bills that you're seeing this evening is approximately 887 million. We have an additional 50 million which gets you to the 937. That is part of the purpose contingency. Again, best practices. This has generated over 460 distinct projects. About half or over half is about fixing repairing what we have. We've heard that loud and clear from the community through this process, and just about half of the funds are going towards transportation and mobility, which again was one of the mayor's vision and goal for this bond. We are also leveraging approximately 400 million and other people's money when we go forward with this bond.
Speaker 7: Good evening, Laura Perry with the Department of Finance. If the ban is approved by voters, the debt authorized under the bond would be issued in multiple issuances about over a ten year period. Our bonds are secured by debt service mills to the tune of 8.43 mills, and the anticipated total repayment costs for the 937 million in principal is approximately 1.7 billion, and that's principal plus interest for a term of approximately 20 years. And of course, the city's two year bonds are currently triple-A by all three of our major credit rating agencies. Once the funds are issued, they will be managed by an oversight structure, which essentially will take a look at each project, its execution funds and the governance around those funds. The structure will consist with our of our department staff and leaders as a starting place. And further details on that structure will be provided once we pursue a program management structure for the bond. At a minimum, annual reporting will be put forward for how bond proceeds are expended and the status of our projects. But we fully expect to honor quarterly reporting, which we have done to date via the Better Denver Bond program. And of course, city council will see all contracts over $500,000, including our debt issuances. The eight bills before you today are listed here on this slide. I'm not going to read each one, but our total proposed 2017 two year bond package is a little over 937 million. With the allocation among these seven listed in the table below and then the final ordinance is the companion ordinance which designates how each of the dollars will be spent within each of the ballot. Questions slash purposes listed on this slide. Following tonight's second reading is next week on the evening of August 14th, which would be the referral to the ballot. Then between August and November would be the ballot campaign, with the vote concluding on November 7th and if approved by voters. Department of Finance would seek to go to the market primarily the first quarter of the year and of course would bring forward that first issuance to City Council for approval. And that concludes the staff report.
Speaker 0: All right. I did not introduce Laura Perry, but she's been doing a great job for the last year working on this. All right. I'm going to pass it over. For the amendment for Councilman Lopez and or Espinosa, who wants to go ahead.
Speaker 10: I'll take. Thank you, Mr. President. So I'll make the motion first and then. Then explain it, if that's okay.
Speaker 0: Now, you don't need to make them. Just explain it right now.
Speaker 10: Oh, you just want. Okay. Yeah. All right.
Speaker 0: Just. Just for the 30 people who are about to speak so they know what you're talking about.
Speaker 10: Gotcha. So let me just speak to the purpose of the amendment just as written. That way, you know, that we'll go into discussion later. But the the amendment that Councilman Espinosa and I have is to reallocate a portion of the bond proceeds associated with the debt issuance for transportation and mobility projects by eliminating the Federal Boulevard Infrastructure Project, thus freeing up 9.8 million to be reallocated as follows an additional 4.2 million for Morrison road improvements, bringing the total amount of bond proceeds to be dedicated to this project to 12,242,500. The addition of the following three projects were originally listed on potential projects list, but not included in the mayor's recommendation. That's the Central Street Promenade, with the estimated cost of 850,000 Federal Boulevard pedestrian improvements, with an estimated cost of 2.8 million and West Colfax Transit enhancements with an estimated cost of 1.9 million.
Speaker 0: Okay. Anything else you want to say about that? Guzman-Lopez Well.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so let me just say this. Let me just, just start out by saying we were very happy seeing, you know, the process and you know, our amendment is not a critique of the process or anything like that. We, we noticed that the this throughout the process, there have been some key projects that folks who you you'll hear from later had been working on for such a very long time. We know in the West Side there's just a lack of connectivity to the west of the to the rest of the city. And, you know, it's still a long time of not being able to really fully have that connection in a lot of ways. 13th Avenue, some of the upgrades, the realignment, things like that are doing it down in the valley. But when you look at some of that connectivity and mobility, there really is that barrier. And I think it's important that we address that. And also because along this stretch and it's not just Federal Boulevard, but the neighborhoods that surround Federal Boulevard also suffer from the same thing, is that there's just a lack of strong pedestrian transit oriented infrastructure. Right. And key nodes. And so although federal is important, you know, federal has seen its its fair share of work along the way. And what you're going to see, I mean, apologies ahead of time, but you're going to see a traffic nightmare because of the fact that we are also going to rebuild Federal Boulevard from Holden to Sixth Avenue, and that that kind of tops it off from the previous project was the previous closure that we had was rebuilding those bridges along Sixth Avenue and then from about Fifth Avenue down to Alameda, rebuilding Federal Boulevard. So in a lot of ways, we have dedicated a lot of resources. And look, we identified we asked that I asked this question not too long ago during this process and wondering what this 9.8 million was during this process. We knew we were following certain projects that were key, like Morrison Road, like West Colfax, and they were key because they are they are neighborhood centers, they are city centers. They move people and they are what we wanted to see was complete projects. Well. They came through the processing complete from one from the committee to the executive committee, back and forth. We'd see it kind of like a like a tetherball. And there were times where I was just dying to scream and say, hey, wait, wait, wait, wait. That's for this. And, you know, we're just respecting the process. We didn't do that. But in looking at filling those gaps, Morrison rode on West Colfax on on the the project that was supposed to happen a long time ago with the Central City Promenade and then also some portions of Federal Boulevard that were just high priority. We just wanted to make sure that if we had an opportunity, why don't we complete the projects that were already there? Let's complete it and let's walk away from right there, complete. We can walk away as opposed to what we found in this $9.8 million that was allocated for Federal Boulevard. It was really kind of like it was really, um, wasn't so ambiguous. It was pretty obscure. It was very general. And we understand, yes, there has been great work done on this federal corridor study. If we really wanted to try to make Federal Boulevard and transform Federal Boulevard into a transit corridor, ladies and gentlemen, it's going to take a lot more than $9.8 million. And in no way is it West Colfax or is it Colfax, but it is very important and it is that big of a deal. Right. And so when you look at this opportunity in this bond right now, you have you have these projects that were not completely funded. And then a project that basically is is a pilot, right? It's much more of our it's much more worth our time and our investment to complete these projects, be done with them and move on to the next vision and actually look at reinvesting a lot of future resources into federal government as we do it. And so it you know, I. If these funds are approved, does it get us any closer to the BRT? Does it does it or any other high capacity transit for that entire quarter? Does it stop momentum of the BRT? I don't think so. But what this does on on the West Colfax side is because that BRT stops that just right at the federal Decatur station. Does it go any further despite Colfax being going all the way to Sheridan? This makes that connection. This allows us to connect to that BRT, make that East-West connection on and on. Further on Morrison Road, it actually allows us to make that East-West connection on a diagonal. The folks that are coming into the city, Van Morrison Road and what people really don't understand is that is a heavily used avenue for it. And so as that happens and as folks as you see here are working in along Morrison Road to transform that into their main street to their main corridor, the biggest obstacle to that is the lack of pedestrian infrastructure, the lack of stoplights, the lack of the lack of bulb outs and medians and pedestrian refuges. So that's what that does. And it complete something that has long been awaited. Councilman, I look at you because I know you were part of that council a long time ago that really set that vision. So I also want to allow my colleague to chime in on that as well, too. I don't want to dominate that, but that's really the heart of what we're trying to you know.
Speaker 0: You guys are going to get another shot when we actually amend the bill to comment on it. I want to get these 30 folks out here. Thank you. Mr.. That gives them a good idea of what's going on. All right. We have, first of all, the the public hearing for council bills, 812 to 819 is now open. We have 30 speakers. Remember that this is an hour courtesy public hearing. So I'll keep a timer with the president, pro tem Joe and Clark looking over my shoulder to ensure that it's at an hour and we don't cut you short at all. You have 3 minutes and I'm going to call the first five people, have them call you in five sets of five and just come up here to the front here and thank you. Take us and Laura for giving that up. All right. For the first five, we have Rick Locke and tour George Sparks, Robin witnessing Steve Garrett and Sekou. Steve Gerrard. I'm sorry. Mr. Looking. You have 3 minutes. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: All right. Well, thank you. Thanks. Council President Brooks. My name's Frank Logan. Tory. I live at 2145 East 16th Avenue, said City Park, West Council District nine, and just one block off of Colfax. I'm also the executive director for the Colfax AV Business Improvement District, and that runs from approximately the state capital on the West End to East High on the East End. My favorite quote about Colfax is it's the most Democratic street in Denver. It's accessible to all types of people. My second favorite quote is a little bit disparaging, comes from George Orwell in the late seventies who said the threat of nuclear annihilation loses a bit of its sting once one has visited Colfax Avenue. We've come quite a long way since then. And and I look forward to telling Mr. Will after the voters pass the bond in November, how far we've come. And it's been because of all the work that you and City Council and others have done, the community supporting lots of comments about Colfax improvements during the the community engagement price. The process that takes was talking about city staff has identified Colfax as an important corridor to invest in and then the Go Bond Transportation Committee and the mayor have both recommended that $20 million go to Colfax for eight miles of improvements, serving about 75,000 people in the city. The four Colfax bids have also been unified and organized. In order to be able to take this to it to another level, make the streets safer and and have a sustainable plan for the long term. And last but certainly not least, is the $55 million for the bus rapid transit that has also been recommended, which will serve approximately 50,000 people at its peak. It's 50,000 daily riders. So in a decade or two from now, when these people are going to be getting off of the bus on to Colfax, they'll be stepping on to a safe and friendly and vibrant Colfax. And it's going to be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability or income, whether they're a resident employee or a tourist. They'll have more freedom of choice of how to get there and things to do once they get there. And and I want to thank you all the mayor, the Bond Committee folks that volunteered.
Speaker 5: Countless hours to.
Speaker 2: Doing it. And and thank you for supporting the $20 million going to Colfax improvements and the 55 million for the BRT. Mr. LARKIN See, that's it.
Speaker 0: You've run out of time.
Speaker 2: You can see it all this Saturday at Artifacts at Park Avenue in Colfax.
Speaker 0: Thank you, sir.
Speaker 5: George Sparks, you're up. Good evening. I'm George Sparks. I live at 1401 South Saint Paul Street. And Councilman Cashman represents our family there, president and CEO of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. And I'm here to express our collective support for the general obligation bond. Thank you, President Brooks and City Council for the opportunity to share with you the value general obligation bond funding brings to the community through our institutions with respect to all those who wish to speak during a limited time. I offer a combined statement on behalf of the museum. Denver Botanic Gardens, Denver Center for the Performing Arts, Denver Zoo and Denver Art Museum. We represent city assets that have a global impact. All of our proposed projects repair and replace critical elements of our ability to serve a diverse population for decades to come. Residents and visitors to Denver enjoy an incredibly rich and vibrant arts and culture scene. Collectively, in 2016 alone, we served a staggering 6.6 million guests. And while our guests have happily been engaged and entertained over the years, our facilities are regularly impacted by this steady use. And we all take very seriously our commitment to partnering with the city to maintain the vitality of our facilities for future generations. Our $116.9 million request will help cover the costs of critical deferred maintenance and Enhanced Education Center replacement of a 50 year old animal hospital. Life safety upgrades to theaters and to preserve an architectural icon. We recognize that we are asking the citizens to invest in us and we commit to making the most of that investment and continuing to engage increasingly more and different audiences. I would like to thank the Arts and Culture Subcommittee and Mayor Hancock for the time and energy they committed to reviewing our requests. Tonight, I ask that you approve our funding request as forwarded to you by Mayor Hancock to complete these crucial projects. Thank you again. And we ask for your support of the general obligation bond.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Sparks. All right, Robin wouldn't seem.
Speaker 4: Hello. My name is Robyn Winston and I live here in Denver, I'm pleased to say. And I am the CEO Denver Health. I'm here first to say thank you to the council.
Speaker 1: To the.
Speaker 4: The volunteers on the committees and to the staff who worked on this bond project. It was an amazing effort. And as I watched it coming new to the city of Denver, I have to say that I think that there's a great deal that everybody who is involved in this.
Speaker 1: Process should be proud of.
Speaker 4: Denver Health Plans on using the $75 million request that is included in the geo bond as a partial payment on a new outpatient medical building that will be constructed on our campus. We started a process in 2013 of doing a master facilities plan, looking at all of the.
Speaker 1: Different primary.
Speaker 4: Care centers that we have scattered across the city of Denver. We serve the population that is most vulnerable and most needy in all of the areas of the city. With those primary care clinics providing PCP, SE primary care physicians, behavioral health, substance abuse and other types of services in those clinics. But one thing that we need to do is expand the specialty care. So when we have patients who come to our clinics and in 2014, we served 419,000 people, in 2016, where we served approximately 500,000 people. And that number continues to grow when patients need to be referred to a cardiologist or general surgeon or another specialist. We are quickly reaching capacity in all of our specialty care clinics, and these are patients who are coming to Denver health from across every every part of the city of Denver. By adding this new building, we're going to increase our capacity and allow or allow our physicians to take care of the patient patients in the city of Denver who most need their care. The building will cost 150, $154 million. $75 million will be funded through the geo bonds. The balance will be funded through Denver Health's capital plan, philanthropy and cash reserves.
Speaker 1: That we have available to.
Speaker 4: Us. When we open the building, we will include not only specialty care services that the patients need everything from cardiology, general surgery, new clinics for behavioral health. But it will also then allow Denver Health to take the next steps in the future on our master plan, which include adding new substance abuse and behavioral health beds and other specialty services to the campus. So we think that this is something that the citizens of Denver, and particularly those citizens who are most vulnerable, are in desperate need of. So we ask you for your support on this. And again, thank you for all of the hard work and effort, because it was really quite amazing to watch from the outside.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Weinstein. All right, Steve, draw. I get that last night.
Speaker 5: You got it right the first time. Okay. What? Garrett? My name is Steve Garrett, and I'm a retired division chief with the Denver Fire Department for 37 years. And I'm here on behalf to thank you for putting on the bond issue several fire issues. And thank you for your support to the fire department on all the other items. As a Division Chief, I was responsible for the building of new firehouses and for the maintaining of the existing ones, as well as all the other logistics. And two of the issues tonight are the building of a new firehouse at 72nd and Panya, I believe that's Council District 11. And one of the reasons is we've identified that station as having a response time average of 5 minutes and 40 seconds. What we strive for is an NFPA standard, national fire protection, a four minute response time. We also have a committee, MRSA, in which we worked with council members at the time. I was on it for five years. That was Peggy Lehman. And in order to meet that four minute response time, you have to build firehouses to do that. And those hotels have been out there since 1995. And we tried to get it. We had studies done both in 2003 and 2014. And the 2003 study identified it. And they said at that time it would be a mid project to be put on the books at 2008 to 2014. Well excuse me, 2012. Well we all know what happened during that time with the big financial crisis and we weren't able to go through with the project. But now we hope that we can continue to go through the project. And the other item on the list that I have a minute is some station repairs that deal with gender specific bathrooms, kitchens, replacing flooring, relocating a chief to the south district. Because of our take over of Sheridan and Inglewood, we have to accommodate them at one of our stations out Southwest and the other. Items. As you know, when you get in construction, especially a building is over 40 years old and our oldest is 86 years old. You're constantly dealing with environmental issues like as best as radon and a bunch of other items. So we're asking you for your support, and we thank you for your past support on these issues.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Last in the group of five is Sekou.
Speaker 11: Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. After the third time up here, we pretty much know what I'm doing, who I represent, a particular focus. It's on in this bond issue. The libraries. Money for the libraries. We look at all of the numbers. That's a lot of money. Libraries is at the bottom of the bill. And we know for a civilization to advance. They have to have knowledge, understanding and wisdom. Before you talk about a bus. Or before you talk about health care. No knowledge, no wisdom, no understanding. And then all of that falls apart. And yet it has the lowest numbers in it. And we know that a government commitment to its citizens and civilization is based on how you spend your money. So the question becomes, oh, secret, how are you going to encourage? Black people to vote for this. How are you going to do it? Because when I look at the numbers and I've been down here coming in, watching how the money split up. 90% of the money is going to white male privilege. And then the rest this left 10%, which is the crumbs that everybody else got to fight for, ends up being an exercise in futility. So we need to stop lying about our priorities. Stop lying about diversity. Your answers it because I. What would you do with your money? So stop lying about equal opportunity for women. I watch how you spend your money. Everybody just needs to be authentic about it and say, Hey, man, this is all about white supremacy and white privilege for males. And we're going to take it back to where it used to be. Well, that's not going to happen because black folks ain't goin nowhere. We're going to stick and stay. We're going to fight for our right to be recognized and treated like human beings. And that library on Welton Street is crucial to our legacy. Crucial to our legacy. I was up in the mountains, Arapahoe County, part of the national park, and it dawned on me that was named after Indian people. But guess what? I saw no Arapaho Indians nowhere up there.
Speaker 5: No one.
Speaker 11: And that's how the West is. One. That's how this one. So we've got to stop this. And we've got to stop it now. And you have an opportunity to do that. Because when this thing is voted upon and the money comes in, we've got to change the paradigm in terms of participation in how we do the money . Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Time's up. Thank you. All right, I'm gonna call the next five up here, and, um, I think I. I think we got that first name spell wrong, but if you. Your first initials. In your last initials, Rodriguez, you're up. Jill Larkin. Tori. Denny O'Malley. Kristen. Monroe. And last one and this five is Bart Berger. This misread? Yes. I'm sorry. We spoke. Your name? First name?
Speaker 13: No, it's all right. Say your.
Speaker 0: First name.
Speaker 13: My name is Atsu Rodriguez. I am 14 years of age. I've been living in Westwood for four years. Well, I first want to think. I mean, the sorry city council for considering us for this grant to build a recreation center. I would love to have this recreation center be built for the community, of course, and for my family. I used to go to a recreation center, but the recreation center was far away from my home. So I had to stop going to that center. And the reason why was my mom works and there was no transportation. And as I mentioned before, it was. Way too far away. So I want to thank you guys and hope you consider giving us the grant. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Miss Rodriguez, please come back for, you know, next time to another council. I mean, you're 14 years old and you're here. Thank you so much for being here. You got to come back. All right, Jill, I can talk.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 7: My name is Jill Lowcountry and I'm here today on behalf of Walk Denver and as part of the Denver Streets Partnership to express support for the mayor's proposed project list for the Go Bond. Although none of us got everything on our wish list for the bond, the mayor's proposal does include a strong package of multimodal transportation projects that will provide Denver residents with increased options for getting around our city. In particular, I want to highlight the $30.7 million investment in citywide sidewalks as a particularly important commitment that will not only make our city more walkable, but also more equitable.
Speaker 1: The city's current.
Speaker 7: Practice of leaving it entirely up to private property owners to build and repair sidewalks has directly led to the current inequities in our city today and created a system.
Speaker 1: Of haves and have.
Speaker 7: Nots where only the wealthy neighborhoods have complete, well-maintained sidewalks. Tragically, the Denver residents who are most dependent on walking to get to transit, to get to jobs, to schools and other daily destinations, often live in neighborhoods with the worst sidewalks and the highest rates of people dying and suffering injuries in traffic crashes while walking. This is not acceptable. The presence or absence of sidewalks should not be the indicator of whether a neighborhood is affordable or not.
Speaker 1: To address this inequity, the city must proactively.
Speaker 7: And systematically invest in building out a complete sidewalk network so that every Denver neighborhood has this most basic infrastructure that people need to get around safely. The 30.7.
Speaker 1: Million for city wide sidewalks in the bond is.
Speaker 7: An important down payment on this promise. We at Walk Denver and of the Denver Streets Partnership look forward to working with the mayor and the City Council to identify additional sustained funding needed to build out and maintain the complete network. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Looking toward Denny O'Malley. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Respectful of your time with.
Speaker 0: But once you come to them. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Mr. O'Malley. Kristen Monroe. All right. Barbara.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Councilman Brooks. Counsel, it's going to surprise you. I'm going to talk about the Denver mountain parks. I want to wish a happy birthday to Councilman Susman, who curiously, I, too, just celebrated my 43rd birthday. I am here to speak personally and on behalf of the Denver Mountain Parks Foundation. I'm a currently doing business out of a post office box in Capitol Hill, and I want to support the inclusion of the Denver Mountain Parks and in the GO funding for the CTC infrastructure improvements in the historic C, C C camp in Morrison and the Katherine and Craig Mountain Park camps. Those are important to our legacy in our history, in the development of Denver and our relationship with the federal government. And it's a pretty interesting thing because that TCC camp was of course where the boys were who built the Red Rocks Ampitheater and we used other people's money to do it. This $2 million that's dedicated for this is is a lot of money. But when you consider the Denver mountain parks are 72% of Denver's park acreage, that's not a heck of a lot of money, but it is a significant amount of money when you consider that it's the first public, dedicated public funding since 1955 for the mountain parks other than the general fund budget on an annual basis. The renovation of this facility will enable the occupancy by an outfit called Historic Core, which is a national nonprofit organization that restores historic structures on public lands. And that's as a result of our working with them and with the Director of Parks and Rec, Happy Haines, her work, and Scott Gilmore's excellent vision to understand the rest of what that could actually mean for the mountain parks. The this is a big deal to to have this camp restored for that purpose. This is a really big deal for two reasons. Not only does it enable the restoration of this camp, but with a historic for complete restoration of the other significant historic structures in the Denver mountain parks can be enabled through their work. And number two, the skills training that the historic corps people do for youth through their volunteer programs opens up the larger CTC in Katherine Craig facilities for expanded environmental and conservation education programs. That can be done in partnership with the zoo. The Denver the Denver. Mr. Bird Museum of Nature and Science, suburban Denver Botanic Gardens.
Speaker 0: You've run out of time.
Speaker 5: I had more. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, we're in call next five up here. Jamie Perkins, Kristoff. Henry. Jenny. La Prairie. La Prairie. Gabriela medina. Why don't you guys start coming up to the front here to have a seat? Gabriela medina. And one more. Heather Noyes. Another noise in. Oh, why, yes. Yeah, come on to the front. All right. First up, Jimmy Perkins.
Speaker 7: Hi. I'm Jimmy Perkins, resident of Denver. My home addresses.
Speaker 1: 1910 Xenia Street.
Speaker 7: So thank you and good evening. Council members and staff. My name again is.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Perkins, and I'm the program manager at Transit Alliance, which has a 20.
Speaker 7: Year history here in the metro region of supporting and advancing public transportation on behalf of Transit Alliance. I'm here to provide our comments of support for Federal Boulevard transit improvements in the go round. First, though, I'd like to express our support just overall for the transportation projects that are really pushing our city.
Speaker 1: Ahead and giving.
Speaker 7: Denver ites more choices of how they get around.
Speaker 1: We support these investments in people who walk, bike and take transit.
Speaker 7: Transit Alliance backs transit improvements for Federal Boulevard because it's a strategic corridor with the region's second highest ridership.
Speaker 1: This will help the city achieve its goal of decreasing dependance on single occupancy vehicles, which right now are at a mode share of 73% and climbing. We want that down to.
Speaker 7: 50% by 2030.
Speaker 1: Improving mobility options.
Speaker 7: Including transit through this corridor, is also key to achieving our vision zero goal of zero fatalities and serious injuries by traffic crashes.
Speaker 1: Already this year, four people lost their lives just walking on Federal Boulevard.
Speaker 7: Further transit improvements for federal are crucial for meeting the aims of the Federal Boulevard Corridor Plan and the Denver mass transit plan. Most importantly, transit improvements for Federal Boulevard will serve Denver ites, elevating the dignity of transit riders.
Speaker 1: On our second.
Speaker 7: Highest ridership route and throwing a lifeline to Denver ites who are struggling to afford to stay in Denver.
Speaker 1: Improvements such as traffic signal priority and bus stop enhancements help provide.
Speaker 7: More reliable service for riders. For people living along the socio and economically and racially diverse corridor, access to quality service. Transit service is vital.
Speaker 1: Transportation is a household second highest cost.
Speaker 7: A person in.
Speaker 1: Denver can save more than.
Speaker 7: $10,000 annually by switching his or her daily commute by car to public transportation.
Speaker 1: For some Denver rights.
Speaker 7: That can make the difference for being able to stay in their neighborhood amidst rising housing costs. Finally, the city has to take the lead for improving transit service. Better transit service relies on supportive street design and land use. Without transit support, a street design and land use, RTD cannot deliver more frequent or reliable service.
Speaker 1: It's imperative that the city of Denver.
Speaker 7: Prioritizes projects like the Federal Boulevard Transit Improvements in the Go bond package. If we're serious about increasing the number of people who are walking, riding their bikes and riding transit.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Perkins. Christoph Heinrich.
Speaker 2: The finally director of the Denver Art Museum. In the interest of everybody's time, we the art museum defers as well to Josh Sparks announcement, but we are very happy if occurs later to answer specific questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Eric. All right. Guinea. Liberia. I didn't see her. Ginny. Okay. Gabriela medina And this is translation for Gabriela. And so we were to have 6 minutes.
Speaker 1: When I started this crisis, an opportunity that gave me this present I cannot stress. It was good channel. Star Wars. Good evening and thank you so much for listening to me today and for listening to our voice. My name is Gabriela medina when I visited a monastery, Denver, Colorado, and it was in that other western. My name is Gabriela medina and I live on 972 South Quitman Street in the Westwood neighborhood. Carlos Diaz. Gracias, Alcala. And as committees. Yeah. So this concert. Carlos Padilla on the project and as importantly in the society, El Centro, the recreation pattern establishing that he. I want to thank the mayor and you on the council and everyone on the committee for the great support that we've received and knowing how.
Speaker 3: Important and necessary.
Speaker 1: This recreation center is for our neighborhood. Yes, the solicitor general apologizes to this, but assuredly that center, the recreation part. I was just a reminder to those adolescents your trip, I hope you know, casino operator Los Altos Centers the recreation at Tamarac TV that is. I am here asking for your support with the Westwood Recreation Center. I am a mom with two young children, two young kiddos, and I am very worried about about them. I work and sometimes I oftentimes don't have enough time to take them to different activities that they have to do. Me preoccupied Applegate does not intend to share it on the baby must own they just put any anti-gravity technology I got out of central location, not just on the school bus. Janos you're not in any support. Only that. And I'm really worried because we really in our neighborhood, we don't have a safe spot for our kids to spend some time and do recreational activities. When we go outside of outside of our neighborhood, we later find out that once we get there, they're already at capacity and we can't leave it. We can't be there. Do I stay preoccupied at Berlusconi's in establishing that you cannot enter the U.S. at an Italian actividad fisica Unalaska? Yes, I can now is necessary. We can either with the NASA and I'm really worried about our youth because when they don't have a safe place to recreate, then they turn and they turn to things that might not be so good for them and being out on the street. So this is why this is an important thing for me. But I say let's be those to the support of our Rosario. Then in a supporting case I say, Well, not really that, but I know stories in that decades idea which was Corwin escape and I that is why I'm asking you to please support and help with this. It's something very important for the youth and everyone in our community come. A member of the La Comunidad there. What would be the point like initiative at all? I mean that there is Espinosa, Conceicao, Lopez, Borges who, ProQuest, etc. them which are beneficial. As a member of the Westwood community, I would ask you to please support the amendment from Councilmen Espinosa and Councilman Lopez because their proposal would be of much benefit to us. I just think to.
Speaker 0: Garcia's andina oc hither noise noise.
Speaker 4: Good evening. Thank you. I'm here to speak to the amendment tonight posed by Councilman Lopez and Councilman Espinosa. My name is Heather Noyes. I live at 4492 Xavier Street.
Speaker 1: Principal Studio SIPG were landscape architects and we were hired by.
Speaker 4: Bucharest to generate the Morrison Road Streetscape Implementation Plan. This plan.
Speaker 7: Furthers citywide.
Speaker 1: Plan goals.
Speaker 4: As similar to those contained in the Westwood Neighborhood Plan and the 2015 Health Assessment. I'm here to ask you to support the amendment which targets funding for pedestrian safety improvements for the western end of Morrison Road. Bucharest has done an absolutely remarkable job in preparing this project and positioning this project for implementation, including completing a complete topographic survey and engineering framework, placemaking streetscape.
Speaker 7: Prototypes for use by private investors and property owners.
Speaker 4: Facing Strategies. Maintenance Considerations Considerations.
Speaker 7: Public Engagement Process Review by a.
Speaker 4: Technical committee comprised of city departments and a detailed opinion of.
Speaker 7: Probable costs.
Speaker 4: A few key items for your consideration are the city has been studying Morrison Road for over 20 years and the reason you've been studying Morris and Road for over 20 years is because it's a really complex street. It's very constrained with an extremely narrow right away that cuts at a diagonal through the Denver street grid. And there are no easy solutions for the problems that this street faces. This amendment would allow for pedestrian safety improvements along a section of Morrison Road that has seen.
Speaker 7: Horrific accidents.
Speaker 4: And is riddled with public safety concerns, including excessive speeding.
Speaker 7: Both vehicular traffic and fragmented, unlit sidewalks that.
Speaker 4: Limit, if not completely eliminate, pedestrian walkability along the street edge during both the day and evening hours. There is significant data available from DPD that can provide detailed information about incidents along this stretch of Morrison Road. We can cite Tennyson Street.
Speaker 7: As a successful beneficiary.
Speaker 1: Of a.
Speaker 4: 2007 bond funding. Tennyson, once, once divided by a dark, scary and unwelcoming stretch of street, is now a super busy commercial destination that hosts local events and offers family friendly street environment. This can be done. We can do it on Morrison Road and bond funding can result in a transformative change that benefits both residential community property owners
Speaker 7: . These are not fancy.
Speaker 4: Improvements. There are basic, simple improvements that.
Speaker 7: Are imperative to the.
Speaker 4: Health and safety of each and every neighborhood in this city. We ask that you support this amendment to the proposed.
Speaker 7: List of bond projects. The community has worked very, very hard on this project.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Noyce. Right on time. All right. I'm going to call the next five. That five can head on down. Former Councilwoman Cathy Donohue. Former Chief of staff Janis Sinden. Other you guys may be farmers, but I mean, I mean and or so Catherine Cape. Right. Uh, Norma, maybe we didn't get your last name. Norma B and. And Elizabeth, otherwise known as a E. All right. One, two, three, four. Yeah. Come on up to the front. And first is Cathy Donahue.
Speaker 1: I came down here, 1033 Lafayette Street. I came tonight to tell you a little story. When Mayor Mike Nichols was mayor, he had his bond issue in 1979 for $89,000. And they were kept. All the issues were categorized. Parks, museum, library like today. But they were not specific. In what the projects were my age of many years. Jennifer Macey and I did a search about where the $89,000 was spent. We could find only 50%. That will spur on projects in the city of Denver. The rest of the money flew away or did something. I don't know what this is. What is wrong with the design of the bond issue projects? You are not specific enough. You could drive a very large truck to what is proposed and never know where the dollars were going to flow. It's not a good way to do this. It's a very bad way. We passed an ordinance after the McNichols 79 issue. Where. Projects had to be specific with dollar amounts that went on through Kenya and that went on to web. And declined after that. Its $900 million is a lot of money. What I'm concerned about. Is a lack of ability to check up on whether all of that $900 billion is spent wisely and correctly and that we can check it. I want to.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Allen, who used to have 37 seconds, but. Okay, Janice, send him.
Speaker 1: Good evening.
Speaker 7: Mr. President, members of City Council. I also defer my time. I stand behind what George Sparks submitted and stand with my colleagues and just appreciate your support of the GOP on package.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr.. Catherine Kay Pride.
Speaker 9: Good evening. Many of you know me as Catherine, but I really go by Kay. Thank you for having me tonight. I think Denver's 27 bond issue did a good job of maintaining and improving 16 of the 26 library branches. But consider that now there are nine branches that need an infrastructure and update improvements that were not included in 2007. So here are some frequently mentioned needs. Let's start by saying that last year. The annual report excuse me, said more than 4.2 million people visited those 26 branches. That's a lot of wear and tear. Think about that. Many people going through your living room. So some some of the improvements that would like to be made here are adequate space to keep youth engaged and learning while they're not in school or at work. Changing demographics in many of the neighborhoods that require some infrastructure changes and also some programmatic changes which would be done operationally. And then also places are needed where the community can gather and connect. So the improvements are designed around those things. You know, some of these branches have not had any work that was significant in more than 20 years. So it's really time. Central Library, which was built 22 years ago. We think of it as new, is 22 years old, needs critical updates. It needs many major maintenance projects and it needs some safety changes. And many of you are already aware of the safety changes that are needed. Some lines of sight in the central library so security can be improved as it is an important one. Two branches that are being included in this proposal are smiley and vires. They are 100 year old historic treasures and they need some significant work. Another library that I would like to point out is Pauline Robinson and North Park Hill. It's tiny, it's crowded and it's in urgent need of expansion. The demographics in that area really require an updated library. So I hope we will have your support for the $69 million that are recommended in improvements for the library in the in the 2017 bond issue. I appreciate your support. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Pratt. Norma B and Norma B has a translation, so she will have 6 minutes. And perhaps you can tell us what that B stands for.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Barbara Miller But I'm black.
Speaker 0: And I'm black, okay.
Speaker 1: When I started, let me know that it wasn't for Wayne Daniels. Good afternoon. My name is Norma Brambilla and I have been a resident from Westwood for 20 years and it says Quattro. Quattro. So Newton is three on six four for.
Speaker 6: South Newton Street.
Speaker 1: He had to admit that. So you're not going literally there. They make money there. And I am currently a connector, a leader.
Speaker 6: In my community.
Speaker 1: And all is not lost last year at the Little Scamp Fantasy Palo Alto Doodle. But I still want those millions. And before anything, I want to thank everybody who has worked really hard for this go bond 2017. This pooch almost done as I see that is an ankle monitor. Those of you who have.
Speaker 6: Heard the needs in our community.
Speaker 1: You can see the company that responded, Ocala Runyon, and went through the process. And as a matter of fact.
Speaker 6: The community has responded and has been at every meeting with the council and with all the committees that.
Speaker 1: Has taken place. The Thomason Center recreation we need a rec center is one of necessity. It is a need. Nor is money that it is not a vanity. And it's a company that Kenya in this such a small community that set it on a federal Alameda, Mississippi, from Sheridan to federal Alameda, the Mississippi and the middle of it. There are about 16,000 residents, 20% those on this panel, 80% of them are Hispanic. And those percentiles on minority research annually and 82% of them are under 18. Then the almost all parochial was with bar, and we only had one park, Westwood Park, this border train. Daniels Conseguir, Moselle Park, Cuatro Viento. After 30 years, we were able to get cuatro ventas yarborough. And now, yeah, one moment. The little one is the moment has come for go bond 2017 one center. There is a rec center for our community. Get emails like that. Wilder. We want equity. We want equality. Know Kerry almost Castle in the center. The rehabilitation tunnels to Moscow, Venice. We don't want jails or rehab centers for our youth anymore. No more discrimination for us. Several. No more discrimination for our neighborhood. Not in NASA circles. You are watching us. Pakistan was like Iraq almost siempre entire process. Our community is here like they've always been through the whole process and the total one generation and before everything. Thank you. So that's all that is it for us. And something I saw and I almost forgot. Memo to Ornette Coleman that Gary Hollis Espinoza. Paul, I got excited with the amendment that Councilman.
Speaker 6: Espinoza and Councilman Paul.
Speaker 1: Lopez have. Most of it in our federal budget. I'm embarrassed and forget those little as they forget them in almost banquet but go a little southwest to. We need.
Speaker 6: Sidewalks there to.
Speaker 1: Grass. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Crisis. Okay. And Elizabeth.
Speaker 5: Hi there. First, I want to thank the city council for having this public hearing. I'm here to endorse the cluster of projects in the G.O. bond in the 80216 ZIP Code District nine. Some of it is in transportation and mobility. Some of it is in parks and recreation. And I would like to encourage the council, as you go through the difficult process of honing this, to recognize that there is a holistic combination of things there with the recreation centers pool, with the East 47th Avenue in York, Safety Bridge, with the money to get Washington Street going, bus stops and a variety of things having to do with improving the sidewalk infrastructure that is critical in its call to help compensate and to help relieve the stress by improving the quality of life in these neighborhoods. As these projects converge that are coming rapidly, heavily and mightily with the Central 70, the National Western Center development. What's going on in Brighton Boulevard? I'm I also want to say that I appreciated the great civility that I saw in these incredibly difficult discussions in the committees. I'm very pleased to hear to see the combination of libraries, education, the sorts of things that have to do with learning education. And one thing I want to say about mobility and connectivity and the sense of infrastructure, part of how people can become able to stay in their homes, in the neighborhoods that are multi-generational neighborhoods, is if they can increase the net income of their household and reduce some of the expenses simultaneously through better transportation opportunities, better job opportunities , better learning opportunities, and more access to citywide job opportunities. And so what is being offered in the 800216 zip code is a very critical contribution to that. And I just want to say that the Jill Bond does need to be watched closely. I hope everyone on the city council will go directly and broadly to your constituents in the course of this effort to help educate what the economy is, what's being leveraged, what the accountabilities are, and how we can become involved in the administration and accountabilities, and that we be very transparent, transparent about this. So I would like to ask you to continue with your support that's also coming out of the mayor's office for all of the projects in the 80216 zip code. There were people that were invited tonight that have been attending the committee meetings that said, we're so confident of the support we've gotten on this. We're just going to concentrate on getting the vote out. And that is a good thing. In-A-Row 01644. Some of the constituents feel so supported. This is a get out the vote thing.
Speaker 0: City Council do not respond as your lawyer is looking at you. Okay. Hi, Brian. Brian, a next five is coming up. Brian, what are. Simon. Trivial. Sorry if I butchered your name. Scion. Lisa. Tara Gorski. Julie. Consult. And. Let's see. Marshall Vanderburg. There we go. First of all.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Mr. President, member of the council. My name is Brian Vogt. I'm CEO of Denver Botanic Gardens. And two things. Thank you so much for your consideration. And secondly, I see the rest of my time in light of the joint statement read by Mr. Sparks.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Must vote for shade it, sire. I want you to say your name because I don't want to, but.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to reveal.
Speaker 0: Oh, great. There you.
Speaker 1: Go. Good evening. My name is Ed Review, and I'm a resident from Westwood. I come here as a youth representative, and what I would like to say is thank you for having our rec center as a top priority, and I hope it stays there. We really need a rec center in Westwood because it's it's a way to communicate with other teens. Most of them stay stay in their house doing nothing. That would be me. But with the rec center, we. I can go outside and make friendships that can last a long time. Having the rec center there. Uh. There's too many teens in our neighborhood, and I personally don't know a lot from my block and with the rec center, it would help. It would help get good influences. Nah, not go outside of your community and go do drugs or get pregnant or something else. It would keep you busy. And it's for me, it would be a it would be a place to study because in my house there's I have four two brothers and a sister. I'm the oldest. I'm 15 years old. And there's not a lot of time and a small place for me to study. And having a rec center with, like, a quiet space would be a perfect place for me to to achieve my dreams that go to college. That would be an opportunity. And thank you.
Speaker 0: Hey, thank you for coming. And you're welcome back anytime.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 0: All right, Leslie, Tara Gorski.
Speaker 6: Thank you very much for having me. My name's Lesley to our Gal Ski. I am a resident of 1754 Olive Street in Denver, Colorado, and this is my first time ever addressing city council as a whole. So I'm a little nervous and thank you for having me. I'm here to speak on behalf of the Espinosa Lopez Amendment. I got very jealous when Frank Logan tour got up and said that Colfax got I think we're up to $70 million federals. Current allocation in the bond is 9.8 million. And as a person who has spent the last year as a member of the Federal Boulevard Corridor study and currently as a member of the Federal Boulevard Corridor implementation team, I think that Councilman Lopez, Councilman Espinosa, myself and several others feel that there's a better way to spend that 9.8 million. It feels horrible to take money away from busses on federal to give it to pedestrians on federal. I hate that we've gotten to the point where we have to make a Sophie's Choice. However, I really feel that with the money, with with the plan that I have on the Federal Boulevard Business Improvement District, we can save that substantially, increase safety for pedestrians, train across federal both at 26th Avenue, which was listed as as a very important corridor for RTD as well as pedestrians. We also have a Denver City high school right there, school as well as veterans housing that was listed as one of the intersections of priority in the Federal Boulevard Corridor study. Again, I want to thank Councilman Lopez and Councilman Espinosa, because I know that public works has worked very hard, but they were able to step back and look at the West Side as a whole and the connectivity again of the Westwood, the Morrison area, North Federal and and trying to get the all of all of us connected is no small feat. And thank you for helping us try to get to a space where this 9.8 million that has been allocated to us can make a little more sense. I appreciate you, Marybeth Sussman, for fighting for a very similar proposal in our neighborhood on East Colfax that was submitted by the Mayfair bid. Again, this is my first time up. I hope it's I hope I don't have to come up again. But if I don't get the chance to come up again before the end of your term, Councilman Lopez, I have to thank you from the bottom of my heart, because for the last ten years, in every meeting you've been in, you've been such a strong advocate for Federal Boulevard and Colfax and West Denver. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Mr. Tyler Gorski. All right, Julie Casale.
Speaker 1: I council. Thanks for hearing me tonight.
Speaker 6: Julia Consult the Community Development Co-ordinator at Brochu West on Morrison Road. I know you've heard a lot about this tonight, so I'm going to speak briefly. I'm here to support the Espinosa Lopez amendment for the additional phasing for Morrison Road. This is extremely important for our community. They fought hard. They've worked hard. The community is here in support of this tonight. Numerous residents came to.
Speaker 9: Speak at public counsel.
Speaker 6: And to the committees. The community came forward to show the importance of completing this transit corridor from the West End and the East End to really pinch traffic, to slow it down and make this pedestrian friendly. Right now, the kids try to cross the road with their bikes and they can't. So the parents are continuously driving their kids to school when they're closer to their own youth elementary schools than anywhere else in the city. We know that this additional.
Speaker 9: 4.2 million is a lot to ask for as it is to funding a different project.
Speaker 6: But this would provide us a complete central street for Westwood Work to slow traffic and support continued growth for business, aiding us in building a commercial corridor and making this community stand on its own. We're committed to responsibly maintaining this as well. We know you've spoken a lot about deferred maintenance and the pressure of this on the city, and we as a maintenance.
Speaker 9: District would like to take this on. And our business members understand that again, we urge council to support this amendment. And thank you for hearing me tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Hop Marshall Vandenberg.
Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Marshall Vanderburg. 2043 Grove Street in Council District one. Thank you very much for your time this evening. I'm here to speak to the Espinosa Lopez amendment that's on the floor. And I'm also president of the Federal Boulevard Business Improvement District. The the business district is approximately five blocks long along Federal Boulevard, north of West 25th Avenue, and also goes over two blocks or one block over to Elliot Street. The area has historical significance as the town center for the City of Highlands annexed by Denver in 1896. Three blocks reside in the Winter Coalfield Historic District.
Speaker 5: Created in 1992.
Speaker 2: By the City Council. During the 1990s, Denver designated Federal Boulevard as a parkway. Also during the nineties, with assistance of federal dollars, Denver installed landscape center medians to enhance the parkway, feel and improve vehicular and pedestrian safety. Since this investment over 20 years ago. Infrastructure. No other infrastructure improvements have occurred. In 2010, commercial vacancy rates in the project area exceeded 40%. Rights of way were aging and soaring, showing signs of deterioration. As board member of the Federal Boulevard Partnership, we organized a streetscape visioning effort involving businesses and residential communities to start addressing these issues. From the plans came additional community plans, community based efforts such as Denver's first Better BLOCK Project along West 25th and Elliott and the Organization of the Federal Boulevard Business Improvement District.
Speaker 5: To update the streetscape designs and to support pedestrian.
Speaker 2: Oriented visions of past efforts, the federal bid developed a new set of plans early in 2010. The effort found that while the historic character of the area provides a foundational thematic element, the public right of way infrastructure supporting safe pedestrian mobility is aged and inconsistent. This has further impacted due to population density in and around the project area, accompanied by new development. Several hundred people were involved and have been involved at this point of time. The federal bid led the effort to define this project permanent to the 2017 Denver Go Bond Initiative. It was a Tier one project recommended by the Mayor's Transportation.
Speaker 5: And Mobility Committee as part of the Go Bond effort.
Speaker 2: We would very respectfully ask you to support the original reg original recommendation of the Transportation and Mobility Committee and also support this amendment on the floor this evening. I'm happy to be available for questions later on this evening as necessary.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Vanderburg. Next. Group. Dan Schorr. Peep. Van Haven. Lance Wright. Uh. Mauricio Gomez. Oscar Gomez. Um. Dan, you're up first 3 minutes.
Speaker 2: Okay. Well, good evening, council members, and.
Speaker 5: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm Dan Schorr.
Speaker 2: I live at 3014 Fourth Street. But I'm here.
Speaker 5: Tonight on behalf of the West Colfax Business Improvement District and to talk about Colfax East and West. First of all, you know. To both all of you and the mayor, a great deal of thanks. I feel a great deal of gratitude.
Speaker 2: Just for putting trans, you know, for.
Speaker 5: The transparency that has been, you know, that throughout the process and the prioritization on improving mobility for pedestrians and the responsiveness to the public in general. And and that is all that all resulted in tremendous support. Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: For the support of Colfax improvements which Frank Looking Tory.
Speaker 5: Earlier spoke to. I can only you know if I could just you know put did oh marks under there. Thank you. So that that's wonderful and. So in terms of. The amendment that has been offered by Espinosa. Lopez. Espinosa. That's really why I'm here to talk as well. I want to speak in favor of that. I as I mentioned, I live on Forest Street, which is in Park Hill, as you probably know. And I work in West Colfax. I take about, you know, some percentage of the time I take the 15 L, which is effectively what will become the BRT. Same routing, same busses, revised busses, that kind of thing. It is an unbelievable connection to go from west to east side all the way east on Colfax. I get off at Glencoe. I get on in Decatur. Get off in Glencoe. Bring that further west so that the rest of the people in Denver who live on the west side along Colfax can make that connection and can get back and forth, east and west in town. That is a huge opportunity.
Speaker 2: And from the.
Speaker 5: 2.0 or the 1.9 million in that amendment is great leveraging in my mind for it, looking at networks.
Speaker 2: Through the city and.
Speaker 5: How to best connect in really efficient ways and make transportation sort of like advance public.
Speaker 2: Transportation in the city. So really, for those reasons, I would really support your.
Speaker 5: I support the amendment on behalf of the West Colfax Business Improvement District, and I hope that you.
Speaker 2: Will just be. I again, thank you for your incredible.
Speaker 5: Effort.
Speaker 0: To show.
Speaker 5: Balancing.
Speaker 0: Effort. Your time is.
Speaker 5: Up. Balancing time. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Miss Shaw. Even here.
Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening. My name's Pippin Haven. I live in Park Hill and District eight and I'm here to support the current Gabon transportation package. I also represent Bicycle Colorado and.
Speaker 4: Denver's active.
Speaker 1: Transportation organizations that are members of the Denver Streets Partnership. We supported through this process the bond process, citywide sidewalks and citywide bike lanes, and unfortunately there are a few cuts in the executive committee. But we were really pleased to see that there were also some very important bicycle and pedestrian projects that were reinstated through the process. We also really appreciated the process. It was clearly going to be broad and inclusive. It was obvious from the beginning with the community representation on the subcommittees and just with all the different opportunities that the community had to comment and provide feedback. And I really would like to commend the city on the process from our perspective.
Speaker 4: Right now, Denver's.
Speaker 1: Reached a pivotal moment with regard to transportation. We know there's tremendous pressure, pressure on our transportation system. There's challenging traffic problems, and clearly there's a lack of safe and complete networks for people who are walking and biking. That's our issue. We see three key areas that Denver's facing. Really, the first one is a single occupancy vehicle issue. About three quarters of people in Denver are driving alone to work and our population is increasing. The people who want to.
Speaker 4: Walk and bike and take transit aren't.
Speaker 1: Able to yet because the safe options don't exist. The second is a public safety issue. One person every two weeks walking or biking on Denver streets was killed last year and one person every two weeks died walking or biking in Denver.
Speaker 4: So let that sink in for a minute and consider.
Speaker 1: That that's not people who are out jogging. It's not people out for a road wide ride. It's people who are trying to get from point A to point B. And the third is really that our transportation priorities have been out of balance for many years. So we are now to address our active transportation need, forced to play catch up. We know that creating a livable, walkable, bikeable Denver is important not just because mode shift is the only way to address congestion congestion, but also because how we get around town speaks to what we value as a city. Many, many mobility options are going to bring individual and community economic opportunity and transportation equity also for neighborhoods that have been ignored and forgotten.
Speaker 7: For many years.
Speaker 1: Transportation is the second biggest household expense after housing, so that's thousands of dollars in savings for families that can figure out how to reduce their dependance on driving. Looks like I'm about out of time, so I'd like to say we support the final package of transportation projects because the dollars are going to help increase safety access and connect people across neighborhoods. And we look forward to working with the.
Speaker 4: Mayor and his council and.
Speaker 1: Staff to create a safe, connected, bikeable and walkable Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. It's been moving. We are at one hour. However, we still have a couple more. So if council allows and folks in the audience allow, we're going to keep going to in three more left. And thank you cultural for giving us another 15 minutes. Lance Right.
Speaker 5: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the Council. My name is Lance Wright, and I live at 1960 South Gilpin Street, which is down in Councilman Cashman's district. And I'm not sure exactly what I hope to accomplish tonight in 30 seconds, but I do want to raise the issue of autonomous vehicles. To the extent that any of this I must I'm going to confess, I have not paid a great deal of attention to the bond issue up until about a month ago. And the reason I didn't was because I was a good Democrat. That looks like a tax increase. I was going to vote for it the that. A month ago, though, I heard a presentation by a gentleman named Tony Seeber, who is a Stanford professor, talking about how quickly the autonomous vehicles are going to take, are going to be in existence and going to start changing our transportation concepts about what a road can handle. His predictions are that it will be about five years before and only five years before we start changing of lanes into autonomous vehicle lanes. And the car has to be going 60 miles an hour all the time, a foot and a half apart, and we will double the trains, the capacity of freeways , to the extent that the bond issue may have at least a couple of what road widening lane addition projects i. Hope that we can take advantage of the staged authorization of the bonds and expenditures so that we can make sure we're not building a roadway that is obsolete when we get it done. And by the way, I'm not particularly nervous when you see me shaking up here. It's because I've got Parkinson's. And usually if I see that's going to be a problem, I say that upfront so that you know that I know that, you know, I know I have Parkinson's and it's no big deal. So don't worry about me fainting. I'm not going to faint, at least not from Bashful Ness about speaking in front of an audience. So that's the point that I wanted to let you hear tonight, that autonomous cars are coming and they're coming rapidly. Uh, they're out there now already and experimental numbers. But when it happens, it will revolutionize our concept of a freeway. And Denver shouldn't spend any money on an obsolete, freeway widening project if that's in the works. Without real careful consideration for how the world is changing. Usually we can look at the past to see what worked well in the past and extend extend at a certain distance into the future. But the past is not going to be an example for us to follow. We need to look to the future and computers will be driving your car while you're reading about the council meetings proceedings the night before.
Speaker 0: Lord. Help us all. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Rizzo. Gomez. Mr. Gomez, would you guys like translation? Okay, I think we need a translation. But. Hold on real quick, Oscar. I think. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Meaning that it is for these sad. My name is Risa. His friends. The sympathy and the misery that he. E. Oh. But I mean. The bridge is important for my friends and for me. Glass. Yes.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: Very well done.
Speaker 1: Give her a hand.
Speaker 0: Go ahead. Go ahead, Oscar.
Speaker 14: When I started as missionaries, those cargo. Ms.. Sawyer residents that embed into the Elvis scenario, Illyria.
Speaker 1: Good evening. My name is Oscar Gomes. I am a resident from Denver, a resident from the Illyria neighborhood.
Speaker 14: In S.A. Chair Opera Bayless por favor.
Speaker 1: And tonight I am here to to ask you, please.
Speaker 14: The mitten is the bucket they inteiro but alcoholic or poor solution diseases.
Speaker 1: To go through this complete go through the complete package for the zip code 80216.
Speaker 14: The street on Webber.
Speaker 1: District nine.
Speaker 14: Cares more importantly but on but no, no my spare to me.
Speaker 1: This is not only important for me.
Speaker 14: See, no, it's important the parrot owners to seahorse.
Speaker 1: It's important for all of our children.
Speaker 14: And was true seahorse apparatus can no plane you got a less quality.
Speaker 1: Ample. There are barriers for our children such as because they can't get to school on time. There are certain barriers.
Speaker 14: No, you got to tomorrow somewhere. So no.
Speaker 1: They can't get to have breakfast at school on time.
Speaker 14: For Kowloon train not advisable and Quarantine City York.
Speaker 1: Because there is a train that stops there on 47th and York.
Speaker 14: No, no, importa. Forgive me. My students had order in in in in Latin rapport can no one gets.
Speaker 1: It doesn't even matter that my. Mai Mai can get stuck on the dirt because we don't have sidewalks.
Speaker 14: Simplemente didn't know they were very slippery, transparent, astro seahorse.
Speaker 1: But simply we shouldn't have these barriers for our children.
Speaker 14: Ninguna Barrera for is important. Thank you Jagan. I learned that we will take us.
Speaker 1: Not one single barrier. It's important that they're able to get to our libraries.
Speaker 14: Again as true and central direction to be.
Speaker 1: Able to get to our rec centers.
Speaker 14: Especially in the Baraka Yeganeh was you know when education.
Speaker 1: And especially so that they can get there to get a good education.
Speaker 14: For the support of our second Adelante Canal Proyecto total spaghetti the la the then strawberries in areas Globeville Elyria is Swansea here?
Speaker 1: So this is why I asked to please continue with the full package for the neighborhoods of Globeville, Elyria and Swansea.
Speaker 14: E e grass at all sustainable grasses.
Speaker 1: And thank you to all of you. Thank you to our mayor ee. And God bless you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Gomes. This concludes our speakers is now time for questions. I want to take a moment of privilege and ask the first one. Ray Gee from Globeville. I know you didn't get a chance to to sign up, but I wanted you to get it. Get a chance to share a little bit.
Speaker 15: Thank you. I appreciate that. Good. Good evening. I know it's pretty long. Everybody needs to stretch and everything. So my name is Ray Gallegos. I live in Globeville. I'm representing the GSA Coalition for Health and Housing Justice, as well as the Cross Community Coalition. And I just wanted to address the council and talk a little bit about the report that we did last year. I know some of you guys got it. Some of you may not have yet. You know, not everybody knows me, but I'm sure a lot of you will eventually. I just want to first off say that, you know, as a community of Globeville living in Swansea, we're we're a little disappointed that we don't get to say in in very important dollars that are coming to our community. You know, we really do need emergency housing right now for people who are being displaced. There's 88% of people who are at risk of being displaced right now as we speak. You know, with CDOT coming through and doing the I-70 expansion, Western Stock Show doing their renovation there, they're they're displacing a lot of people. A lot of these people who have been here for generations and years are not being able to continue to live in these communities where they have their roots and their families that I want to you know, I want you guys to take into consideration that we do need affordable housing. We have a solution as a community owned land trust for our communities to be able to to continue to stay here. And this would also benefit the city by alleviating some of the problems for people who are who are counting on Section eight, food stamps, health, you know, health assistance, things like that. If we can get this housing done. It'll cost about $15 million to run this for five years. And, you know, this you know, this would be one time investment. It'd be able to continue to have people to have homes, affordable housing for years and years. So it's a one time investment rather than having to reinvest money into Section eight or housing assistance and things like that. And this is the reason why I'm here, is I do want to advocate for these, you know, for for you guys to consider allocating some of these funds for affordable housing, emergency housing, like there's people who are who are at risk right now. 88%, eight out of ten of these people who live in these communities are being pushed out. Is $14 million the cost to replace the homes? See, that is taken. And that's you know, that's almost pretty much the housing fund that you guys are allotting to us. So, you know, just to put sidewalks in is not an improvement. So our community, we need help with creating that affordability, the sustainability of housing. And we need to get these funds, you know, to our community and not just to improve infrastructure that's going to bring more people in here, more outsiders, more people who are just developing and trying to make money on the plight that's going on here in these neighborhoods. So I really appreciate you guys time. Please, if you get a chance to look at the report, if you don't have the report as coalition dot com, you can download a copy. Anybody here in the chambers would like to see it, please. There's a very big housing and health crisis here. Thank you, Mr. Brooks, for letting me speak. You guys have a good night. I have kids to put to sleep.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Gallegos. All right, Kendra Black, you're up with questions.
Speaker 1: Councilwoman Q I wanted to ask a question about what former Councilwoman Cathy Donahue brought up. So maybe Laura Perry. She just walked out, unfortunately. But I know in my my two years as a council person, I have received multiple briefings on how the 27 better Denver bond was spent. And so to address her concerns, I feel like you are one of the most competent people I've ever met in my life. You are on top of it. And you know where every single penny has been spent ever? Yes.
Speaker 0: Wow. You go.
Speaker 1: Laura and I feel very confident that that you will stay on top of this bond in the same way. So if you could just explain to everyone how you go about doing that.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. So we have an extensive project control system in the city that consists of a very strong governance structure, particularly around our financings. So for the better Denver Bond Program, as I commented earlier, we implemented our what we've called our bond executive committee that was comprised of department leadership. The Mayor's office, Department of Finance, as well as a member from city council. And that group was truly the oversight body that reviewed every project, its current status. And if we all recall in Better Denver we experienced the Great Recession. So there was a lot of project savings that were reprogramed for additional project needs throughout the city. And that committee also worked through the governance structure around how those funds were programed with the goal that we complete every single project that was committed to the voters, and we truly did accomplish that. In fact, we accomplished 100 more projects the better the bond program that was promised to the voters. So that was a huge success story. Through the Better Denver Bond program, we instituted quarterly reporting, which consisted of both a website presence as well as regular presentations to the Land Use and Transportation Committee that still continues today. We also have extensive project tracking systems, so on the technical side, we do track every dollar to the penny as well as every single project when it started, when it was completed. And actually for our Better Denver Pan program, we have a one page write up for every 388 projects that were completed. So there is strong institutional record there about the great successes that we had in that particular program. And of course, last but not least, I want to mention that in our annual budget we also report out on our bond programs in that we show how much has been spent in the particular prior year as well as what's estimated to be spent, and an update on the status of all the projects underway for all of our financed programs.
Speaker 0: Okay. Great. That comes when I'm black.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Thank you. Sure.
Speaker 0: I actually want to before I jump to Councilman Flynn, call Kweli or anyone from the legal team to ask a question around Bond. Um, not only. So not only do we feel like we have a responsibility and some systems built in financially through our fiscal responsibility, but we have some legal responsibilities in how we spend that money . So real quickly, what are our parameters in a kind of very macro? And what happens if we spend money outside that?
Speaker 1: Good evening, President Brooks. Council members. Yes, there are legal parameters around how these proceeds can be spent. And in addition to the kind of tracking that Laura has described, there are legal requirements in terms of making sure that we're spending money in a timely fashion. So I think, Councilman Brooks, one of the questions you're asking is around the timeframe in which the proceeds need to be spent. The rule is that you have to spend the dollars from the date you issue the bonds so that that process is that we will come back to you with a bond ordinance. And once that ordinance is adopted, we'll actually go out to the market and issue bonds from the date that they're issued. You have three years to spend. 85%.
Speaker 0: If what? If what if we don't? What if we take four years? What if you take five years? What happens?
Speaker 1: Well, you have a you need to have a reasonable expectation that you're going to spend 85% in three years. If you if we exceed that period of time. There are things that we can do. There are remedial steps that we can take.
Speaker 0: Okay. And what about, you know, the specific question around spending outside a specific purpose.
Speaker 1: So before you, you have seven different ballot measures. Each measure speaks to a particular purpose. As we spend our dollars, when we issue the bonds, we will do it in accordance with those seven different purposes. So, for example, if we spend, we decide we're going to say we're going to issue $100 million of debt in the first tranche. Not. First issuance. How about that first series? You can say trends that might cover four or five different purposes, but we will track and last time will be tracking how many dollars we're spending in each purpose, because the voters are going to give us authorization to spend up to a certain dollar amount for each purpose. So, for example.
Speaker 0: Is there real quick and you don't have to go in to that, but specifically, is there any penalties that the city will endure if we go outside of a purpose that voters have authorized?
Speaker 1: We legally we don't have authority to do that. So the voters are going to give us authority to issue approximately 116. I don't I don't have the numbers. Yeah. Hundred and $16 million for the purpose of improvements to cultural facilities.
Speaker 0: So that's where I just wanted to put a fine remark on that, that we don't have the authority to do what was stated earlier to spend outside a specific purpose.
Speaker 1: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. A number of questions, Laura. Could you tell me what the current thinking is with regard to how much in principal amount might be devoted to the mini bond program with a program of this size? Certainly. And as you know, Councilwoman Ortega and I have been urging you to size it a lot larger than the 2007.
Speaker 7: So there is a commitment to follow through with a mini bond transaction for the upcoming bond. However, an amount at this time has not been determined.
Speaker 2: Okay. So is there any thinking about whether it would be more than that? There was a 12 million last time.
Speaker 7: I'm going to actually invite Brendan Hanlon or CFO.
Speaker 2: To go because I have some questions for him too. Good. And, and he did well because I actually prepared him. I told him I was going to ask the other questions. So. And these are bonds that individuals can purchase. So they're in small enough power amounts that we can you know, homeowners can purchase them and and really invest in their own neighborhoods and get a return on them. So it's a really good program.
Speaker 5: That's right. Good evening. Brendan Hanlin, the city's chief financial officer. I think this question came up a couple of weeks ago as well. So far, the Department of Finance is committed to a program that is at least as large as leasing. In 2011, we did hear feedback about having a larger program. We're willing to entertain that conversation. The one thing I have to caution is that there is a higher administrative cost to processing that, and we pay a higher interest rate on those transactions. So we just have to balance that out around the needs of the program. But we're willing to have that conversation.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you. And while you're there, Brendan, you know that one of my greatest disappointments with this package is in the public safety package, because for ten years, folks in southwest Denver had been. Virtually promised that the district for police station replacement would be part of this bond issue. We would. We were told to wait the turn. And and I dearly love that we're doing Districts five and District six because they probably need it more than District four. But in the alternative to waiting another ten years before we can issue another round of general obligation bonds. What kind of tools do we have and can we start using them in 2018, for instance, you know, bringing you do an architectural study or a programmatic study or some sort of incremental approach to the CIP program to get a start on providing some relief down there.
Speaker 5: Councilman, you allude to the proper first steps in and really identifying funds is the first thing you have to do is really identify the scope and figure out what exactly you're going to do. That would require some incremental funding that could be funded through something like CIPA or the general fund or something along those lines, which is something that we're considering at this point. And then that would help define a larger scope, which might require larger tools. I think the last time I was here, I said, we just have to make sure we're matching the size of the tool with the size of the project.
Speaker 2: Right. So do you know, can you say if the administration right now, which is preparing 2018 budget, will this be will will something for district for police station be included in the budget, if you know?
Speaker 5: So we're working through the 2018 budget as it stands.
Speaker 2: So you don't know.
Speaker 5: We're not done with it yet. I could tell you that it's something under consideration, though. Okay.
Speaker 2: And can you speak to the transportation bonds or who can speak to that?
Speaker 5: I probably need to bring.
Speaker 2: Some in in Council Bill 812, which is the referring to the ballot, the transportation package. I noticed as Mr. President, as you know, I.
Speaker 11: Would.
Speaker 2: An error what I think is an error, and maybe we need to correct it, but it refers to rehabbing the Eighth Avenue Viaduct. I believe it's an $8 million scope. There's been some bearing issue with the bearings in the piers, but he refers to it as an 88 year old structure. The Eighth Avenue Viaduct was just it was done under Mayor Pena. And I know it seems like a while ago, but it wasn't 88 years. Are we referring to the actual viaduct over the rail yards, or are we referring to the bridge over the Platte? Over the Platte.
Speaker 7: It is referring to the bridge over the Platte, which has not been replaced.
Speaker 2: Since.
Speaker 7: It was constructed.
Speaker 2: Because when I think of the Eighth Avenue Viaduct, I think of the over the rail yards, which are now closed. And so. Okay, thank you. I believe, Mr. President, that's all I have right now.
Speaker 0: Nice. Nice try. Councilman Fletcher.
Speaker 2: Well, it's not a fight. It's the bridge over the plaque. Should which should we change that? To change that to the Platte River Bridge, Eighth Avenue. Platte River Bridge, rather than the Viaduct Council.
Speaker 0: Is that a real question?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 2: Because the Eighth Avenue Viaduct is a different structure. Just a question, Mr. Perez. I do have one more thing.
Speaker 0: I shouldn't have said anything.
Speaker 7: I would have to defer to the city attorney's office for the amendment in the companion ordinance and what that would look like. However, we will be sure to adequately describe the scope. Sorry, I.
Speaker 2: Just don't misapplied the money to the viaduct instead of the the river the river bridge. They all save the other the other as a comment and I'll save that.
Speaker 0: Okay? Yes. Okay, that'll work. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you. My question had been answered, but Councilman Flynn, I do appreciate that technically it is not a viaduct. But just so you know, I was the only bridge in that one of the only bridges in Denver that.
Speaker 2: Survived survived the flood. That's right. That's right.
Speaker 10: Still there.
Speaker 2: It was opened in 1929.
Speaker 0: Okay. Okay. Question question.
Speaker 2: 28.
Speaker 0: Councilor Lopez, was that your question?
Speaker 10: Mine was answered.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Okay. Councilwoman Ortega and then Black.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm not sure who in the audience or maybe a couple of my colleagues that have been working on the Colfax BRT. I just wanted to ask, is that proposed to go down in the center of Colfax? Yeah.
Speaker 0: That's the new design. Yes. And Chrissy Agnello, I see you back there behind those heads.
Speaker 9: And raising this because I was in Albuquerque, New Mexico, about three or four weeks ago, and they are building a similar project down the center of one of their main streets. Yeah. And everybody in the community is complaining about it because people will be let off into traffic. It's it. And I'm I'm assuming that, you know, we've been looking at this very carefully, and I, I would hope they they were as well, but. You know, in order for people to be let off on the platform, the busses will have to go in the wrong direction on, you know, in order for them to be let off. And I don't know how far along we are with the. You know, design of how this would work. But can you help me just understand how that is proposed to work so we're not creating a greater safety problem for residents or for pedestrians that are would be utilizing this bus BRT. And I apologize, I haven't sat through all the meetings where this has been, you know, proposed and worked on with the community.
Speaker 7: Yeah, thanks for having me up, Chrissy. Thank the director of Transportation Mobility for the city and it's a good question. So when we were out of the public last week, one of the things we heard about with regards to Colfax, BRT, was can you make it better? And so we actually took some time over the last year to look at the geometries along the corridor to see if center running could fit, because if it didn't fit, then we weren't going to move forward and we were able to determine that it does actually fit geometrically. We're not terribly far along in the design. We've got some funding available right now to actually help us start to move forward. It's it's a little bit it's much easier to see in a picture or a video. The busses will still have the normal right side boarding that they have today. They will pull into the station and on the right is going to be where the platform will be, where it'll be at least 10 to 14 feet, where that's where the folks will get on and off, will have some railings to sort of direct folks to actually crossing at the intersections with. Colfax is one of the highest injury network's roadways on the network for Vision Zero. We actually believe this will help significantly with reducing the safety issues that are out there for pedestrians in particular.
Speaker 9: Great. Thank you. I do have a couple others. I just and they're not necessarily questions, they're more comments.
Speaker 5: So I do.
Speaker 0: You want to you want to wait to the comment portion?
Speaker 9: Sure. Yeah. Let me just make sure I didn't have any other questions.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 9: Okay. The rest are all comments. So thank you. Great. I'm sorry. The apprenticeship piece. This was something that came up at the mayor council meeting last week, and the mayor said this is something that he's looking at, he's working on. Do any of you have any information on progress? I see Evan coming to the microphone. David Dreier, can you Evan, can you tell us kind of where this is at in the process so that as we're looking at this almost million dollar bond package that we will have a firm commitment to. And as you all know, there's so much construction going on. We don't have enough trained, skilled workers and being able to utilize both union and nonunion apprenticeship programs to help ensure that we've got the workforce needed to do these projects. Where are we in the process of that being a critical element of the bond package?
Speaker 2: Good evening, Council.
Speaker 5: Evan Dreier, Deputy Chief of Staff to Mayor Hancock.
Speaker 2: A couple of points about that. The carpenters union came to us a few weeks ago with this idea, which in one way or another.
Speaker 5: Has been kind of kicking around for a little while.
Speaker 2: Quietly reminded us very quickly that we can't actually use bond proceeds for programmatic purposes like job training or apprentice or pre apprentice programs, which is a very helpful reminder. But I think there is a lot of interest in pursuing this kind of a concept. And I think there are a few different council members, including yourself, that have been looking at it for a little while. So our request is let's move these bills through the council process on the bond and then let's figure out a process where we are all at the table.
Speaker 5: Trying to look at this together, because there are.
Speaker 2: There are billions of dollars of public projects that will be moving through the pipeline over the next ten plus years. And we want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to provide jobs and skilled skills training to folks that will be filling those jobs.
Speaker 9: Well, and it's important to make sure that we don't have people who are being impacted in what is becoming almost citywide, gentrified neighborhoods to be able to have people afford to stay in their own communities. So it's a critical component.
Speaker 5: Agreed.
Speaker 9: So nothing further has taken place yet then in terms of next steps that the administration is working on, it's just a commitment to do it. But maybe I think it sounds like you're suggesting that we pull a meeting together with some of the folks who are interested in making this happen.
Speaker 2: Correct. Including Denise Bryant.
Speaker 5: Our director of work for me.
Speaker 9: Okay. Thank you. I'm looking forward to us taking that next step soon.
Speaker 2: We are, too.
Speaker 9: Thank you. Thank you. I'll wait on my comments until the end. Okay.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. The public hearing for Council Bill four four for the combined public hearing of all the council bills is now close. We have comments by members of council. But I want to I want to say that we have seven bills and I want to, you know, get you know, council members could make a comment on one bill to, you know, take care of the entire package or you can make a comment per bill. But I would ask that you think about that judicious in your comments. So, Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. President. This is a single brief comment. It's long, but it's brief. First of all, I want to thank you all. Truly thank you all for paying attention to this process. Clearly, it's been done because everything that I mentioned that should be scrutinized a little harder in this bond process was mentioned here tonight or via email defending their inclusion . So thank you for persisting. It is important to put people to those projects, so it's really nice to see you all out here speaking to it and supporting the process.
Speaker 5: I want to thank Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 0: For his thorough work on finding this amendment that we put forward tonight. And this amendment opportunity, I should say, which is greatly simplified. The amendment request, due to initial confusion at the beginning of the job on process, a tiny but high priority project was removed from consideration that is added through this amendment. Our amendment funds pedestrian infrastructure that has gone unfunded since it was included in the 19. In the 1995 intergovernmental agreement between city and sea that went public, this public right away was altered and lost to a widened I-70 through the city. I mean, I-25. Sorry. Freudian slip there. Sorry. At a time at a time when single occupant drivers have increased it more in northwest Denver neighborhoods, the nearest nearest to downtown than any other place in the city. Supporting this amendment will encourage and further prioritize free and safe walking through important public right of ways in west and North Denver. So so everything that I mentioned. Somehow I got to cut and pasting sounds. So I want to thank you. And sorry about this is not my normal computer. So free and safe walking through this important these important public roadways in west and north Denver. So please join me along with those whom spoke in support of this amendment and vote yes. Thank you very much. All right, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. A procedural question, is the amendment on the floor yet? Because I had a question on the amendment.
Speaker 0: This amendment is now on the floor. It will get to the floor at 819, where? At 812.
Speaker 2: Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Then I will. Can I make comments on the package as a whole? It said in the ordinance designating the projects. I just wanted to let folks know that next week I may propose an amendment to change the words, for example, to the word, including, as we had in earlier bond issues, so that these projects are included and not just examples that may or may not be may or may not be done. I want to provide the public with some assurance that these projects listed are included and not just examples of projects we may do. So I've asked for that to be drafted and circulated among my colleagues during the week. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. We'll speak to the amendment when we cross that that bridge, not the viaduct. I wanted to thank everybody. Take us, Laura, the team, they did such a great job. You know, when we first talked about the bond and how we were planning on for us, I mean, you got to include Corky Gonzalez library as a site. I just I just remember I remember a picture that was printed in The Denver Post. And I think it's just something that John Murray had wrote about. And in the picture was Norma's hand with a whole bunch of stickers and the whole bunch of stickers were just centered around this this neighborhood that I grew up in and I live in. And, and, um. I was just I'm just happy as a city councilman to be part of a bond that addresses equity. That's really a revolutionary and progressive, forward thinking bond that helps balance the city. And that's what it's doing. Its per its equity is different from equality and equity leveling the playing field so that we all have the opportunity to compete and not necessarily to compete in this case, but to really give neighborhoods the opportunity to prove who they are. Right. And just what how important they are to Denver and on an equal level playing field and to to hear folks tonight hear that wonderful little girl giving us things. Right. That's just that's just the tip of the iceberg of what this is about. And I know we're going to face a lot of criticism. I know we already hear it from our critics. But at the end of the day, these are these are the very projects that are going to be the game changers for the neighborhoods. Right. The bridge, the Sixth Avenue. You look at the the the transit mobility throughout the city and the West Side, the connection. And, you know, I could just say this, colleagues, you know, there's there's nothing better than seeing those things come to fruition. And it's taken a very long time to get to this point. And there's a lot of hard work that's represented here. These aren't just things that just end up on a on a on a Post-it, you know, with Post-its on a wall or they're not just things that just end up with numbers by them. These are actually every single one of these projects has work to it. Right. And effort to it. And. And having said that, I'm just very I'm very glad to actually be part of this bond and seeing it move forward now. And, you know, we put it on the ballot, but it's going to take voters, it's going to take our public getting out there and approving it. And I just have to say this and and just thank you to all of you who participated. Thank you all for identifying these issues, for identifying these needs, and not just being an armchair activist at home in front of a computer, but somebody that comes out to these meetings, someone that visits some of the talks about these priorities, someone that shows up at a microphone, even if you're only four years old. Right. You have a voice and it matters. And thank you. And this is you know, I just kind of think about one of my colleagues recently. It's blew my mind. Right. And it shouldn't blow my mind, but. Paul Kasten We were having a conversation, he says, you know, and somebody says, Hey, you know, what do you think your purpose is? What's your purpose? And we all thought about our purpose. And he says, to restore our faith in government. That's exactly it. And his bond helps get us there. Right. And for a lot of people on the west side, it's going to restore that faith in government. So now there's a couple of other things that I want to paint is to make sure you all know it's never over until it's over. And we want to make sure that before before he hits the ballot, that everything's. Organized to reflect just that that work that passionate work product that comes out of the neighborhoods. Right. Those are the priorities. So and it's by number one, which was the crisis of those days, because that NAKI can win year on year participation. You see a Luciano Londono seller was.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman New.
Speaker 8: I also want to thank the two tigers and Laura and Courtney I honestly Courtney here and I and so but also I want to thank the woman who is sitting back there real quietly in the back row. And I say in a word is Dianne Barrett, who's been the the mother of all bonds here. And she.
Speaker 0: Is.
Speaker 8: She is she is her leadership is invaluable. And what a great team she assembled. And they've done a magnificent job, though the feedback we got from the public, which is phenomenal, it was a great process where everybody was participating and felt good about it and gave, gave, gave their $0.02, even know that even though they knew they weren't going to get all the money they wanted, but they felt like they were valued and and their input was was truly appreciate. We do have some you know, I fully support this bond issue. And I just hope the citizens will look at each one of those items carefully and and each item and I was in the Parks Task Force, and we went through every item in excruciating detail asking questions. So there's a lot of attention paid to every specific item in this bond issue. So I hope the public will take a look at it and then ask questions if there's information that you can get on the website or the staff's here to help . And and it's just a very important you understand how important this bond issue is. But also, I can't help but say we also got to keep in mind, we've got other needs coming down the road. Our strategic planning processes are coming due next next year. And and and Councilwoman Susman made sure get our transit agency and hopefully hopefully Christie will get a dedicated revenue stream for transit. We're to we're just taking the baby steps with transit. And so we've got to come up with additional money down the road. So this important bond issues is is going to be a good start. And, you know, just let the citizens know it really helps build a great city. I appreciate all the efforts. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President. So, first of all, I want to just express my support for the amendment that is that has been talked about tonight. I think those improvements for Westwood in the Federal Boulevard corridor are important to address pedestrian safety. Really pleased to see that so much around mobility, pedestrian and bike safety is a big part of this process. I know this council has been very vocal about those kinds of things, have been sort of high priorities in our annual planning process and has resulted in more and more funding in the annual budget. And this bond package takes that significantly further in addressing issues that many neighborhoods across the city put on the table as wanting more walkable, bikeable neighborhoods. I want to express my appreciation to the entire city team for the many neighborhood meetings that were held across the city that truly gave Community the opportunity to go to a meeting in their own respective district, you know, in their neighborhood where they could share what their priorities were. I know all of our city agencies had their lists as well, identifying their priorities and to the. Multitude of volunteers that were on the different committees that had to help whittle down those lists and put forth a list to the executive committee that then worked with the mayor's office. This truly engaged our community in a way that I haven't seen that that just. Was so inclusive in to Councilman Lopez's point that that truly addressed equity as well. And to see that the Alameda underpass, which was an issue going back to when I represented part of that District 47th in York, which is a huge concern. If you have not seen when trains are stopped at 47th and York and children are trying to walk to school and literally climbing in between unmanned train cars. It's we're lucky we haven't seen a horrific accident. So this is a really, really important component of this bond package, 56th Avenue, which I know Councilwoman Gilmore has has been very vocal in wanting to see in this package, because we know when that I-70 project starts, traffic is going to be going through our neighborhoods. And it's important that they the traffic stays on arterial corridors and not through the residential neighborhoods. The sidewalk piece that is going to address the needs for sidewalks, I know the geese, neighborhoods, Globeville area, Swansea, who have never enjoyed the benefit of that basic infrastructure that many of our neighborhoods have. I know other neighborhoods have bits and pieces here and there, but these neighborhoods really have not enjoyed that. And this is going to go a long way in assisting bringing that basic standard of living up for for those neighborhoods. The one thing I'm I'm really sad is not part of this package and you heard a number of the speakers talk about is the fact that we have no affordable housing in this package. And when you consider the size of it, you would have thought we would have carved out a way to ensure that we've got more than the $15 million that was worked on by Councilman Brooks and Councilwoman Kennedy. But if our HUD funding goes away, all that does is is replace that. So the need for us to continue to work to ensure that we have more dollars to address affordable housing is is so critical to us continuing to be a diverse city which, you know sadly we're we're losing our diversity at rapid pace as. I also appreciate the mayor's office, his commitment to the apprenticeship program, which I know can't be part of the Bond language, but it could be part of the contracts that we have with our contractors that will be doing much of this work. And lastly, the fact that we will have the companion ordinances that will go with each of the package to ensure that, you know, the dollars stay within each of those categories. If for some reason a particular issue doesn't move forward, the dollar stay within that category. So thank you to everyone, including my colleagues who sat on the various committees as well. Councilman Brooks, you were part of the executive committee. It was a lot of work, but we've got some great projects in this package that are moving forward. And I'm I'm excited to be a strong supporter of this one package moving forward and look forward to talking to our neighborhoods as I'm out and about in the community.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Like most, I want to give kudos to the team for all the work that they have done up to this point. When you have the needs that we have versus the resources, there are several difficult decisions that had to be made. And I appreciate the conversations that I have had with the administration. They have understood my my desire to try to increase library funding. And even though it's not something I'm going to bring an amendment forward on, I still am I still something I want to work really hard for our libraries because those are investments in people. And as I hear and compliment everyone for all the work, then as I look at it, that was just the easy part because it's all for not if we can't get it to pass in November. And so for those of us that are supportive of the bond as I am, we have work to do to make sure that people understand what they will be voting on because there will be several questions on the ballot and the importance of each and every one of them so that we can continue have a great city. We have to make these investments. And even beyond that, what do we do for the investments that could make it in this bond package? Because we cannot afford to wait another ten years. As Councilman Flynn and I, during the break, we're talking about his police station. And so we can't afford another ten years before that comes. Other projects for our bikes and infrastructure for sidewalks. We've got to find ways to get this done. So a lot of work is still ahead of us, but I want to applaud everybody for their efforts and we will we will get it done. So thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. And I want to thank all the speakers tonight, especially the members of the public who stayed late on the hard benches. And I am very impressed with the unity that has been demonstrated for folks who maybe didn't get full funding for projects or, you know, got some projects but not others. For some neighborhoods, I think it's an incredible testament to the coming together of a community. And on that point, I think what's really powerful for me, I think, is the way that this conversation has crystallized a couple of things that I hope will become precedents for the future. I taught our law school class recently back at my alma mater, and I was teaching about the difference between equality and equity. And equality is where you have a pie and you divide up all the pieces and that's equal. But equity is where you look at where there is historic disadvantage and where there's structural inequity. And you say that sometimes you have to invest a little more to overcome those things. And I think that, you know, we've heard tonight about the Westwood Recreation Center. We've heard about some of the investments in Globeville area, Swansea, you know, the the bridge that Councilman Ortega worked so hard on. And I think that the the fact that the community has come together around this package in the council is, you know, at least based on last times, comments coming together around this package is a sign of us understanding, a really nuanced conversation about how the way we spend infrastructure, resources can help to both, you know, rectify, mitigate and help to prevent that kind of inequity from from reoccurring in our city in the future. Right. So that we don't have the same kind of historic challenges in terms of health disparities or poverty or safety of of lack of sidewalks, things like that. So so I'm especially proud of that piece of it. And I appreciate how this isn't just something that came from the community, but it was also echoed by the staff and the guidelines and the criteria and from the mayor. So I felt like that was coming from both the top and the bottom. I think apprenticeship actually fits in that same lens. And I, you know, just to to to just pick a little bit at the the legal advice, again, apprenticeship is a procurement requirement, just like is . So when you want wealth to be spread to the owners of businesses who are women or minorities, the way that we do that is we say, if you want to do business with the city, it's important that you have women and minority owned businesses on your team. We don't pay them for that. It's not a program funding. It's something that it's an expectation that they bring to the table when they bid. Apprenticeship works in the same way it works by saying, if you would like to do business with the city, show us that you have training programs that are bringing people along. We have a real financial interest in this in the city. It's not just to do good thing. It is. It's important to build training and create pathways to careers for folks. But Stu Williams at the airport will tell us that when there's a shortage of construction workers, we pay. We pay as a city more for our projects and more for the labor. And so it is very much in our pecuniary financial interests to have contractors investing in that training and doing that training. I'm not going to say there's not the benefit of city resources for things like pre apprenticeship or maybe providing, you know, boots or childcare, things that can complement it. Those things don't come from these contracting packages in this city or in most cities. They come from, you know, complimentary funds and things like that. But I just want to make really clear that as a procurement requirement, I believe that could be in this ordinance. I believe it would be appropriate to be. We haven't had time to have a full conversation, and I get that. But I just, again, don't want anyone leaving thinking that that this kind of a requirement is one about the city paying for a program. This is not about a program. This is about a way of doing business that integrates training. And so I hope that we do continue the conversation. We could always potentially amend this ordinance if we are able to figure out the best way to do that. But I think it is it is linked into this to the themes in this package in many of the same ways that speakers talked about the projects and the way that the projects and the people come together. The last thing I just want to say about why I'm so supportive of this project tonight, and I think it's important for us to remind folks when we go out and talk to them is that this bond package is made possible with our existing property tax mills. And so it does not represent us needing to bring out or charge people additional mills to pay for this bond package. I think that's a really important message and one that I think is an important way, that this is a balanced approach with paying for things, but with existing property tax mills that we have. So with that will be enthusiastically supporting it and continuing to work on the things that didn't make the list like housing. Thanks.
Speaker 0: That's right. Thank you. Councilman. Can each Councilman Lopez. I see you're up, but go to Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 2: So you can. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll repeat some of what you've heard from some of my colleagues about what I wanted to say. Mainly, as I remember, maybe it was a month, six, six weeks or so ago, sitting with Evan Dreyer and talking about the the bond package and telling them that at that point I was a no vote that I expected to get to. Yes, but it was just that point in the process where the stew wasn't wasn't cooked enough. And and I knew there was room for movement in the process and and move the administration moved. They didn't blink. And they held the line on certain elements that they felt very strongly about. But on other areas that were important to me, there was movement not just in my district but in other districts around the city. So I sit here today. A yes vote, an enthusiastic yes vote. And if I were to have been the only one to have been asked to put this bond package together, it would look somewhat different. I think any one of us would write a slightly different package. But there is so much good in this. And you know the old thing about not letting perfection interfere with the good and. So much of so many of the projects in here are jumping off points that if we don't move forward with them, they're nice starts, but they're not getting us where we want to go. You know, the project that I talk about a lot, you know, our sidewalk infrastructure, we need hundreds of millions of dollars over the next couple of decades. Okay. But as I've said before, the money that's in this package we talk about, I think the figure is about 30.7 million, which is a wonderful jumping off point. But that is only one section of this bond that's dealing with pedestrian infrastructure, I think. Birthday girl Sussman down on the way here talks a lot about the the Colfax corridor dollars, a lot of which are going to go towards, uh, pedestrian infrastructure improvements for miles along that corridor. And there's other elements doing the same thing, the bicycle money. We need a whole lot more of that. Most of the arts and culture facilities, their wish list was for considerably more than they got, you know. So they're going to have to continue to go to their donor base and to push in the annual budgets. I just I think it's a great thing that we have an opportunity to do for the city. Hundreds of great projects. My district is getting improvements to several rec rec centers, new playgrounds, great improvements along the Buchtel corridor, fire stations and so on and so forth. So I'm glad to approve this tonight, and I will look forward to supporting the Lopez Espinosa's amendment as well.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Lopez, I got Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Brooks. I will echo my colleagues in saying thank you very much to the city staff and really taking us through the entire process. And I want to thank my council colleagues. We, I think, took a really different look at what we were going to prioritize and equity continued to be at the forefront. It never left as far as the conversation went. And this really allowed us to, as a council, see the different issues that each one of our districts are facing. And, you know, in the last year we did a lot of council tours. And so having the majority of city council on a bus driving down 56th Avenue really was able to show them what we face as a community. And they delved in deep. They wanted to understand what the issues were. They wanted to hear from myself, but most importantly, folks who actually live and deal with the issues on a day to day basis. And really through this process, you know, we talk a lot about unintended consequences or unintended outcomes. And sometimes those are bad. And unintended outcome of this entire process was that we were able to really hear from the folks of Denver. This was a process where the community, residents of District 11, we bonded together over advocating for the important projects that we now have on the bond package. And that was an amazing process because for so long the equity issues that we had faced easily can tear our community apart. And we were able to utilize this process and really bond together and do great things for District 11 and for all the council districts and the rest of the city. So first and foremost, I want to thank the constituents, the regular community members who show up, who stay here late and really advocated for these these projects and then my council colleagues for your support and the city agencies. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: I forgot. I absolutely forgot. And. We can't. We can't, I think the mayor enough for setting the tone. And I wanted to make sure I had that in my comments. But I think, you know, I think the mayor getting out there and really and really championing and championing.
Speaker 5: Equity and.
Speaker 10: And the equity studies that were done and a lot of the work, you know, he and I were out Paco Sanchez Park just with the sign and we had a groundbreaking that had nothing to do with the barn yet. But the rest of it's funded through the bond. I mean, both looked at each other and I didn't know whether it was okay to start campaigning for it or not. So I you know, I decided not to. But but at the end of the day, he. He deserves a lot of credit. This takes a councilman to know. Right. And deliver to the districts. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Lopez, I'll just make a couple of comments. I think my my colleagues made some really great comments and thanked a lot of people who've made this be one of the most inclusive, transparent bond projects of all time. And I'm so grateful and honored to be a part of it. And the fact that we have a room that is half full on a $937,000,000 billion bond is crazy. And that's me. That means the process was right. I also want to thank Roxann White, J.J. Newman and Jen Dale for being part of the chairs of this volunteer led committees that got yelled at and got e-mails because of the work that they've done. And so thank you, guys. It's incredible. And obviously the staff has just been amazing as well. I guess I'll just say this. Anytime you have capital like this, it's an opportunity and you have to have a strategic vision or else everybody gets crumbs and you sprinkle it. And I just think we had a strategic vision and it was a great process. But people are going to be upset when the strategic, strategic vision because that means is directed towards one big issue and the transportation mobility was our issue for this year. And being a housing champion myself, it was very hard to say we're going to prioritize this because we have a finite amount of resources and every year we got to figure out what to do with those resources. And so I want to echo some of the comments that I think, Councilman, you made as well. 2018 is around the corner and there will be another strategic focus for this city and there will be other hard choices. And so I appreciate everybody realizing what it takes to lead and having a macro perspective for the entire city, not just your neighborhood, not just your council district, but what it takes to move this city forward . So I am. Excited to support this. And I have to say, our mayor, the point in which he got the budget from the executive committee, there are a lot of people upset and I didn't know how we were going to move forward because we had about five or six council members upset and about a thousand people in the public who felt like they their project should have been included. And Michael B Hancock did not sweat and was just open and invited Councilman Clark and I to the table. And we have watched you. We have the product of that before you today. So hats off to the mayor. Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, we are talking about 812. We have seven bills to go. I assure you, we will not talk like this on other bills. But it's been moved and seconded by Secretary Roll.
Speaker 2: Mr. President, is this were voting just on 812 now.
Speaker 0: Just on 812.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 1: All right.
Speaker 3: Brooks. I'm sorry. Clark. Hi. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. Gilmore. Herndon. Cashman. I can eat, I. Lopez. I knew. Ortega, I Sussman. All right, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please. Because I've already announced results.
Speaker 3: 13 days.
Speaker 0: 13 ays Council Bill 812 has passed. All right, Councilwoman Gilmore, will you please put Council Bill 813 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue or incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver transportation and mobility system; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken.
Refers a question to the November 2017 ballot to allow the City to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver transportation and mobility system. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0814
|
Speaker 0: All right. Council Bill 813 has passed. And this I'll just name what these bills are. So everyone knows 813 is the Denver Health Hospital Authority Outpatient Medical Center building. All right.
Speaker 10: It's eight 1414.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry, 813. Cancer. Madam Secretary, what was a 13 culture? Culture? Oh, yes. For the cultural. Thank you for giving up your time today. That was the the cultural arts was 813 814 is Denver Health Authority. I'm councilwoman Gilmore Police Council built a 14 on floor.
Speaker 6: I move that council bill 814 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It's been moved and seconded some comments by members of council. I'm Secretary Roll Call.
Speaker 1: Black.
Speaker 3: Clark. All right. Espinosa. Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. Herndon. Cashman. Can I. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close the voting and announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. 814 has passed. We now have 815. Um, and this is Denver Public Safety System Program. So this is all our safety networks. Um, Councilwoman Gilmore, we please put a 15 on the floor.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue or incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of the construction of a new Denver Health and Hospital Authority outpatient medical center building; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken.
Refers a question to the November 2017 ballot to allow the City to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of constructing a new Denver Health and Hospital Authority outpatient medical center building. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0815
|
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. 814 has passed. We now have 815. Um, and this is Denver Public Safety System Program. So this is all our safety networks. Um, Councilwoman Gilmore, we please put a 15 on the floor.
Speaker 6: Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 815 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, Councilman Espinosa. Just going to chime in with the general comment because I didn't do it when everyone else was. I want to thank my District one constituents that participated in this in this entire process. It's been several months and you've been there from the beginning and you're still here tonight, some of you. So I just wanted to make sure that you guys were acknowledged. I'll do it by name on the Facebook so that everyone knows the people that are looking out for the public interest in northwest Denver. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. It's been moved in a second. When I'm secretary, roll call for a 15 black clerk.
Speaker 3: All right. Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I. Herndon, I. Cashman. Canete, I. Lopez. I knew Ortega Susman. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I please close the voting. Announce the result.
Speaker 3: 30 Nice.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance submitting to a vote of the qualified and registered electors of the City and County of Denver at a special municipal election to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, the question of whether the City shall be authorized to issue or incur general obligation debt for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver public safety system; providing the form of the ballot question; providing for other details in connection therewith; and ratifying action previously taken.
Refers a question to the November 2017 ballot to allow the City to issue general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing and/or refinancing the cost of repairs and improvements to the Denver public safety system. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-24-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_08072017_17-0819
|
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting. Announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. 818 passes. Now on to 819. And I fail to mention to those of you following along 812, the first bill we voted on was transportation, the largest bill. So I should have missed that. But 415 million. Okay. So 819 is the companion ordinance. And Councilwoman Gilmore, would you please put 819 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Yes, President Brooks, I move that council bill 819 be ordered published.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded. We are going to vote on the actual amendment. Councilman Lopez, go ahead and offer your motion to amend.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to amend Council 17 series of 1718 zero 819 in the following particulars. On page one, line 15 in the list of transportation and mobility projects to be funded with bond proceeds after, quote, Bucktown, Colorado Boulevard, improvements in quote at the project description of, quote, Central Street improvements, parentheses, Central Street Promenade, fancy and quote oh two on page two. And a list of transportation and mobility projects strike the quote, Federal Boulevard Transit Infrastructure quote project and substitute with the quote Federal Boulevard pedestrian improvements end quote on I so number three on page two and the list of transportation mobility projects add quote West Colfax transit enhancements quote after the project Washington Street 47 through 52nd reconstruction, end quote.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved and seconded by Ortega. Okay. Comes members of Council. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. Like I said earlier, the amendment is to reallocate a portion of the bond proceeds associated with the debt issuance for transportation and mobility projects by eliminating the Federal Boulevard Transit Infrastructure Project, thus freeing up $9.8 million to be reallocated as follows an additional 4.2 million for Morrison road improvements, bringing the total amount of bond proceeds to be dedicated to this project to $12,242,500. The addition of the following three projects that were originally listed on a potential project list but were not included in the mayor's recommendation. Central Street Promenade. With an estimated cost of the $50,000 Federal Boulevard pedestrian improvements, with an estimated cost of 2.85 million and West Colfax Transit enhancements with an estimated cost of 1.9 million. Here's the here's the thing. Those three project. The funds are kept on Federal Boulevard. And that's that's the thing. I want folks to understand that all of these projects keep the spirit and the intent of the original fund. The funds on Federal Boulevard that are kept are pedestrian improvements that are funded at two of the primary intersections. As was stated earlier in this meeting, 23rd and 26th from the Federal Boulevard Corridor study. So for folks to say that this moves money from Federal Boulevard is false. What we want to be able to do is highlight those projects that are absolutely critical to ongoing projects in our district. The other one is on West Colfax, where funds are moved for transit improvements. This will allow for West Denver to be connected to the bus. Rapid Transit may eventually lead to BRT on Colfax being extended to city limits, which is Sheridan. And we've talked about this before. And those of you who had been on the council, those I. Been at this for a while. When we started talking about BRT since and since its inception, I've always put out my hand and said, Wait, wait, wait, wait. You have another completely other side of town that we're forgetting. It would stop at her area. The city of Denver still goes on all the way to shared. Right. And if we're able to take it the BRT all the way to Yosemite and even past and all the way we go even past to into Aurora. And why shouldn't we able to do that and complete that in our own city and, you know, left and right to be able to get it done? Unfortunately, we were not successful. It is what it is. And here's the thing. We understand, okay, the study was done. The grant was applied for for just that section. No use chasing a jumbo jet. That's field and on the runway. So what we want to do is be able to prepare our side of town, West Colfax, for the same kind of opportunities. Right. And so that's why that is in there. You know, there's been great work that's been done by the West Colfax bid. You heard Dan Schorr's testimony and you heard Leslie check out his testimony for Federal Boulevard. You know, these are areas where they're absolutely critical. And when you look at the funds that that we want to keep in southwest Denver and Westwood, it's to do more than multi-modal improvements. And you heard that you heard that in great detail from Bukele West and from the folks that spoke there. It's it's increasing Morrison road improvements to the funding level that they should have. It was almost like a little like a tennis match was going back and forth and as in this process, we were watching it get funded and decreased. Funded and then decreased. And so in order for Morrison Road to Work, you got to fund, you got to complete the project. And when we were looking at this source of funds and you look at Federal Boulevard and you look at the. The original intent of this for the for the transit study. If we really wanted to make Federal Boulevard, that transit corridor, we really wanted to do that. It's not going to take $9.8 million. It's going to take a heck of a lot more investment. And it has to be programed. And that's why we picked that's why we saw this as, hey, what's going on with this? Asked these questions before and in previous council meetings and at this at this very floor without the detailed response. This is money that's not being programed. We don't know if it's for bus shelters. We don't know if it is for a bus lane. We don't know if it's. We've heard that it's for charging stations, for electric cars. We just don't know for certain. And when we asked. There's no designs and there's not it's not programed. We can they can not tell us what's going to be funded. And the detail that we. Right. And it's frustrating because here we have that. And on the other hand, we have these four projects that that absolutely are they we can program right away to complete four major projects in the city. Important transit corridor, important hubs. So that's that's you know, the one thing I really wanted about home and this is not money that we're allocated for another side of town or another. This is within the district. Right. And so this is something that a lot of the folks that you had here testifying, this is their work. This is the gaps that they that they realized. There's been tremendous work done. But you know what? This is about details. And and we want to make sure we get we get it right. If we're going to do it, let's get it right. There have been terrible accidents on Morrison with terrible accidents on West Colfax Federal. Seen a heck of a lot more improvement than what it ever had. And a lot of the things that talk about federal, you know, a lot of those actions that happened in that corridor and that stretch is not happening no more because of that federal boulevard reconstruction that we had. So. Yeah. All right. I want to allow other folks.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman.
Speaker 1: Yes, I have said all right to be asking questions. Oh, yeah, yeah. Okay. Um, I'd like to ask Krissy to come up to the, to the thing. I just have a couple of questions. I understand that the Central Street Project, there was a question about whether it was bond eligible. Has that question become more clear or. I don't know about bond eligibility.
Speaker 7: So sorry for Central Laura.
Speaker 1: Would you know whether.
Speaker 7: So the initial scope of the project more focused on landscaping elements and streetscape along Central Avenue, and at that time we deemed that the useful life of that proposed project scope didn't align with on financing.
Speaker 1: And is that the case now? I mean, is it still maybe not eligible for bond financing?
Speaker 7: There is more clarity needed around the scope of work that's required for that project for us to determine the answer to that question.
Speaker 1: So if we were to approve this amendment and it was found to be not bond eligible. What happens to it? I mean, do we have some obligation towards it or what? What happens to it?
Speaker 7: If City Council approves the amendment, then it's incorporated into the bond. And we would essentially need to work to develop a scope of work that's in line with what is eligible for bond funding.
Speaker 1: Okay. Thank you. And and now, Kristie, I was going to ask you about the federal transit project that's going away here in this in this amendment. Yeah. How many? How long along the corridor was that?
Speaker 9: Transit.
Speaker 7: Was the transit project or is initially the transit project was intended to be the entire length of the federal boulevard corridor from city limit to city limit. Through the process, it was reduced to from Evans to 38th Avenue.
Speaker 1: From Evans to 38th. That's quite a distance. Yes. And is it true that there were.
Speaker 7: Not plans that were drawn up.
Speaker 1: For the project?
Speaker 7: So one of the things we've been thinking about with regards to transit is just how do we do sort of the bus rapid transit faster? There are things that we can do from a programmatic perspective, an operational perspective to actually help transit move more quickly through the corridor. And that's what we had in mind. So a lot of things with sign signals and markings and bus shelter improvements to actually enhance the transit along the corridor. It is the second highest ridership in the RTD system. It's on the Vision Zero High Injury Network system, and we thought we could bring a lot of those things together to actually address both transit and safety issues along the corridor.
Speaker 1: Okay. I think that's all my question is.
Speaker 7: Thanks very much. Thanks, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Blair.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately. I haven't learned that much about either of these proposals, the original one and the amendment. I had a brief meeting with Councilman Espinosa a few weeks ago, but most of what I've learned, I've learned tonight, and I trust Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Lopez for what they think should be in their district. Just because I think I know what's best for my district, but what I'm concerned about is federal, because we're always hearing about what a dangerous street it is. And it concerns me that we're we're not addressing that. And I understand that that we want to hold out for a BRT. But if we're spending 55 million or $60 million on Colfax, when are we going to have that kind of money? Again, for federal? We're probably not for another bond, which is in ten years. So I don't know how to weigh that decision. So Chrissy, can you provide me any guidance? And we also have great speakers on both sides of it. So I don't I don't really know how to make that decision.
Speaker 7: Well, you know, as you guys have all said this evening, there's there aren't a lack of projects that are good projects. It's hard.
Speaker 6: Decisions that we have to.
Speaker 7: Make when we're trying to think about transportation and how do we meet some of the goals that we have out there. And with regards to mode shift, several people have mentioned 73% of folks are driving to on their commute trips by themselves. And so how do we encourage people to move differently and meet the Mobility Action Plan goals that Mayor Hancock placed out there? We do think that enhancing transit and improving ridership are improving the service along these corridors will actually increase ridership and give people better options and serve a community that we're really working to better support and make sure that they through transportation, we're providing greater access to opportunity. We also know from our work with RTD that this corridor is on the first tier for improvements that they're identifying when they look at their system and where busses are getting stuck in the system and stuck in traffic just like everybody else, which makes it harder to prioritize transit and encourage that mode shift. So we do think that this project would give that opportunity to look at specific intersections where we would want to put in transit signal priority to jump planes if necessary, to a bus only lonely bus only lane that maybe in the peak period only. But we could certainly look at 24 hour. Those are the types of things that we are looking towards to move this forward and increase transit capacity on the corridor. So if you want to think about it along the lines of what Broadway Lincoln have done in the past with signs, signals and markings and prioritizing transit in that corridor, that's what we wanted to start with. But we've also learned a lot since we have implemented Broadway in Lincoln. To see what else we might want to do will be testing the red paint the red markings on Broadway starting this summer. Those are all things that would be eligible on this process, on this project, if we were able to move it forward.
Speaker 1: Thank you. So Councilman Lopez and Espinosa, I guess my question is for you, are you willing to sacrifice that for these other projects?
Speaker 10: My short answer, absolutely. It's not a sacrifice. It's a reinvestment only because it's a pilot you talked to. There was another. So when you talk about Federal Boulevard as being a concern. Yeah. At one point it was the most dangerous strip in Denver with with that Alameda, it was identified from Alameda to Sixth Avenue. Fifth Avenue to be to be to be honest. We addressed that. We widened it. You put in sidewalks, underground utilities. That was a big ticket item. And it was over 100. And I think. $36 million. It was a big deal just for that stretch. That's a small stretch. Federal. Huge. Right. Ten point I mean, $9.8 million wouldn't even. I don't know how many holes we could have dug with that on that strip. The other thing, Kendra, is that we are. Councilman Black, I'm sorry. Is this not over? We rebuilt. We reconfigured Sixth Avenue Bridges project, which was a big deal. Happened to tie right into that. And then what's going to be happening now is from Sixth Avenue all the way to Holden, where the Human Services Building is, that's going to keep widen third lane, put in medians, pedestrian refuges, things like that, better lights. That's another big ticket item. And you're only talking about maybe a mile or two max, right on Federal Boulevard. It's huge. You're looking at $9.8 million. I'd rather see hard cost. I'd rather see completed projects with those that that $9.8 million on Colfax, on those very intersections that we talked about rather than some pilot . Right. That's not programed money. And no, here's the thing. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Krissy from Barnum. Right. We talked about federal a lot. It's a matter of priority. And for ten years I was in the West Side. We know where the priority is there. Now, we appreciate that. We would love to have BRT, but you can't buy BRT on Federal Boulevard for $9.8 million. You just can't. So for us, it's just a smart investment on that side. But it's a fallacy to think that Federal Boulevard is not getting any love. Oh, my gosh. We're getting crazy love coming out pretty soon. So much that we're all going to be receiving phone calls about the traffic jams.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I would just like to insert one comment. Hampton needs a lot of love. And so to South Carolina. Thank you.
Speaker 0: More for for this. All right. To the.
Speaker 5: Chinese.
Speaker 0: That's the way. Oh, yeah. Councilman Espinosa, just. Just so you have the other half of that response as well. Yes. There is no design that were that were ready to go. That's shovel ready for for for federal. They're on this on this scale. And a portion of that is pilot, which begs the question of whether that had hits the ten year requirement, because it's something that could be tried and pulled away. But the key thing on the one sort of supportive comment tonight was and it's crucial it's crucial to federal it's crucial to Colfax. Is transit supportive land use? We do not have land use that would sort of fill in and start bringing new, new high concentrations of users. We need to this is and so that is actually one of the crucial things the disconnects that we didn't do in Blueprint Denver. We didn't follow through with Blueprint Denver. That Denver right. Update is going to be talking about. But we're a year from Denver. Right. Being adopted and we're two more many years from these neighborhoods being part of the neighborhood planning initiative. So we are.
Speaker 5: Probably a good decade from having true, you know, land.
Speaker 0: Use, transit supported, land uses, married with transit. So we actually have time. What we should be doing is for far less money doing the design, doing the studies and improving upon the recommendations of the plan so that we actually can can come forward and that can be done through our general fund. These other things are our long term needs. On West Colfax. We've we've have tall, very tall, high concentrations of senior living facilities. The city is now building one through DHS. So this is this is it is.
Speaker 5: Is as one of the public speakers.
Speaker 0: Put it, it's it's a Sophie's.
Speaker 5: Choice, but it is.
Speaker 0: Actually one that is is valuable valuable to to the pedestrian commute walking communities. I have a very high concentration of Jewish community on West Colfax as well. So these are all things that it is not ideal situation, but it is actually a net improvement and we can build towards the Federal Boulevard corridor, which was just done last year. So. And follow up with plans over the coming years. Thanks. Hey. Thank you. All right, Councilman Black, I think that gets at it. Let's go to Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm happy to support the Councilman Lopez and Councilman Espinosa in Reprograming these federal funds and other projects in our district. And I just want to remind Councilman Lopez, when he talks about the west side being sort of forgotten, that the farther southwest you go, we're even more forgotten and that Denver doesn't end. It doesn't go all the way to Sheridan. And in my district, it goes all the way to Kipling Street. And we had a neighborhood picnic there for Denver days just yesterday. And folks were reminding me there was a time when my predecessor, Councilman Hackworth, had to have the city issue, the folks in my neighborhood, Denver resident cards , because no one believed at the Southwest Rec Center that we actually lived in the city and county of Denver. So so with that in mind, I think it's very good that the representatives from the West Side get to determine their own priorities. And I'm happy to support this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Flynn, I'm going to jump to Councilman Knoop.
Speaker 8: Well, it looks like we're just equivalent over legitimate needs. Like Chrissy said, you know, it sure says something about a lack of a transportation system. So I'm hoping the Christie that you'll be supportive of putting this project in the operating budget for 2018. And we obviously need both of these projects and I'm sure you'll hear what you hear up here tonight. You're going to find support for increased transit funding. So I hope you'll consider that. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman New. Councilman Castro.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. President. And I'm really very pleased to hear all this love for the West Side, but want it want to give a yo for the East Side and East Evans Avenue needs a whole lot of love. East of Colorado Boulevard, especially. And I just wanted to add that Brandon is looking far too relaxed. And I want to I want to underscore a larger go for the minivan. So there you go.
Speaker 0: Councilman Cashman, did you said the east side? Yes, sir. You know, the east side is. Anyway, we'll talk about that later. All right. Let's do. Councilman Lopez, I think you can.
Speaker 10: Armando, don't do it. No, I need to ask a question.
Speaker 0: Ask your question.
Speaker 10: So I wanted to ask this question of David and possibly Laura. Now, although in the particulars that I asked, that, you know, that kind of renumbered stuff and adds Federal Boulevard Transit and all that stuff. So for the purpose and the intent of the amendment, even though it's not written in the actual language, how are we going to record and make sure that that that those those projects are actually the intent of the proceeds? And so I don't know whether or not I just want to make sure on the record that that that's the intent of.
Speaker 7: Yes. The Department of Finance will absolutely reallocate the funds within the transportation purposed as determined by City Council this evening. As you know, Councilman, we have transparently posted summaries on our website which reflect those projects which comprise each of the purposes. So we will certainly adjust all of our summaries to include the adjustment on Morrison Road. Okay.
Speaker 10: It's like David's not in his head.
Speaker 2: David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney The purpose of the councilman's question is, as you all know, each of the projects doesn't have a number, a dollar number attributed to it in the companion ordinance. And it was easy to delay one project, add three. But the addition of the addition of the extra money to Morse and Road isn't really expressly in the language of the amendment itself, but is largest reflected that we understand the underlying intent. The budget for the Morris Road Project will be increased by the amount indicated in the explanation, even though it's not explicitly in the ordinance language . So we thought we would put that on the record.
Speaker 10: Thank you. Thank you. That's all I have.
Speaker 0: All right, set it up. Sure. Okay. Uh, Councilman Espinosa. No, that was okay. Okay, great. We are voting on the amendment for a 19. All right. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary, real call.
Speaker 3: Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. From Black Eye. Clark. Espinosa, I. Flynn.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I heard in Cashman. I can eat, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I police voting announce the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. The amendment passes. Now, Councilwoman Gilmore, we need a motion to publish as amended.
Speaker 6: Thank you, President Brooks. I move that council bill 819 be ordered published as amended.
Speaker 0: It has been moved and seconded, I assume no comments from the council. Madam Secretary Roker.
Speaker 3: Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Hi.
Speaker 3: Flynn.
Speaker 5: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. Kinney. Lopez. All right. New Ortega.
Speaker 9: Excuse me.
Speaker 3: Sussman.
Speaker 1: Black eye.
Speaker 3: Clark.
Speaker 5: Hi.
Speaker 3: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I saw swelling in the results.
Speaker 3: 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: All right. 13 eyes. Constable 819 has been ordered published as amendment. All eight of these bills will be on second and final reading Monday, August 14th, when council is scheduled to vote on all these bills. On Monday, August 14, the Council will hold a required public here from Council Bill 810 approving the Emily Griffith Opportunity School Urban
|
Bill
|
AS AMENDED a bill for an ordinance designating the projects to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the November 7, 2017 election.
Designates the projects and level of funding to be undertaken with the proceeds of any general obligations bonds authorized by voters at the 11-7-17 election. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-24-17. Amended 8-7-17 to reallocate a portion of the bond proceeds associated with the debt issuance for transportation and mobility projects by eliminating the Federal Boulevard Transit Infrastructure Project; thus, freeing up $9.8 million to be reallocated as follows: An additional $4.2 million for Morrison Road Improvements, bringing the total amount of bond proceeds to be dedicated to this project to $12,242,500. The addition of the following three projects that were originally listed on potential project lists, but were not included in the Mayor’s recommendation: Central Street Promenade (with an estimated cost of $850,000), Federal Boulevard Pedestrian Improvements (wi
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07312017_17-0687
|
Speaker 0: Did I get that right, Councilwoman Sussman? Councilman Clark. Okay. Thank you. Madam Secretary, would you please put the first item on our screen? Councilman Herndon, will you please put the resolution 637 on the floor for adoption?
Speaker 1: Yes, Mr. President. I move the resolution 687 be adopted.
Speaker 0: All right. It has been moved. And second, it comes for members.
Speaker 4: Of the second. You need a second on the screen.
Speaker 0: Okay. It's been moved. And second it comes members of council. Councilman Clark. And then we'll go to Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I do have some comments. I but I didn't know if Councilwoman Ortega had mentioned maybe having some questions. I would defer to her if she has a few questions that she'd like answered. I didn't know if you enough.
Speaker 3: If you don't mind. Councilwoman Ortega. So as I read through the document, I didn't see anything in there that had protections, if you will, for Ruby Hill. And Councilman Clark and I were talking before this evening. About. What's going to stop people from going to Ruby Hill? Because I understand you won't have concerts during the same time that will have concerts at Overland. And as you all know, the Lovett Pavilion can now have somewhere in the ballpark of 17,000 people. Because what I've heard is the number. So that in itself could bring lots of traffic to the neighborhood. And how is that being addressed as part of the the overall traffic plan? I want to make sure that the park continues to be available to the neighborhood, the ball fields, the the bike program, you know, just being able to have picnics at the gazebo up on top. So I don't know if if you want to answer the questions about how we're making sure that Ruby Hill doesn't become the magnet for people who can't afford to pay the price for the tickets, but may be able to go listen to the music at that.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: Creates more impact to the neighborhood.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Ortega, I'm going to call up Parks and Rec, and we probably want to call up some folks from Superfly as well. But go ahead, Fred.
Speaker 5: Fred Wise, director of finance for Parks and Recreation, Ruby Hill will be part of the plan in terms of parking and protection of the park during the festival. It will clearly be open to the public during all set up and tear down. And we believe it's far enough away from the actual venue that people won't be going to leave it to listen to the concert. But we will be stationing Denver police and Rangers and private security to.
Speaker 3: Take the park out of commission for being able to have the ball fields being used during this time frame.
Speaker 5: No, not at all. Not at all.
Speaker 3: But what part of the park is going to be used for staging that you just talked about?
Speaker 5: None of the park will be used for staging and for the music festival.
Speaker 3: You just said police and others will be.
Speaker 5: Too to ensure that that there's crowd control, that there is no issues or problems in the park, but none of them.
Speaker 3: There won't be using the park. You're saying they'll be staged at the park, too, for the park not to be utilized as a venue, if you will, for people to go listen to music? Yes. I mean, first of all, we don't know whether the music will carry. And you can actually even hear it from from Ruby Hill Park or not. So just help me understand, because I'm concerned about the impact to the the access people will have to the park to use it for just normal, you know, as as their neighborhood park and whatnot.
Speaker 5: So the the intention is clearly to leave it open for all of its normal uses during the entire time that the festival is occurring. Load in during the festival and load out.
Speaker 3: So if. People want to come and park there. Who's going to make sure, whether it's neighborhood people or people wanting to park there that aren't using the shuttle service that will be set up as part of the event. And walking over to Oberlin from there.
Speaker 5: Well, that would be part of the parking plan in terms of having officers and security stationed at the entrances to the park and to the best of their ability. Obviously, unless people are, you know, good at not deceiving them. They will be asked and they will be told that they can't. There is no festival parking in Ruby Hill.
Speaker 3: So I would suspect if it's neighbors that walk there as opposed to drive there. So I'm just concerned about the impact to the park.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 3: And how we protect that.
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: So that it doesn't become overtaken by people who want to come to the event, that don't want to utilize the shuttle service and.
Speaker 5: Absolutely an.
Speaker 3: Easy place to park.
Speaker 5: Yes, we are we we recognize that a concern and we will be sure to include that in the parking and security plans that need to be submitted.
Speaker 3: So do you have anything different you want to add?
Speaker 7: Yeah. Would I would just add two things to that. The first is we've had significant discussions with Levitt Pavilion in terms of how we work together. We've entered into a sort of mutual support and marketing agreement.
Speaker 0: Mr. Erlich, can you please introduce yourself?
Speaker 7: I'm sorry. David Erlich Working with Superfly. So the first issue is the operators at least of Leavitt Pavilion. We have a very significant agreement with and are going to be working with them in terms of both involvement in the community and operations. But the second thing I'd point out is, as Fred said, as we've gone through this process, we already have a very specific way to protect the southern neighborhood with both staffing and with police. And that's because it came up in the neighborhood discussions. This issue has come up as well. But later and so as Fred said, we're committed to both police and staffing so that it's very similar to how we'll protect the southern neighborhood. We'll have ingress and egress controlled by the plan. The city's going to have to sign off on that plan. And we feel very comfortable, given our relationship with Leavitt and the neighborhood groups, that we can protect the park and we can actually make it a benefit to the park.
Speaker 3: So I want to ask a question about traffic for a minute. So you all will be required to have a traffic plan that would be submitted to the Public Works Department and the manager of Parks and Recreation. And if our public works folks. Don't approve it within a certain designated timeframe. Your plan automatically goes into effect. One of my concerns is this is a five year contract. We're going to have lots of public works projects going on where our folks are going to be, you know, trying to move all these bond projects, assuming they all pass, you know, when they go to the voters in November. So I. I'm hopeful that our city staff will and that Councilman Clark will be shepherding this to ensure that we have that input and review, and particularly after the first year, if we find that there are nightmare traffic problems that the community is dealing with, which, you know, I appreciate the fact that it does spell out that if the community wants a parking plan with restricted parking similar to what Mile High Stadium neighborhoods have and whatnot, that they can they can get that. And that could be something that further protects the neighborhood. But if public works doesn't have the time to look at it, their plan automatically goes into effect within a certain time frame if we're not looking at it. So I'm just hopeful that we'll have the folks in the time to be able to look at that and address any issues that need to be worked out. Let me see. I had one other question.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman tell you? You want me to go to some other folks and come back?
Speaker 3: No, let me just go to this last question. Some of the others I've I've gotten my answers to. So will the service of alcohol shut down, as is the case in nightclubs before the music ends, before the end of the, you know, the night. And how much earlier is that? So your your music can play till ten. How much earlier does the alcohol service stop?
Speaker 1: So what would.
Speaker 7: So. So that will be also part of our operations agreement. But the answer to your question is yes, the serving of alcohol will stop earlier than the music at 10:00. Approximately a half hour, an hour, depending on mutually what we all decide is appropriate in terms of crowd control and everything else.
Speaker 3: Okay. That's it for right now.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, I take it. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Yeah. Mr. President, did you want to go.
Speaker 1: With Councilman Clark first?
Speaker 5: You know, because I only had comments. I have no questions.
Speaker 0: Oh, great. Why don't we do this? Councilman Clark, if you're okay. Those with questions, we go to first, and then we can go to a comment section. Um, are there questions? For members of council Kathmandu.
Speaker 7: Councilman Clark and I were talking about the evaluation mechanism in the contract and how it seems to be very sketchy and not really clear. And I wonder if have counsel Clark Gooden clarify and describe a little bit about the evaluation post concert evaluation process, please.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman. The administration also is very committed to this. After meeting with neighborhoods and I circulated a document around I think it was in the packet last week that outlines the accountability committee and who will be on it also had brought some great ideas of including others like police and fire in that. And so, you know, meeting with the attorneys. There is a provision in there that provides room for that. It doesn't specifically call that mechanism. But I think, you know, Superfly and the administration, you know, have been very committed to that. I'm sure we could commit to that. Now that that that accountability committee, as outlined in the paper, will definitely be a part of this process. Does that help?
Speaker 7: Yeah, very much. And there'll be a documented review as well as recommendations for improvement.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That group is designed to have neighbors that have stakeholders to all talk about all of the first of all, all of the impacts. What happened, what went wrong, what went right, and how do.
Speaker 5: We move forward?
Speaker 7: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman. I have a question for Councilman Clark and the promoters in the city. You know, something came up in our hearing last week and it talked about San Francisco and San Francisco having this event as well and making sure that we're getting the biggest bang for our buck in Denver as well. And so I know that you've done you've seen some of the financial analysis and maybe we can talk about that. But I want to make sure as a city that the city of Denver will be able to recoup a lot of these funds. And you know that we're not getting shortchanged as a city.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you, Mr. President, for the question. You know, I think that that's been a part of this conversation all along, not just in how much what's the overall, but in specifically the golf course being made whole, being made better, and the neighborhood being whole and being made better and parks as this falls within the Parks Department . But I'll let David come up and just speak quickly to, you know, this as a what the market conditions for this kind of festival are, especially, first of all, starting out and the deal that we're getting as it compares to San Francisco.
Speaker 7: I think if it's okay, Councilman Clark, I'll defer initially to Fred Weiss of Parks, who has run an analysis of both the San Francisco contract and this contract and can point out at certain attendance numbers the true comparison.
Speaker 5: Happy to. We do have the contract, San Francisco's contract. So we know specifically what that is. And their attendance is 70,000 a day. So that's the easiest comparison to make. And San Francisco makes $2,676,000 at 78 70,000 a day. And Denver would make 2,635,000. So it's within $50,000 in terms of in total the net, and that's after the $200,000 waiver of expenses. So that's already accounted for. So we are right on par with the arrangement in San Francisco.
Speaker 0: And and not my major concern is this neighborhood in the park. How are you allocating some of those resources to make sure that we get the park revived in after the, you know, the event happens, that that money goes back into a park and not into the citywide system? This was an email exchange that I've been having with someone in the community.
Speaker 5: Sure. Well, the the renovation of the park is included in the contract. That's a requirement of Superfly to bring it back to as good the golf course, as good, if not better condition as when they took possession of it.
Speaker 0: So I'm all right in saying that that 2 million supersedes what's already embedded in the contracts.
Speaker 5: Over and above. That's correct. Over and above their responsibility to fully restore and renovate anything that's damaged in the like.
Speaker 0: Fred, last question. So that 2 million is is money that we've not talked about how we're going to use that money as a city. So is that still up for conversation about the community, not the community at large, but the specific impact at community?
Speaker 5: Sure. Well, a certain amount. Whether a certain amount is going to the Golf Enterprise Fund, and that is.
Speaker 6: 200,000.
Speaker 5: I need my glasses. So again, let's use the 70,000 a day because that's that's easier. The Golf Enterprise Fund will be netting $1.1 million out of that. The remainder is basically sea tax. And the commitment on the part of the comptroller's office is that the equivalent of one third of the sea tax will go to the neighborhood , one third will go to parks in general. And I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank with the other third. One third will go to golf. So and those are all four improvements because the restoration of everything is included in the base contracts. So this is above and beyond and going to be a miss.
Speaker 0: What's the numerical value? The third?
Speaker 5: Well, the numerical value of a third at 70,000.
Speaker 0: Okay, got it. At 17,000. And that's what I missed. Okay, we're good. Thanks. Thanks for that.
Speaker 5: $700,000. Okay. Roughly.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I think that's important for folks to hear.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: That the immediate neighborhood will receive a financial benefit as well.
Speaker 5: And that does not include the contribution to the community fund that's over and above these numbers.
Speaker 0: Yeah, that's right. Thank you. Councilman Clark, do you want to take away. Looks like everyone else has asked their question. Councilman Ortega has another question. One councilman, I should have known.
Speaker 3: You want to call a number?
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Yeah. So several questions for you guys. First off, thank you for the follow up on my concerns about traffic. I still have them, so that's probably where most of my questions are going. But based on some of this, what one of the comments at the public comment was that the $200,000 rent was too low. What is the rent for mean for Golden Gate Park and out in the outside lands? First of all.
Speaker 5: The structure is very different. There is no rent. There is a percentage. It's 11% of ticket sales and then a dollar 50 or a dollar 75 per ticket. So there is no base rent in the San Francisco contract.
Speaker 2: Do they then still have a seat tax that's applicable to that or no? We didn't talk about this, but I assume that you're going to have some sort of on site triage and EMS. Is there a route through the neighborhood? And will that be a silent route or will we have you know, because we're talking about a population roughly about most of the size of Boulder that will be on site for 10 hours. You know, what do you how do you handle emergencies on site?
Speaker 5: Well, there will be an emergency an emergency plan both on site and an emergency evacuation plan and will consult with. We will let Denver health and Denver fire and police really drive the the requirements of that plan because they're the experts.
Speaker 2: But will they be putting sirens like as they leave the facility or will they get out to, say, Evans or Santa Fe before they do that, if they're actually taking somebody to the hospital?
Speaker 5: I don't I don't know. That would be a sort of we would I would assume that we will follow their protocol.
Speaker 2: Okay. Is there a charge for the parking that will be offsite or if you're using the city owned facility or not? Part of the reason why I'm asking is so we just had the Dragon Boat Festival in my district this weekend. We're still waiting for our attendance. Usually draws about 100,000 over the course of two days where they constantly stream of busses going through the neighborhoods for two days for that 50,000, which is akin to what you have. Right. As a sort of constant flow. But they only charge five bucks for the parking, which I think encourages people to use that. Will that be will the I know you had been speaking to possibly including transit to the program possibly and ticket price. Would that also include parking at the parking ride's or downtown at the Mile High Stadium or something like that? So Rick Freeman from Superfly. Typically what we've done in the past is not charge for the parking, but charge for the shuttle pass. So and that can be anywhere from a 10 to $25 fee for the weekend, depending on various pricing levels and things like that. You know, the plan here is really to utilize all sorts of different transportation options. And so just to be, you know, direct about it, we do think public transport will be a big part of it. And that was to answer your question about the inclusion. We've used that method before. We have an event right now where we work to deal with the transit authority of that particular location, where the actual ticket is a ticket to get on a light rail or a public bus. So we will try and accomplish a similar thing here. We want to encourage as much public transportation as possible and use this as a vehicle to help get people to use the public transportation that is there more than maybe they normally do. Well, certainly one of the things we also love about the site is that it's on the Platte River bike path and we feel like that's a tremendous asset. We typically do see a lot of people using bike transit to events like this nationally, and we think with the biking culture here in Denver, it will be significant. We'll provide a free bike valet. So you just come leave your bike, you get a ticket and somebody will bring your bike to you as you leave. And of course, you know, with the popularity of ride sharing services, Lyft, Uber taxis, that will be a significant portion of the attendees utilizing that along with the shuttle service that we set up that that's, you know, kind of the holistic transportation plan options that we have to. I think you guys explain it that if there is no sort of agreement on this whole parking and transit plan, that the you know, when you guys you're doing this several months in advance, that that is actually that is grounds for termination. I mean, that is, you know, if we're not satisfied as a city that, you know, the community is properly protected. And in this in this regard or this situation in transit is not properly addressed, we can comfortably back out of this. Yes, that that's my understanding as well. And we say that from a producer standpoint, this is a, you know, one of our top issues that we have to get right for this to be a successful event. This is not something we think of. Secondarily, you know, our relationship with the customer, the event starts from the second they leave their door. If they don't have a comfortable, easy experience getting in and out of our venue, then they're not going to want to come back and spend the money it is to come to something like this. So it is imperative not only that we do a great job from the beginning, but that we make improvements on that plan, you know, continually and really examine in real time how it's happening. We're very good with utilizing data, really understanding how people are transporting when they're coming, when they're leaving, all of those things to make a plan that really creates a comfortable atmosphere. And we've been able to do that in our history. We also there's a lot of other events nationally that are great examples for us, that operate in parks, that are in similar, you know, locations like this that have access challenges that you have to overcome. And we believe that this is a site that can be done very well. We have a very experienced traffic engineer that is part of our team that does this nationally as well. They, too, have looked at the site, looked at the different logistics and feel that this can be accomplished really well here. So we feel confident that can happen. Okay. I think I'm going to have to at some point in the next year, I get Councilman Clark over to my house for a Broncos game to for him to see sort of the entirety of the the day and evening of what 76,000 people looks like. And then forced into a concert with me as well, one of these events so that he can also see that because this is this this will linger as one of my sort of concerns until I see that plan. And I want him to be cognizant because the explanation you provided, you know, speaks to upwards of 40% taking TNC in taxi, which would be, you know, 30 some odd thousand of the attendees. And that's a loss, even if. Carpooling. That's a lot of cars and anything you can do to use that TNC to get them to transit and then shuttle from the transit stops or bus service to the site you know, would go a long way because you're not going be able to queue up or store those shuttles, but you're going to have to figure all that out because this is a lot of people in an area that doesn't have a lot of free space even. One of the things that we see, if you don't mind me saying in San Francisco at the outside lands, is that people will typically take a taxi to an area that then funnels into whatever our walkable ingress plan is. So it's not like we expect all of the TNC to drop off right at the front door here. You know, they'll go frequent the businesses on Broadway, get a coffee, walk in to the event. And of course, we'll be controlling the different avenues of pedestrian access coming into the site, along with law enforcement. So when you think about it more broadly, you know, it's not just the location, it's getting people to the area or, as you said, getting people to some of the transit hubs that we're going to be supporting as well to then come in. So that's how we've seen it work in the past. Well, your transit plan also include, you know, some some of the on sort of led display signage, you know, miles and blocks out to sort of direct people as well as advertising. Yeah, absolutely. Well, advertising is a big part of it, right? That starts at the very beginning. And as I said, you know, the goal here would be to create something where your ticket is part of the transit plan. So you take public transportation, right. With that ticket. That's something we would advertise very aggressively to get people to take those modes of transportation in general. People come to our site, the event website and this ad looking for that type of information. And we find that people generally follow a lot of the recommendations that we put out. So be a huge part of it. You know, the second part of your question is, yes. I mean, we're working in a very detailed manner with law enforcement, everybody else in the community, to figure out exactly what messaging is needed, exactly what routes are most advantageous for ourselves, for the businesses in the area to get traffic to them. But yes, signage, variable signage is a big thing because you can, you know, change it up on the fly as you realize you want to make an adjustment. So we will utilize all those techniques. Okay, great. Thank you again. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, I'm going to go to Councilman Cashman for a question and then Councilwoman or take. Turner. Your Turner, Mike? No, sir.
Speaker 3: You're. Mike's not on.
Speaker 0: Mike.
Speaker 1: There we go. So you said you don't generally charge for parking. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: We charge for the use of the shuttle service so we don't generally charge for parking.
Speaker 1: Okay. Help me understand. I was looking at the outside land site and what I thought I saw was 48 bucks for three day shuttle. That's right. And then 255 bucks for three days of parking.
Speaker 2: The that parking that you see on the outside land site is for a VIP parking pass where we do have some limited parking within the park itself that is accessible to people who are willing to pay for it. I don't think we have that at this location, so I don't think that would be applicable here.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 3: Thank you. The question's generated a couple of additional. So first, why not look at something like Mile High Stadium or Dick's Sporting Goods as opposed to one of our parks and specifically a golf course.
Speaker 2: Sure. You know, nationally, there is a trend of these type of events being held in public spaces such as Eisler Park in Austin, such as Golden Gate Park and San Francisco, such as Grant Park in Chicago. And I think the reason is, is that people want more of a green sort of, you know, nature friendly environment. You're going to see a show in a stadium is much different than going to see a festival where you're experiencing lots of different types of activities from all sorts of music, but also food, crafts, art. And the way that these events really work well doesn't really lend to something that's a stadium environment that's built for a completely different purpose. And they just the configurations don't really work well. So we have extensively looked and worked with Parks and Rec at other locations. We all determined based on a variety of criteria that really Oberlin was the one that made the most sense for this particular location.
Speaker 3: So I want to ask a question about the clubhouse. So I see that you all will have access and use of the clubhouse. The revenue that will be paid back is for damages to the golf course. So what happens if the clubhouse is damaged is.
Speaker 2: I believe we.
Speaker 0: Can make this.
Speaker 3: An amount of money.
Speaker 2: Yet same. It covers the clubhouse, is my understanding.
Speaker 3: And so the amount of money that's been set aside for the park you're saying is sufficient to include the clubhouse, or is that in addition to.
Speaker 2: Well, we have to repair everything.
Speaker 3: Anything that stands.
Speaker 2: So there's not a limit of that, and we'll be insured to protect against that as well. So there's not a specific number. So, yes, the clubhouse is included in that.
Speaker 3: Okay. And then let's see. I had one last question. This is for Katie, if you wouldn't mind coming forward.
Speaker 6: It is stressing the Office of Special Events.
Speaker 3: So, Kitty, how many other parks do we have that are being looked at for various types of music venues? You know, we've got. Various sizes of parks in our city. I just saw something that came across today that looks at Zoo Night Park for a music festival. And, you know, I'm not sure the the size of the event, but I just saw that today. So do we have more and more of these that are being looked at for the use of our city parks? And I don't know if that one is a free one. I think that one is considered to be a free event as opposed to a private. So.
Speaker 6: Well, I think I can answer part of it and I can think and Fred perhaps can answer another part of it. We don't have any specific venues that we're guiding people towards for for music specifically. I think an event comes to us and they have a park in mind and then we consider it. It's sort of a case by case. There are certain parks that only allow alcohol, so most music festivals would probably go towards those as are larger regional parks. So I think that that's probably the only thing that comes to mind right now that a music festival would go towards is one of the venues that allow for alcohol . Does that answer your question?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it does. So what you're saying is, you know, I know some of our RINO's are registered neighborhood organizations, organize some of the various types of events in the parks, and oftentimes they include music, so they call them music festivals, but they're really fundraisers for the the neighborhood association. And I see that very different from this. But, you know, I know, for example, we have jazz at City Park that's much smaller scale than than this is proposed to be. And I guess what I'm trying to understand is if we're seeing more interest in people wanting to do something of this scale in any of our other parks, do we see this being like the only one that we're we're looking at so that, you know, the the public and we've heard from people on both sides, but that this doesn't end up being a slippery slope, where now it's like, okay, whose park is next for, you know, some major event that takes it off line from, you know, in this case, the golfers who who normally utilize this park to play golf.
Speaker 6: Well, I can assure you, at least on some level, that this level, this size and scope and event is is very rare to come to us and for us to look at it happening elsewhere. I can't foresee anything like that. I mean, this this is a massive event and it will be unique. And we don't we don't foresee. We're not looking for. I mean, if an event comes to us and wants to do this, I mean, we'd certainly consider it. But we've spent the last year considering this one. So for anything to come through again, it would it would be very consuming. And I don't I don't anticipate it. I mean, of course it's possible. And people will see it's successful potentially. But I don't anticipate as just, you know, going and starting other music festivals.
Speaker 0: Councilman Clark wanted to jump in and.
Speaker 1: I was going to just bring up Fred. Can you talk about the exclusivity clause in this contract specifically that.
Speaker 5: Would would prevent.
Speaker 1: Something of this note that.
Speaker 5: The city is agreeing in this contract to not engage in in any other contract of a similar nature in terms of a major music festival.
Speaker 3: So during this timeframe or at all.
Speaker 5: During the term of the contract, that's all the recovery during.
Speaker 3: The term of the contract. For the month of September or the five years.
Speaker 2: Of year.
Speaker 5: Of five years, yes. So there will not be another festival of this type of this size, of this nature, four or five years, it'll, you know, during the term of the agreement.
Speaker 3: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. So we are into comments. Pro tem president, pro tem clerk.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. First, I just wanted to thank everyone who's been involved in this discussion for lending their voice to the process. I want to thank again and not a lot of them made it out for a second week after sticking around for 5 hours last week. But everybody who came out to the public hearing last week and for sticking around to have a chance to speak. And all my colleagues who asked great questions and pushed and prodded throughout this entire process. It's been a long process and one that didn't have a roadmap. There isn't a specific thing that we do or how we work to engage the public written down when someone asks to have an event on a golf course. This was new, and while the process that we landed on was certainly not perfect, it was robust with all of the meetings, the surveys, the opportunities for public comment and engagement. This contract looks the way that it does because people, the citizens of Denver, the citizens of Overland and Ruby Hill and all of the surrounding neighborhoods got involved with it. And because supervisors was willing to meet the concerns that the neighborhood had had on and not run away from them. I do believe that this is a good contract. It's a contract that protects the golf course, that protects the neighborhood, that brings revenue to the course to make improvements that would otherwise not be possible, brings revenue directly to the neighborhood for improvements that citizens have been asking for for years, and revenue to the Parks Improvement Program citywide . But most importantly, this is something that my constituents, the neighbors, the leaders in Overland Park are asking for. And I don't mean for a second to imply that this is unanimous by any means. There are constituents of mine and people throughout the city who don't want this, but there are so many that do. And we all saw last week during the hearing that those who do span all ages and represent the diversity of this entire neighborhood. They're also a very smart group of people. Some of them have been fighting for this neighborhood for more than 40 years. They stood toe to toe with the Shattuck Chemical plant and demanded that they clean up what was at the time the most polluted site in Denver. And that land is now clean enough that it's being developed into townhomes, places where people will live. And money from. The settlement that that neighborhood negotiated was a catalyst for the $30 million of investments that we now have along the South Platte River in the last five years. This is a group of people who knows how to defend their neighborhood, knows how to build community, and they have asked me and they're asking us to vote yes. Scott Rutledge And his crew from the golf course have met extensively with Superfly. They visited the festival in San Francisco and they have assured me that the course will be better, not worse, because of this festival. Happy Haynes stood up here. She negotiated. Fred negotiated this contract to team with Parks and she stood up last week and told this us that this is a good deal. I know that Scott and his entire team, I know that Happy and Fred and the entire Parks team, the board of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, all the residents of Overland, Ruby Hill, Ardmore Park, Platte Park, Wash, Park and beyond will stand shoulder to shoulder with me to make sure that Superfly lives up to everything that they've promised and delivers an event that our entire city can be proud of. This vote isn't the end of that work. It's just another step as we continue to work to address all of the concerns that were raised throughout the public process, in the plans that will be forthcoming. So tonight, I will be voting yes on this contract, and I ask all of you, my colleagues, to put your trust in the work that's been done and in the people who have done it in our golf and parks team, in the leadership from overall and my constituents and the surrounding communities and join me in voting. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Great words, Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to say to Councilman Clark and to.
Speaker 1: The Parks Department.
Speaker 5: And to Superfly that I respect all of the work that went into this. And I believe that there is actually probably the foundation.
Speaker 1: For a very good.
Speaker 5: Contract and an event here. But just in my gut, it just feels like the wrong location to me. And so I'm going to vote no tonight, and I ask my colleagues to consider voting no for the following reasons. I think we need to respect.
Speaker 1: Process.
Speaker 5: In the city here, especially when it comes to our parks, which are in Denver, fairly sacred to us. Right. And only seven years ago, we had.
Speaker 1: A very robust.
Speaker 5: Public process that said, these are the parks where we will have admission based events. And that policy went through a round of.
Speaker 1: Public outreach.
Speaker 5: And consensus building. And in the.
Speaker 1: End, golf courses.
Speaker 5: Were excluded. And we also have policies regarding amplification in parts in the code in Denver, revised code 3962. Only two parts were were granted by ordinance the right to use amplification at City Park and Civic Center. Park says the council may from time to time by resolution resolution designate other parks. I don't know if we're going to get another resolution that will go along with this when it comes time next year to grant the right of amplification in on this golf course. Ultimately, it just feels wrong to use a.
Speaker 1: Golf course for this.
Speaker 5: And I understand that this might be the best site that you mentioned. This was the best site you can find in Denver.
Speaker 1: But the the least bad.
Speaker 5: Best site for me isn't good enough. I think we need to respect the public process. That said, we don't do festivals and we don't do admission based events, special events on golf courses. And if we can waive that the first time an offer comes along and just say, okay, we'll do it anyway, I think that.
Speaker 1: Disrespects the public process.
Speaker 5: It disrespects the neighborhoods and I just don't think it's right. And so I will be voting no. Mr. President, and I hope everyone else considers whether would they want this to have happened in their neighborhood, to have gone through a lot of debate. And where should we have festivals? You know.
Speaker 1: We picked Ruby Hill.
Speaker 5: I got the list here. Mr. President, we have City Park, Civic Center.
Speaker 1: Confluence Park, Skyline.
Speaker 5: Park, Central Park, Stapleton Park, Field Park and Ruby Hill that are designated authorized for admission based events. And if somebody comes in the door and just says, well, I'd like to do one on your golf course also that we can just throw.
Speaker 1: Away all that public process. It just doesn't seem right to me.
Speaker 5: And so out of respect for the neighborhoods and out of respect for our process, I'd have to vote no on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Sussman?
Speaker 6: Yes, thank you, Mr. President. I was actually going to talk about process two, but mainly it was to appraise all of the people that are engaged and how much process there was and how much engagement there was with the neighborhood. I know that our city people that have worked so hard care about our city and wouldn't want to be doing something that might, you know, harm it. I know that Councilman Clark is committed to the city and to his neighborhoods. I am pretty impressed with the deal that's been worked out to keep the golf course, to actually pay for all the lost revenue, to pay for any damage, to improve the golf course after you're finished. I'm not sure we've made such a good deal for any kind of festival ever before in the city. I also think that they I remember the process that Councilman Flynn's talking about, and I think they left out golf courses not for any particular reason. They just didn't discuss them. But of course, golf courses are the open spaces that we pay to use. I think a lot of that discussion was about paid festivals on park lands, but golf courses you have to pay to use know no matter what. And the reasoning that we've just never done this before. So why should we were? That's never been. An excellent reason for trying something new. The multiplier effect that I see from visit Denver economics is pretty outstanding, upwards of perhaps $10 million into our economy. I really appreciate what the and the all the communications we have had with the neighbors on both sides. But I do know that Councilman Clark worked very closely with the leadership of all of his neighborhoods. And I am pretty excited about the prospect and perhaps having a very famous Denver music festival that we've never had before. And so I will be voting for this project.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman. No, I'm sorry, too. You had a question and I got cut off.
Speaker 7: I had a question to this. I do appreciate what Councilor Flynn saying. And also, I really appreciate what President Bruce brought up about the financial return on this I had, and I wasn't aware that the $2 million I was only seeing, all I was seeing was $200,000. And in that regard look, Fred, let me ask you a question, if I could, please. Only the $700,000, supposedly, whatever that split is for the neighborhood's neighborhood improvements. Will the neighborhood be involved with the decisions that what improvements will be made? That neighborhood? It's not something that Public Works is going to decide at a city department to decide we're going to pay streets or it's actually a decision making process that includes the neighborhood to make sure that they have a strong voice on how that money is being spent.
Speaker 5: Well, the the funds will be appropriated through CIP, through the capital improvement program. And Councilman Clark will have will represent, as you do, as all the council members do, how that money is spent in in the district. And so it's not there won't be a formal process for the neighborhoods to determine how to spend that city money . But through the normal process, which neighbors have a great voice in, through council members, they will influence that significantly.
Speaker 7: I guess I misunderstood. I thought it was the director neighborhoods involved. You're just talking about the entire district for for Councilman Clark, right. Maybe council clerk.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So again, there are two sources of revenue. One that will go to the neighborhoods through the community engagement nonprofit, and they will have board members from the neighborhood who will discuss those projects. And the other is the one that will be coming from the general fund. And I think this is a great opportunity to explore some of the participatory budgeting that we've been talking about, to say this is money that right now is just earmarked to come back to that community. There's not a specific boundary that it is only overland because the residents of Ruby Hill and of Platte Park are saying, hey , what about the impacts around us? And so I think it will be part of what are the impacts that are happening, what are the infrastructure that everyone's been wanting, and how does the how does the public engage in those decisions as part of our budgeting process?
Speaker 7: And how much money is in that foundation that the neighborhood will receive?
Speaker 1: That one is a dollar per ticket sold, I believe, for the neighborhood fund. And then there's.
Speaker 7: Also another contribution that we're determining where when we give a comp ticket, we ask for a contribution. So, for example, you could get a common ticket, but there's a 20, 30, $40 contribution. That money also goes into the nonprofit we're generally anticipating around the first year, $100,000, but that could grow depending on attendance. So when you start talking about 70,000 attendees, then you're talking about around 200, that 200,000 plus each year. So we think when you go directly to the neighborhood.
Speaker 1: So that goes directly to the neighborhood nonprofit as opposed to the the other money that comes through the city process.
Speaker 7: And the nonprofit is for that specific district. As Councilman Clark stated, the the board is essentially made up of representatives from Avatar Park, Ruby Hill and Overland Park. So, yes, the board is comprised of neighborhood members.
Speaker 1: With with more neighborhood members from Overland, which is the neighborhood that that's happening. Okay.
Speaker 7: I'm just going to make sure that, you know, I was really feel strongly about the evaluation committee and and having a fair and comprehensive evaluation of the program. And I'm sure that will occur. And I'm also to make sure that all those neighborhoods are benefiting strongly from this, first of all. So we need some assurance that that money will go back into community improvements there. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman, new Councilman Castro.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I'm going to talk about a few things that concern me. A few things that I believe and a few things that I believe. I know. I know that there are good folks who live close by the Overland Golf Course that are excited by the possibility of a major rock festival on that site. And I know that there are good folks who live close by who are not. And I know that there is mixed opinion in the greater community as well. This is one of those where no matter which way this vote goes, some people are going to be happy and some people are going to be quite disappointed. I believe the process of informing the public while there have been blips along the way, I think as it has evolved, I think all parties have been heard. The fact that we might vote one way or another doesn't mean people have not had their opinions heard. It's just we agree with some and disagree with others. I believe the process has been about as transparent as any large profit making project is going to be. The possible benefits of welcoming 30 to 80000 people a day to two overland have been touted, and the possible downsides of that, I think, tend to tend to not get as much airing when a similar event was proposed for City Park a number of years ago. I was opposed from the start. I simply could not see any way that traffic and noise could be adequately mitigated in a park so completely surrounded by established residential neighborhoods without being an unfair burden. My first reaction to Overland was not that clear. The presence of Santa Fe Drive on the eastern edge and a less intense presence of immediate neighbors made me think that maybe this can work. Since the first time that I was told about the possibility of this this event, I have said, and I continued to say, to vote yes, I'll need to be convinced that the community is going to be better off for this event taking place than it would be if it never did. I personally want to thank David Erlich, who has served the Super Super Lives Point person for the event, for his openness, his candor, and his willingness to work with the community and attempt to get to. Yes. I laughed when I heard that super fly who was meeting strong resistance from the neighbors closest to the Gulf. Course, would be willing to offer them, quote, significantly discounted tickets. Mr. Erlich went to the promoters and who stand to make millions off the successful festival. They have agreed to make those tickets available to the people most most impacted when presented with concerns regarding those with health burdens that would not readily, readily tolerate the disruption of festival weekend. He began searching options to relocate them to comfortable environs during the event and to look at sound mitigation alternatives for those that would choose or need to stay put in their homes. He work to add detail to a provision that would bring a part of ticket proceeds back to the most affected community. I believe that if the event takes place at Overland, the golf course will be restored to playable conditions afterwards by nature. As Councilwoman Sussman pointed out. Golf courses are admission based events. A very small percentage of Denver sites have ever set foot on overland golf course because it takes a good penny to do so. Retail rate is 28 bucks during the week for 18 holes, 40 bucks on the weekend. If you want to ride around in one of those fancy little car, you should dump another 15 bucks on top of that. Now, let me add my concerns. I am clear that if this event takes place, it does set a precedent for use of golf courses for admission based events other than golf. This is something we haven't done before. It's something that's being proposed. So it would be wise to keep an open or an eagle eye on what we now do with our golf courses. While not a deal breaker in and of itself, the I need to take a little bit of issue that this is a family friendly event . By my calculations and all I have to go by are what I read as far as the prices of outside lands for a single day for a family of four is 670 780 for a three day family of four and 1650 980. And thank you for clarifying that. There's no apparently no parking and 48 bucks to take a shuttle. I'm concerned that the details about the management of this festival that will lead me to believe the nearby neighborhoods will be better for the event taking place than if it never was. Are not available to me in the contract being presented. The contract, as has been discussed, that we're being asked to approve calls for, as it certainly should security plans, trash plans, traffic plans and other plans. Unfortunately, those plans are not required to come before the city until 150 days before the event and don't have to be finalized until 60 days before the event. And they will be approved by city agencies and not city council. While I have great respect for our departments, public works, parks and the police department, environmental, health, all the people who might look at this and I have partnered on them effectively on other projects. There have been times where I've also disagreed with all of them about a variety of important issues with a contract that has such potential impact on the community. Reticent to cede council authority and operate on trust at a time when I'm hearing from from many folks thinking that council should be taking back increased control over our green spaces. I'm not inclined to give control away. Another concern for me is the five year length of the contract. While there are cancelation provisions, if terms are not met, none of those provisions equates to, you know, we appreciate your good efforts. We just don't think it's working for us. The decisions as far as breach of contract will be made by attorneys looking at strict details of the contract. Next to my family and friends. Music is the most important part of my life, and I can't believe that I'm sitting here and I'm going to have to vote no on this festival, as I say, because the information that I need to get to that point isn't available to me. I went to Coors Field the other night to see the Zac Brown Band. I think I didn't see the official estimate, but I'm guessing around 45,000 people. And when that event let out, that stadium had I'm guessing didn't count this exactly, but six, seven, eight different exit points for people to get out. As I look at Overland, I'm guessing they all dump out onto onto Florida. And now there may be an exit to the south along here on I don't know what the plan is. These people, I believe, know how to run festivals, but I don't have that information. And so. With that said, I'm afraid I'm going to have to vote no on this event. And that's why I have to say thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman and Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Black was in the system. Do you mind if I go to her? Councilwoman Black?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to thank Councilman Clark and Denver Parks and Rec and special events for their incredible community outreach and for learning so much about the festival in San Francisco. I know you all went there. You talk to neighbors, you talk to businesses. You learn the ins and outs of it and the impacts on the community. So I really appreciate that. I've heard from lots of people who are really excited about a world class music festival here in Denver. And I've heard from a lot of younger people who do not play golf and they don't get a go on golf courses. You can't walk your dog on a golf course. You cannot go on a golf course unless you golf. And they're super excited about being able to use a public greenspace for something that they like to do. I am confident that the golf course will be put back in better condition than when it was started. I am confident in the contract. I know you all have done an incredible job and also that you've responded to the neighbors and you've had a lot of meetings with them and you address their concerns. I also know if it doesn't work out that you won't be coming back. I've been thinking about it more in the lines of the Cherry Creek Arts Festival, which this year I think there were 351,000 participants and our attendees and the Cherry Creek Arts Festival takes over Cherry Creek. And if you live there, it's a bummer. But it's a world class event. It's incredible. Artists come from all over the world to come to our Cherry Creek Arts Festival and then the neighborhood is put back together again. And it's a fun event for people in Denver. I know all of you are committed to the success of this event. I know you're committed to. The people who live in Denver and to the people who live nearby. So I appreciate I appreciate all that. And I'm keeping my comments brief. And I implore my fellow council people who I've yet to speak to also be concise because I'm supposed to be at Red Rocks in 20 minutes. She's had.
Speaker 0: The.
Speaker 6: Bucket List concert for me, and I don't want to miss it.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Black, I can't believe you just said that, Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Now I can't be. Go on and on the way I had intended. There are lots of measures. Both mean financially, physically operational, to to address the impact on the public and safeguard assets. And in those are those are key provisions. Those are the sorts of things that if this had come to my district, I would be looking to address and address robustly. And I'm glad to say that, you know, in large part, those those things have been met. But if you are just a warning, if you are predisposed to being bothered by noise of this type, just know for three days. For those three days, no. It's more likely to happen than not. What I ask is that you report real time so that they can be checked and informed decisions going forward. Well, I think the contract is fair for five weeks of loss of use. I do think that there was a harder bargain that could have been made. And so you're lucky you weren't in District one.
Speaker 0: However, there is a this is a slightly.
Speaker 2: More considerate contract on the community's terms than most that this city agrees to. I still think that this whole experiment is most vulnerable on the traffic.
Speaker 0: And impact of.
Speaker 2: The intends on the surrounding neighborhood, but at least there is a commitment to address these concerns and consequences for failure. I think that the points raised by Councilman Flynn and Cashman should be at the forefront of everyone's mind in the aftermath of year one and before moving forward into year two. Um, I do think this, this is a great way to, to everyone's point about the charge of greens fees to play this course. It's a beautiful place. And so I do think it's a great way to experience this public land. I would suggest because of the cost of entrance, it would be nice if there was a free, soft opening on the main stage so that people could be in that center space or one of the side stages so that people can sort of experience what it's like to be on that fairway. Having that sort of quasi country urban experience, you know. And so, you know, that is that is so it's giving access where it could be a tool to give access, where currently access is restricted. That said, the other thing is, is that I would be remiss not to mention this part of the reason all of these spaces are available for use of this sort of park use is because there are big, wide open fairways. And if we had ground up a portion of this property to create a stormwater detention pond, that would not be a place you could occupy. And so there is a very big distinction. I want to be clear and go on record saying that a, you know, converting a fairway into a picnic place, a hangout place, a concert venue is another public use that is viable for park use. But stormwater detention, if that was stormwater area, you could not go in and stand there for hours on it for three days. And that is not a park use and that. So with that said, I will be supporting this because it is just an extension of how we can utilize public lands in a way. But it's done the contracts are done in such a way that we're either going to get it right, we will tweak it to get it right or we will stop doing it. And I think you guys have acknowledged that from the get go. I have been tough in that regard. And so I appreciate the concessions that you have made to the community, to golf in particular and to Denver in deference to trying to get this through. So I'm looking forward to that experience once it comes forward. Thanks.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. I, um, I definitely appreciate a lot of the conversation around it. I do you know, I do respect the the concerns of the folks that live adjacent to the, uh, and in the community of the golf course in high school. Was the only time I ever set foot on that golf golf course and was, you know, immediately kicked off the team. As Yogi Berra says, you know, when it when I hit the ball, I like somebody else to go chase it. So I have to I have to say this. I do I do understand the concerns with parking. Remember that it's very close to Santa Fe Drive. That is a very big access point. It's close to Evans as well. I mean, it's not just embedded in the neighborhood in the middle of of an urban center. It does have some some good access points. I do share the concern of Ruby Hill and want to make sure that folks are respecting not only just our I decent neighbors and neighborhoods, but the park. You know, there are some some places and I know one member of council will agree with me when I say this that are not public venues that are bars that empty out all the time. And as they empty out, people urinate in their front yards. They leave bottles, they leave garbage. It is a disaster.
Speaker 0: Amen.
Speaker 1: And so and so I want to make sure and you know, that that is being enforced. Right. We have to make sure that the community is respected. Having said that, in listening to some of the testimony, there real concerns. However, I don't I don't believe it's going to be Woodstock. Right. Woodstock was awesome, Paul. I know it's awesome and I'm not going to Woodstock. I think people are going to be setting up camp on Platte River and making permanent homes. I don't believe people are going to be bathing in the river and and carrying on or whatnot. I think, you know, the Platte River is there for people to enjoy, but it's kind of so we're a little bit removed that I don't think people are going to want to do that. One of the in music. You know, but I do understand those concerns. This is what I'm going to say. In 2010, I sat on this council. And we were thinking of doing a a mission based event and either civic center. Or City Park. And those are two of our primary parks. And you know what? To be honest, at that point in time, I really was sold on on the on the on the thought that, well, these are our public spaces. Nobody's going to be able to use those at that time. And should we charge for our public spaces? And. And I look over at Civic Center Park and I see how barren it is as your under-utilized it is. And because we don't use them, utilize it as much, a lot of bad things happen. We need to utilize our parks and we need to do them in a way that strikes a balance in the community. I voted no on that. And I feel that because of that, we have to go to golf courses and whatnot. And I'd much rather come right down here and enjoy it. We have other events here. They may not be an event where it's admission based, but it gets a lot of people and it's a good time. And when I go to other cities, I mean, I didn't get the chance to do this when I was in Austin because there wasn't anything going on at the time.
Speaker 0: But that's why I wanted to go to Austin for I mean, if I'm going to be in the heat.
Speaker 1: Sweating at least one, listen to some good music in a public space. And I was there in L.A. when when Jay-Z and Fox, when you saw that, I mean, it was it was actually pretty cool. And the use of these public spaces and I don't want a Denver to miss out on that. And also, here's the other reason why in my final reason. We are lucky. Because all this talk and all this worry about our open spaces. Well, yes, we have our parks and our beautiful open spaces, but. You drive 20 minutes. West on Sixth Avenue and new at the Gateway to buy one of the largest.
Speaker 0: Majestic.
Speaker 1: Most beautiful open.
Speaker 2: Spaces we.
Speaker 1: Have in Colorado. And that's our mountains. I don't see this as an attack on our open spaces. And our recreation and our ability to enjoy the fresh air without noise. It's all out there waiting for us. Right. And that's more of a challenge. So with that, I mean, I do look forward to having this to seeing it. It is it is something not too far away from not too far removed from us. And I really have to give Councilman Clark a lot of credit for the process.
Speaker 2: For the.
Speaker 1: Convening. He truly was and is somebody who I believe is is is super careful with his decisions and very, very inclusive in the what he did. And I think, you know, a lot of this is taken lead from his leadership and his assurance. So with that, I do vote I will vote yes on this.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I am always, as always, impressed by the thoroughness and thoughtfulness of my colleagues. And so but as often happens, it's it's that we are looking at the same factors, but sometimes weighing them slightly differently. And I was listening to Councilman Cashman, who I deeply respect for his thoroughness. And I feel like he covered most of the things that I'm weighing, but he weighed them slightly differently. And so I will be supporting this contract tonight and wanted to identify a few of the reasons why for my constituents who have been asking and feel like they want to understand why and how we're making the decisions we make. So for me, I feel like as well, the fact that this is a fee based activity today that people pay for golf courses today. And actually, I'll come back to that point because golf courses are in trouble in in Denver. You know, we are looking at the potential closure well, the certain closure of the Park Hill golf course. So there's this tradeoff between this very expensive infrastructure to upkeep. And then the amount you're willing to charge, you're able to charge for an urban course without some of the amenities of private courses and trying to keep it affordable to the residents. You want to use it. And so it is no exaggeration to say that the financial stability of golf is in question. Our Golf Enterprise Fund has has struggled with those issues. And so the ability to earn resources that can help keep these fees low, not just the infrastructure costs, because I know there's improvement fees, but the solvency of golf generally is important to keep the fees low. So we're not in a position where we're trying to trade off the affordability for golfers. So so to me, I think that that's all connected on the financial side of this deal. Would that have been enough by itself? No way. Right. There are other things to weigh for me. The public hearing was really beneficial. I heard very sincerely the concerns of the immediate neighbors about their disruption, and there's no way to deny that. But I also balance that with the fact that those parks that are listed in the list Councilman Flynn mentioned, the neighbors from those parks bear so much burden from us having all of our events focused on those parks. And those neighbors have asked us repeatedly as a city to balance out some of the things happening in other areas. So when I can't and this is partially my At-Large seat, I can't think just about the residents next door to one park. I'll start to think about what is equitable and what are the other things in our neighbors of Civic Center and our neighbors of Civic City Park are deeply burdened. And so for me, this is a balance, right? It's not it's not perfect. And there's no denying the impact, but it's balancing rather than putting all of that burden on one neighborhood over and over again or eight neighborhoods. So for me, the other thing that was really persuasive is the depth and history of the leaders who supported this. You know, when I see a jack on row, when I see Ronnie, these are folks who I would not consider to be easy in terms of meeting their standards. I don't always meet I often don't meet their standards as a council member. So I know they're tough. And when they get to the point, there's a point at which my job as a representative is to say, who are the trusted community leaders? And if, if, if, if I'm going to represent the trusted community leaders in this neighborhood, the ones that I've worked with for years, the ones that I've seen in leadership for years are there and they supported it. So I have some faith in the fact that they feel enough a part of the process that they will be able to have a voice in those final plans that we don't yet have. Right. And so so they're they're the liaisons. And if they have that trust, that's that's a big leap because they're on the front lines of those discussions. So I think that there is always risk in a new venture, and I think this contract manages a lot of that risk. I too would like an easier non-renewal clause. I feel like the bar for non-renewal in, you know, years, two through five is is, is high. I would have liked it better if we had an easier decision to say, listen, you. Complied with everything, but it still was not good for the city. I would like that out, but we didn't we didn't get that. But weighing all those other factors, I'm going to vote in favor of those long term residents who who have told me that that this is what they would want. So, again, good points on all sides. Just I'm weighing on those for me tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, can each Councilman Flynn and councilman knew you've given your comments? Okay. If I skip to Councilman Ortega for comment.
Speaker 3: Councilman, thank you for something. I have to get Councilman Lopez out to the golf course or to aqua golf to practices.
Speaker 1: I scheme to.
Speaker 3: So this one has been kind of challenging for me because I'm a huge music advocate and have have championed our creative industries that we have here in Denver. And, you know, folks who live here know that our music scene is way bigger than Austin's. We just don't always promote ourselves the same way that Austin does. But at the same time, I'm also, you know, a huge neighborhood advocate as well and want to make sure that we're always doing what we need to do to protect our neighborhoods. I can remember one of our very first fee based program was when we closed down the park across the street and we had our first Grand Prix downtown. Kevin You'll remember that very well. And I think after was it the first or second year they didn't come back? Yeah, they were here for two years, but they didn't make the kind of money they thought they were going to make on the event. I want to make sure we keep marijuana out of the facility, especially if we do have children. I agree with Councilman Cashman that, you know, these aren't affordable family prices where you probably going to see lots of kids in the in the park at the event. But for families who can't afford it, that will bring their children. I hope that that's something that know I know they can advertise, but you get to these big events and you smell it at every single venue where you have large music events. I want very careful attention paid to the impact to Ruby Hill, and I'll be looking at that very carefully. I know the neighbors there will as well. I appreciate the community investment fund that's been created. I think it's a creative way of looking at how to mitigate some of that impact to the neighborhood, how to compensate them, if you will, where they can put that money into some of the priorities they identify, working together with those for neighborhoods. It's something we've been talking about and working on trying to get National Western to do the same for the impacted neighborhoods of Globeville, Illyria and Swansea for what will be a year round place with lots of activity that will affect those neighbors. One of the things that I noticed and this was brought to my attention by the couple of the neighbors that live near Ruby Hill, where they had heard the ticket prices for the paid events at Levitt Pavilion, where we're going to be capped at $25. But when you add in all of the fees, it significantly adds to the price of the ticket. And I'm assuming that's going to be the case here as well. So what you think may be one price by the time you add in all the fees ends up being a significant more than that. There's only one road into this golf course. I've played it many times, and so the ingress and egress is going to be from that one road. You know, when somebody mentioned traffic that would let out onto Florida. I'm assuming you were talking about foot traffic because vehicle traffic for the you know, whether it's going to be Lyft and Uber or busses or whatever. And I heard Aqua Golf is going to be like a staging site for some of the busses. So people will have to walk because there really isn't an access point into the golf course from Florida right off a Santa Fe unless there's. Going to be cutting into the fence or doing something different to get traffic in there, and then we'll repair that later. But so how we deal with that traffic flow of people getting in and out of the site, whether it's busses turning around in the parking lot, which is, you know, if you're going have people parking in the parking lot, you need room for all of that traffic to maneuver in and out of there. Somebody mentioned the fact that not having some of the plans and I understand as you get closer to those details will be put together and we won't see those. But ensuring that the the details are paid attention to. We're dealing with this with a different contract where we're looking at those details now. And the devil is always in the details, making sure that the concerns of the neighborhoods are front and center in how those plans are put together. I'm still not sure how I'm gonna vote on this. I mean, I'm feeling very conflicted. You know, again, I'm an advocate for for, ah, music industry and, ah, creative sectors. And I think as as a whole, as a city, we do a really good job. We have smaller events all over the city. I understand that some of our local talent will be part of the entertainment. I don't know what that that split is of. It's 20% to 80% of the big name bands you guys are going to bring in. But I think that's a a. An interesting and good part of this project as it will move forward. And I'm pretty confident you have the votes for for this to move forward tonight. But those are those are some of my my concerns. You've heard my questions earlier, and I'll decide when it gets time to vote where I come down on this thing. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'll try to be brief so that Councilwoman Black can make it to Red Rocks in time for the encore. I want to thank Councilman Lopez for bringing up Woodstock and risking the wrath of Harriet. When I get home by disclosing that she hitchhiked from Chicago to Woodstock back in the day, and she remembers it as one muddy mess. And so I certainly hope that it doesn't turn out that way. Just for clarification, Mr. President. The reason I wanted to comment again was to clarify that if when you pay a Greens fee at a city of Denver golf course, you're not making that an admission based event. Year round of golf is not an admissions based event. The policy defines an admissions based event as when the.
Speaker 1: City Parks and Rec.
Speaker 5: Permits out a park facility to a private party to conduct a private activity to make a profit off of our parks for an admissions fee. So a Greens fee does not make a golf course, an emissions based event. And I want to finally, I want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for reminding me of those three words that keep ringing in my mind ever since I heard this proposal. And that is Denver Grand Prix. In 1989, the city went into a five year contract. I know there are a lot of differences. The site is different. This is the Grand Prix that ran around Civic Center, not the later one that Cronkite ran the Pepsi Center. This was the original one that tied up downtown for two years and lost $5 million and declared bankruptcy and actually had to sue Mayor Webb to try to get out of of running the other the other three years. I keep hearing that in the back of my mind. I hope I'm wrong because I think this has enough votes to pass. But I do think that in light of.
Speaker 1: Of our.
Speaker 5: Policies.
Speaker 1: Well thought out.
Speaker 5: That we ought to stop and give pause and wonder whether we just ought to admit that we simply don't have the right place to hold an event of this sort. And that to to pick the least worst place is just not good enough. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flint. I think they do have private parties on those golf courses, but Councilman do.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Ms.. For a brief comment. I came into this meeting ready to vote no on this project, and I felt my two big concerns were, again, about the neighborhood participation in the evaluation and whether they truly were going to have a be fairly representative and have a voice in whether this festival would continue, if it was detrimental, if it didn't work, would they really say that they would have a part in that decision or where this this contract would continue? Also, the economics here in economics discussion tonight, I want to make sure that the neighborhoods get their fair share of the improvements in this. And so what it boils down to me tonight, even though I have real concerns about this location and I'm an avid golfer and I'm really interested, I really wish I had asked Hale Irwin last week what he thought about this golf course improvement. But anyway, I'm going at the boils down to me is is I trust Councilman Clark who says the district I have great confidence in him and he'll make sure that the residents have a voice, a strong voice and make a good decision to be treated fairly. And he'll make sure those improvements will be made to that neighborhood. So I'll be voting yes tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. So I have a golf course in my district, and I wasn't going to chime up. But I just wanted to say, when Councilwoman Kenny.
Speaker 2: Made the comment, certain closure of Park Hill golf course, I just need to make.
Speaker 1: Sure.
Speaker 0: I echoed that my sentiment is different.
Speaker 1: To that. I am unaware of the certain closure. There are certainly conversations about the future of the.
Speaker 2: Park Golf course, but I certainly would not characterize it a certain.
Speaker 1: Closure. So I wanted to say.
Speaker 2: That before I get emails about it tomorrow.
Speaker 1: And I think about if this organization came to District eight and said, We're interested in doing this event, and I look at the process.
Speaker 2: And the conversations that Councilman Clark has had, would there be anything that I would do differently?
Speaker 1: And while if I thought really hard, I am.
Speaker 2: Sure that there would be something I have to applaud.
Speaker 1: Councilman Clark, the city, the organizers, because they.
Speaker 2: Took all the questions and challenges head on and they tried to reach a place that, hey, outside of not doing the festival, we are we hear you. And this is how we believe we can help mitigate some of your concerns. And so I do want to applaud you for that, because that is something that we do not always see. And so.
Speaker 0: This is something that I.
Speaker 1: Will be supporting today. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Hernan. Okay. Guzman Espinosa.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I sort of. I'm glad I'm dovetailing off of Wayne's being councilman new in Councilman Herndon's comments, because that's the only reason I chime back in. I just wanted to throw my support again around Councilman Clark and and do stress that, yes, he was he was always forthcoming hearing our concerns. And he no, I mean, he and I and I, I think the reason why you see so much support from his community is because of his his leadership in his in his in how he's handled himself and the community throughout this thing in such a positive way. And I would expect nothing less going forward. And I think everybody on that side of the table knows that Councilman Clark has earned the support from members of council. So if you know, if you're not agreeing with him, you're not agreeing with a bunch of us. So but that's this speaks to Councilman Clark's, the way he's handled it. And they just want to acknowledge that it is a very good contract because of his work. So thank you.
Speaker 0: You got a problem with Clark? You got a problem with all of that? All right. I'll put it down somewhere. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. I do need to thank Councilman Herndon. You heard me stumble over my words there, and I just want to apologize. I kind of was stumbling to get it out. Certain changes, right? With certain that something is going to change there. And I was struggling to get it right. And I apologize because I will now get the emails too. So I figured I should take credit and just say, yes, we know change is coming. We know it's in trouble, that we know. We know that it is under water to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So that we know and I apologize for the misstatement. Long process ahead to figure out what's happening. Sorry.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Black, I'm the last one speaking so you can get ready. I'll just say this has been an incredible process. Thank you all from the city. Thank you for the community. Folks have been calling me, emailing me. Thank you, Councilman Clark. One year. I mean, I feel like we've been talking about this for about a year. And so this is a lot of work going in to make sure we got the right deal. And to me, the thorough process is what it's all about. And I won't repeat what a lot of my council members have said up here. The debate has been rich and great. But here's the problem in Denver and you're hearing it up here, you feel people feel in the city of Denver that the success that Denver is feeling is not reaching to neighborhoods, to neighbors, to the grassroots individuals. And this is the first deal that I've been a part of where I see how much money, specific neighborhoods, nonprofit organizations are getting. And, you know, for the next folks coming to make a deal with the city, you're in trouble because we really want to make sure that there's a significant investment in our neighborhoods. And I'll just talk about the music industry, the music scene here. We had we had artists in here from the Rhino neighborhood. Well, there's a whole community of of budding entrepreneurial musicians that want to be a part of the success. And if we just have this huge event and no connection to the success of these individuals, we can never be like Austin, even though we have more music venues than us. And so I am voting in favor of this because of that point that we really strike the balance of investing in the community. And I hope, Councilman Clark, you will report back to all of us how much money the community is getting, how much money the neighborhood is getting because of these ticket sales. So and Councilman Flynn, you asked the wrong question when you said how many of you you all want this in your neighborhood? Because I live in the five points, right on neighborhoods. So we have this all the time and we enjoy it. Protections are important, but some of us love the urban environment and want to be a part of an eclectic, diverse, dynamic community. And I believe this will bring it. So without further ado, Madam Secretary, Roll Call Clerk Hi.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I. Herndon Cashman?
Speaker 1: No.
Speaker 6: Can each.
Speaker 4: Lopez. I knew Ortega. Pass assessment.
Speaker 6: I. Black I.
Speaker 4: Ortega.
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Mr. President, I.
Speaker 0: Close voting as a result.
Speaker 4: Ten eyes, three nays.
Speaker 0: Tonight, three nays. Resolution 687 is passed. Madam Secretary, will you please bring up the next deal on our screen? I believe it is. Council Bill 680. All right. So, Councilwoman Sussman.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Multi-Year Festival Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Festivals LLC for the use of Overland Golf Course for a multi-day, multi-stage musical festival.
Approves a lease agreement with Denver Festivals, LLC, for five years at an annual rate of $200,000 with additional monetary and non-monetary considerations to produce an annual three-day music festival at Overland Golf Course in Council District 7 (201735508). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-14-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 6-20-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Clark called out this resolution at the Monday, July 24, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, July 31, 2017.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07242017_17-0827
|
Speaker 0: Communications. Madam Secretary, do we have any communications?
Speaker 4: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: We have one proclamation this evening. Councilwoman Ortega, will you please read Proclamation 827.
Speaker 7: Thank you. I am happy to. Proclamation 17 827 proclaiming the week of July 24th, excuse me, 2017 through July 28th, 2017, as Birmingham Prevent Violence Week in Denver, Colorado. Whereas the city and county of Denver is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all its residents and visitors. And. Whereas, the acts of violence and extreme terror are concerns locally, nationally and internationally. Whereas, the Gang Reduction Initiative of Denver, otherwise known as GRID, promotes violence prevention through gang resistance, education and training. It's called the Great Program. By encouraging students and families to embrace healthy lifestyles, pledge to be good citizens and reject violence. And. Whereas, Grid has collaborated with federal agencies which are educating the citizenry about violence prevention by promoting the exchange of ideas and strategies worldwide. And. Whereas, the exchange of ideas and strategies commenced with a visit by a delegation of community leaders from Denver metro area to Birmingham, England, in May 2017, facilitated by. Cultural vistas and culminating with a similar Birmingham delegation visit to Denver July 24 through July 28th, sponsored by World Denver and the U.S. Embassy in London to promote community engagement and foster alliances as tools in the global fight against violence. And. Whereas, the PREVENT program in Birmingham complements many of the violence prevention strategies used in Denver and which the Birmingham delegations visited. Visit to the Mile High City strengthens global cooperation, builds mutual understanding of the cultural and political diversity of our great cities, while gaining an understanding of how communities promote tolerance while confronting adversity. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Council, the city and county of Denver, that in pursuit of reducing all violence and promoting peace and safety in all communities, the Council of the City and County of Denver does hereby proclaim the week of July 24th through July 28, 2017, as Birmingham Prevent Violence Week in Denver, Colorado. Section two that the Council of the City and County of Denver encourages all residents to join our friends from Birmingham, England, to prevent violence and pursue safe, peaceful communities. And Section three that the Clerk of the city and county of Denver shall affix the seal of the city and county in Denver to this proclamation and copies to be transmitted to U.S. Attorney Bob Troyer. Paul Callahan, executive director of Grid Chiefs one Sean Cone of the Denver Juvenile Probation. Jenny Press Walla of the Denver Department of Homeland Security. Shauna Martinez. Of Cultural Vistas Gurganus. Custody. Custody, Nova of World, Denver and Wicker amid of Denver of the City of Birmingham City Council.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, your motion to adopt.
Speaker 7: I move for the adoption of Proclamation 827.
Speaker 0: It's been moved. And second, it comes with members of council. Councilwoman.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So this is a proclamation that Councilman Lopez and I were both asked to bring forward and appreciate the co-sponsors and encourage the adoption by all members of council. So I just wanted to add that. You know, some of us have been invited by DIA to go out to see the baggage systems that have been looked at for the main terminal at our airport. And Councilman Flynn and I happened to be in London the same day as a terrorist terrorist act took place. We were scheduled to stay half a block away from the parliament. We were at the airport, touring the airport, and were not able to get to our hotel because the downtown area had been blocked off. So these incidents are real. They're happening around the globe. And as much education as we can all be doing to ensure that we are looking out for our safety and that of our our family members is so critically important. We do an annual proclamation where we encourage people to take advantage of the work that is done by our Office of Homeland Security, of our Office of Emergency Management. That does. They call it surge training. It's community emergency response training. And so that's a big part of the big picture of what we all need to be doing to make sure that that we are prepared. But to have these exchanges and to be able to work with cities across the globe and look at how each other is addressing this issue is is vitally important. So I'm pleased that we are joined here tonight by some individuals from Birmingham, England, and we'll have them come up and speak to us in just a little bit. But these cultural exchanges are extremely important. You know, we're a member of a number of sister cities across the globe, and we learn a lot from them when they come here and vice versa when we have people from our community go over there. And I think it's all part of building world peace as well. And so I just want to strongly encourage you all to support this proclamation tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Cameron Lopez.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in really quickly and just say how proud I am to co-sponsor this with Councilman Ortega and just just to really welcome folks into the council council chambers who are here on this proclamation, but also to really highlight the great work of our great program. They do such an amazing job with these kids. A great job with these kids. And and you think about it, right? You think about violence in our society. You think about violence, unfortunately, in events where it was terrorism or anything about what.
Speaker 0: What what's what's.
Speaker 6: Grid doing or not grid but what's great doing it attached to this proclamation and you know, using the same, you know, phrases as homeland security and so well, everything to do with it. Violence is a it's a sickness. It's a it's a lack of communication. It's a breakdown of communication, a lack of understanding, a lack of respect for one and for one another. And that's how it ends up manifesting. And it's terrible. And it's terrible in a playground. It's terrible on our streets. And it's terrible when nations engage in warfare. When when you see terrorism, it's a terrible thing. And the one thing that we always try to really promote is that age old adage that, you know, have. You know. Think globally, act locally. Well, that's one of the things that grid does are not grid grid as well, too. But a great, great gets out there in in our elementary schools and our middle schools in our various communities. And that's where this is. I mean, that's where this has manifested. And, you know, it's a good proclamation. It's something that we wholeheartedly believe in. If if kids in our neighborhood can do it. What's to stop adults from doing the same thing? Right. And so and it begins with with listening. So a great proclamation. Great program. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for your your sponsorship and your lead on this. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You just. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. See no other comments been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Rocco Ortega.
Speaker 3: By.
Speaker 4: Sussman, by Black Clark by Espinosa. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Hi, Herndon, I Cashman.
Speaker 3: All right, can each.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I will please close the voting and announce the results. Hey.
Speaker 4: Sorry. 1/2. 13 eyes.
Speaker 0: 13 eyes. Proclamation 827 has been adopted. Congratulations, Council. Councilwoman, is there anyone you'd like to bring up?
Speaker 7: There is. I'd like to invite Paul Kilian with the grid program. And also Mr. Walker, a man who is a councilman with Birmingham, England. So if you will both come forward.
Speaker 8: Good evening, President Berk Brooks. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Lopez and the rest of the Council. My name is Paul Cowan and I am the director of Denver's Gang Reduction Initiative. It's an honor to stand here tonight and accept this proclamation on behalf of all of our partners in grade, city and county that will be spending the next week with our friends from Birmingham discussing and exchanging ideas on ways that we can better develop prevention programs in our city and across the country and across the world as well, too. It was our privilege a few months ago to send one of our partners over to to England to see how our programs are developed and put in place over there. And now it's our privilege to host our delegation from Birmingham, and I just want to welcome them. And I speak on behalf of all the other Department of Safety agencies and our city agencies that will be spending the week along side our friends here. So thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 9: First of all, I'd like to thank the city of Denver for a incredibly warm welcome. This is our first day here, and we've been overawed by the incredible welcome that we've received, the people of Denver that we've met as we walked through the city and some of the people we've met this morning. We look forward to a very, very good week ahead. I think this proclamation humbles us slightly. I think this is an incredibly important issue for both our countries and indeed both our cities. The prevention of violence, the prevention of extremism in all its forms is a challenge of our age, actually. And it requires prevention strategies such as great and great to be successful, to be working with our communities. And we look forward to not just sharing our lessons, but also learning from yourselves and how we can move forward as two cities and as a start of an information sharing process that will hopefully work to keep our community safe. I'd just like to invite our Cabinet member from Birmingham City Council who has Cabinet responsibilities for this area, who may want to say a few words. Thank you and thank you for the Council for adopting this proclamation. It's incredibly important. This work we do around global cooperation between our cities, I think is very welcome. And it's been, as I can say, it's been a great honor to visit the city of Denver. It's been aptly fascinating. It's a great pleasure to visit your great baseball team, the Rockies. Great to see them win of the day. As a fellow support of a maybe historically struggling team of Aston Villa. It's brilliant to see the Rockies doing so well, so crazy. I was also struck me as a city councilor, we have 120 members. So it's quite it's interesting to see the lower of the 13 members want to know how you manage the workload, quite honestly. But it's great to be here and thank you so much the welcome. And on behalf of the city of Birmingham, the people of Birmingham, I'd like to present you with this. This shared as a token of our goodwill. So thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you. To the secretary. Please give them a hand. I have to ask the member of City Council. Can you please come to the person? How in the world do you deal with 120 city council folks.
Speaker 9: Even though we don't have the First Amendment? I think it's incredibly challenging, but I think we work very, very closely between the Office of Core and the Council Membership Core. And it's incredibly important for our city where we have lots of challenges and we just do the job, I suppose.
Speaker 0: Well, from us to you, we just want to thank you for being here. We recognize that, you know, countries talk to each others, but really cities do. It's cities that make things move. And so we want to be in cooperation with our global partners all over. As Councilman Ortega said, we have 12 sister cities. We've named them after our parks and we hope that we can keep a great relationship with you. Councilman Lopez.
Speaker 6: I was just going to say, it's not the size of the city council that matters. It's the size. It's us. So, yeah. Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Well, thank you so much. And once again, we want to give you a round of applause for coming all this way. All right. Thank you. And thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, for for bringing that forward. All right. That concludes our proclamations for this evening.
|
Proclamation
|
A proclamation proclaiming the week of July 24, 2017 - July 28, 2017 as Birmingham PREVENT Violence Week in Denver, Colorado.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07242017_17-0687
|
Speaker 0: Thank you. Wow. That was very sweet. We have another public hearing tonight. You. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You guys are welcome to stay for the next public hearing as well. Councilman? No. Will you please put Council Resolution 687 on the floor?
Speaker 10: Mr. President, the Council of 687 be adopted.
Speaker 6: It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Council Resolution 687 is opened. May we have a staff report? I believe. Happy. Haines, are you on deck? It's a busy night for you.
Speaker 12: Thank you very much, President Pro Tem and members of council. I will be very brief because I know we are here tonight to hear from our citizens about this project. I just wanted to give you a quick background and overview. It was sometime last summer when this idea, this opportunity came to the city and we worked very closely with the Office of Special Events to consider it. And I will say at the outset, our department, the Department of Parks and Recreation, was among the skeptics. And so we spent a number of months doing a little due diligence on the idea of this festival, including sending a team of individuals to the sister festival that has matured in San Francisco. And we did that along with a number of other city agencies. Before I go any further, I would like to really acknowledge those individuals because it really has been a team effort. And I particularly want to thank Fred. Fred Weiss, Scott, Ralph Lake, Laura morales from our Department of Parks and Recreation, the Office of Special Events. Katie and Grace. And her whole team. The city attorney's office, who have been just terrific in helping us think through each step of this process. Our Parks and Rec Advisory Board and and particularly there are residents and neighbors in in the community. Whether they were in favor or against their involvement at every step of this process has been invaluable and has shaped where we are tonight with the the contract that you have before you. I'm not going to go through the details of the contract because I think you have seen we made a pretty lengthy presentation at committee a few weeks ago, and the contract really reflects all of those items that we went through with you at that meeting, with one exception, and I and I want to apologize at the outset for how late the contract actually came to you. And I know that you'll be taking a little extra time to review it, but we wanted to make sure that every last thing was in place and it was right. And we had some issues, some details to work out with excise and licensing since the council committee and wanted to make sure that each of those pieces was in the contract that you received during the course of the conversations in the community that started about November of this last year. We have had input through a survey from over a thousand individuals, both in the neighborhoods directly involved in the neighborhoods throughout the city, as well as a thousand petitions that we received both in favor and in opposition to to the proposal. We used all of that input to shape an a set of commitments that we floated in a number of community meetings, guidelines, if you will, that helped really shape the core of the contract that you have before you. And it really and I meant it genuinely when I said earlier, we thank those individuals who were both skeptical and oppose as much as those who were in favor because voicing their concerns helped to sharpen our thoughts and where we needed to go in the kinds of issues that needed to be addressed in this contract. And so it is a better contract and it's a better document because of all of that input that we received. We worked with neighborhood organizations, schools, recreation centers, all of the users of the golf courses, not only the Overland one, but throughout the city. I want to thank you particularly for the support that we got from your council offices in helping with the community outreach. We had individuals literally walking door to door and and a robust online presence to try to get input and all of that added up to the contract that you have before you this evening. Two things in particular I want to address before I sit down and then let you hear from the community. The mayor added his own input and it was as a result of meeting with a number of. Neighbors in the Oberlin community. He made a commitment that both our department, the city and the promoter are absolutely committed to, and that is the establishment of an accountability committee that will be very engaged, an accountability committee with a level of independence that will enable us to get real, honest and genuine feedback from the community about how this event goes. And those of you who know the work that we've done around events throughout this city and in our parks, and you all walk through us. Just recently with the new event policy that we put in place. And I mention that because our aim in addressing all of those issues, both in that policy and in this contract, is to ensure that we have good events in this city and that they're there events that people want to go to, that they add value to our community, and that they minimize the impacts in our neighborhoods. And that is where we believe that this contract does. Councilman, knew you raised a question, I think a related question about this earlier this week with some concerns about making sure that the language of some accountability and some evaluation and review are not being reflected in the contract. I will point you to the language that is in Section 5.2 S, which we believe does address that issue, and we're happy to work with you more directly in the future. There are two things that make this a little bit unique. One is this contract includes a fairly lengthy list of requirements and plans that the promoter must provide to the city and to our department for review and approval before we move ever anywhere. And the language that I just mentioned in the contract requires us to evaluate the results of all of those things. It commits and requires the promoter to be engaged in the community outreach that's necessary to get that feedback about how the festival went and what the issues were and what concerns were raised. And I'll say this to begin with, as much work as we've done and as much as we have focused on the details of this contract , we know that it is not going to be perfect day one. And that's why we've built into this process and into the contract processes that will enable us to respond, to adjust, to adapt both during the Feast of the festival itself and more importantly, afterwards, so that we make the adjustments and the changes that are needed to make this the very best festival possible. I will end with that and thank you all very much again.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Miss Haynes. All right, we have. Yep, go ahead.
Speaker 12: I did forget one thing, and that is to make a quick introduction of of the promoters of from Superfly who are here tonight. I just want to make sure that, you know that they are present. They are here to answer questions. I want to thank them personally for the amount of time they have spent going through in painstaking detail what we believed we needed to make a great event. This is Rick Farman from Superfly. He's a co-founder of Superfly. And I just have to say, I'm literally a guy who's willing to roll up his sleeves and and get to get to work and and respond. And finally, David Erlich, who many of you know in the community, who is the festival liaison and is the local guy on the ground and has been a tremendous partner. So they are both here available for questions after the public hearing during and and and are at your disposal. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. First, I want to I want to just say to all the folks who are here, thank you for enduring a long time. Thank you for coming through security, sitting in hard seats. We realize that this is the not the best process, but it is the only process we have and look and always improve that. So we want to apologize because you could be doing a lot of things at 940, but you are at the city hall trying to make your city better because you care about your neighborhood. So thank you for being here. This is a courtesy public hearing. Courtesy, public hearing. You cannot yield time. So it's it will be 3 minutes straight up and we'll do in favor and against will be alternating everyone. The other thing is we have 28 speakers, so 28 times three is more than 60 minutes. So I will have a timer right here going going on there. But you don't have to everybody doesn't have to use all their 3 minutes. Many of you, especially if you're at the halfway point, you're going to start hearing speakers say similar things. And so be courteous to the folks who are on the bottom end of the list. And if you've wrapped up your comments, you can wrap it up and leave someone some more time so we can get all 28 people in. I haven't figured out the math of how to get all 28 in, but, you know, 2 minutes would be appropriate, I think. Okay. So I'm going to call the first five. We'll leave this first row open for the first five people to come. Come through. Robert Lavelle. Kathy Hamilton. Reyna. Reza. Q Razak. Okay. Okay. Thanks for your vote of confidence. All right. And. Carmen knows. And Max Hirsch. Okay, Robert Rob Lovell, you are first 3 minutes.
Speaker 5: Good evening, everyone. It's been quite a night, a long night. And I just want to first thank you, Mr. President, council members, for allowing us to come speak. Really? I'd like to thank all the members of the government that I have dealt with over the last year in. My name is Robert Lovell and I live at 406 west of Joel, right across from the first green. So I would be one of the neighbors most directly impacted by this festival. But as I was saying, I wanted to thank the government representatives, Parks Department's Office of Special Events. I've met so many people throughout this process. And I've been impressed every step of the way.
Speaker 2: It's been very in-depth, very thorough and.
Speaker 5: I really feel that whatever happens, everybody's working for everyone's best interests. So I had some written down remarks prepared, but throughout the evening I just decided to.
Speaker 2: Wing it and I kind of.
Speaker 5: You know, feel like my philosophies are guided by like good, like the greatest, good for the greatest number of people and operating.
Speaker 2: In good faith.
Speaker 5: When this idea came about. I was part of the first group where it was like, Hey, there's this idea being floated around. Is this something that we're even remotely interested in as a neighborhood, as a neighborhood association in pursuing? There is multiple public meetings in every step of the way. People acted with good faith, and I appreciate that. And every step of the way, the concerns were notated. They were categorized. They're attract, they're addressed. I never heard false promises. I never heard things that would lead me to believe that anything. Not up front and not in our best interest is going on. And the survey really drove that home for me, seeing all of the concerns listed out, seeing the proposed steps to address those concerns.
Speaker 2: I mean, that was pretty comprehensive. And that's why not only myself as.
Speaker 5: An individual could I support it, but also support it like as recommend recommendation for the rest of my community. It's going to benefit the community by the money that comes in it, the attention that comes to the community. It's underserved in terms of pedestrian access, transportation safety, things like that in it, in a focus in that area is going to naturally improve those things over time, like the proposed pedestrian drawbridge. Also the opportunity to get additional funding for community engagement. The Community Advisory Board. The Accountability Board steps are being taken to protect our best interests and I'm 100% comfortable endorsing this. It's going to be part of a bigger whole.
Speaker 2: In my opinion.
Speaker 5: The synergistic thing going on with the vet pavilion. So all of the music, the music venues on South Broadway, possible CPR, I mean, there's a lot.
Speaker 2: Happening in that neighborhood and southwest Denver can really be placed on the map.
Speaker 5: On the same level as Austin City limits south by Southwest.
Speaker 0: So in terms of. Thank you. All right, Kathy Hamilton.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Kathy Hamilton.
Speaker 0: And I live.
Speaker 3: In Denver. Remember when Colorado turned down the Olympics? Our state didn't want the crowd nor the expense. Overland Park neighborhood is rejecting the equivalent of the Olympics. Think out of the box. Just try to think out of the box for a minute. Can these huge events be held at Red Rocks instead? How about.
Speaker 12: Barbie? Barbie, your park.
Speaker 3: Or at the Denver Country Club. All these places have parking. The city of Denver often exceeds the carrying capacity of neighborhoods like Globeville.
Speaker 12: Swansea and Elyria with 14 lane highway.
Speaker 3: Projects or or say a while ago when.
Speaker 12: I-70 was run through the middle of my.
Speaker 3: Neighborhood of Berkeley. If you live there, it's it wasn't a success. Um. If the Overland Park golf course were a beach. Like with sand and bathers and things like that. A beach taken over for profit. You would surely be outraged. Somehow, if it's just a golf course. It isn't. It just seems like, you know, excess green sward that can just be, you know, worked over. And, you know, this has happened to the golf course on the other side on the on the east side of Eye of the Mousetrap, because they're going to chew it up to make a drainage just for that road, that 14 lane road. So that's all I have to say.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mrs. Banks, for listening. Rhino Rescue.
Speaker 3: All right. Thank you. I'm really proud to live.
Speaker 0: State your name for the record.
Speaker 3: Sorry. Sorry. My name is Rainer Isaak and I live at 406 West Ewell Avenue with Robert Lovell. That's my husband right across from the first screen. So I'm really proud to live in a community where we have access to so many natural resources as well as urban amenities and natural activities. And I'm also proud to be here with neighbors who are so passionate about our community regardless of where we stand on the issue. I'm torn by this level of civic engagement because we all live where we live and have our community's best interests at heart. I work at Denver Public Schools in the Office of Student Equity and Opportunity, so I'm passionate about eliminating the opportunity gaps that exist in our community. Southwest Denver has historically been marginalized and lacks access to a robust culture of art and music. Well, that pavilion certainly adds to our to the culture of our neighborhood, and it'll take things to a new level, as well as give us the opportunity to make much needed improvements to our area, basic things like crosswalks and safe bridges to walk across. And this music festival will definitely add to that as well live. It just wouldn't have the capacity to make these infrastructure improvements by itself. Some of the items that I think are particularly advantageous from my personal perspective is that there will be a separate fund for community outreach efforts which can be routed to increase arts access for our youth. Communities in southwest Denver have been traditionally underserved, and cultures with traditionally rich art and history and tradition have had to put these traditions on the back burner as art becomes something that's more of a privilege, and as they scramble for access to community resources to highlight their culture and their art, our culture and our art opportunities for community folks who volunteer at the festival will gain them free access to renowned music, as well as incredible work and service experience. And this is going to be particularly helpful to young adults in our area. High schools like Abraham Lincoln, Coons, Miller, Creative Arts Academy, South High School, giving our youth the opportunity to access positive outlets that engage their interests. The golf course is going to be available to a much greater portion of the community as well. Increasing access to this beautiful land and the funds that are routed toward neighborhoods will help us increase our infrastructure. Thank you for your time today and have a good night.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Little time to spare. Okay. Come on, North. Okay. Sorry about that. All right, I'm going to call the next group. Max Hirsch, Helen or Andrew G. Have joined Joann Weiss and Terry Pesci. I'll come up to the front, please. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Max Hirsch, you were up 3 minutes.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Members of the Council.
Speaker 8: My name is Max Hirsch. I live at 1235 Grant Street in Denver, along with my family owned businesses on South Broadway and the Overland neighborhood. I'm also a student at C.U. Denver. I study music business and music cities with the creative economy. And tonight, I'd just kind of like to speak behalf of the younger residents of Denver, as well as the students that I go to school with. First off, Denver is an island for music. What I mean by that is it's very hard to break out of Denver as a musician, as a local musician, there's not a lot of places to go from Denver. We're not surrounded by a lot of other markets, and unfortunately, we're not a national market right now. So there's not a lot of national attention on our artists. This festival could change that, could flip that immediately. Not only will local artists be able to play at the stages during the festival with local stages, they'll be able to share with share stages with big names like Radiohead and stuff like that. Adding to their resume about big shows that they've played and out of town, residents are going to come to this festival and they're going to find their new favorite artist, and it might be a local Denver artist, and that's huge for us. And we're also going to be able to be playing in bars and restaurants and venues around the area.
Speaker 1: So when this ends.
Speaker 8: At 10:00 at night, people are going to want to continue to go out, which is going to help the businesses and it's also going to help the artists that are playing the shows at these businesses. Next, I wanted to touch on the what my age group is doing right now. When we're going into the workforce right now and we're the trend has flipped from. Go into a finding a job in a city, going to the city and hoping that you like the city. It's now you're going to a city for the culture. You're going to a city for the lifestyle. And you're going to search for a job in that city. And I think the Denver brand and the Denver culture is great and it's amazing and we're going in the complete right direction and I love it so much, and I think that this can really help that culture and really help that brand and be a positive for the city of Denver. Thank you all for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Hersh. Thank you for the time. All right, Eleanor.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council members excuse me. After sitting here for 5 hours after work, I'm a little rough in the throat, but thank you for the opportunity to speak. You all have heard from me and some of my other neighbors who are the neighbors of Oral and North, a registered neighborhood organization recently. I really just want to touch on a couple of points, and that is we have a great concern in our neighborhood about the use of the golf course for this festival, just in principle. I'd like to get this on the record. It's been a designated park since 1956. On September 10th, 2010, the Denver Department of Parks and Recreation adopted rules regarding admission based events in Denver parks. These rules were the result of a lengthy public process that included input from many citizens, citizen groups and agencies in order to address conflicts related to major, massive events being held in parks and inundating neighborhoods, etc.. The following parks were designated as parks were admission based. Events may be permitted. I think you all know what they are. Civic Service Center. Park. City Park. Confluence Park. Skyline Park. Central Park. Park. Field Park. Ruby Hill Park. Overland Park is not among them. The rules also state that an ABA shall be no more than four days, including set up and tear down, and ABA shall not allow public attendance to exceed 7500 persons. No ABA shall occupy more than 20% of a contiguous area in a given park. So we recommend. And respect those rules and those agreements and that you say no to this contract based on that. We further recommend that the Denver City Council take back oversight and regulation of Denver's parks. Parks are public. Public used to be in public. Public now. Seems to me in private. Maybe I haven't caught up with the language changed. I'm not a psychologist, but I think we need to think about putting the public back in parks and also to respect small, unique neighborhoods and not inundate them with massive numbers of people. And we don't have the infrastructure to support this. And while I think the festival may be a terrific idea, it's the absolute wrong venue. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Andrew. Yeah.
Speaker 8: Hello, counsel. Thank you for having me here. My name is Andrew Huff. I live on the 200 block of Acoma, just a few blocks from the festival. I've been to most of the meetings that have pertained to this event. It's really been a wonderful experience. Everybody that has been involved with it has really spent their due diligence making sure that everybody's best interest has been heard. That includes the folks from Superfly, as well as the city council, as well as the neighbors. I'm excited for the opportunity. You know, it's it's a wonderful thing to have this type of cultural event in the city. It's something that I don't think Denver necessarily has right now. I'm also excited to use the park as an angle for, you know, I'm not necessarily out there using that, even though it's amenity just blocks from my house. And I really think that this festival can be a beacon of the cultural fabric of the city. I think that it's it's a really awesome opportunity. And I very much trust that so much that has gone into this, that it is a really good opportunity for the city. And that's all I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Jeff. Joann Weiss. Weiss. Weiss. Sorry about that.
Speaker 3: Hi. I definitely shaved off a few years in Purgatory by sitting in the Keys. My name is Joanne Weiss. I live at 540 West Ewell Avenue, a few feet from the golf course. From the get go, we've been told that this is a done deal. So my statement tonight and I still feel that way. I feel overpowered by that. But I have a statement to make that just for the record, just to get it out there. When lobbyists, corporate profiteers and city government officials gang up on our neighborhoods to fill their coffers and advance their careers, it can make a person feel a little crazy. Throughout this process, our collective voices have been drowned out by a tsunami of hype and propaganda. Few few questions have been adequately answered and legal issues hardly addressed. For some of us, the long game is clear. Degrade the park. Displace the people and develop the land for the greater good. This aggressive behavior has at times left us feeling hopeless. The opposite of hope is empowerment. As a new newly registered neighborhood organization born on July 4th, 2017. The neighbors of Overland North is committed to the struggles of all neighborhoods under attack and parks and open spaces put up for lease to the highest bidder. This festival is a juggernaut that does not fit the French fragile infrastructure of our historic neighborhood. And it will dramatically alter the quality of our lives and our sense of community. We agree with her recommendation of the Inner Neighborhood Coalition Agency Parks Committee that the city should create a permanent festival site to accommodate an event of this magnitude. Please vote no on the Superfly contract. Thank you for listening.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Terry Pascual. PESCA Well, Mr. El there.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mr. President, and members of Council.
Speaker 4: My name is Terry Pasqua.
Speaker 3: And I live on Jewell Avenue from right across the street from over the golf course with my husband, Paul Murdaugh. We are not golfers, although we have buckets of golf balls that are accumulating in our yard. And since we're not golfers, we do not get to benefit from this open space for most of the year and feel that it's actually underutilized as a public parking space. I've lived in the neighborhood for nine years and I'm part of the neighborhood association and I am for the music festival. Councilman Clark and David Erlich have been very open and honest with all their communication in various public meetings regarding the plans and processes related to the festival and the impact on the neighborhood. As credible issues have been brought up, the promoters have listened and have included them and to publish guidelines which will be implemented through the final planning stages. The promoters have been very open and willing to listen and to work with us and we will continue to work with them so that any unforeseen issues that come up in the first few years are evaluated and are appropriately addressed. I have total confidence that this will be a good thing for all parties involved the golf course, the neighborhood and the city at large. With Denver's growing and changing demographics, our parks need to be able to provide a variety of types of usage, not just golf, which only caters to a small percentage of the population. A music festival makes perfect sense and that it would allow enjoyment of this park, if only for a few days of the year, to a much larger and diverse population. And the direct impact to overland neighborhood is only three days. What better way to celebrate our neighborhood in the city of Denver, but with a musical cultural festival in a natural urban setting where it provides a venue for local artists. The increased traffic into the local area before, during and after the festival would bring a boost to the local economy and businesses along the developing South Broadway corridor. My husband often asked me, But how do you really feel? I'm not a public speaker, but I am a lover of live music and dance and I love my neighborhood. The good vibes I felt from attending the concerts at Levitt Pavilion last week still linger, and I'm looking forward to more live music in the hood. I'm really excited to see how this all comes together, and especially to watch out my front window as the construction of the main stage unfolds. Council members. We want this music festival. We want this for the betterment of the golf course, the surrounding neighborhoods, our local businesses and the city of Denver. Let's bring more good vibrations into the city. The amount of love and joy coming out of this would be exhilarating. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Pascal. All right. Thank you for those who came up. I'm going to call up the next five. Laurie Paulson, Paul Middaugh, Phil Hanlon, Heinlein, Jack Unruh. And I want to call one more Kathy Dugan. Okay. Laurie Paulson, you're up first. You have 3 minutes. Yeah.
Speaker 3: That's me. I'm Mary Kay Paulson. I live at 520 was Jewel Avenue. And. I am not for the destruction of the golf course. You can't replace which which you have. All these people excuse me? Whether it be 30,000, 80,000 over three days. Well, not only destroy the wildlife, the habitat, the environment. What it's going to do is it's going to kill people. And you have the your words have the power of life and death. There are fragile elderly people. Disabled people. People on a fixed income. People that are dying. End of life care. Do you sure you can turn down the volume? Sure you can try to put it or put it further down the street. But we live across the street. There are people that are dying and the reverberations or whatever your technical term is for the boom and the base. You can't do anything about it. And people will feel this. People with emphysema. I've been in nursing for many years. I had to retire because my back's messed up and my body's messed up. But I wouldn't trade a day of it because I care about people. And I made a difference in their lives. That's a life enhancing moment. You can't get that. I've been to concerts in a couple days.
Speaker 2: Or.
Speaker 3: Something else. A concert is not a life enhancing moment, but taking care of your people in your neighborhood. Treating them kindly with respect. Helping them. When you see they're struggling, this is the kind of people we have. This is our neighborhood. Concerts that come and go after a couple of years, it won't be new anymore. And what he got left. People on a fixed income that can't afford to move for a few days. How do we leave our property? We've got to what? We can't replace it. How about can you replace my husband's life as he struggles to breathe? Try holding your breath. Take a deep dove and hold your breath until you can't. And you try to take in areas that you can't. It is impossible. Your lungs can't do it. And that's a lot of these people are living moment to moment just worried about. How am I going to breathe? Am I going to breathe? That's your whole day. That's your whole night. This concert, the noise, the chaos, the uncertainty of what's going to happen to them. And their yards, their homes. This is an abomination. It's so wrong on so many levels. And I ask you to take this into consideration. What do we do with people who are dying and who this all act Christmas passing.
Speaker 0: Your time is up. Thank you. Paul Bader.
Speaker 8: Good evening, Mr. President. The members of the council.
Speaker 6: My name is Paul Vidor. I lived on this jewel avenue with my wife.
Speaker 8: Terry, directly across Overland Golf Course. They're both.
Speaker 6: Enthusiastic supporters of this.
Speaker 8: Music festival. I'm also a dreamer.
Speaker 13: And personally.
Speaker 6: I would like to believe that this ought to be a done deal.
Speaker 8: Because I see you all as our change agent.
Speaker 6: Not just for our common good, but also for a greater good.
Speaker 8: I also believe in magic and consummate. Clark, I think you would agree that Thursday and Friday night there was Magic and Ruby Hill at the first two concerts at the Levitt Pavilion and. To me, Leavitt Pavilion is already becoming a good testament of what's possible with the right intentions. Imagine if Super Fly could also use the new Levitt Pavilion during their events. Wounded and hence all the magic. Council members. I believe that in the years to come, you will look back with great pride that you were so forward looking and also a dreamer by your support of this festival. I believe that through the years after years, the success of this festival, you will personally observe Overland Golf Course being uplifted by improvements that this music festival helped to fund that you will observe. Are nearby neighborhoods and businesses also being more and more uplifted? As well as our great city of Denver, is being uplifted in its irresistible attraction to so many who want to live here. I even believe that most who are now against it will also come around later to support it. I believe that eventually we can build a bridge between all of us, the enthusiastic supporters and all those who are passionately against it. We do want them back in our fold. As we understand it, there's a pending contract is now on the table and in the months to come, it will be expanded through the addition of several what I call operational plans, such as parking, security, transportation. I believe that our for and against neighbors can, in good faith participate together in a related advisory boards committed to the year to year improvements of these operational plans. Most of the fears and concerns can be mitigated. Clearly, there will be kinks to work out. Respectfully, I'm asking this council to vote unanimously for this event, and I'm also taking this opportunity to publicly invite the opposition to join in and work with us. Let's do this. Let's have more music.
Speaker 6: Let's celebrate and let's dance. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bradshaw. Phil Heinlein.
Speaker 5: Well, let's see. My name is Phil Heinlein, Denver resident and former sound engineer. I love music. I love parks. But it's sad to see one sacrificed for the other. I'm sure you've seen those big stacks of concert speakers. I'm talking a really big one. Okay. Now, imagine somehow I snuck one of those stacks in here, Pastor. Good securities in there. Or maybe I'm wealthy enough to drive a flatbed trailer all around here with a full 20,000 watt counter play on it. Okay. You would have me arrested. And appropriately so. Because you, the government, rightly consider the volume from that size. Inappropriate, inappropriate for a minute, let alone three days. You and the good folks in the surrounding buildings want to conduct business. But what about the homeowners near Overland Park? What do they want to conduct? Why did they buy a modest home in a very modest neighborhood? This is money making in a public park. 2 to $300 tickets. The audience mostly white. A scheme by the affluent. For the young. An affluent.
Speaker 2: Simply limited access commerce.
Speaker 5: In a public park. Everybody but the neighbors is getting a cut. Appropriate. In New York City, when they permit theater and music in a park.
Speaker 13: Almost all the tickets are free.
Speaker 5: A public space for the public. Imagine that. Now surrounding Denver, there dozens of would be max Oscars. Remember Woodstock farmer willing to rent their farms for much, much less. So why did the promoters fly some council members around the country wine and dine them? Because leveraging the grass and trees of Overland Park will result in greater profits. Leveraging the grass and trees. Good for business. Funny thing. I know in your hearts most of you think this is wrong. Inappropriate. But the money's too good. Principle versus money. This administration. Not a chance. These Oberlin neighbors are simply not affluent enough to afford government protection. Imagine if the only.
Speaker 13: Neighbors had the same resources. Say the good folks living on seventh Avenue.
Speaker 2: Imagine that we wouldn't even be meeting here. This would have been over. Not even happening.
Speaker 5: We had time to invoke Warren Zevon. You know, send lawyers, guns and money. Sadly, I have no confidence that you city council will do the right thing. Your votes have been counted. The press release already written. This hearing is just public theater. And you're the cast performing. Well, at least you're making union scale. And the tickets were free. Know this. With your vote, you'll be reducing the public in public space and probably never be able to watch. It's a Wonderful Life. Quite the same way again.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Healy. Jack Unruh.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Council members.
Speaker 2: I'm Jack Unruh. I live four blocks south of the park and. Have done so for 37 years. And the last time that you saw some of us here who are.
Speaker 5: For the the festival.
Speaker 2: Was the meeting.
Speaker 5: Before Thanksgiving when through Councilman Clarke, we brought the proclamation of.
Speaker 2: Denver as a compassionate city to you. And I mentioned that because we really do respect and love and honor the people who are extremely.
Speaker 11: Opposed.
Speaker 2: To the park. I, on the other hand, am not and I think the best way I can I can support that position is to talk to Councilman Pash Cashman's point. Does it make the neighborhood better? I believe it will.
Speaker 5: And not just by.
Speaker 2: Bringing notoriety and.
Speaker 5: Recognition and.
Speaker 2: Visibility to the neighborhood, but in the same way that the Botanic Gardens concert makes the Botanic Gardens neighborhood better. All the events in Civic Center Park make the Golden Triangle a better neighborhood.
Speaker 5: The Greek Festival makes Hilltop a better neighborhood.
Speaker 2: We make it a better neighborhood by hosting and honoring the the desires and the good times that will come out of this not only for the attendees, but also for the musicians who will be well paid, the artists who will participate, the concessionaires who will be there. Change is hard and it's it's uncomfortable, but it's the way to the new normal.
Speaker 5: And in that sense, since.
Speaker 2: It's always happening, it is fair. And when we make our neighborhood a host.
Speaker 5: So that things are better for others, that makes us better neighbors to others. The mixing that will take place.
Speaker 2: At the very diverse audience with a very diverse audience.
Speaker 5: In terms of families, ages.
Speaker 2: Ethnicities, music preferences and so on, is what Denver needs to do. And so I hope that you will resoundingly and unanimously vote yes in favor of the contract.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Ms. Unruh Okay. Cathy Duggan Oh, yeah. There you.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Cathy Duggan and I live at. Sorry about that. Doug and I live at 1947 South L.A. Street. I'm a half a half a block from the proposed music festival. I say propose kind of tongue in cheek, because, quite frankly, as we've been reading in the paper and hearing, it's pretty much a done deal. And my belief is that it's been a done deal since we've before the city was first approached. That said, I want you to keep in mind I ask that you keep in mind when you vote, we are human beings were not collateral damage. Most of the people in our neighborhood cannot afford to go to this festival. And quite frankly, I think it's a little bit of lead us to have an event in a neighborhood where people can't go to it. We can't afford it. I can't afford it. The other thing that I would like to ask you to do as you consider this, is to think about would you want this in your neighborhood? Would you want 70 to 80000 people for three days and three nights? And that's just the festival time. That's not the set up and the tear down. But would you want them in your side, back or front yard? Would you want to open your window in the most beautiful time of the year, in my opinion, fall and hear music that you know, I love music, quite frankly. I have musicians in my family. I have a nephew who plays in festivals all over the place. I don't want to hear it. All day, all night. I can hear the baseball games going on. I love it. It's an hour long. So my question to you, as you think about this, think about would you want to for three days and three nights, would you want to be subjected to music all day, all night, 70 to 80000 people in your backyard, your side yard, your front yard, people you don't know? Yes. We can always leave. We certainly can leave. We could move out for the weekend. I don't want to be Tommy when I have to leave, especially when I have 70 to 80000 people in my yard that I don't know. Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Dugan. All right. I'm going to call the next five. Please come to the front bench. Mara Owen. Diane Thiele. Justin Bressler. I think he's gone. Ronayne Montoya. And one more then Ericsson. Mara. Owen, your first.
Speaker 3: Hi City councilwoman, city councilman, thanks very much for having us here tonight. My name is Mara Owen, and I would first like to say thank you to everyone here on both sides. We really do. To make a good neighborhood need both sides of every issue. And I think that the contract has been made better from every input on every side. And so I just want to say thank you, especially with how this is going for the shared passion. I am the president of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association, and I'm here representing my personal opinions. I have lived in Denver my whole life and I've been in the Overland Park neighborhood living at Broadway and Evans since 2011. I'm personally a strong supporter of the festival. Just one of the many reasons I'm a supporter is that this festival will keep Parkland in our neighborhood solvent into the future and allow the golf course to cover critical and much deferred infrastructure improvements. This ensures a lasting park space in our neighborhood that is well-kept and not in danger of being closed, developed or even run into the ground. This piece of land is a huge asset to both our neighborhood and to the city, with the amount of people moving to Denver and needing space to recreate in an increasingly dense urban area. Spaces like this are precious and need to be both utilized and maintained. Currently, the golf course is a for profit enterprise and not simply a park free to the public. It charges a fee for using the course and tries to cover those expenses using the revenue. They regularly host public events such as the demo night and a beer liquor garden that they did on July 21st. And they're available to host tournaments and special events. In my opinion, this is a good thing and the Superfly Festival is simply a continuation of this existing use. Having a diversified income for any business is much more fiscally responsible and can bring more people into the space who may not be interested only in golf. The festival also hopes also helps to incentivize and fund improvements in the neighborhood and the wider city of Denver. It directly contributes $1 per ticket to a community fund that can help make our neighborhood and the surrounding community a better place. To put all this into perspective. I've attended quite a few of the meetings for the upcoming General Obligation Bond, and I was so surprised by the list of worthwhile projects on the capital improvements list, as well as the amount of deferred maintenance in our city. Watching people choose which projects to fund and not fund was painful when all of them are incredibly important and some of them far overdue. This festival is an opportunity to increase funding for some projects, perhaps like these, without any type of tax on already burdened citizens. It would be a shame to ignore this opportunity after having to cut so many projects off of the bond. In addition to all that, it's important to keep in mind that we were talking about a music festival, an inclusive all ages music festival where people come together to celebrate the cultural achievements of our society. Music is something we have already seen as a huge community asset in the new Levitt Pavilion and has the same potential as a catalyst here. This festival can build on and encourage the music identity that is already present and growing in our neighborhood. And with events and venues such as the new Levitt Pavilion, the Underground Music Showcase, Swallow Hill, Herman's Hideaway and the upcoming color of public radio headquarters on Ruby Hill. The festival has this opportunity to strengthen the existing sense of identity. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Right on time. All right. Thank you, Miss Allen. All right, Diane.
Speaker 3: Good night. Counsel people in. Mr. President, my name is Diane Thiel. I live in Denver. Our administration continues to want to use our public parks and facilities for private gain. People have to constantly come down here, right here and say no. We're here again to say no. Overland Park residents already have to live with many concerts at Ruby Hill Park. They have to put up with not just the noise of the concert, but also have to hear the equipment testing and the band rehearsals. Isn't that enough to put on the Overland Park neighborhood? I would not like to have a three day festival in my neighborhood. Not once and not certainly every year for five years. If you want this festival in your neighborhoods, I encourage you to call this company tomorrow and set it up. I think you might not get reelected if you do that, but I don't think you should put it in the Overland Park Golf course. Finally, I'm speaking up for the wildlife that live in or travel through the river corridor or hunt for food on the golf course. They do not want this festival either. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Doyle. All right. Justin Bressler.
Speaker 8: Good evening.
Speaker 5: President Brooks City Council.
Speaker 8: Thank you for having us. My name is Justin Bressler and I'm the vice president of Marketing and Business Development for Visit Denver. We are the Convention and Visitors Bureau for the metro area where 108 year old nonprofit organization whose mission is to bring conventions and leisure visitors to Denver for the economic benefit of the city, community and our partners. We enthusiastically support bringing the multiday music festival to Denver beginning in 2019 at Overland Park. A festival of this scale provides significant benefits to residents and visitors alike, which is why our organization is proud to be a sponsor. We're currently progressing the Denver Tourism Road Map as a ten year strategic plan to increase the economic impact created by tourism and ensure our industry remains vibrant and competitive for years to come. Pursuing signature events and festivals like this that draw overnight visitors is the primary initiative in the roadmaps visitor driven events goal area. Music festivals are major economic drivers, and a festival like this creates both short term and long term economic impacts to both local and city, with both local and citywide benefits in the short term. Nearby. Nearby businesses will see an immediate economic impact from the spending generated by locals and visitors who head to the festival. And in the long term, the entire city benefits by the extra taxes paid by visitors who come here, spend money and then go home. As a matter of fact, metro Denver households would pay more than $500 in annual taxes to receive the same benefits. Were it not for the $523 million in state and local taxes paid by visitors. Music festivals also help divine the define the tourism brand of a city. Top tourism destinations have major music festivals from Austin to Seattle to San Francisco. And with our growing population and active residents. Music plays a huge role in our brand. And over the course of the festival, we feel that Denver's brand would be elevated at the regional and national level and also how it incorporates Denver's culinary arts and cultural experiences. So now we live in a time when most people are listening to music privately and in earbuds and on their phone. Live music is a way for people to connect with top artists and like minded fans and communities up close and personal. We're committed to working closely with all stakeholders to ensure the festival's unique and positive, welcoming experience for all attendees. And Denver. And we urge the Council to support the festival. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Bressler. All right. Rene Montoya.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name's Bryan Montoya. Um, I lived in the neighborhood for 31 years, and I want my neighborhood to prosper. But not this fast and not in this way. So we want to keep contaminants out of our neighborhood. And that means like bios and toxins that you guys have taken. And also prior to keep accountability, I would like to have you guys test the soil to make sure that all the shadow and the radioactive waste that was buried 300 feet from there is is actually not going to be coming up when all these people are coming through, peeing everywhere, making bile everywhere. All these uranium, radium and thorium are going to be coming up from the ground if it hasn't been analyzed prior. So that's one thing I want. Is soil samples done prior to exposing 60,000 people to this kind of atmosphere? On top of that, there's already squatters along the river. What are you guys going to do about that? Are you guys going to stop the whole area around it? Not only that, but fire hazards like we need. Part of zoning should be. You should have your fire. Fire? Exactly. Fire person. The chief of the fire people there for making your zoning because they know what's safe and what's not safe. So having people come in three avenues versus downtown Denver, which you could also look up on your Denver Parks and Rec that September, those dates are free for the Civic Center. There's nothing going on there. So your super fly thing could go on downtown where it's prepared to have that many people come in. There's there's actually bus systems and light rails and good avenues for people to not have dangerous building the bridge within before it's even put in is wrong. Saying that you're going to be making all these promises and having a lengthy list is not right. Saying these all these promises prior to actually doing them is not right and is not part of my agenda. And I do not want to support this. I do not support the music festival. I am very, you know, artistic and I love creativity. But it needs to happen like. Like. Like in a like accordance. Like right now they have the music festival and they're like testing it out up at the Ruby Hill. Your second event you guys started and you barely know what the impact of it. Exponential growth. If you know anything about that, you guys saw the 420 event go from. I went there when I was like high school. 200 people now look at it, that's exponential growth. And so yeah, $200,000 ain't nothing. $200,000 a nothing to destroy a historical landmark. Not only that, but to go in there and allow kids to be along the river. They get so trashed, they get they they're going to go in there and make you guys. Forget about what you guys came in voted for. They're going to be so drunk. I've seen it. I've seen these college students. They don't know their limits. And they they throw themselves they're going to be right on the banks of the river, having you guys fish them out for days so you guys could, like, make this decision . But I do not want people coming into my neighborhood. And I've been to Mardi Gras. I've seen it. I've seen what people do and the lack of respect that they have for the environment. Our neighborhood is not set up like Mardi Gras, where we take all we have the space all the way up until the very last you guys. We have people saying, I just have to have prior as your your lawn, you can't build on because it's your guys. But we've got to maintain it. Right. So. That's the difference is this area is not prepared. The safety is not taking care of. You guys haven't done any preparation in the sense of Shattuck. Have you. And I think exposing 60 to 80000 people is like very, very important. I'm OSHA, 30 certified, and I know the standards that you have to take in order to build. And so not only that, but. Like. You guys are going to be like, you know, stumbling in this.
Speaker 0: Time as a thank you. Thank you. All right, Dan Erikson.
Speaker 8: Good evening. Council President Brooks Member of Council. My name is Dan Erickson. I live at Ruby. I live in Ruby Hill at 1390 South Canosa Court. Tonight, I come forward in support of the proposed music festival at the Overland Golf Course because it will provide an opportunity to showcase Denver's culture through local art, music, food to tens of thousands of people that will attended here. I'm a fourth generation Denver native. I grew up in South Denver. I am a fine artist. I've been working in the medium of painting portraits on street signs for the past 17 years. I recently had a piece of my work accepted into the permanent collection of the American Jazz Museum in Kansas City. I have been fortunate enough to show my work around the country as well as been in a bunch of publications with my work. I've had gallery representation the past seven years in New York. But Denver is my home and I really enjoy sharing my work with the public through all spaces around town, like Dazzle Jazz or the Servery, or through murals like the one I painted at Metro State Center for the Visual Arts. I'm also very excited to be providing the artwork for the green rooms at the new Levitt Pavilion and Ruby Hill, and I consider it a huge privilege and honor to be working on any creative projects in my neighborhood. As an artist, I've appreciated the fact that Superfly reached out to me to ensure there is a connection between the local community showcased at the festival. This will provide an opportunity for the local artists to be connected with new audiences and to make the Denver Music Festival site reflect the amazing culture with the city has to offer . I look forward to working with the festival organizers and local artists on the details of this exciting plan in the coming months. In addition to its commitment to the arts, this festival excites me as a resident of Ruby Hill. Superfly has done a great job of reaching out to the neighborhood through extensive community outreach. They have been very responsive to the neighborhood concerns. But perhaps the most exciting aspect of the festival for me and my family is the community fund that will be financed by $1 of each ticket sold. That's $800,000 for Overland Park in Ruby Hill over the proposed five years. That will make my neighborhood a better place. I thank you again for your time and urge you to vote yes on supporting the Superfly Festival.
Speaker 0: Great. Thank you, Mr. Erickson. Okay, I. Okay. We're going to call the next five. I assume some of these people are not here. Bridget Walsh. David Warner. Okay. Daniel Lowenstein. David. David there. Okay. I guess her and Marilyn Barela. Okay. David Warner, your first.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mr. President. Fellow council members. I feel your pain. I am also a council member in another city and if I was giving this speech now, there'd be nobody here. I don't know how you guys do it. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, although for one, I think there are better venues. I think Ruby Hill might be better. It's at least 20 acres larger than the area and Golden Gate Park where the Outside Lands Festival is being held. I also feel this is a subtle attempt. Maybe not right away, but an attempt to close overland down. There's been talk about this before. This could be a first step. I'm going to take a different approach. I'm not I'm not going to try to appeal to anybody's emotions or anything. I'm going off what I read in the paper and what Superfly, his website, says. I'm a finance person. I have not read your contracts, so if I state something wrong, you'll have to correct me if we're going to sign a long term deal. I think it has to be done right. I don't know if any of you remember the Grand Prix in 89 and 90, Dummar was on the hook for about $1,000,000 and that contract was done right too. So. If I can make one comment. All I want to discuss is all I'm going to do right now is compare revenues from the San Francisco Festival to what we're going to get. In 2014. This is off their website. They generated for the San Francisco Parks and Rec District about two and a half million dollars for their event. The attendance was around 200,000 people for the three days. That comes to $12.53 per person that went back to the rec district. This is based on all their figures, the 11% gross, all their different fees. What we are being offered is $9.89 per ticket. This is based off an attendance of 120,000. Based on the same, I calculated $93 average ticket price. I think we need a better deal than that. This is also based on everything that there was in the paper, the rent, all the different funds going to the Enterprise Fund, the golfer discount the seat tax that are 10%. The one thing that I think you guys are missing is I don't I guess you calculated the $200,000 rent as something that would supplant the lost revenues from over the golf course as the golf course, the driving range. The restaurant, the pro shop. I think you. So you're not considering this loss of revenue and you're also not considering the fact that you're cleaning up 130 acres compared to 69. Golden Gate Park has minimal lost revenue, but we do what I recommend in the last 6 seconds is I think you're too low. You need to read this contract. You need to add at least a 3% ticket fee to get back to the golf course and to give back to people in the neighborhood store.
Speaker 0: That's a time's up. Thank you. All right. Mr. Daniel Lowenstein.
Speaker 2: Hello.
Speaker 5: Well, my father was probably best or very fondly remembered for doing the festival caravan program in the parks of Denver. He well, this was a really organic process where he worked with the neighborhoods and the shows that he developed were of buying for the community. And he in the process of working with various neighborhoods to see if they'd like shows in the parks. Some neighbors in neighborhoods would opt for shows in the parks and some wouldn't. And he would respect that. And. My father, he considered the public parks public and saw these shows for free for everyone. And this was in the seventies and eighties and. Well, he was never too fond or involved in things where the public areas were taken over for private use and. I feel that way too. I think that public land should be for the public and private. Should should seek another venue and. That's what I say. All.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Lowenstein. David Richter.
Speaker 5: Good evening, Mr. President. Council. Thanks for having us here tonight. My name is David Richter. I live at 252 Pennsylvania Street. I am Councilman Clark's representative on the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Crab has been updated pretty much every month, I would say maybe more often in and out of meetings since the promoter first brought this proposal to the city sometime, I guess last fall or late last summer, I'm not sure which as a body we haven't made any specific recommendations on this proposal. But as keeper of the minutes and I'm the secretary, I can tell you that the board has generally made some positive comments about what we have heard. There have clearly have been some members of crab that have had some concerns about the usual issues related with a big festival like infrastructure, traffic, perhaps safety. I personally have attended a number of community buildings, meetings excuse me, and participated in the city survey.
Speaker 2: Seen the results of that and the.
Speaker 5: Metrics during the process. And it seems to me overall that the promoters intentions, aside from the contractual obligations, will mitigate pretty much all reasonable concerns. It won't be perfect. I think Happy Haynes alluded to that herself, but it Prabhu let me just leave you this thought. Pretty much every month we're confronted with a common theme. It's How can we make a park more versatile? Accommodate new users. Activate a space in a unique. And purposeful way. I think this proposal is worth the effort. And I think it has tangible and intangible rewards for both the city. The golf community. And yes, believe it or not, I think.
Speaker 2: Ultimately even the local neighborhood, plenty of.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Rector. All right, Merlin, Barilla.
Speaker 7: Good evening. Thank you for having this courtesy hearing. My name is Marilyn Barella and I live at 1420 South Osage Street. I'm a native of Denver and have lived just across Florida next to Ruby Hill Park for 50 years. We were told by David Erlich and John Clark that if the neighborhood did not want Superfly on Oberlin Golf course, then Superfly would find another venue. The majority votes of both the Oberlin neighborhood and mine are against Superfly on Overland. Don't betray our trust. Find another venue for Superfly, as promised.
Speaker 3: This contract is all speculation.
Speaker 7: A big guess about something that is not known. A risky business assumption. Upfront, taxpayers are supposed to pick up the tab for police, fire department and trash services. This is not what we were initially told. Again, this is speculated to be 200,000. A big guess. I contend it will far exceed that amount. Denver's man hours of time already spent on planning this proposal must have added up to be an enormous expense to the taxpayers of Denver. If approved, DEMARS Future man hours of planning costs will be even greater. Shocking, I suspect, to the citizens of Denver. If you approve this contract, you are going to use taxpayers money in defiance of the vote against it. Super fly on overland is precedent setting. This contract needs to be held in the proper venue, not on Overland. Don't stand behind David Erlich, whose only reason not to have it in the proper venue is because they don't want to be on concrete. Don't betray the golfing community, the neighborhoods, the environment, wildlife, and all the citizens of Denver. Denver's government has lost its credibility. Ask any citizen of Denver or even Denver's employees about the collaborative process that Denver espouses. They will tell.
Speaker 3: You it's a big joke.
Speaker 7: Denver's government does not represent the citizens of Denver. There's hatred and division in the city of Denver that I've never seen before. Much of it caused by the proposals of different government. I'm here to ask you. To vote no to the super fly contract. Stand up and protect Denver's priceless parkland and golf courses. Stand up for the citizens of Denver. Don't stand up for the private, corporate profit interests of Superfly. Restore your credibility and vote no to the Superfly contract. Remember, we already have 50 concerts each summer at the Lemon Pavilion. Please have some consideration.
Speaker 3: For our neighborhoods. Keep Superfly off of opening. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Miss Perella. We are at an hour, and there are four more speakers. And if it's okay with the council, I'd like to keep it going. Dylan Clark is praying. Okay. Ronnie Crawford, please come to the front running. Crawford, LeAnn Montoya, Jesse Helms Theater. That I get the right. And Margaret kiss. And actually, I didn't pause it when I was calling people. So you actually guys do have a little bit more time. Okay, um, Ron Crawford, you're up.
Speaker 2: Howdy, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Council, thank you for enduring all of this. It's late night. Everybody's tired. What I want to speak to is the Overland Park neighborhood run in Crawford, 2149 South Park Street, 17 year resident of Overland Park. I am vice president of the Overland Park Neighborhood Association. I want to approach something a little different here that our neighborhood is called Rhizome. Everybody knows Rhino because they've got that rhinoceros logo and everybody knows that all that's going on up there will rise, though. We're we're at the beginning. So for river south, the river is a main amenity of our neighborhood. We are the last neighborhood in Denver on the river. And it is such a great amenity. On July 2nd, I would a tube, tube and rafting trip down the South Platte. We started at Mineral and got out at Grant Frontier 19 tubes. It's a great river. It's a great thing to see. And everything is different from the river. I work with a couple a couple of groups, Denver Trout Unlimited Project Healing Waters, which just gets veterans back to fishing. It is a great amenity. I would like to see this concert happen. I am for the concert. Absolutely for it. This will bring a lot of people to see one of Denver's overlooked and greatest amenities, which is the Denver South Platte. My colleagues at Denver Trout Unlimited call it from Chatfield to Commerce City. It's more than Denver, but the Platte starts way up in the mountains. So that's Denver. South Platte. It's a great thing. A lot of cities have their river walks and things located around their river. I would like to see that happen. I think that if we get 30,000 people, 100,000 people to see that river that has been reconstructed, it is reconstructed in the river from Grant Frontier to almost to the Mississippi Bridge in water. And our neighborhood is a city of parks with past canals, grant frontier, Overland Park, Pond Park. There's a lot to see there. The whole riparian area has been rebuilt. All of those parks are pretty, pretty brand new. Couple of years old and the river's looking good. I finished last night at the bridge at Grant Frontier Court. A 16 inch rainbow and an 18 inch rainbow. The fish are in there. I want to make that river a place where people come. It's a destination because it's a wonderful place that's right in our city. And I want our our visitors for the concert to come down there. I'm not talking about drunk college students. There will be game wardens, river rangers, everybody watching all that. I want people to see the beauty of our river and the beauty of our neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Mr. Crawford. Thank you. River South. All right. You heard it here. Heard it first. Here. All right. Leon Montoya. 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: Hi. My name's my name's LeAnn Montoya, and I live at 700 West Asbury. I had I bought my house 32 years ago, and I raised six kids and nine grandchildren in that home. And my kids have gone up and down that neighborhood, know everybody there. They've gone to the park, down to the weed. Every night we do our nightly walk on the golf course, so there are uses for it. If people really want to go out there and see what uses there are, besides put a music festival in there. One of the reasons why I'm against the music festival is because we are a four by two block area. That's all it is. And if you're going to have 60 to 80000 people in that neighborhood and say they're going to come in on the Florida side, they're still going to overflow into our side, they're going to overflow into the park and they're going to overflow into the river. We already have squatters. There are already up and down the Platte, which from what I heard, is illegal, but they still all out there living out there. And the crime rate has gone up because of that. Most recently, we had an incident where I couldn't even go into my neighborhood, a four by two block area with three entrances I couldn't get in. The police kept it blocked off because they were searching for someone that ran away from the cops. This was like a week ago. So that just a little bit of the crime you start bringing in, all these people in here don't think they're just going to be there for three days. If you've got people coming in from all over the country to see this music festival, they're going to be sitting up in an up along the river and up on Ruby Hill and all around the neighborhood for at least a week before. And so it's going to cause a lot of problems. There's going to be people disrespecting our property. There's people that we don't know going in and out of our neighborhood that you keep promising that they're not going to come in. I don't understand how you think they're going to come over that bridge, that rickety bridge over Santa Fe and and not come through our neighborhood, not come through our streets to get to the golf course. I don't know how else you guys are planning or they're planning to bring them through if they're coming through Florida. I think also one of the same things, too, is that a lot of people are against it, just besides us. The people that matter are us, people in that four by two neighborhood, because we're the ones we're going to have the direct effect from it.
Speaker 4: Not anybody else. Not any of you guys. Not any of.
Speaker 3: You guys, only us people that live in that four by two block area are going to feel the direct affect for three days with music pounding and people walking, even them, even though the people there, 60 to 80000 is going to make more noise than the people, than the music. And it's going to be really rough on us. And who's going to take care of any property damage? Is that in the contract? You're going to take care of property damage for us? I'd like to see that. And I am totally against this.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Montoya. All right, Jesse Homesteader.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Good evening, President Burks and the members of Denver City Council. My name is J.C. Homesteader. I own both residential and commercial property in the Overland neighborhood. Currently, I'm serving my second term as the president of the local maintenance district on Broadway as well. I'm one of the board members that should be in a hopefully very soon time be bringing to this board a potential business improvement district petition. So I'm speaking firsthand for the businesses, and I want to say that the business owners along Broadway haven't done all the research to know all the numbers. However, there.
Speaker 2: Are very eager.
Speaker 5: We have met with David Erlich and Liz Adams and have engaged in what the businesses believe is going to be very beneficial for them.
Speaker 2: For example.
Speaker 5: The local businesses are able to have a presentation at the concerts, which means you can go to the beer tent and get a local brew from Declaration Brewing, which is located on South Delaware, or go to the food tent and get some delicious chicken from post chicken. I believe the Super Superfly is very invested in our community. It's our ideals and our ideals because they want to showcase the amazing culture that we have in our neighborhood. The businesses in Overland area are a diverse and unique bunch, but they're united in support of this festival. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I'm really hungry for some chicken, so thanks for that for mentioning that. All right. Um, last but not least, Margaret Rundle.
Speaker 3: Somebody left the glasses. Anyway, my name is Margaret Brown Dix. I live in West Platte Park. I'm at 1625 South Downing Street. I imagine a lot of concert goers will be walking from Pearl Street and down on down to the concert. This is a big deal. It's been promoted for a long time. The first time I heard about it was through my grandson. He's 17. He's a golfer. And he talked to me about it and I said, What do you think? And he said, Well, I don't like it, but I think it's a done deal. And I said, Really, we're, you know, this is zero way. No, no, no. I think that we have some voice in this matter. He said. I don't think so. I said, Why not? He said, Well, I've heard a lot of talk at Overland. And I said, I see. He has a coach when he can afford him at Overland. He works at Overland. He's worked at Wiltshire at 17 as an East High School student. He has qualified on his own. Freshman, sophomore, junior year. He hasn't done it yet for his senior year because he's just going into his senior year for state competitions and done very well. His team didn't qualify. He was the only one who did. He's a very avid golfer. He's been all over the state. He's been on every municipal course in the city and in the state. He plays golf all the time. He dresses well, he speaks well. He has learned a lot about greeting people, meeting people. And he's learned he's learned how to handle himself. He's straight. He doesn't drink. He doesn't smoke. He doesn't use drugs. He's kind of a quiet guy. And he aspires to be on a college golf team. His mother promotes his golf. She's a single parent and she gets him to tournaments way over her budget. But she does. He's going to play in an international tournament at the end of the summer. He's disappointed in this. You bet. I followed him for 11 years on all these courses. I've watched him play. I've learned a lot about golf. I'm not a golfer. I've watched kids, girls, boys all throughout the state playing golf. People say it's dad. It's not. It's elitist is it's not. I'll tell you one thing. Municipal courts courses give opportunity to boys like him, kids that don't have it otherwise. First tee of Colorado sent him to Pebble Beach to play with the Walrus. I have no more time, but I'm telling you, it's special. So support it. It's a golf course. It's not a music venue.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hendrix. I want to say thank you to everyone who stayed this late in and got in here. I want to I implore you to stay for the questioning. And if if you do have to leave, that you'd go back and watch this portion. I want to remind members of counsel we will not be doing comments this week because we've extended it to next week. We'll just be going through the question portion. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks to all the overwhelming folks on both sides of the issue stuck around. David, if you don't mind. A few questions quick. What what will the ticket cost be for this event?
Speaker 8: So I'll defer to Rick generally.
Speaker 10: They'll be a one day ticket and a three day ticket.
Speaker 8: And there's also contractually a provision for a materially discounted ticket for the community. Right. In terms of the actual ticket price, I believe that hasn't been set yet. It hasn't been set yet, but likely is going to go ahead. I'm sorry for the three way tickets. Somewhere in the 250 to 325 ish range, there'll be tiered. So the earlier you buy them, the cheaper they'll be. Right. And then there'll be a single day ticket somewhere in the 85 to 95 range.
Speaker 5: Really? So considerably cheaper than outside lands. Is that what you're. Yes.
Speaker 8: Okay. Certainly. You know, the outside lands ticket price has matured as the festival has matured.
Speaker 5: And so with the same thing, probably if you have a festival at Overland, if it's.
Speaker 8: Successful and there's demand, that's likely.
Speaker 5: Okay. Is being presented as a. Of a family friendly event and my experiences with these festivals, you get got to be a fairly well-to-do family to take a couple of kids to the show. But thank you.
Speaker 8: We will likely have a free for for ten and under ten tonight. Yeah. It's typically with events like this nationally, it's, you know, typically what the pricing is. So because likely we would do something similar here.
Speaker 5: Because outside is two and under, right.
Speaker 8: Outside lands. Outside lands is different.
Speaker 5: Okay. If Denver gets a long debated festival park at some point, is there any room in the contract for consideration of it moving? I know you have a lot of upfront costs in doing a festival like this.
Speaker 8: Certainly always would be open minded to what makes sense for the community and what makes sense if there's a suitable site at some point. We'd love to take a look at it too.
Speaker 5: As far as Outside Lands goes, how? I'm not familiar with where it is in the park in San Francisco. So how far is it, say, from the main stage to the nearest homes? Is it similar as to what?
Speaker 8: You got it over? I would say. Maybe. 100 yards.
Speaker 12: 200 yards, something like that.
Speaker 5: So similar to what you had? Yeah.
Speaker 8: Yeah. There's a on both edges of the space that we use in Golden Gate Park and we use a rather large space. There is a, there are, you know, four lane roads basically on either side. And so it's right across those roads. But yes, at probably the nearest spot, something like that, a couple of hundred yards.
Speaker 5: Is there a mac? I mean, I've heard 30 to 40000 the first year, maybe building up to 80,000. Have you looked at that site? And I mean, I'm guessing if you end up doing a show there, it's going to be very successful from an attendance standpoint. Do you have a maximum in mind? How high could it go?
Speaker 8: I believe the maximum by the contract is 80,000.
Speaker 5: Is that going to get you? Thank you. And the last thing is, I've kind of gotten lost in the numbers. How much net maybe, Fred, this would be for you. How much will Denver net out of a successful. Event.
Speaker 11: Fred Wise, director of finance for Parks and Rec. It obviously depends on the tickets. Of course, tickets are old, but I didn't bring my glasses, so it's between about a million and a half to two and a half million dollars. Okay. Is the range depending on the ticket sales.
Speaker 5: Okay. Thank you. That's all I've got, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Espinosa. How much would the full parking and transit plan that you're going to do cost you to do right now?
Speaker 8: We have a lot of expertize in the house, so we don't really track that as a cost. But our outside consultant that we'd be bringing in anywhere from 25 to $50000 is just a guess. As I said, we have a lot of experience with our internal team of how to devise these plans, and so we'll supplement that with a transportation and traffic engineer.
Speaker 0: Okay. What's the difference between the crowd has it? You know, if you've got the full 80,000. How long would that take for people to sort of go from 0 to 80? And then when? How like so how fast is that sort of build up? And then how fast is the. What's the window for exit.
Speaker 8: Yeah. So we layer the programing to make sure that there's a gradual ingress and gradual egress. So it usually happens over a 2 to 3 hour period that you have people coming in and usually about a two hour period people leaving. You know, it's never that you have the full amount of ticket buyers there at any one given time. People come and go. And so, you know, we feel like we have really good experience in how to layer the programing to enable that kind of flow.
Speaker 0: Do you know what the capacity is for an RTD light rail car per car?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I don't personally.
Speaker 0: It's 125 people. We have we have a member of council that used to be on our team. Yeah. Kevin, what's the capacity?
Speaker 11: 64 seating a total of 125 at what we call Crush Load.
Speaker 0: Well, no. So actually.
Speaker 11: I would wait. I would wait for the next train.
Speaker 0: 125 is standing. What is crush load?
Speaker 11: 125. That's 64 seated and the rest standing. Okay. So four card train would have 500.
Speaker 0: So you might have to bet cleanup on this one as well. Well, not on this one, but the follow up. What? So do you know what the stadium of the capacity is of mile high? The seating capacity there, the mile high stadium.
Speaker 8: Yeah. I don't.
Speaker 2: Personally know.
Speaker 0: 77. So I'm going to think about 76,000. Exactly. Councilman Brooks wins that one in then. Do you know what percentage is of that seating capacity that takes the Broncos?
Speaker 8: Right. I'm not.
Speaker 0: Anyone want to venture a guess on what the percentages just tell us because I kind of get that offline. It is between ten and 14%. So thank you. I'm asking those questions because and you know. Well, you guys are in the sort of I won't go into comment, but. Well, my concerns at committee.
Speaker 5: Were large, were.
Speaker 0: Overwhelmingly mildly addressed. I heard some things tonight that give me a lot of pause again. And in you know, you've always heard my concerns about traffic and transit and stuff like that. And more and more sort of sitting here going, how does this how does this work? And if it's really 25 to $50000 to sort of figure this one out or in the in the ballpark, which I think is sort of due diligence sort of costs. I think it's important that that that I see that. So just. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thanks. My first question is about the hotline. I'm not sure who would address that, but what I want to know is who will manage it and will the responses be in real time? Will there be a live person answering the phones? And if there are, you know, real issues that need to be addressed? How is that being handled?
Speaker 8: So there will be.
Speaker 5: A 24 hour.
Speaker 8: Manned hotline both for the. Originally it was for the festival three days. And in the.
Speaker 10: Course of the public.
Speaker 6: Discussions over several.
Speaker 8: Weeks, we added for the build up and build out period as well.
Speaker 7: So how many days in total?
Speaker 8: So while the total rental period is five weeks, so the response time I think is a half an hour by contract. So we have to have a response within a half an hour during this concert and within an hour, I believe in the end, the beginning and the end and will be manned by a person all the time and that's by contract. So that's something that.
Speaker 7: If so, that's four, five weeks during set up the event itself and then takedown it'll.
Speaker 8: Run the whole time.
Speaker 7: Will there be any fireworks as part of the event at all?
Speaker 8: I think it's not you know, it's not anticipated at this point. And I think, you know, when we put together the programing slate, we'll work with the city on that and both our security plan. But that's not anticipated currently.
Speaker 7: Okay. The reason I'm asking is because, you know, in the past, when Barry Fey used to do concerts that had fireworks at the end at Mile High Stadium, he would actually pay the cost of having the animal control people come out because people's dogs would, you know, jump through fences. And I mean, they were just roaming the neighborhood and they would help pick them up and try to get them connected back. And there was a hotline where they could connect people to it and whatnot. Is that something you all have talked about with the neighborhoods? Is that something you're willing to do?
Speaker 6: Well, I think.
Speaker 10: The the you know, the issue is, Rick said, is there's a.
Speaker 8: Series of acts that go and the final act has to end by 10:00. And there's no intention to keep people on the on the event space any longer than that. So I think it's unlikely we would do anything like that. But now we've talked to we can't move forward without the security plan, the ingress you guys plan. All of those plans will anticipate that issue. And we can't move forward with the festival unless those plans are approved by well.
Speaker 7: And I would suspect that to a large degree it would restrict part of your seating area and all of that because you have to sectioned off an entire area and, you know, if it's drier. You know, as as we've had hotter days, you know, the likelihood for a fire or something I think are real. And so I would I would advise against it. So I just wanted to ask about that. I want to ask the city attorney what the if if there are penalties built into the contract for cancelation, if things just totally go awry and we decide that we don't want to continue it into the future. I know when we did the Grand Prix, you know, the anticipation was we would do it for the fall. I think it was three years, but I think we ended up only doing it for one or two of the four years of that time frame. So are there penalties for us not continuing to move forward for the full five years of this?
Speaker 3: Proposed contract defender of his city attorney's office. We have provisions, a default.
Speaker 4: Clause in the contract that.
Speaker 3: Requires us to give notice and a right to cure of any defaults that have occurred. The city would have the right to terminate the contract for a substantial breach, so we would have to document that and they would have to give them the right to cure it to see if we could resolve the issue.
Speaker 7: And if if so, the right to cure that assumes that the next year they're going to cure the problems that happened this year or they have to cure them. Day one before day two and day three continue. Help me understand what that means.
Speaker 3: Obviously, it would depend on the type of breach that we were talking about.
Speaker 7: Okay. All right. So. I think I don't have any other questions right at this point. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. I remember the Denver Grand Prix. Councilwoman, you were on the council at the time. They had a five year contract, and after the first year, they expected to lose about a half million. They lost 5 million and they wanted out the next year and they went bankrupt after the second. I just want to mention that I think Bill Daniels took it upon himself to write a check to cover all those losses and God bless them. This kind of reminds me of that. It in the presentation to the committee that I saw after I was out that week, but I went back and looked at it. Either happy or Fred can address this. $200,000 is what will be paid to us for each year's rent of the golf course. Is that right?
Speaker 2: Yes, that's correct.
Speaker 11: As well. Yes. Okay. I just want to wait to get to the mic. Okay. But then it says that we will waive we will credit them with $200,000. That's correct. So are they getting it for zero? Well, there's many other revenue streams coming to the city. Okay. Obviously, the 10% tax. Right. There's $2 per ticket. There's $90,000 for a landscape position at Overland. Right. So, you know, it's a we looked at it and the promoters looked at it as a package. Okay. And so. And the $200,000 of waived expenses is part. So if we're going to credit them with $200,000, why are we charging them $200,000? Are they going to give us a check? And we just do one $2,000 goes to golf. And since it's an enterprise fund, there's the issue of splitting money. So it's $200,000 going to golf. Now, the the Denver, the DRC, the revised municipal code, requires that anybody who has an event in a city park that will have more than 25 participants, and I assume you will have at least that many the concessionaire is required to deposit with the city the full cost of what we expect to be any city expenditures for that permitted event. Do you have an estimate of what the city. First of all, I question whether if we credit them with it, whether we're actually abiding by the code. But do we have an estimate of what we think we will have to spend? To support city services to this event. How much will that cost? I imagine it could be more than $200,000. Anything that's in addition to that $200,000 will be paid by the promoter. Do we know what that is? I don't anticipate there to be very much more. Most of it's for with outside contracts. Okay. So in there, they've committed to reimbursing our expenses in terms of rangers, golf, maintenance staff. So whatever we need to support and monitor them, they will reimburse. When will we know that? Because according to the code, the city code says that you can't give them the permit or happy can't give them the permit until they've deposited that in advance. Is that. Yeah. This is my contract. I mean, I would defer to the city attorney's office. Okay. The DMC that you're referencing, I'm not familiar with. Okay. And I believe the terms of the contract supersede the city code. I hope not.
Speaker 2: I don't know if that's the right for it. Okay. Contract terms.
Speaker 3: Now, Councilman, I have to take a look at the provision.
Speaker 11: It's 39, dash 73.
Speaker 3: Okay. We'll take a look at that.
Speaker 11: All right, Mr. Pratt, that's all I have for now.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Great. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. You are backup. Is there any. And forgive me for not looking at this. Is there any provision for neighborhood cleanup after afterwards? And does it. How far does that extend?
Speaker 11: So yes, the contract has provisions for overnight cleanup during the festival and at the end the actual dimensions of that area have yet to be determined. But we will determine that for for the for the promoters, we will define that.
Speaker 0: Area as somebody who lives next to the stadium. What you get a lot is is, is people leaving the stadium and either just dumping the things out of their car and leaving on the street or people picking, getting Uber.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 0: Overrides and stuff like that in the neighborhood and again, just leaving whatever they don't want to.
Speaker 11: Pack with them. So, yes, so that is a requirement. Multiple sweeps through the neighborhood overnight is part of the contract.
Speaker 0: And then I don't know if this is happy or the city attorney, but can somebody obtain a First Amendment permit to do something like the Women's March in Overland Golf Course?
Speaker 3: So in terms of getting General Assembly a right to assemble Kermit inside of in the parks, the forms that we usually have for First Amendment protected activity, it would be what are called traditional public forums, usually in a park or within a street. And we have, through park rules, designated what those areas are that are amenable to having First Amendment activity.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's going to lead to other questions, but I'll bring them offline. Thanks, I think. Sorry. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Couple of questions and then I'll leave it to Councilman Clark to close us out. So we had one of the speakers kind of get into the parks policy happy. And so just want to. Is this a this is this a designated park?
Speaker 12: I'm sorry. Say that.
Speaker 0: Is this a designated park?
Speaker 12: Yes. It's a it's a part of our designated park system. It's a golf golf course, part of our golf enterprise.
Speaker 0: And is this you know, I deal with the admission based event policy question in a second, but we're this the Enterprise Fund, we're generating revenue. And are there other private events that are on this golf course? Well.
Speaker 12: I mean, in addition to the golf enterprise itself, it is a it is a fee based operation. All of our golf courses are fee based operations. They're open to the public, but they are fee based operations.
Speaker 0: Yeah, but we've. But my question is, I think this came up by one of the speakers. Have we had other private events on that golf course that were other than golf related?
Speaker 12: I, I don't believe we have on Overland, but I.
Speaker 5: Think that our.
Speaker 12: Director of golf is here and he could speak to.
Speaker 0: That. Okay.
Speaker 12: This is Scott Lake, who's director of golf.
Speaker 0: Scott was shaking his head back there. But we're going to make you come to with golf.
Speaker 8: Yeah, we do have private golf tournaments. Several of them.
Speaker 0: Okay. Do you have any private parties at all?
Speaker 10: We do have private.
Speaker 6: Parties in the clubhouse, yes.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. And then one more question. Happy the emission based event. I think we all remember that conversation. How does this how does that policy affect this particular golf course?
Speaker 12: So the admission based events policy addresses our parks. The golf courses are under the auspices of our golf enterprise. So they are a little bit different. That's one of the reasons why we approach this whole effort through means of a contract.
Speaker 0: Mm hmm. Okay. Thank you. And we add to the cost of the ticket. And thank you, Councilman Cashman, for doing that, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I don't have any questions, in part because I think the entire team from the city side, from the Superfly side for being you know, I've been asking questions for months and months and months. And I appreciate you making yourselves available to me at weird hours with requests from constituents and getting back to me in a very timely manner. On all of that, I just wanted to take a second to thank all of you for all of your hard work on this getting us to here. I wanted to thank all my colleagues for letting everybody speak, to give you an idea of just how local Denver politics can be if we had cut it at an hour. We have been cutting parents and grandparents of both one of my daughters best friends at school and someone I went to high school with. And so I appreciate you letting every single person speak their mind and their peace and their opinion. And most of all, I want to thank all of you who came out here and sat through a very long night and stuck with it and who have been so passionate on both sides of this. This is the community dialog that makes us better as a community and as a city. And at the end of the day, no matter what happens here, your voice is so important to that process and your passion and your thoughts and your ideas and the things that you think of that nobody else did and you bring to the table. And so I just wanted to thank everyone for being here and sticking it out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Councilman Clark, I'm going to ask you one quick question before we close. There are about five, six, maybe seven people who kept saying this is a done deal. And so as someone who has been on the ground working on this. How would you respond to that?
Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you. And that's something that's really hard for me to hear, because I don't feel like this has been a done deal at any point, including next week, when this vote is going through to to say yes or no. I think that it's hard sometimes when we're facing a tough decision and you feel like maybe there are more people on one side than your side or you feel things should be done a certain way. I think to see that and as I shared in committee, there's no set policy for when someone comes and says, can we do this on a golf course? We don't have a set thing like we do with rezonings. And so some people thought that we should do it one way. And I navigated that the best that I could, the best that I know how. And so, you know, I think that. Absolutely. At no point have I certainly thought that this was a done deal. So I don't know who they're getting that from or where they got that from. This was a, you know, important process and certainly not going to stand here and say that it was a perfect process or that everyone is going to get what they want at the end of the day, because at the end of the day, we we got to vote yes or no. Not everybody wins. But I think and I think we heard it from a lot of other people about the process being robust and could have been more robust. But I don't know where that came from. And it does make me sad because I do think that I've spent a lot of time listening and everybody involved with this has spent a lot of time listening. And I think that's really important. And I know that it can be frustrating to get to a point and think or be afraid that you're not going to get what you want to do, but that's different than it actually being a done deal. So I don't know if that answers your question.
Speaker 0: It does. Last quick question from when you first heard about this proposal until today, how long has that been?
Speaker 6: A long time. I don't remember when I first the meeting that we had when you guys called me in and said. Okay. About a year.
Speaker 0: So. So it's been a year process.
Speaker 6: And don't quote me on that. I would have to double check when exactly that was. But.
Speaker 0: Okay. The public hearing for 6087 is now closed. We will have comments next week on Monday, July 31st. We will conclude by doing a final vote. And I want to thank the city council members who've been here since 230.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Multi-Year Festival Lease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Denver Festivals LLC for the use of Overland Golf Course for a multi-day, multi-stage musical festival.
Approves a lease agreement with Denver Festivals, LLC, for five years at an annual rate of $200,000 with additional monetary and non-monetary considerations to produce an annual three-day music festival at Overland Golf Course in Council District 7 (201735508). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-14-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 6-20-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Clark called out this resolution at the Monday, July 24, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, July 31, 2017.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07242017_17-0565
|
Speaker 0: And please refrain from obscene or and direct your comments to members of Council Hall and refrain from individual and personal attacks. Councilman New, will you now put Council Bill 565 on the floor.
Speaker 10: And move the Council Belfast three to be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved in second it. Public hearing for council 565 is now open. We have staff report.
Speaker 5: Scott Robinson thank you, Mr. President. And Council. Scott Robinson with community planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 8504 East Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard from CMU. 22 rx5a property is located in Council District eight in the Stapleton neighborhood at the corner of MLK Boulevard and Central Park Boulevard, also bounded by Willow Street and 29th place. It's across an Oak Boulevard from Central Park. The property is about three acres and is currently vacant. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to develop the property. The requested rezoning is from C 20, which is an old code. Former Chapter 59 Zoning of commercial mixed use to mrx5a which is the master plan. Neighborhood Context residential mixed use five storey maximum height. The next master plan in context is a bit unusual. We don't see a lot of it, but it's allowed in areas that have a general development plan of at least 50 acres and on sites that are more than a quarter mile away from a transit station. As mentioned, it's a residential mixed use, which Will has up to five stories with a wide range of building forms and uses. As mentioned, the property is governed by a general development plan, the Stapleton Redevelopment South General Development Plan, which calls for mixed use development neighborhoods which incorporate multiple uses. And includes urban design standards and guidelines. As mentioned, the site is currently zoned c 20 as is the property to the west. Properties to the south and east are zoned r m 30 with waivers that residential mixed use and to the north is again Central Park, which is zoned open space. The reason this property was not resumed in 2010 was because at the time it looked like it was part of a plan. Building group and properties that were part of planned building groups were not resound in 2010 to the new code. However, upon closer examination, while this property was going through this current rezoning, we realized it was not actually included in that building group. So it's not part of the plan building group. But that's why it was not resolved in 2010. As mentioned, the site is currently vacant and to the north is the park. On the other three sides are residential mix of single-family, duplex and townhomes. You can see in the pictures here, the currently vacant property there in the center, the park above that, and then a variety of residential around it. This application went to the planning board on May 3rd, where it was recommended for approval by a 5 to 4 vote. There are also four members of the public there that spoke about it went to the Land Use Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 23rd and has received 18 letters of public comment as of. Thursday morning, which you have included in your packet. In order to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria are met. The first criterion is consistency with adopted plans. There are three plans that apply to this property. The first being comprehensive plan 2000, as described in the staff report. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning complies with the four strategies listed here, mostly having to do with promoting mixed use development. The next plan is Blueprint Denver from 2000 to the proposed future concept plan to use and for this property in Blueprint. Denver is single family residential, which calls for predominantly single family homes and density less than ten units per acre, but does allow for some employment and some variety in housing types. So we're looking at just this individual. BLOCK The proposed zoning does not match up with the the proposed future land use, but we're looking at the much larger single family residential area within Stapleton and accounting for that allowed variety and variability within that staff with the proposed zoning could be consistent with that land use designation. This is also an area of change. Blueprint. Denver also includes street classifications. Both Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard and Central Park Boulevard are designated mixed use arterials, which call for higher intensity and mix of uses along them. Both 29th Place and Willow Street are designated locales which are intended to serve as access connecting individual properties to larger streets. Blueprint. Denver also includes specific recommendations for the Stapleton area that calls for a network of urban villages within Stapleton and mixed use development to reduce the number of trips and life of trips taken. So considering the land use concept calling for single family, but the streets calling for mixed use development and the recommendations for the Stapleton area , Steph believes that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Blueprint Denver recommendations. The third plan is the Stapleton Development Plan from 1995. This property is in District two of that plan, which calls for predominantly employment with some residential areas adjacent to parks similar to the site. It also calls for higher densities, more intense development at intersections such as this one, and call specifically for higher density housing at Yosemite, which as it was developed, ended up being Central Park Boulevard and what's now Central Park. So the site we're talking about right now. So we're looking at the overall plan direction from Blueprint and from the Stapleton development. Seems to be some inconsistency, some calling for single family residential, some calling for higher intensity and employment. And Steph believes that the M or s5a is an adequate compromise of those different plan directions. And so finds that. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Steph has found that the proposed rezoning will result in the uniform application of the Matrix five zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning will do so by implementing the city's adaptive plans and allow and facilitating the development of a currently vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning is justified by the current development of Stapleton. Stapleton has not significantly since this property was initially zoned in the nineties and given the nature of the development steps from the proposed rezoning from CMU to 20, a commercial mixed use to AMR X5, a residential mixed use is justified. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed marks five eight zone districts will allow development consistent with the description of the master plan, neighborhood context and the metrics for the purpose and intent as described in the zoning code so that staff finds that all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Scott. All right. This evening, we have 20 speakers and I'm going to call the first five speakers and I'm going to ask the folks in the front row if you could find a seat back here, because we're going to use this front row for the speakers to sit. And it's got that and that includes you. Okay. Call the first five speakers up. Bruce O'Donnell. Jim Christman. John Van Hoff. Sekou and Suzanne. Shuttle Challenger. Sorry about that. Bruce O'Donnell, you are first.
Speaker 10: Actually. Do you mind if I. I'm Jim Christian of Forest City. And we talked about maybe maybe going first.
Speaker 5: That's okay.
Speaker 0: Um, we have an order in which we can do things, if that's okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Okay.
Speaker 15: Thank you. Good evening, Mr. President. Members of council. My name is Bruce O'Donnell, and I'm at 770 Sherman Street in Denver, Colorado. I'm a representative for Forest City Stapleton on this rezoning, this site, which is currently zoned CMU 20, which is left over from the old Chapter 59 code, has always been zoned for mixed density MIT pardon me, mid density, mixed use development. Ever since the former Stapleton Airport closed in the first zoning was put on it in 1999. It's been zoned CMU 20. The current CMU 20 zoning does not limit building heights, and it is for air or floor area ratio driven zoned district as opposed to a form base district like is in our current code and like will be in the mrx5a as such today it's a use by right that 132,000 square feet of building could be developed on this site, including a wide range of commercial uses. And in fact, as you can see in the packet that was provided to you, there's been a sign on the property you might notice for ten years now that this is a future high density, mixed use site, development site. Pardon me. The rezoning request before you this evening will allow similar type development as is allowed today to occur on the property with the following important differences. One Unlike the current zoning building heights are limited to five storeys with the more x5a. As I mentioned, the CMU 20 does not have a building height limitation. Unlike the current zoning, commercial uses are limited to only be allowed on the ground floor in the new zoning and in the CMU 20 commercial could be on every floor . And then in addition, and importantly, far fewer commercial uses are allowed in the Mar x five, which is predominantly a residential mixed use district. In addition to all of that, in in response to neighborhood input, the applicant for City Stapleton has voluntarily offered and agreed to limit building heights to three stories along the east and south. Portions of the property adjacent to where there is existing development today in that offer is in response to input heard from nearby residents. Four City is firmly committed to continuing its partnership with the city and the community to responsibly develop all of Stapleton and to implement the Stapleton Development Plan in May. X5, combined with this voluntary height limitation, is the right zoning in the best zoning to foster the quality development for a city envisions finishing out the development of Stapleton with for these reasons and also for consistency with the staff report recommending approval and planning board recommending approval. I formally request the planning or excuse me the City Council vote to approve map amending application 2016 i0011 to rezoning 8504 East MLK Boulevard and 2962 Boulevard from See Me 25. Thank you.
Speaker 0: You on time and sorry we did not have your time up there. Mr. Jim Christman.
Speaker 10: Yes. Thank you. My name is Jim Christman. I'm a senior vice president with four city Stapleton, just 7351 East 29th Avenue and Denver 80238. I'd just like to reiterate a couple of the things you've already heard. I think there are important points. The first is this is consistent with the master plan for state plan that was adopted over 20 years ago as an amendment to the comprehensive plan. There's very specific language in that plan that calls out for higher density housing into two places one adjacent arterials and two adjacent to large scale amenities.
Speaker 5: Parks like Central Park.
Speaker 10: So knowing that that was always the plan when the infrastructure for Stapleton was designed, it was designed with the. Understanding that the trip count on this corner could be what it would be with the zoning. So the Central Park Boulevard and MLK have the capacity to handle any trips that are generated from this this project. The Bruce mentioned some of the uses under the current zoning that wouldn't be allowable under the new zoning. And I'll give you a few examples of that. Any type of manufacturing facility is allowable under CMU 20th building could have a single storey 135,000 foot manufacturing facility. Would we do that now but in the future? You know, you never know what might happen. Gas stations are also allowable as well as recycling collection facilities. Just to give another example and then again, we heard, you know, we did we did have some interface with the neighborhoods. We did hear their concerns. And we're trying to address their concern by offering a step by step back the building height immediately to the single family homes from three stories to five to manage the transition and to move across the street to three. And then when you get further into the project and up against the major arterials, it would go to five. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Christmann. John Van.
Speaker 5: I asked Scott if I could. Good evening. My name is John Van Hoff. I reside at 8542 East 29th place, just south of the area. In consideration this time, I would like to ask those in the audience and opposition to this matter to raise their hands for a few seconds. Within 200 feet of this site, there are 40 to 45 homes. I would appreciate if you could focus on the pictures of our homes, on your monitor as we speak. Since mid April, the biggest problem with the application has been that Forest City does not have a developer or a site plan. In light thereof. We have to assume the worst under the proposed zoning. That being a five story apartment condo building, first floor commercial, and the associated traffic, parking and safety concerns. Forest City originally told the neighbors that the site would contain 130 to 150 units. By June that had increased to 225 units. And to make things worse, it appears that the neighbors have little or no say in the permitting process. A massive five storey structure consuming the entire three acre site does not fit into the surrounding neighborhood of some 40 single family homes, paired homes and townhomes. I should also note that from All-Star Street to Havana, some 24 blocks, there are only one, two and three storey residences. I should also note that from Ulster East Bridge, some 20 blocks, there is no commercial except for Punchbowl. While appreciating Scott helping me to understand the very complicated zoning process. Thanks, Scott. I cannot agree with him and CPD that the proposed zoning meets all five review criteria. Specifically, we feel that the proposed zoned district does not further the public health, safety and welfare, and secondly, that it is not consistent with the neighborhood context. In brief, putting a five storey building on this site is totally incompatible with the neighborhood. There is already excessive traffic on MLK and CPB, plus extreme congestion at the intersection due to that congestion, entrances and exits to the complex problem. We will probably be on our side streets that would be unsafe for the neighbors. In conclusion, I would ask that you consider the information I and my neighbors are presenting and reject the proposed zoning for not furthering the public health, safety and welfare and not being consistent with the neighborhood context. If additional traffic safety data is needed, I suggest a postponement until a traffic study can be done. However, if you disagree with a neighbor's position and desire to approve the request, then we ask that you approved with conditions, and those conditions should address those concerns expressed by the neighbors this evening. I thank you for your time and consideration.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Must have enough scoop.
Speaker 13: Yes. My name is Chairman Sekou. I'm the founder organizer for the Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. We come before council today to support this zoning change. And we come to support the zoning zoning change but certain. Conditions. Which have been outlined by the previous speakers who were opposed to this zoning change. Now. We already know how this thing is going to go down. Council was going to approve this zoning change. You're going to do it. It wouldn't get to the floor if you didn't have the votes. So consider a president. Seriously. The opposition. Conditions because we have a serious problem with these developers in our neighborhood, particularly when it pertains to black people. See there's going to be a lot of jobs available with all this construction done in Stapleton, but there's an abysmal record of black participation on these sites. You go by them sites, you don't see no black folks working. None. Not one even holding a stop sign. And then you come before council with these glorious plans, systematically excluding black people from participating in the benefits that are happening in the city. So the question becomes political courage. Now these sites have to be overseen by city council as this developed. Otherwise, we have a systematic participation of city council and excluding black participation and employment within the city. And so we're faced with the challenge of not looking the other way. Now, Dr. King once said that there comes a time when things have to be done that aren't necessarily. Comfortable. And they're not necessarily politically expedient and they're the right thing to do. And so he said in 1957, you show me a man and woman who has nothing they're willing to fight for. They are not fit to live. Go out to City Park and read his statue. So where do we go from here? Can we go from chaos or do we go to community? So I'm supporting this measure with these conditions. So folks are real clear. We have some serious, serious work to do. And I salute city council for being present here with the existing members and also those that have been here for a while this cycle. Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Suzanne Chandler.
Speaker 3: I have to break this down. Thank you very much. Good evening, everybody. And I do want to just preface everything I say. The plan for Stapleton was made 20 years ago. Things have changed in Denver, so. I am in favor of developing the parcel MLK Boulevard and Central Park boulevards, but development to be useful and successful should be intelligent, appropriate and compassionate, and should be in harmony with the surrounding neighborhood. The tio d plan only a half a mile from this site is everything it ought to be to enhance the neighborhood, a vibrant, urban style enclave anchored around a transit hub providing for retail.
Speaker 7: Housing and office.
Speaker 3: Space. This parcel under consideration here has none of those qualifications positioned at a notoriously congested, fast moving and hazardous intersection site of numerous accidents. The proposed project is a behemoth of 225 one and two bedroom units with ground floor retail. This will add hundreds of new residents, visitors and their cars to the residential area. Additionally, the heavy traffic on the boulevards will force all this added traffic from the proposed complex, as well as delivery trucks serving the retail spaces onto Willow Street and 29th place. Changing the nature of the residential neighborhood and creating a formidable safety risk to the citizens, children, parents and grandparents who bike, walk, jog and stroll. I urge you implore you to be good neighbors and reject any proposed zoning that allows for development not compatible with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood currently and solidly made up of townhomes, paired and single family homes. Please, all council women and men be good neighbors and preserve the integrity of our neighborhood and the safety of all its residents by voting against misguided and reckless zoning choices. I thank you.
Speaker 0: Ma'am. Can you state your name for the record, please? Excuse me. You didn't state your name at the beginning and you stated for the record.
Speaker 3: State my name. Yes. I'm sorry. Suzanne Challinor. I live at 85, 61 East 29th Avenue.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Gellar. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay, now I'm going to call the next five. No, Lawrence. Judy Bolen. Robin. I'm sorry if I mispronounce your name. Krakowski. Jane Warner. Let's see. One, two, three. And one more, Laura, Twitter. No. Lawrence, your first.
Speaker 8: Hi. I'm Noel Lawrence and I live in Denver and my address is 8462 East 29th Place. I reside to the south of the property in question. And it's a. Suburban courtyards and. Beyond the fact that it doesn't really make sense for. The location in terms of having a huge apartment complex by the hour, suburban homes. It really is a traffic and safety issue because as it appears as though what would happen is the curb cuts or entrances and exits would go in on Willow and on 29th place, which are side streets and very small side streets, actually. And. My children and other people's children play on the garden courtyard and. This really would decrease the safety of our children and of us having these be the cut ins where they're they would probably end up paying. And the Son community organization in Stapleton has voiced their concerns, too, about regarding the safety. In a letter that they sent to council. And again, it's not appropriate for the setting. There's this huge Todd development that's going to go on down the street at the where the light rail is. And so. That's really where these kind of buildings belong. And for city has plenty of space to make piles of money and. You have their commercial development. But again, it doesn't make sense at this intersection. Thank you for considering the negative impact that this will have on our community. And. Please. Please vote no.
Speaker 0: Thank you. LAWRENCE Thank you. All right. Judy Berlin.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's me. I'm Judy Bulow. I'm at 8461 East 29th Avenue. Sorry about that. Which is, again, south of the lot we're talking about. We brought our home 11 years ago, and we're promised a certain measure of light, openness and livability. We're kind of like the tumbleweeds that were coming down the sidewalk in the streets, but the tumbleweeds are gone. But I'm afraid with this apartment complex that our way of life is threatened. And the people who live across from the apartment that they're talking about, their way of life is threatened to. I have two main concerns. One is the more traffic, more accidents. The traffic is unbearable right now. There's people speeding. There are people going through red lights. I can't even imagine what it would be like with an apartment complex. And also, the punchbowl is going to be open soon. And that's where the tower, the repurposing of the tower, the tower that's still there. And that is like an amusement center. It's a bar. It's a bowling alley. It's going to have a lot of people in there. And that's going to increase the traffic, too, because they want families during the day. They want drinkers at night till one or two in the morning. Um. Let's see. Okay. I also have noticed school kids, walkers, couples, bikers, joggers, families, runners, cats and dogs and other varieties of animals using Central Park and Martin Luther King for their routes. I can't even imagine what an apartment complex would do to all of us who live close to their apartment. Complexes, by their nature, are busy and transitional at best, with dwellers coming and going, visiting, moving in, moving out on 20 place, 29th place and Willow, both of which are very narrow streets. Homes are a little different. We already have a boatload of apartments on Martin Luther King. We have apartments coming in, as the other man suggested. Down by the train center. Is Stapleton going to be an apartment complexes? The whole thing going to be apartments? I feel like it is. Well, let's see. What why do we need more apartments? Why here in this little place, this vacant lot? Why now? I also wonder, is this building complex? We're doing this duty for our homes, not to mention the quality of this man.
Speaker 0: Excuse me. You're out of time.
Speaker 3: I know. Yeah, I know. You're out of time. My question is to finish. Why don't we know you really.
Speaker 0: You really have to. You have to sit down because we have to honor everybody else. People. Thank you. We have to honor everybody else's time. Thank you. Good points. Okay, Robin. Crack down, ski. I'm sorry. Oh, did I?
Speaker 3: Good job.
Speaker 0: Come on. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Members of the council president. Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to address you. My name is Robin Krakowski, and I've lived in Colorado in Stapleton for five and a half years. Although I currently live in Bluff Lake, I lived in the neighborhood adjacent to the lot in question for a couple of years. Coming from the East Coast. What I love most about Stapleton is the thoughtful and deliberate attention that's been given to the development of each neighborhood. And each little neighborhood within each few blocks clearly have a different feel and atmosphere. So it is beyond any understanding why this parcel of land would be treated differently and not be developed to match the surrounding neighborhood of residents as. A large five five story complex apartment does not fit. I am in and by this neighborhood on a daily basis. This intersection is one of, if not the busiest in Stapleton. Adding additional high density and high traffic.
Speaker 7: Activity to this.
Speaker 3: Location seems reckless. Punchbowl Social across the street, a men's development at the transit center and the expansion of MLK in the Central Park Bridge. All will increase activity dramatically to this location. And that's not to mention what already occurs with the park right there. Retail options already exist for this neighborhood. The 29th Avenue Town Center, Stanley Market Place and East Bridge are less than a mile with much more to come at the transit center. We don't need more restaurants, liquor stores, dry cleaners, or work out places, especially right here. I encourage the Council to only entertain a zoning that would allow for one, two and three level homes, townhomes and condos. I don't believe that any other decision is reasonable or appropriate. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Krakowski. All right, Jane Warner.
Speaker 3: Members of council. Good evening. My name is Jane Warner and I reside at 2962 Willow Street in Denver, just east of the lot proposed for rezoning. I have lived at this address for 11 years. As I stated in my letter to council, we always knew that that lot would be developed, but we expected that it would be something that would fit in with the neighborhood, homes and surroundings, because that's what we were told. There are issues I am concerned about with the rezoning of this lot to more of a changing the character of the neighborhood parking, etc.. But the main concern I want to address tonight is this the corner of MLK and Central Park Boulevard is already an extremely busy intersection. Or as Tom Gleason from Forest City says, main arterial, main street to Main Street. The traffic has increased greatly in the last 11 years and is only going to get worse. Things like the extension of MLK, the expansion of the Bridge, the Punchbowl Social, of which Mr. Thompson described the development as part art, part science and the sciences. The great demographics of the Stapleton area, including its proximity of Interstate 70, which could make it not only a neighborhood draw, but a potential regional destination. I understand it's his business, but for that corner, more traffic. Because Central Park Boulevard and MLK is a main arterial with a lot of traffic, cars, people, pets, lots of accidents and a lot of near misses. And the city's usual requirement that prevents traffic entrance from the main arteries. Chances are that the entrances to this lot and the exits would be on Willow and 29th place. This would really increase the traffic on Willow, which is an already busy street, especially when there are events at the park. Holidays like Halloween and then add to the potential of 200 plus apartments and their tenants. With this increase in people in traffic, safety becomes the most utmost priority. There are times when our milk is like a raceway. Then cars turn onto willow and drive in the same manner. And we don't want to have another injury fatality like the one years ago on Central Park and 29th. In closing, I know that Mr. Gleason has said that Denver has said that putting the high density structures at major arterials is the way to go, but it's not necessarily the right thing in the end. Once for a city sells the remaining lots and Stapleton, they will be gone to develop other areas and our neighborhoods will be here 24 seven and we need to protect them and especially the people who live here. Therefore, I am asking you to consider opposing this rezoning and encourage Barr City to resubmit for MH three zoning. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Warner. All right. Laura Tweedle.
Speaker 3: Good evening, President and members of council. My name is Laura Tuttle. I reside at eight, six, six three East 29th place. When I bought my home in July of 2007, I was told that that lot would be filled with single family homes, period homes and townhouses, which was taken under consideration when we made the decision to move to Stapleton. Now, ten years later, I'm being told that it's just been three rezone and filled with an apartment building that could be up to five stories tall. I've been living in this area for ten years. When I moved to Stapleton. Ten years ago, there were 6500 people that lived there. Now there's 74,000. You can imagine the traffic and Central Park and MLK. I've said it that way at 5:00 through at least three lights trying to get through that intersection. That's without any additional housing right now. It's bad enough as it is with the additional with all the people that live there. Then when the punchbowl is finished, I can discern about what the traffic will be like. In addition to the safety factors, as Jane mentioned, there was a death a few years ago at 29th and Central Park. There could be another one, and I wouldn't be surprised if there was because of the way people raced through there and then they turn off of MLK onto Willow and continue to race. I've seen people fly through there at 40, 45 miles an hour. I'm sure there's other things to be done about that, but I am very concerned about what would be built there. I'm opposed to the bill and I would like to see more residential, more single family homes, paired homes and townhouses. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Wade. Donna Davis.
Speaker 3: Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Donna Davis. I live at 8600 East 29th Avenue. Denver 80238. I moved into this address in 2003. There was nothing to the north of us. It was vacant fields all the way to Dick's Sports Arena. I live right on the southeast corner of Willow and 29th Avenue. Over the past 14 years, my husband and I have witnessed the growth in our neighborhood, and we have supported every ballot issue to build schools, improve infrastructure. We support the growth of Stapleton. However, we do not support the high density growth in this area. We are opposed to rezoning of this high density area for three reasons. Parking. The increased traffic to the neighborhood and safety and security concerns. Currently overflow parking from events that occur at Central Park. They park on Willow Street and Willow is a narrow residential street. So you add more cars from the apartment complex to that and it will increase the congestion in that area even more. The traffic. We've already talked to a lot of folks have talked about the traffic in the area, but they haven't really talked about the Willow Street traffic that's currently occurring. We have a lot of busses that travel from north to south on Willow, because they go to the Westerly Creek. We have parents drive down Willow Street to drop their kids off at Westerly Creek. And we also have a lot of kids on bikes and walking to school. Adding 300 cars or are associated with this apartment building would impact that walkability bike ability neighborhood that we all bought into. I have safety concerns about the crime and theft that's happening in our area and with the transit community that lives in these high density apartments. I am concerned for the safety of our homes. So I ask you to oppose this bill.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Ms.. Davis. All right. I'm going to call the next five. Evan Melman. Leonard Spaghetti. David Robbins. Let's see. Leslie Lockhart. One more. Kara Kuzma. All right, Evan Melman, your first.
Speaker 14: Good evening, city council members. My name is Evan Millman and I live in Stapleton one block from the parcel in question. I'm an 8560 East 29th Avenue. First, I want to thank all of you for the work you do on our behalf. And I really want to thank Chris Herndon for being extremely responsive when I reached out to him to inquire about this process. I also reached out to Jim Christman and city planner Scott Robinson, also both very responsive. So I appreciate that. But I strongly oppose the rezoning application because although it seems like it might offer more residential options than the current zoning, the intended use that Jim Christman shared with me that we've been talking about tonight just doesn't fit the character of the community. And, you know, very simply, I don't know if I have anything new to add from what you've already heard, but it just to add 300 or more additional people on a three acre parcel in what is an entirely residential single family townhome community just will change the what it means to live there for the worse. And I think that the negative effects outweigh whatever positive benefits might be there for putting this amount of people in that space out of character of the neighborhood. There are five storey condo buildings in Stapleton. There's one being completed at 29th and Rosslyn, but that's the other end of Stapleton. There's existing buildings that match it that are already there. So people that live there are already on notice. The market's adjusted for it. And so in keeping with the immediate surrounding neighborhood, you know that real estate's local and it's very local within a couple of streets is what determines what it's like to live in your neighborhood. So if you go east down 29th to where this is, this parcel, it's a much different residential character. It's reasonable to develop the parcel. It's just unreasonable to develop it in a way that single handedly increases the population density, traffic, parking, congestion, so much so that it negatively impacts what it's like to live near it. Let me be clear. My objection is to the sheer number of additional people the development would add to the immediate surrounding neighborhood, regardless of the income, ethnicity, age, or any other characteristic of those people. I welcome responsible urban development in keeping with the immediate surrounding community, such as townhomes, income, qualified homes, single homes, even condos and apartments . Just fewer of them. I went and counted how many townhouses you could fit on this parcel, and by my estimate, you could put 46 townhomes that match townhomes across the street. If you did that, instead of 275 additional bedrooms, which is just one way to talk about this, you'd be adding 138 additional bedrooms. So there's still room to increase the residential character of that parcel. Much more in keeping with the neighborhood in a way that allows more people to move in without it changing the nature of living a block away. So I urge you to consider this application as though you lived a block away and ask yourself if you want to wake up the next day with 300 new neighbors. I respectfully request that you deny the zoning application. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Mellman. Leonard a.
Speaker 5: Good evening. Thank you. My name is Leonard Segreto.
Speaker 2: I live at 1994, Martin Luther King Boulevard.
Speaker 5: I'm not here to oppose the rezoning.
Speaker 2: I would hate to see this property continue as a commercial property. It could be much worse. Then the zoning.
Speaker 5: That exists or the proposed.
Speaker 2: Plan for this property. I am opposed, however, for the many reasons that you've already heard. For the development of this property and the proposed development of this property. The. The area is very, very congested already. We don't need more multi-family homes in this area.
Speaker 5: Thanks. I yield my time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Spaghetti, for yielding time. David Robbins.
Speaker 5: Really mean. President Brooks, members of the council, thank you very much for listening to us tonight. We appreciate your service to the city and understand sometimes you have to make hard decisions. I'm speaking on behalf of my wife and myself alone, a period home at 2958 Willow Street. We've owned that home for ten years. That's across from the subject property on Willow. We would ask you to oppose the proposed action that is before you tonight. We we really oppose a five story structure, five storeys at any location on this lot. When you look at the pictures that were.
Speaker 11: Provided by your.
Speaker 5: Staff, you can see that on four sides of this proposed structure, there is a city park and there are a whole group of single family duplex, parent home structures as well as townhome structures. A five story building, five stories at any point is both inconsistent and inappropriate at this location for a city has done a good job of developing the Stapleton community. There's no question about it. But as development winds to a close, I hate to see them seeking to maximize their financial returns on the backs of this neighborhood. A five story building with commercial. Where will the tenants and the employees park? They certainly are not going to park in parking constructed below ground, but for a city that they have to pay for. They can't afford to pay rent in a building as well as parking fees. So they'll park in the neighborhood, changing the character of the community for several blocks around. And where will access occur. You've heard from.
Speaker 11: Several of the speakers.
Speaker 5: Tonight that both Martin Luther King Boulevard and Central Park.
Speaker 11: Boulevard are major.
Speaker 5: Arterials in this part of the city. Traffic moves quickly. Traffic has high volumes at the intersection of those two streets. We have lanes that are.
Speaker 11: Designed to allow traffic.
Speaker 5: To accelerate or decelerate before making turns. It's unlikely that your traffic department is going to allow significant access into this parcel off of those sorts of streets. It just will create enormous confusion and congestion. So they will have to get into this space off of Willow and 29th to streets that are absolutely not designed, set up to manage that kind of commercial traffic. Therefore, we ask each of you to vote no.
Speaker 11: On this proposed agenda.
Speaker 5: Item and to support this community.
Speaker 11: Thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Robins. Lesley Lockhart.
Speaker 3: Hello. My name is Leslie Lou Card, and I am here tonight seeking to be educated about the development that has been in The Buzz. I live at 9074 MLK, which is just down from this proposed area. And I would like to speak in solidarity with the people who live on Willow and 29th and are objecting to a development of this size and scope at that location. For the same reasons, I feel there will be a significant change to the character of what's currently a wonderful neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Carol Kuzma.
Speaker 3: Hi. I'm Cara Katzmaier. I live at eight, six, five, four. Martin Luther King Junior Boulevard, about six doors east of Willow. And the lot in question. I'd rather be at home in my pajamas right now after a long workday, but I thought that this was important to come and talk about. I've lived on MLK for three and a half years, and in that time I've observed a glut of traffic both on MLK and Central Park. You guys are probably noticing a theme, seeing as they are the only real arteries through Stapleton. That should come as no surprise. For a city built a suburban neighborhood of quiet, single family homes bordered by higher density townhomes, primarily on these two main thoroughfares, with some commercial mixed in around the edges of the neighborhoods. By insulating the rest of the neighborhood from through, traffic planners have created a problematic high traffic zone, including high speeds, driving past residences and the park where our children play. I'm often nearly rear ended in the right turn lane so only right turn off of MLK onto Willow. When and often when pulling into the frontage road that the go in front of the townhomes on MLK. In my view, to add the potential of up to four stories of residential and a story of commercial at the intersection of these two arteries will tip the balance from a neighborhood community feel to a congested blight. Simply put, it's not why I chose to live in Stapleton while finalizing plans for developing this rezoning, presumably being a part of that. You must also view it within the context of the offer of the other nearby projects, of which there are a number. And while I hope they augment the neighborhood, they will undoubtedly add a lot of people in cars. Well, I purchased my home knowing it was on a busy corridor. I'm stunned to see the advancement of large scale development that doesn't quite fit the neighborhood. When it's placed on the edges of the neighborhood, it makes some sense and seems to have community acceptance. But I'm having trouble accepting the idea of it being in the virtual center of our community, surrounded primarily by homeowners. The scale of whatever development is built on that lot needs to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Kuzma. I'm going to bring up Mr. Mr. Robbins one more time. You just need to state your name for the record. You didn't get a chance to state your name.
Speaker 5: Mr. Kelly. Council President. I apologize. No, that's okay. Mr. David Robb It's great.
Speaker 0: And it's a fine, fine mustache you got there. All right, the next four individuals, uh, Eric Stanley, this is the last for Barry McDermott, Kim KENYON and John. Sure. Sure. Sure. Okay. Sorry about that, sir. Please correct me when you come up here. Eric Stanley, you're first.
Speaker 8: All right. Thank you, Mr. President. And Counsel. My concerns have been expressed by a lot of neighbors here. My name is Eric Stanley. I live at 8452 East 29th place, just south of the proposed lot. My concerns have been expressed by a lot of the neighbors here, and I thank them all for taking the time to do this. I just want to add a personal story. My wife and I bought the bought our house seven months ago when she. Nine months ago when she was seven months pregnant. And the reason that we chose this house over a lot of others is the wonderful courtyard that I believe nine of us neighbors share. We saw kids playing in there the moment that we looked in there. We look forward to my son Nate playing in there with me, whatever he's into. And my main worry is that a development of this size will increase the traffic like you guys have heard from many neighbors along 29th place and along Willow. That's my concern. I know that Denver is growing. I'm a transplant myself. I support growth in Stapleton. It's a wonderful community. We want to have new neighbors. We want to meet a lot more people for our son to play with. But I feel like the proposed development is just too massive in scale for it to remain safe on the streets that are right adjacent to a courtyard in front of our house. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Stanley Berry McDermott.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Barry McDermott I live at 8604 Martin Luther King Boulevard. My wife and I live right on the corner of Willow and Martin Luther King Boulevard, and we have lived there for about three and a half years, and we certainly know the experience of listening to the traffic rush by our Martin Luther King Boulevard. We also know the difficulties of turning right onto Willow. We have heard the accidents in our living room some evenings. We are not strangers to urban living. We've been in Denver for over 35 years. We lived in Capitol Hill for ten years. We live about ten blocks away from here on Bannock for another 20 years. And when we moved to Stapleton, we moved to Stapleton because of how crowded this part of Denver had gotten for us. And that's that seems to be the big concern is how much more crowded Stapleton will become if this particular unit housing unit is allowed to be developed there. As far as the zoning board goes, many people in here tonight do not agree with the rezoning of it. But I think those same people do not agree with the present zoning of it. And so we feel that that will have to be addressed at some point. Also. But just as a personal note, for three and a half years while I've lived here almost every day of the year, I go for a walk through this neighborhood and I either begin it or ended on the hill across the street from my house in the park. And when I stand on that hill and I look at this lot that we are talking about, for as long as I can see, there is nothing over three stories. And on Sundays I can see pretty far south from that vantage point. And so it is obvious to me, just by standing at that spot every day, that a five storey 200 unit complex on this three acre lot would be totally inappropriate. I also do not buy arguments that this was in the original plan because things have changed and those people who set out in the original plan not to their fault, they do not know what it is like to be in Stapleton right now, what it has become. And so we are asking that you vote no on this request because what is being proposed to be put in this place is not in character with what the neighborhood has become. As far as the president's zoning. It is not a good argument to me to say that a lot worse could be built there, because when that present zoning was given to that piece of land. It also was the wrong and inappropriate thing to zoning it for. So I ask you tonight, as all these people have spoken before me, I ask you to oppose this. And I thank you for listening to all of us.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. McDermott. Kim KENYON.
Speaker 3: My name is Kim KENYON and I live at 8704 East MLK Boulevard, which is just a little bit east of the. The the. Open lot. I do want to say that I have really loved what Four City has done. As many other speakers have mentioned before in Stapleton and some of the decisions that that that they have made have been wonderful. But this one, with the potential of this being a five storey building, as everybody else has mentioned, is something that is of great concern. When the building that I live in, based upon the argument that the 1995 plan stated that this should be a specific use. I live in MLK. 8704 MLK, which was never designed to be this because what happened, as all of you know, is that the economy plummeted and there were lots that could not be that nobody would would purchase as developers. And so lots stayed empty and vacant for years until the economy came back up. So actually many different changes have happened based upon need, not directly related to the original plan. For instance, a school was built and it wasn't supposed to be built in that area, but it was built based upon need because there were more children. So basing this on something from 1995 is not a valid argument. The arguments that everybody have made about it shouldn't really be taller than a three storey building. Any of you could drive there and you would agree in the meeting on May 3rd, many of the members of the committee that we that we spoke at in the May 3rd meeting where this was originally proposed, there was a very lengthy conversation and people knew that lot, lot plot of land. And it was that's where this compromise came about of, well, maybe we do three stories on on Will on 29th, and then we do five stories closer to Central Park in MLK . But that's not a zoning you want. Why don't you zone it and you say, yes, it's okay to do this. Then the developers get to do what they want. It's not like you get to say, Well, we're going to go ahead and put in this little agreement. A zoning is a zoning. And so I had asked a member for City why wasn't a request for zoning made for a three storey building? And my understanding is there isn't a zoning specifically for that height, so I don't know if that's accurate or not, but I did want to just mention that the other members that other people that that mentioned all this about retail, there is a lot of retail going in and I don't want us to overbuild Stapleton because we also have a lot of vacancy still in Northfield. We have open spaces in Quebec Square and I'm very we've got some open spaces in the Stanley and I'm very concerned that we're overbuilding retail and then we can't keep those those businesses alive. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss KENYON. All right. John Swire.
Speaker 2: Swire Schreyer, Scheuer. Thank you. All right. Thank you. My name is John Scheuer. I live at 8502 East 29th Place. Thank you for giving.
Speaker 5: Us the opportunity to speak council.
Speaker 2: We appreciate it. You know, these days you hear a lot about the lack of citizen involvement in our democratic process. Well, I think everybody here tonight has put that their arrest. To me, this rezoning issue boils down to two main points safety and quality of life.
Speaker 5: If you allow a five storey monstrosity to be built on this site, it will destroy.
Speaker 2: The fabric of our neighborhood and jeopardize the safety not only, not only of our current residents, but also the residents that we live in that building. Just like.
Speaker 5: You, we have seen no site.
Speaker 2: Plan from the applicants. This leaves them wide open.
Speaker 5: To do as they please. The cutouts to enter and exit.
Speaker 2: This site will almost.
Speaker 5: Certainly be on Willow and 29th place.
Speaker 2: 29th place is a three lane street. Look at the negative impact the Overture.
Speaker 5: Building has had only a few blocks away.
Speaker 2: I walk there almost daily. The increased traffic and.
Speaker 5: Increased parking have made it much less safe.
Speaker 2: To navigate that area. I have contacted the.
Speaker 5: Denver Police Department about.
Speaker 2: The number of accidents at the.
Speaker 5: CPB.
Speaker 6: And.
Speaker 5: MLK intersection. They were gracious enough to tell me that through June 1st there were 17 accidents in 17 months at that intersection.
Speaker 2: I also think that adding any commercial operations at this site is inappropriate because of the added traffic.
Speaker 5: On Willow and 29th place. The town center is only 6/10.
Speaker 2: Of a mile away from this site. East Bridge is 1.2 miles away and the new TOD is 7/10 of a mile away and punchbowl social's diagonal to it.
Speaker 5: The traffic is only going to get worse when the 399 unit main apartments open soon as also will Punchbowl Social. Add in the million square.
Speaker 2: Feet of office space. Thousand apartments, 400 condos, 120 room hotel.
Speaker 5: And 100,000 square feet of.
Speaker 2: Retail from Todd. Can you imagine what the traffic's going to be like at that intersection then?
Speaker 5: I've heard proponents of this zoning request. Well, it's a tradition in Denver to build apartment buildings at major arterial intersections and across from parks.
Speaker 2: That may be the case, but it's time to start a new tradition by listening to the residents still have to live with whatever you allow to be built on that site. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Schreyer. All right. This concludes our speakers. Those who are sitting in the front row can return back to your seat. Mr. Robinson, won't you come up to the front here and questions by members of council. Councilman Herndon.
Speaker 1: Thing. Mr. President.
Speaker 0: You can turn on your mike there, Counselor.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, can you come up? And I'm having John Bear come up to. I don't want to say I don't like the word ringleader, but John and I have had numerous conversations and I just want to talk to him just to ask a couple of questions. Scott, first with you. The neighborhood organization. And John, this is going to be a question for you as well. I love to get your thoughts. So Sun Stable in the United Neighbors is a registered R.A. took a position of neutral and actually you know what I'm going to ask John for this. John, if you would come up. Ken, did you have any conversations with Sun and why they took a position of neutral on this? Because you did go to them and ask them to weigh in on this.
Speaker 5: It's my understanding when when I met with him in some conversations afterwards is that they heard the concern of the neighbors, and especially as they wrote to the letter today, the concern about the curb cuts not being allowed on Martin Luther King or Central Park, that they really understood the concerns of the neighbors. But it was my understanding that their biggest fear was that the current zoning would allow commercial and they didn't think the commercial was appropriate. Well, of course we agree we agree that commercial is not appropriate on that site. And once again, I don't want to speak for Sony Shame. They're not here to speak for themselves, but that's what I heard.
Speaker 1: Okay. And so with now, just for you, the industrial uses that could currently happen on the property. So the zoning right now allowing the industrial uses, you are you are comfortable with this rezoning potentially being denied. But the possibility of the industrial uses or other uses currently moving forward or what would be your approach if this rezoning is denied, what would be the next steps?
Speaker 5: Well, we definitely don't agree that it should be developed under the current zoning. Basically commercial and we have suggested numerous times to include in letters to council that we feel the appropriate zoning and we wish for city since they own it. They're the only ones that can request a rezoning that they go with the mrh3 row home, three storey maximum, which would completely be compatible with the neighborhood, completely compatible with the neighborhood. So but, you know, some can't do it. We can't do it. It's up to four city and and God forbid, we would hope that they would never consider putting the commercial on that site that is permissible under this current zoning which is I don't know how old maybe Scott can administer the current zoning.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Jonathan. Appreciate that. Scott, could you come up a couple of things I wanted to I heard in the comments, one, I believe it was Kim made the comment about the covenant that the applicant has said they would put on three stories to the south and the east was not solid. So could you just speak to that? If this does pass, would that covenant be mandated?
Speaker 5: Um. Not necessarily. I don't. I mean, I don't know the state of the Covenant, whether it's has been signed in agreeing to that. But they have can perhaps you can ask the African. That's not a factor in our analysis of the rezoning and it's not something that we know.
Speaker 1: No. And that I understand. And actually. How about Bruce? Bruce, you can come on Dec since you said that. I'll answer that and that's fine. I understand you're basing it off of just your criteria. Maybe this might be a legal question. We'll get to somebody else, but we'll go to your. Well, let's go to planning board because it was a54 vote. And I think that that's something that should be asked. Question to one. And I don't expect you to speak for the voting members who voted in against and I actually did and I'll talk about that in my comments. But could you give me those sentiments during the planning board, what they what they were saying?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think there were only two areas of concern and one was the height. And there was some discussion of some way of getting this step down or step back that's been proposed. So it'd be three stories against the existing neighborhood. And then the other was the the use and the consistency with the adopted plans that the potential for commercial uses may not be consistent with the adopted plans as opposed to a purely residential use.
Speaker 1: And so in the minutes that I read for the planning board, there was a motion to do a step down. And could you talk to that briefly?
Speaker 5: Yeah, it was proposed. There was, I think, two areas again, two areas of concern with the proposed condition. One was whether it was appropriate and then the other was enforcement, how planning board could enforce this proposed condition. So it ended up not passing. And so the the vote was based on the application.
Speaker 1: But I want to make sure my colleagues hear the the the amendment that was voted down was to do a step back of four stories on the south and to the east. Correct. Because that's how when I read the minutes, I want to make sure I am and Bruce, correct me if that's wrong, that that was voted down, but I believe that was the motion that was made, correct?
Speaker 5: Yeah, that sounds right. I don't have it in front of you. But yes, it was something to that effect.
Speaker 1: And so. Okay, thank you, Scott, if you want to come up. Is that is that correct? In the minutes that the planning board did a motion to do for story setback to the south and to the east?
Speaker 15: Yes, I think that's correct.
Speaker 1: Okay. And then your proposal, you are suggesting even going lower. Three stories to the south. Three stories to the east, correct? Correct. Now. I'm assuming obviously you were you're the applicant for fourth city. I would I would I hate to use the word hope, but if you're going to stand in front of this body and say we're going to do a three story for the south to the east, whether for city chooses to sell a develop the land themselves or sell it to another developer. Will that three story stay in effect?
Speaker 15: Yes, it will.
Speaker 1: Okay. Talked about that. Talked on some board. Thank you, Mr. President. Those are my questions.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Um, screen just were in Black Oak. Councilman.
Speaker 10: You are Bruce recently. As, of course. I've heard the proposal go to three stories and did the number of units change? I've heard different stories about how many units? 152 to 52. What is the what is the configuration of the number of units if is reduced to three stories on this portion of the lot?
Speaker 15: So I should pardon me, I should reiterate that there there isn't a project, there is not a design, there is an attempt to get better zoning on the property than exist today. There's an estimate that under the current zoning, about 135 to 150 units could be built depending on unit mix in parking in the. The estimate on the rezoning would be about 200 to 225.
Speaker 10: So so there's no effect that you can tell from reducing the heist to three stories on a portion of their life.
Speaker 15: I would guess there would be less units in total. Yes, but that calculation hasn't been done.
Speaker 10: Okay. Did you consider condominiums on the side instead of apartments?
Speaker 15: So the that will be a market driven decision at the time that for city is ready to proceed, it could as easily go for sale as for rent, given that there is some improvement in the construction defense pardon me defects work.
Speaker 10: At the present time is considered just market rate apartments.
Speaker 15: There isn't a decision at this time.
Speaker 10: Okay, maybe the applicant should get out. Maybe that would be helpful. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Councilman, do you continue to ask the applicant different phenomena?
Speaker 10: Yep. Can you ask the question about the future where there's condominiums and market rate apartments? What was the plan for the development? It's either or. And, you know, until we actually decide that that property is ready to be developed. We won't be able to gauge excuse me whether we rent or for sale. I can't tell you if it's for if it's a rental product for city will execute it. If it's a condo for sale product, we won't execute it. We'd bring in a third party developer to do it. Okay. In the discussions with the neighborhoods, did you consider a development agreement about this property with the neighborhoods to reach agreements? And we've seen those to be very successful in other areas of the city, and it really brings in the community to have a voice in what you're doing. Well, I think we feel like we we did hear the community's voice. We we had meetings with them. We had several, you know, emails, phone calls, discussions, presentations, the state of the United Neighbors and so on. If we were able to reach an agreement, we would have no objection to putting that in the form of a development agreement. Right. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Councilman, Councilman Espinosa, first questions for anybody. Did anyone do an analysis of the sort of amassing the bulk the bulk analysis of both the current zoning and the proposed zoning? Okay. So that's where I'm going to be struggling with this. But I have some questions along those lines. First for you, Scott. The step to the mention of the step back. Obviously CPD is of the mindset that the the rx5a is wholly appropriate. So do you would CPD oppose step back's being you know what's the opinion is that CPD is the appropriate is is a step back appropriate or not appropriate in this situation.
Speaker 5: I don't believe we have any objection to the estate tax, as you said. We've found that the m r x5 a is appropriate and meets the criteria. Okay. I just want to confirm if the applicant wants to voluntarily reduce that or stop that that that's fine.
Speaker 0: Okay. I just want to confirm that the army throw with waivers is not a protected zone district. Correct.
Speaker 5: Correct.
Speaker 0: Even though the waivers in for a city sort of conform the development essentially to the pattern that you now see today, which would be more consistent with a rowhouse in district or a townhouse, some district, you know, or possibly protected zone districts. It is not a protected zone district.
Speaker 5: Correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. To a question for the. You know, I do want to just confirm, because I'm a little bit confused by the graphics in the zoning code and you don't have to go to the page, but it is page nine seven, dash 9.7, there's 22. It shows a general building form. I can't see anything about a lot coverage restriction, but the graphic shows a mass, you know, that conforms to the site, you know, the setback and then it shows a surface lot. Is there anything that compels them to to to have a surface lot or could it be under I mean, below parking underneath the structure and and go full setback on each side?
Speaker 5: Yeah. I'm not 100% familiar with all the requirements, but my understanding is that they could do structured parking. There's nothing that compels them to do a surface parking lot. Okay.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then the question for the applicant. Or Bruce. It doesn't it doesn't matter. Somebody from the team. How deep is the STEP Act that you're proposing and at what heights do those setbacks occur?
Speaker 10: I can't. Well, the way that I envision it working. Excuse me. So you the street there be the appearance of a full three storey unit. And I don't know how far that sits back before the unit above it starts. I mean, it's a design question, but it's not it's not two or three or four feet, something inconsequential. It's, you know, it's as if a unit could have been built above that unit and isn't. So whatever the depth of that unit would be, would be that setback.
Speaker 0: It's too bad you don't have like a sort of definition. That sort of would have been the point where you had negotiated something in a term that you could have presented in a covenant. Because there is a if this were if there's if this had been a relationship of a protected zone district consistent with the current development pattern over there and this rezoning, there are this zone, this section, the zoning code does have step means set up or story setback requirements in the max five of five, 15, 15, 20 and 25 feet in. And I would be that's why I'm asking about the massing study as I would be even curious if that was sufficient or not. And so since Charles, we're talking about a stories, I have no idea what sort of bulk restrictions you're talking about. But what I do know is that this and it's as evidenced by what Bruce O'Donnell just well, actually, that's the first question are you know, Bruce mentioned that it was using the zone district today. It's between 135 and 150 units that you could capture. And then with the rezoning, it would increase to 202 to 25. Are those numbers that are consistent with your understanding of this redevelopment potential?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 0: To the the old zoning code with the 3 to 1 four are restricted in in your own presentation to 130 some odd thousand square feet. With this new zoning code, you increase the development potential by two full floors over the 3 to 1. So it's essentially a 5 to 1 favor, which is how you get that increased increased development potential. That old zoning code, which all of Stapleton was developed, also had an open area, open space requirement and the same exact parking requirement. So this is these are two very, very different things. When we're comparing the old zoning code and there's this discussion about, well, it's not the right, it's that this is somehow better than that. This is more comment. So I guess I am trying to figure out if there's a question f r councilwoman, let's get to some other folks and then we'll come back to you to develop that question. Well, this is one quick question, was, have you guys discussed any use.
Speaker 3: Restrictions as well.
Speaker 0: In the covenant or is it simply a setback, require, you know, step back possibility?
Speaker 10: Well, if we were to sell this to a third party, we'd have retail use restrictions. All the, you know, typical retail uses that people want to see in our neighborhoods. We did it on every deal that we that we do. Other than that, there wouldn't be any.
Speaker 0: When you were presented with a little bit of opposition from the neighborhood and you clearly heard it because you're responding to it, did you go back to CPD and asked them if there was any way to sort of codify a way to address these concerns? And what was their response, if you did.
Speaker 10: To address which specific concern do you mean.
Speaker 8: Height, setback.
Speaker 0: Parking, any of the sort of metrics of zoning?
Speaker 10: Well, I mean, I the concern is that they don't want five stories. There's really no way to address that other than, you know, what we what we propose is kind of a, you know, meet your halfway proposal. Okay? The parking the parking will be fully screened from view of all the neighborhoods. The only thing you'll see is the Access Points Center. It'll be a parking structure. The units of either be built on top of it or around it. And it's Europe product or podium product. You're probably familiar with those terms.
Speaker 0: Great. Well, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. I first of all, I first of all, want to thank all of you neighbors for being here so late and being so dedicated. So thank you for being here. Most of my questions have been answered. I just have a couple more for the applicant. So if if you develop the property, you're committed to housing, but if you sell it, what else could be developed under the Marques five?
Speaker 10: Under American life. Yeah. My understanding is it's limited to residential with some ground floor potential for ground floor retail.
Speaker 3: And if if someone wanted to build townhomes there, could they under that zoned district?
Speaker 10: I believe they can. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 11: Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. President. Bruce O'Donnell. Under the current zoning. I'm trying to make the numbers work. The number of units that we were talking about under the existing zoning versus the number of units under the requested zone. You get more units under the new zone. Is that correct?
Speaker 15: Yes, that's potentially.
Speaker 11: Potentially. Well, I'm confused then, because you've been saying or you were telling us in the handout that the current zoning allows up 6 to 8 storeys. So can you make the numbers for me?
Speaker 15: So the the current zoning has in air of 1 to 1.
Speaker 11: Okay.
Speaker 15: Which means the site's approximately 130,000 square feet. That size building could be built there.
Speaker 11: They just have a smaller footprint right in.
Speaker 15: Okay. And so you that that practically you, it'd be hard to go beyond higher than eight storeys because the floors would be too small.
Speaker 11: Exactly. Okay. Jim Christman, can you describe the parking program? You'd start to get into it with a wrap. Can you tell us how you expect people to access it? Will it be off of Willow and 29th place potentially, or would it be off of the major streets? How do you envision that?
Speaker 5: Well.
Speaker 10: I mean, we would support trying to secure access off the major rights of way. But as you know, that's not always easy. So it really be a function of how public works looked at it. Yeah, I think there'll be a. My personal view, there might be opportunities for like a write in, write out off of MLK, sort of certainly no full movement because of the nature of that intersection. Correct? Okay.
Speaker 5: Is Noel Lawrence still here?
Speaker 11: Maybe Mr. Schweiker, maybe you could answer was somebody Noel Lawrence said that the son of the R.A. Stapleton United Neighbors had expressed concern and had had a letter. Had sent a letter. I don't have that. Is anybody did anybody up here receive it? I certainly didn't receive it. I would like to see it.
Speaker 5: It was it was emailed to us, the neighbors, at about 1230 this afternoon, so that maybe that's why you don't have it in your hands. I've got a copy. Okay.
Speaker 1: Councilman Flynn, I. I got the letter.
Speaker 11: Okay. Is it if it's digital, could you email? Yes. Thank you. That's almost prison.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn, Councilwoman Cannick.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. Question for Jim first, please. I understand you're not sure whether it would be apartments or townhomes or I'm sorry, apartments or condos. But let's just go with the apartment scenario for a second. Can you refresh me what.
Speaker 3: The overall vision.
Speaker 4: Or estimated number of apartments was going to be for the Stapleton neighborhood in the original documents that you all.
Speaker 10: Oh, all of Stapleton. Right. The Green Book. Com for about 3000 multifamily rental units.
Speaker 4: And where are you at right now with that? So where are we where are you at with that overall number right now?
Speaker 10: Or about a thousand with another. 500, probably breaking ground within a year.
Speaker 3: And have you.
Speaker 4: Are you aware of requests or concerns from, you know, community advisory boards or other groups within Stapleton who've been asking for more apartments and more apartment development? Is that something that's gotten.
Speaker 10: Yes, there's there's a group that's been asking for more apartments for quite a while. Part of the Citizens Advisory Board.
Speaker 4: Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 3: And then I had a question for I don't know if Jane Warner or Laura Tweedle are here.
Speaker 4: Yeah. If you want to come forward, either one of you. I, too, want to thank the folks who came out tonight. You clearly care a lot about your neighborhood. Both Jane and Laura mentioned something that I want to just follow up on. You both mentioned that you had been told or you were informed that this would be townhomes or or single family homes. I'm wondering about the sign. I just I checked the Google map just to make sure. But the sign that says mixed and high density mixed use site and had you, you know in your ten years have you seen that sign?
Speaker 3: And more recently there's been a sign posted. But no, there wasn't until six months ago. There hasn't been anything on that lot talked about done with. It's just been a vacant lot for nine and a half years. Okay. Can I just ask follow up with Jim or or Bruce.
Speaker 4: Whether or not when when the sign was posted about the zoning of this site. I'm just because it's very common. You know, I'm in the neighborhood.
Speaker 10: Yeah. Yeah. We went through our records and, you know, we keep records of every sign goes and we show the sign being installed ten years ago.
Speaker 5: So I.
Speaker 10: I don't have the right answer now.
Speaker 3: Or like here, believe it.
Speaker 10: Or not, through the.
Speaker 5: This perspective.
Speaker 3: Okay. Okay. Sounds good. And then I guess my last question is just for the the CPD staffer.
Speaker 4: I know you got asked some questions about this earlier, but I just wanted to put a finer point on it. We have in numerous neighborhoods.
Speaker 3: Put overlays.
Speaker 4: On sites to do transitions like this. I think about the Sloan's Lake area in particular. Did you guys have a specific conversation about that or was it that the the interest in that came up so late in the process that it was too late?
Speaker 5: Yeah, that did not come up until after the planning board hearing. So, you know, we had evaluated the proposal was are either following the planning board hearing I was informed by the applicant that they were then proposing the covenant put in the city.
Speaker 3: So if if it had been raised earlier.
Speaker 4: Is there some reason why it wouldn't have been.
Speaker 3: Considered in the same way at Sloan's?
Speaker 5: There wasn't it wouldn't have been considered, you know, would have gone through the same evaluation process that any of these proposals would go through.
Speaker 3: Thank you. No more questions, Mr. President. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman you back up?
Speaker 10: Scott, I forgot to ask one question. You know, when the rezoning consideration was, was, was taken and this slide was held, you sort of gave started going to be a joint available or something else. This property.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry.
Speaker 10: When the rezoning of the latest rezoning code went through in 2010, you said that this property wasn't considered for the rezoning because it was going to be used for an jointly with another property or something like that.
Speaker 5: It was. We have what are called plan or plan building groups. So I was I had a tool used in the old code to look at larger sites that had multiple buildings on them, and they had generally had special rules applied to them and, you know, agreement among the property owners that those would be kept, too. So in the 2010 rezoning process, we didn't want to try to crack all of those open and and apply the appropriate zoning. So we among other things, we left all of the planned building groups alone in 2010. And the way this was mapped in our system, it looked like it was part of a planned building group. Again, as we were going through this rezoning process, we looked at the actual plan building group document, and it specifically excludes this block. So it includes the properties around it, but not this block. So it's not actually part of the planned building group. But that's why it was not resigned in 2010.
Speaker 10: All residential zoning around it.
Speaker 5: Now it included the same CMU 20 zoning that's along MLK to the West. Mm hmm.
Speaker 10: And it has not been developed. Has it been developed yet?
Speaker 5: Most of the other blocks to the west have been developed. With what? Immediately to the west is new development that is similar to the other residential areas. It's townhomes and duplexes and single family. And then further to the west is some commercial and some I think there's a senior housing development there and a fire station.
Speaker 10: West of three stories.
Speaker 5: Uh, I don't know. Off the top of my head at all. Yeah, that's somewhere in there.
Speaker 10: Thank you very much. Thank you.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Scott, if you could. I'm going to buzz through some of these. And if some of those if you want to pass off the torch, let me know. But I'm just trying to understand the changes between what is the existing zoning that could be built on right now with no city council or neighborhood involvement and the proposed zoning. So current zoning 135, 150 units, new 200 to 225.
Speaker 5: That's what I've been told. We haven't done that calculation. So that comes from the applicant.
Speaker 6: Can you just confirm that one?
Speaker 10: Why don't I try to put some color on that? So a typical mix of one bedroom and two bedrooms. The average unit size, an apartment project will be about a thousand feet. So there's 135,000 feet of FDR that can be constructed under existing zoning. And therefore, that's where you get about 135 units. The five story building is going to either be a rap product or a podium product. And those those densities generally range from about 7 to 8 units per acre. So it's 210 to 240. But now then so estimate take maybe ten or 15% off of that for the the setback that we're that we're offering up. And that gets us to that, you know, 210 range.
Speaker 6: And then height, I think, versus a maximum realistic height on the current zoning is eight.
Speaker 10: Well, there's no there there is no there's no legal maximum height. There's a practical maximum height. You can build 135,000 feet. So for an office building, for example, they could have a 25,000 square foot, you know, floor plate. That's a five and a half. Five six storey office building, a condo building that may have a 10,000 square foot footprint, maybe only four units per floor that can go up to 13 stories.
Speaker 6: On the current zoning. It sounds like townhomes and single family are allowed because there's adjacent with the same. So it could be developed as townhomes and single family on the current zoning. Yes. And on the new zoning. Townhomes and single family both also a level.
Speaker 10: Yes. Development.
Speaker 6: And then one more time, we started talking about uses new zoning, limits it to residential. Maybe it could be fully residential or it could be residential with ground floor retail, but that's pretty much the use table on the current zoning. You'd mentioned gas stations or recycling collection. Walk me through some of the current allowable uses.
Speaker 10: Well, I mean, it's called commercial mixed use 20. So it's predominantly was intended to be commercial type of uses. And then a lot of those are, you know, would be acceptable on that site. But I just picked the three or four that, you know, I think people would have objections to. And there's some others as well. I can't remember off the top of my head, unfortunately.
Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Councilman Clarke, Councilman Espinosa, Skip, you can get to these other folks. Uh, Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Clark, you were going where I wanted to go to, but let me just sort of help make it even clearer. Scott, I'd like to ask you a question. So this old zoning, CMU 20, is used by. Right. If they sold this property to somebody who wanted to keep that zoning, they would not have to do anything like come to the city or come to the council, or they would just be able to build this 135,000 square foot building. Of industrial use, right?
Speaker 5: Yeah. They would just have to go through our standard site development plan and building permitting process, which is all administrative. So they would not have to come back before you were planning board or anyone. Right.
Speaker 3: I wasn't sure that the members of the community realized that that it would be used by. Right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Also.
Speaker 0: Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I want to ask Bruce if you can come forward. So I'm trying to focus more on the macro level and the micro level in terms of the. Eight acres that were originally earmarked for Stapleton for affordable housing. Have all those sites been developed so far? And where does this fall into that scheme of the eight acres that were set aside for affordability? Can someone answer that question?
Speaker 8: Do you?
Speaker 7: If it's not you, Bruce. Sorry.
Speaker 2: Of course.
Speaker 10: And no, I don't believe the edict. I don't know what portion of the eight acres has been developed. I know that between what's been developed and what will be with that sites aside for that for those developments to.
Speaker 7: Have all those sites on top of it to. Different organizations that are going to build the affordable housing on the sites that they have not yet actually been built. And, Tom, if you're the point guy, will you please come to the microphone? I'm just trying to understand where this fits into the overall scheme of the lots that were set aside for affordability.
Speaker 5: Tom Gleason For a city 7351, East 29th Avenue, the councilwoman is referring to the agreement to set aside to sell it, provide at no cost, eight acres of land to nonprofits for affordable rental. And to date, we are just under eight acres with our most recent development, which is proposed for senior affordable. So but that really is just for the affordable rental. We have donated all of the land at Stapleton for both affordable rental and affordable for sale. So that is we've done much more than that eight acres.
Speaker 7: Okay. And so it sounds like we're on mark with the rental. Where are we on the Affordable for sale? That was part of the original agreement.
Speaker 5: We are in terms of the affordable rental, we are running ahead of what was projected to be a 20%.
Speaker 2: Commitment on.
Speaker 5: The Affordable for sale. That's been 10%.
Speaker 2: And we're running it probably at about.
Speaker 5: 5.8% in terms of that. But the agreement, the Stapleton Affordable Housing Plan, says at the end of the development, we have to be a 10%.
Speaker 7: And how many more developable acres are still available that have not been obligated or are still available for development?
Speaker 5: Well, for the Affordable for Sale, we have identified all the parcels and projected the number of affordable units that will be created on that so that we meet our formal goal. For instance, we are projected to build out at Stapleton to be in the range of.
Speaker 2: About 1880 900 homes.
Speaker 5: And so we have set aside.
Speaker 2: Land for 891.
Speaker 5: Affordable for sale on the affordable rental. We projected some.
Speaker 2: Somewhere in the range of probably about 800. And and.
Speaker 5: We're we're tracking that.
Speaker 11: Pretty closely as well.
Speaker 5: And we donate land for both affordable rental and affordable for sale, even though that wasn't part of the Stapleton affordable housing plan.
Speaker 7: So, Tom, was this anticipated to be one of those sites?
Speaker 5: No, this this site would be commercial. I mean, this would be market rate. It would not be affordable.
Speaker 7: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Scott. So would you. How close is the next five story building? Do this. This site, would you guess? It's found closer to Quebec. There's some new apartment buildings that have gone up. I think off the top of my head, I don't know every quite a while. I have quite a ways from this site. But yeah, it's it's a little ways to the west. Okay. And the finance and developer to step up for a second. So you said you've had discussions with people in the community wanting more apartments available, is that correct?
Speaker 10: There's a contingency, probably the wrong word. But there are there there are a group of folks that have been involved in our Citizens Advisory Board who for some time have asked us why we haven't built more multi-family rental than we have.
Speaker 5: And have they expressed or have you discussed with them their preferences for what style that might be? Be a five story building, be a townhomes, be it whatever.
Speaker 10: You know, they don't really express the building form. They express more the income levels that the property could serve and they'd like to see a diversity. Okay. Things for say on for rent.
Speaker 5: All right. Appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Castro. Councilman Espinosa. My question for the city attorney when they were. Well, I assumed that this project, because it's still part of the master plan, doesn't even though. This is entirely to new floors of additional development. Right. Or actually more than that. Not eligible for the linkage fee. Is that correct? Dave, Missouri Assistant City Attorney. Councilman Espinoza, could I have you repeat the question? I just didn't quite hear you. This project wouldn't be eligible for a linkage fee because of the it.
Speaker 8: Falls under.
Speaker 0: The current affordable housing plan for Stapleton. Is that correct? Yeah, that's correct. Okay. Tom, is there any sort of willingness for Stapleton and for City to sort of voluntarily commit a portion of these additional units to affordable considering that you guys took down the land some time ago and would be getting essentially additional development rights?
Speaker 5: We haven't had that discussion, as I mentioned earlier. We had the signed a an affordable housing plan with the city back in 2001. And that's what we're implementing at this time now.
Speaker 0: Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman, as one other thing, councilman herndon, I.
Speaker 1: Think it was Perez. I just want to my colleagues and now I emailed them the letter from son this neighborhood neighborhood organization reasonable organization. And Scott, this might have been asked when I had ran to run out quick there was an email that. I got wasn't mentioned today, but the person talked about the inability to park all the cars in this unit. And I've and I've heard parking within this conversation. Can you briefly just talk about any development that occurs has to have parking requirements. So could you just please talk about that? And I know we're we're we're generalities but just people to understand what the city does when it comes to that. Please.
Speaker 5: Yeah. That's all handled in the site review site development planning process. And our zoning code set standards for how many parking spaces must be required. And it depends on the type of use and the amount and the specific zoning. So, you know, whatever the zoning, whether it's the old zoning or the new zoning, proposed zoning. The zoning code would dictate how many parking spaces must be provided and that would all be required at the time of said development.
Speaker 1: Thank you. I just want to make sure that that was. No, thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Hearn. I got a couple of questions myself, and I'm going to ask our two city attorneys to volley this question. And we'll start with you, Nate. Nate, what is our criteria for for doing zoning? So what do we do? How do we make zoning decisions? A city council. So the city council bases their rezoning decision on the rezoning criteria, which was outlined in the staff report. And so we look at consistency with adopted plans. Health, safety and welfare. I'm having a little bit of remembering here. You know. That's okay, Scott. Can you put that? Put that. Yeah. Thank you. Slide up, because I put our city attorney on the spot there. Okay. Yeah. So, yeah, there there are the five criteria there. As I mentioned, consistency with city adopted plans, uniformity of district regulations, public health, safety and welfare. Justifying circumstances is always a big one and of course, consistency with neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. Great. Thank you, Nate. David Braswell, our assistant city attorney. Can you help us help me with this question? I think we get a lot of neighbors in here with with the concerns around, you know, what's being built and things like that. What is your legal advice to us when making a decision for rezonings?
Speaker 2: My legal advice to you for a rezoning. Okay. Well, some of it's just been covered again by Mr. Lucero, which is you have to apply the evidence to the criteria and make the decision. You do have significant latitude in terms of applying the criteria. We've got active litigation recently where decisions of this council have been upheld, where reasonable people can disagree, but courts tend to defer to whatever decision you ultimately come up with. So you've got you've got a lot of discretion, but you do need to link your findings to the criteria. And that's what we always advise.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. And then they want one more question back to you. I think Councilwoman Kennedy brought this point up. I think it's a it's an interesting one. And I'm going to ask the applicant to to answer this. We do overlays all the time. Matter of fact, there's a lot of overlays, conservation overlays that we have in in Curtis Park. And matter of fact, I have a legislative rezoning coming up. That's an overlay actually down zoning, a part of this community where all the neighbors really wanted to down zoning, which I haven't seen in my seven years on council, but. Have we ever amended a rezoning for a conservation overlay on the floor? And do we have latitude to do that? I've not seen that. Typically what happens with conservation overlays is if they are brought before a council, then everything that is within that overlay district is subject to the conservation overlay. So long as they are zoned into the new Denver zoning code, then they're able to take advantage of the conservation overlay. So that's that's how those typically work. Yeah. Could we amend it? And, you know, the, the the applicant has already said that there's going to be some restrictions on the, the three, you know, on I forget what side it was, but three stores on the South Side or whatever. Could we restrict that in the zoning as an amend that in the zoning tonight on this bill? I think what you're asking me is whether or not you could plate place a condition on an approval and. The answer to that is. What's before council tonight is the ordinance that's been filed, which simply speaks to the May five A and there's nothing either in the zoning code or anything more memorialized in the application which would mandate such a condition at this time. So it would have to be something that would be agreed upon by the applicant. Which is the way our Denver zoning code works. So we could not amend on the floor. So what you're saying? No. Okay. Let me just ask the applicant real quick what either one of you are. Did you sign any agreement with the neighborhood on this three story? Is it written or is it just a kind of a.
Speaker 10: It's not formally read. And I mean, what I would envision and I'm not an attorney, but I would envision that we would agree to record a restrictive covenant that outlined the terms of that. And that would be a condition of your approval if you were if you were to.
Speaker 0: So right now, it's just a commitment excuse me? It's a verbal commitment to the neighborhood.
Speaker 10: It's a verbal commitment. It's an informal written commitment. Okay. We put in writing, but not in a legal format.
Speaker 0: Great. And then my last question. Excuse me, sir. I forgot your name. You're leading? Yeah. Yeah. Leading the neighborhood. Let me ask you a question. A lot of points were made tonight that I think were very important. And I'm I'm curious, the number of people who you've been working with and you yourself. Have you been a part of this citizens advisory group board that is with force?
Speaker 5: I did go speak before the Citizen Advisory Board.
Speaker 0: Prior to this development. Prior to this development, have you been a part of the Citizens Library Board? Okay. Have you been a part of the Stapleton United Neighbors prior to this?
Speaker 5: I think I've attended one or two meetings, but okay. I guess not actively involved.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Just want to know that. All right, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just to be clear. I thought you said the planning board five four split was partially over confusion as to neighborhood plan consistency. It was, in my remembering correctly. No, there was. I believe you are remembering correctly. It was one of the issues that came up, and I believe one of the concerns that some of the members had that voted against it was that it may not be consistent with the city's adopted plans, particularly relating to commercial use versus residential use. Okay. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman New.
Speaker 10: Yeah. You're up on the revised on the proposal of a three and five story compromise that you're proposing. What percent of the project would be? Three stories. In terms of a unit count, just the total development for part is going to be, first of all, retail, you know, three parts going to be three parts going to be five stories. Well, bringing it down to three, what portion of the lot would be three stores for the project? Maybe it'd be two of the four phases of the building. It would be three stories. Mr. McDermott 50% would be three stories and 50% five stories. Yes. So I'm pretty pretty much really close, maybe, you know, 50 to 48 or something like that at the corners. Great. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Okay. Thank you. Councilman. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Sorry. I'm sorry I didn't catch you before you went back and sat down. I have one additional question. So with with that estimate, two councilman knew then the three story outward facing would would it be along Willow and East 29th place?
Speaker 5: Yes.
Speaker 3: Okay. Have there been conversations with public works about MLK Jr Boulevard and kind of that intersection right there at MLK and Willow Street? Are there plans for any improvements at that intersection? Based upon the possible density on this lot.
Speaker 10: We haven't had those discussions. It's difficult to have that discussion in the abstract. They like to see a specific proposal in front of them. Okay. But we haven't had that discussion.
Speaker 3: The size some community members had commented that Willow Street seems narrow. And I can understand that if they're school busses going up and down Willow Street. But I have our I'm assuming that both Willow and East 29th Place are regular sized Denver residential streets.
Speaker 10: Correct. With on street parking.
Speaker 3: Okay. All right. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: One last one. Last one. So, Jim, I think you were the one who mentioned that you all would be willing to consider a covenant on the land. Is that did I hear that correctly?
Speaker 10: You did.
Speaker 7: Okay. And so what that does is it it ensures that regardless of who owns the property, that covenant stays with the property.
Speaker 10: That's correct.
Speaker 7: Okay. And. But typically those issues are done on the front end before the applications come before us. And I guess I'm just wondering, is this is this something that for a city is committing to do regardless of this, the action taken by city council tonight.
Speaker 10: No. I think the commitment is only if the. If the actions approved at this. If the rezoning is approved, then we make the commitment to. To record the covenant. Otherwise we'll probably property would be developed in accordance with the existing zoning.
Speaker 7: Do you do you have interested developers right now that are looking at the site based on the new zoning?
Speaker 10: Now, we are not marketing the site right now.
Speaker 7: Okay. You're waiting to get the zoning done first. So I would just propose that. Councilman Herndon, I know this is your district, but I think the covenant would be an important safeguard, if you will, for lack of a better word, that the community has has raised, as is concerns that if maybe we postpone this for a short period of time to allow that to get done and to bring it back so that it's part of the application and it's contingent upon the zoning, you know, taking place, that that will go a long way, I believe, in building that. I don't know. Goodwill with the community. And I just wanted to ask if that's something that you all are open to. And Councilman Herndon, same with you.
Speaker 10: We'd be open to that.
Speaker 7: Okay. When her.
Speaker 1: If you know, I've been a part of this community since 2008 and I've worked with Forest City, obviously since I've been a council person in 2011. I believe that if they say that they're going to do that, it's not necessary to put a covenant on it. And by the all my interactions and their interactions with the community, I personally do not think it's necessary if they this isn't a developer that's coming into town and then is leaving. We have several different acres of land that still needs to be developed for city is not going anywhere. And had they choose to do something like that, rest assured there would be some serious repercussions from a city perspective, I would imagine. So I don't I personally do not think it's necessary if Jim and company have said they're going to do it, I believe it will be done. But I will certainly defer to if the majority of the council feels the need to do so then. Soviet.
Speaker 7: Well, I just want to say that I know ferocity has not developed every single parcel, a number of the parcels have been developed by other other developers who for city has sold some of that land to. And I know with some of the other applications that we've had come before us, the Covenant becomes a really critical piece of that assurance that the community is going to have those safeguards in place. I'm not saying I don't trust for city, but if the land is sold to somebody else and the covenant isn't filed, then that next party is not going to be obligated to adhere to what we're discussing here tonight as an assumed agreement.
Speaker 0: So, Councilwoman, I'm going to take this from questions and start the comment period so that you and Council Councilman Herndon can can debate this issue. The right. Okay. This hearing is closed. Council Bill 565 is now closed. Comments by members of council. Councilman herndon. And then we'll go to councilwoman ortega.
Speaker 1: Mr. President, one, I really appreciate you all coming out and have a conversation about this. You know, I, I and I sincerely appreciate the civility because we have seen several contentious rezonings and the respect towards both parties just dissipates immediately. So I really appreciate these conversations being cordial. And even though you share the passion of what's happening in your community, we still treat each other with respect. And I and I cannot say that enough because we're losing that. So thank you for that. And I appreciate the council president asking the question about what do we as a council base our decisions off of? And you see you see the five criteria in front of us because that's what we should be focusing on. And I know we always go into particular plans. And when you don't have a plan and this council has shared their frustrations with that, we we have a tendency to go to the worst of what can possibly happen. And it is our city policy to not base it off site specific plans. And people have expressed their frustration. But that is our policy. But I appreciate the dialog that we have had. I'm going to focus on the health, safety and welfare initially because as I wrote down the notes of what everybody was saying. Let me first talk about traffic. So no matter what happens at this site, traffic is going to increase. There is there's no getting around that. Central Park Boulevard and MLK are busy streets and they should be. That was the design of Stapleton so that we have traffic that's going through the community goes on our major arterials so that it doesn't go through the side streets. And we're not naive to say that it doesn't happen. People choose to do that. And I agree that MLK, CPB, our busy streets. But when I wrote down someone said Hazardous. I respectfully disagree that that is hazardous, inappropriate and I'm sorry that wasn't about the streets. So I believe traffic will increase. But I also believe we have a great traffic and engineering department that for those of you that have been in Stapleton for a while, has made several adjustments along MLK, Central Park Boulevard. So whatever development occurs because development will occur, whether it happens with our current zoning or the proposed zoning, traffic and engineering, I absolutely believe will address it and has done so in in several different ways. We talked about I asked the question about the parking because the question was, well, is the parking going to be enough? Is going to bleed it bleed over into the side streets. We have rules and regulations in place that should this potential zone go through, the parking and the parking requirements will be adhered to. Then came up the comment of safety and I, I you lost me on safety. I don't understand how simply adding apartments makes the community less safe. I rented until I was in my mid-twenties and I stayed in apartments and I don't believe that I cared less about a community simply because I rented versus owning. Um, so I, I disagree with that safety perspective that adding additional apartments makes the community less safe. That is, that's just my opinion. As I was, I was writing that down. I tilt to my head and said, I, I hear you. I'm not sure if that's something I agree with you. And there was a comment to people made about transitional tenants. And yes, renters do leave quicker than homeowners, but that doesn't mean they care less about their community. So I wanted to say that as we have these conversations, you know, I reached out to the planning board because I didn't watch the minutes. John said, watch the planning because I read the minutes and there were four members that were anti that. And so I called them and just as got talked about, there were concerns about consistency with adopted plans. I disagree. I do think the adopted plans are consistent, but there was a consensus about common questions about the the height, which is why the planning board did a recommendation to say we're going to move that. You can only do four stories to the south and to the end to the east. And even though that was voted down, the applicant came back and said, okay, we hear the concerns and we're going to go lower than that and go three stories. And I spoke to a couple of planning board members and said, were you aware that they that the applicant went from four stories to three stories and while it doesn't change their vote. A couple of those planning board members said, well, that seems like a good compromise. And I actually think in this conversation we've come to a point where the applicant has heard the community and said, okay, we're going to try to accommodate you as best that we can. And while we recognize that there are going to be some people of the position that no matter what happens, this is inappropriate, I think that that effort from the applicant is worth noting. I also want to talk to about. What's just to the west of this? Because we we focus solely at Central Park and Martin Luther King Day. So for those of you that are familiar with this, I am as well. You've got Central Park Boulevard runs north. South. If you head west, you've got Uinta is the next street that heads over and you go over one more block and you got holster my dry cleaners right there. Everyone knows I'm talking about the dry cleaners. So I go to that dry cleaning. When I come out of the dry cleaner and I look I look east, we have the overture. The overture is the senior housing. The overture is four stories. It's four stories. And so for the people on 29th place, right behind the overseer, they look out of their house and they're staring at a four story building. So to have a four storey building two blocks away from what could potentially be three stories that said back to five, I don't believe is out of context. And I have. And I remember when the overture was being built. It was being built after the houses were already there. And I literally I checked back with my staff. I said, remember when the overture was built? Did we get any complaints about traffic or any crime issues with the overture? And to the best of their memory, there weren't any. Because I wanted to say, Well, have we done this before? And what was the response from that? So I think that that's important to note when I were thinking about this potential rezoning. And then I want to I have a question about density. Where should we put density? Because as I have heard comments from the the residents, it said say density should only go in tod sites or along the Quebec square or along an East Bridge. And I think now in a place when we are trying to find space for the people that want to come here, I think thoughtful density should be along major arterials. So I agree with the notion that that's where it should go. I'm not sure a single family adding more single family and Central Park anymore makes the maximum use of our space. The overture that I talked about, it's 1.5 acres, it's 108 units. So we approximately double. It's about 200 units. And so I wrote down numbers of 300 cars. I think we're going a little bit higher than what is potential and not even talking about the setbacks in the design of that. So. Taking the criteria into account. I believe that the and lastly because I want to come back to Sun. Who was I was a son board member before I was on city council from 2000 and 2008 to right before getting elected. Sun has a very good point. So it's not just a matter of this rezoning. This the May five is what happens should this rezoning. Not be approved. What happens to that development? And I hear people saying, we're not interested in Merrick five. But I can assure you, you do not want the possibility of what could happen with the CMU 20. Because I don't believe industrial uses are appropriate at all on that site. But in the current zoning there are industrial uses that are applicable. Use by write in as a body. There would be nothing that we could do to prevent that. So I taking all that into account with. And this is this is a difficult decision. And I appreciate all everyone's comments. I believe that the criteria has been met. And I'm I appreciate the applicant hearing the community and saying, we hear you and this is how we believe we can come to a place where some might agree. Because my understanding is and I'm a look to John when the three story came back that we're going to go three stories, there were some people that were okay with it, not a lot, but there were some people that said, okay, that satisfies us for exactly I know not a lot, but I think that that's important to note. So this is something that I will be supporting. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Hurt and Councilman Espinosa, can we go to Councilman? Councilwoman Ortega. All right, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 7: I'm going to pass. Okay.
Speaker 0: Right now. Okay. Um. Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Welcome to my last two years on this body. I represent Northwest Denver. A lot of that area got rezone like this in 2010. So we get really objectionable new construction using these existing the new zoning code and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Apologize for using a partial swear word. So I my constituents would probably definitely relate to you. And here's a situation where we actually can do something about it. We've had many of those situations since I've been on councils, particularly in my own district, and that what you just heard is the response that you get from the majority of council almost every single time. The only time a neighborhood has been successful in my district in stopping a rezoning. Uh, was when they they petitioned and forced a supermajority, meaning that you had to have ten members of council, not the usual seven. That one failed, but it still got eight votes. So it would have passed under all other situations. And it got real interesting, too, because this council even tried to delay that vote because because it we weren't going to have a full body. And they knew that they needed everybody here to get to the ten. Yeah, that's. That's the sausage making. And I'm not supposed to talk to you about it, but that's what happens here. So I appreciate you all coming out and expressing your concerns. I do also trust this for a city is a good master developer and will do the right thing. But. I'm I'm looking at it. And you're right. You're John, you're right to be concerned because when you change the zoning now, all this stuff becomes of use by right and you have no say. You're lucky that you're protected by a design review committee. Much of what you see and what you enjoy in that community is because it's been vetted by some really great professionals. That said, we do have an issue of here, you know, in my past life as an affordable housing developer, whether you like it or, you know, love him or hate him. My last one of my last projects were the ones those townhouses and multi row houses that line MLK and Central Park Boulevard right there on that corner. And we did that in the CMU 20 without waivers, the exact same zoned district that you have today. As a matter of fact, all of the development from Ulster to Willow has occurred with this zoned district without a rezoning. So that sort of gets you to the justifying circumstances component, like what has changed? Nothing has changed in this situation. You know, the roads have been built, but those roads have been always planned. It's a matter of fact. They've been narrowed. Right. They used to be three lanes in each direction. Now they're two with bike lanes. It's good. But, you know, it's so the the the change is towards a more residential pedestrian oriented environment, which would, um, you know, but it's not, that's not a radical change in condition. I think you all bond with the master plan developer. I think we've all recognize.
Speaker 12: You've heard allocated.
Speaker 0: Time and time and time again about Stapleton both in the city and in the nation and in the world, about the success of this development. And that all occurred under the old zoning code somehow. And now this has to happen, this change. You know.
Speaker 2: So I will say.
Speaker 0: One of the thing that really frustrates me and I try to avoid this in my own district, I actually hear a win win here being proposed, but it hasn't been formulated and hasn't been generated. What I do in my district when I have the opportunity and I don't always takes a developer coming forward early in the process , not putting in their application, but we have a sort of two step process, a memorandum of understanding in my view that says, okay, developer, you agree to, to, you know, build five or six or whatever stories you want on the corner but that you transition your project as you get to the residential neighborhood. And we will support that because by the time you get into this lower density area, you've, you've addressed the massing and certain conditions that the community feels would adequately address the impact of the development. You codify what you're agreeing to in the memo, you basically says, we support we the community support you, Mr. Developer, and your ambition in exchange that you will file a covenant restricting that property to that sort of massing or those sorts of agreements within X number of days after that rezoning occurs. So you have an agreement before you come in here. You have that agreement that takes you through this process. And then within a number of days you have security that that is memorialized now and for the future. I also recommend that you don't do that in perpetuity because then it creates a legal nightmare in the future. But ten, 15, 20 years sort of buys the people that live here negotiated that outcome some predictability. It's a great tool. I can tell you that there are developers that don't want to use that tool, so they sidestep that whole process by never coming to the community and never coming to council. That's their prerogative here. I think there was the ability to get there. I just know we have real, capable people. For a city, it sounds to me that not the real nuts and bolts that I would like to, you know, be considering is how do we shape and mold so that we address the other criteria. I wish could we pull up the justifying circumstances? I actually want to speak to two of them. I've already spoken to number four that the justifying circumstances and there's nothing that has changed here. They are the CMU 20 has been good enough for the entirety of Forest City redevelopment and it should be good enough now it meets all of that criteria, the currency and EU 20. So you know, what we do know is every piece of property to the east and every piece of property, well, not every piece of property in the west, but this property and everything to the east that has already been developed, save for you into an MLK. Is, you know, already uniform with the district regulations. And so this is now going outside of that. So we're now intentionally deviating from the plan. And I just don't agree that that is, in fact necessary or it benefits all of the other criteria. And then particularly in really what it boils down to is then you get to consistency with neighborhood context and zone district purpose and intent. You already have it there. You already have it. Everything's been developed in that zone district. And and so I don't see how this improves by increasing the development potential. I don't buy the industrial concern because there are other provisions in CMU. Zone District in chapter 59 specific to trying to do industrial in a commercial mixed use zone district. So there and that is that was codified. What are the reasons our old zoning code was left is because this moved to this greater flexibility. But this greater flexibility means less predictability, more uses and more density, same amount of parking spaces required in this district. But now you've got to fit a heck of a lot more cars. And then there's it's only one per unit people will visit. And all your concerns are legitimized, not opposed to density. But you got to make the case and I haven't heard one case that why this zone district is absolutely imperative to address the concerns and needs of this community to further the public health and safety and welfare of this community. This is a great community. Yet for a city did a bang up job. Probably too good of a job in this situation is because this neighborhood that close to the park ain't going away any time soon. And so, you know, 4 to 5 and four are clearly not met. And I could extrapolate on every element here. And it could you could address those in the zoning should, in my opinion, be amended and it should have waivers and conditions rather than you have to enter in a part private party agreement. But that is a battle that I've been fighting for two years. I will continue to fight for two years for the next two years. The attention District One needs the help of District eight constituents and the city needs to participate in the Denver right process. Let them know that our next vision of the city should address have a means to address these these situations, because we have ceded a lot of responsibility on on the sense that this zoning code is just great as it is off the shelf. And it needs tweaking. It needs to be addressed. And then this process of asking also needs better input and validity. I believe you've made the case. I know it to be. You know, I think the split vote on the planning board speaks to that as well. You don't know. You don't always see that. Very rarely do you see that. And I won't go. I've talked long enough. I won't go into plans. I won't go into master plans of I'm going to adopted plans. Blueprint Denver area. But so with that, I mean, this is I think you all picked up on it. This is the situation that I wish my committee was prepared to fight, had the resources to do this, because there are lots of, you know, questions to be asked, a lot of ask that could be made so that both sides would come prepared with a win win. That has not happened here. I believe it could have happened. But I do believe that the blanketed zone district based me in the existing zone district, based on all what I've said and evidence that the it's it has in fact, allowed this area to flourish already. And it could develop in a manner that is consistent with all of our review criteria under the existing zoning code. I will not be supporting this rezoning. All right, Councilman, you.
Speaker 10: I want to thank everybody for coming out here tonight. And last year, I went through a very contentious rezoning in one of my neighborhoods. And it was just the opposite of what you're going through, which was even worse. It was from good zoning to better to worse zoning, a much worse zoning. And it was a bad situation. Where I look at this is you're going from bad zoning to better zoning. It may not be perfect. It may not be the three stories that you want all, all the way. But it looks like you're coming up with a compromise. At least 50% of that development will be three stories. So it sounds like you're moving in the right direction to that meets better your context. I know that may not be what you want, but sometimes we have to make that compromise to make sure that the right thing is done, not the wrong things. It's done. So so I'll be supporting this tonight. And I just want you to know how much we understand what you're going through. And I really appreciate you're doing, but I think you're moving in the right direction. And I believe this this owner for our city will develop this condition to make sure this restricted and we're looking to make sure that happens. So thank you very much.
Speaker 0: All right, Councilman. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm going to side with the minority on the planning board. I appreciate the developer's willingness to to compromise with the step back. But my experience in a project in my own district is that doesn't do much. And in blunting the effect of the building of this size in an area where there's no context for that. So, you know, in my district it's along University Boulevard. There are other five story buildings. The developer decided to do a step down facing the residential, the single family neighborhoods to the east. And it's it's it's a nice it's better than than a five storey wall, but but not much. So I and I have faith in Forest City that I don't see them doing anything other than looking for an alternative. Were this to fail, which I have no thought that it will. But from what I've seen of Forest City in the past, I would expect them to look for a better alternative than the worst case scenario that the current zoning would allow. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. All right. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Or take a did you want to?
Speaker 0: No, no. She told me to go.
Speaker 4: Sorry. Herndon.
Speaker 0: I.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Kenny Lopez. Sorry. New Ortega?
Speaker 3: No.
Speaker 4: Sussman.
Speaker 3: I. Black. Clark.
Speaker 4: I don't know, sir. Flynn.
Speaker 11: I.
Speaker 4: Gilmore.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: I. Please close the voting. Announce results.
Speaker 4: So I just had to put in one absence. Nice. Nice. Three days.
Speaker 0: Nice. Nice three days. Council Bill 565 has passed. All right, councilman? No. Would you please put Council Bill 659 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 8504 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard in Stapleton.
Rezones property located at 8504 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard from C-MU-20 to M-RX-5A (commercial, mixed-use to master planned, residential, mixed-use) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-23-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07242017_17-0659
|
Speaker 0: Nice. Nice three days. Council Bill 565 has passed. All right, councilman? No. Would you please put Council Bill 659 on the floor?
Speaker 10: Okay. I move. The Council will now be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 0: It has been moved. Need a mover in a second. Oh good it's been moved in second it the public hearing for council bill 659 is now open. Um, I believe we have the president CEO of Mile High Learning Pamela Harris here to start. And actually, we have a couple of folks in here that I just want to highlight. We have the president of the. Denver School. She was in here and Rowe, the president was here. And also Barbara O'Brian, who was was on the school board as well.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Go ahead. Good evening. Yes. Can you. Okay. Great. Good evening, President Brooks and members of city council. I'm Pamela Harris, and I'm honored to be here on behalf of Denver community members asking for your support in recognition of over 50 years of visionary leadership and outstanding contributions of Anejo Garcia Haynes. This proposal is the naming of the building at 2851 Tremont Place as the Anejo Heinze Early Learning Center. We ask this in order to recognize and preserve Anna Jo's legacy as a civil rights leader, as an advocate for women and children, and as a driving force for early childhood care and education. Anna Jo founded and now serves as president emeritus of Mile-High Early Learning, the largest and oldest provider of subsidized early care and education in Denver. She was founding mother and president of the Women's Foundation of Colorado, and she co-founded the Colorado Children's Campaign, a child advocacy organization that has been the voice for children in Colorado for more than 30 years. Anejo has focused on improving the lives of our most vulnerable children. And among her many accomplishments, she spearheaded bringing Headstart to Denver 50 years ago. She helped to create the Colorado Preschool Program to serve at risk preschoolers, which started with 2000 children in 1988 and has grown to 27,000. In 2017, she was also instrumental in launching the Denver Preschool Program, which now provides 5004 year olds with access to quality early childhood education. Due to Anna Jo's dedication and passion, mile high, early learning has provided more than 45,000 at risk children, a strong start in life and in school. And today, Mile High Early Learning serves 500 children in seven centers, including the one the center in the heart of five points at 2851 Tremont Place. And Anna Jo understands the importance of a village in raising and making sure that our children thrive and has cultivated partnerships that include the city and county of Denver, Mile High, United Way and Denver Public Schools. And AJO has also been a driving force in many state initiatives. These include the early childhood councils, which support early childhood systems, buildings, and started with 12 pilot councils in 1997 to more than 30 councils today. She's also part and a co-chair of the Early Childhood Leadership Commission, which is a statewide advisory board ensuring access, quality and equity in early childhood to children birth to age eight. And she has served as a trusted advisor to every Colorado governor and Denver mayor since the 1980s, and AJO has also had an impact nationally, serving as a part of the Congress of Racial Equality. As a consultant to the White House Conference on Children and Youth and as a member of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues and Anejo achievements have been recognized in Colorado and nationally. She's been inducted into the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame. And among her many awards, she's received the Susan B Anthony Award for her work with women, the MLK Holiday Commission Humanitarian Award, the Urban Peak Maverick Thinkers Award, and Mile High United Way has actually created an award in her name, the Anna Jo Haynes Caring About Kids Award that honors community members who are making significant contributions on behalf of children. She has also received a tribute and recognition in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Anna Joe is a Denver native who has dedicated her life to changing the life circumstances for vulnerable populations. She has taken part in, created and led social movements. She serves as a mentor and a voice of wisdom. And Anejo remains an advocate and a champion for programs that positively impact the lives of thousands of children and families. We appreciate your support of this proposal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And I see we have our president back in here. Good to see you. Thank you for being here. I appreciate you. Okay, so we have, uh, let's see here. We had I'm going to call the first five speakers up. Ms.. Dr. Lisa Roy, Donald Garnett Sekou. I think his left Steve will chart. And Miss Khadijah Haynes. Dr. Roy, you're up first.
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council president and honorable council members. My name is Lisa Roy. I'm the executive director of Early Childhood for Denver Public Schools. Most importantly, some of you know that I was a parent who had three young children that attended Mile High early learning. What was interesting about my story was that I was an adult learner, so I went back to school, to college after having three children. And my ex-husband was a schoolteacher. He didn't make very much money. Still, the problem, obviously, for many of our school teachers living in Denver around affordability. But I received.
Speaker 12: Subsidized.
Speaker 3: Care from the Department of Human Services. My husband made $5 over. And guess what? Within a month, I no longer had child care funding. And I remember the shock of how am I going to finish school if I don't have this type of support? We just can't afford it. And I was called in to Marshall High, early learning. It was called Mile High Child Care at the time, and a woman by the name of Mary Hon just said, Calm down, it's okay. United Way actually helps to fund parents who don't quite make enough money to pay for their child care but don't qualify for a public subsidy. So I was able to finish my associates bachelor's. By that time, I could afford child care and my children continued on there, did my master's, and later did my doctoral degree. But I owe a lot to having high.
Speaker 12: Quality, affordable child care to.
Speaker 3: My success. And I have given back in every way that I can. I'm now on the Moral High Early Learning Board and several other boards that support low income families in Denver. I worked on the first preschool.
Speaker 12: Ballot initiative when I worked for the.
Speaker 3: Peterson Foundation and have done a myriad of things in my life because I had that support. So I just want to talk about the fact that Ana Jo is an incredible mentor. She's an incredible leader in our community. And it would be an incredible opportunity for us to name the building after A.J. Haynes. I personally plead with you to do so.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Roy Donna Garnett.
Speaker 3: Good evening. My name is Donna Garnier. I live at 20915 East 45th Avenue in Denver. For about 30 years of my professional career. I worked on behalf of young children, but way long before I stepped into the policy and financial fray on behalf of young children. And a Joe was already carrying the banner for Denver's youngest and most vulnerable citizens. The children, because of her relentless and I do mean relentless. You all know that work at every level, whether it be program quality, teacher, caregiver, professional development, actually public financing, developmentally appropriate curriculum in the face of a standards based educational approach. Thousands of young children, two of whom are my own grandchildren in Denver, and as you saw, thousands of other young children across the state, and I dare say kids across the entire country have reaped the benefits of that relentless work that she does. As you've already heard, her work has informed and influenced virtually every early childhood educator in this state in the past 40 years. Counsel, men and women like yourselves. School board members, mayors, legislators, governors and even presidents have turned to her for wisdom and guidance. Now, I'm not sure if naming just one little old building is actually enough homage to pay to her, but it's a great start. I hope you will unanimously pass this bill tonight. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Miss Garnett Sekou is not here, but he was speaking in favor. Let's see. And we have as Khadijah Haynes. Oh, I'm sorry. Steve Walker. Did he leave? Okay. Miss Conditions.
Speaker 3: Thank you very much, council members. I am so happy and honored to be before you to represent my family in encouraging you to take this action before you to name a building after my mother. The former lieutenant governor was here and asked me to bring greetings. The Speaker of the House was here earlier and asked me to bring greetings to you. Unfortunately, they had to leave, so I bring that and move on to bring you greetings and thoughts in a very heartfelt. Gratitude that you would take this step for my mother. We were raised to have very deep, strong feelings of a need to address public service, a need to care for those who need it the most in a flat out just love for this city that I can't explain. It is very deep and it runs in the entire family. And we thank you very much for this honor.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Miss Haines. We had. The Speaker of the House, Santa Duran, who could not be here. Ms.. Elvira Wedgeworth. It's not. She's not here. Okay. And then Miss Jennifer Harris.
Speaker 12: Good evening. As a third generation Denver. Right. It's an honor and pleasure for me to provide.
Speaker 2: My 100% support to name this property after.
Speaker 12: Anna. Joe Haines. She has provided visionary leadership. To help improve the lives of children in Colorado for many, many years. Including working to integrate business and education during the civil rights era. And I just humbly ask you to approve this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mrs. Harris. All right. This concludes our speakers questions by members of council. Councilwoman Black. Question. Okay. Councilman Hern, did you have a question.
Speaker 1: Miss Harris? I had a question for you. Just. Just one. What took you so long? I'm just kidding. I have no question, Mr. President.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: That was actually really good. Okay. The hearing, public hearing for Council Bill 659 is now closed. We have a special deal to hear a little bit from the mayor's office through our representative, Miss Gabby. So what was the mayor have to say about this?
Speaker 3: Thank you. Council President Brooks, Gabby Krieger from the mayor's office. The mayor asked me to share that. He absolutely and unequivocally supports this naming, that there is no greater champion in our city and our state for our kids other than antigens. And that many people, the mayor included, are disciples of her leadership in early education. And he thinks the council for their support.
Speaker 0: Excellent. Thank you. Tell the mayor. The mayor. Thank you. I know you're watching. So this is. This happens to be in my district. And so I'll start with comments and. You know, I've been thinking about for the last couple of weeks what to what to talk about with Miss Anna Jo Haines. And as you can hear by her accolades, you could be talking all day. But the real mark of an individual is how they treat other folks and how they leave you feeling and experiencing them. And, Ms.. Haines, I tell you, from the first day that I've been in contact with you, you've always you just have a dignity about you and about that dignity about the people you interact with where some elders in our community expect you to kiss the ring, you know, and you deserve that. I should be kissing your ring all the time. But you come with this dignity in this service and this love for an individual. And I just really felt that just as a young politician seven years ago when you were getting me involved in the Denver preschool program and the way you you move in this city in the way that you treat people is just incredible. And so I just want to thank you for that. And I also want to thank you for the incredible knowledge that you've given me around early childhood education. I am now I was a supporter. I was the advocate. Now I'm a champion for it because of you, because of your leadership. And so I really want to thank you for that. It's just been so inspiring. And I chaired the campaign to raise in 2014, I believe it was, to raise it the tax to a little higher so we can invest in our kids. And so I just really appreciate that and appreciate what you've done. But, you know, what I'm really excited about is this area that we're going to I don't know how many folks have been in this area. This is right off Tremont. This building right next door is the. Albert Wedgeworth building across the street is the Leonora B Quick Park. And it's in an area that's rapidly changing. It's in an area that is seeing a lot of new neighbors. But it seems like the last. Couple of years, we've been putting these pillars in the community and little kids are starting to say, who is who is Albert Wedgeworth? You know, who who is a eleanora? Be quick. And I'm so excited that they're going to rock and hear these kids playing in this yard and say, who is and and Joe Haynes. And there's going to be a plaque there. Someone is going to be able to tell them, let me tell you, sit down. She changed this community and she has her fingerprints all over this community. I forgot who said it, but I second whoever said this little building. We got a name, many other buildings after her. And so this is such an easy vote for me. Thank you for the person that you are. It's so nice to not have any. You know, sometimes we do these names and we have folks come upset that were naming at the. No. One you had say who speaking in favor. But it's because of who you are as a person. So we love you and we support you. Congratulations. And and Ms.. Happy Haynes. Next next to her daughter, who is also on the school board and leading our Parks and Rec department. Thank you for your leadership in the city as well. All right, Councilman.
Speaker 1: Her name is president. The question I could ask could have been enough. Because what took us so long and, yo, you're. Your impact is everlasting. Because the change, the difference you have made in this city is generous. You have changed people's lives. And that can't be overstated. And the stature in the way that you carry yourself is your warmth from a new person coming to Denver interested in running for elected office. I have just valued our conversations. Your love and your passion that you have is something that we can all benefit from. So I just want to say thank you. This is a no brainer and will probably be the easiest decision I will make as a council person. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Herndon. Councilwoman Black.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 7: Does your microphone.
Speaker 3: I always introduce Angelina as God because she's powerful, influential, charitable and kind. She's dedicated her life to her community, to children, and to her own very large family who will carry on your legacy, which is pretty incredible. Your half century career is well known. Thank you, Pamela, for the presentation. On a personal note, you've inspired me to serve. You've inspired me to be a better person. And you have inspired countless other people in our city and our state and our country. You are gifted at persuasion, and just like Tom Sawyer, you get everyone excited to join your cause. You're fearless and unstoppable. You're optimistic and always smiling. What you've done for Denver and generations of children has been transformational and monumental. An antidote. You look beautiful and strong and powerful tonight, and I'm so happy to support this. And thank you for all you do.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Gilmore.
Speaker 3: Thank you, President Brooks. I'm honored to serve on the board of the Denver Preschool Program with Anna Jo and have known Anna Joe and her family for many, many years. You know, I started out early on in my career working with Khadijah and Donna out at the farm way back when. And wonderful to see your daughter here as well, because I remember her as a little girl. And, you know, anejo your. Legend. Just you're a living legend in Denver. And I say that with the most humility and respect, because I think of a legend and I think of a legend as someone that we can emulate and see ourselves in. And you enable me to see myself in you and where I hope to be when I am so blessed, if God allows it to be at your age and how active you are, and if I call you on the phone, you pick right up and you tell me the straight story, which I so appreciate, and just your ideas and your creativity and innovation and that you have single handedly, by putting together great teams and by cultivating great relationships, you have changed the fabric of the city and county of Denver for the better. And I look forward to continuing to work alongside you and your family, because we still have lots of work to do in our city, especially for communities of color and other families who affordable, high quality child care is not a reality right now for them. And I know you've got great ideas on that, and I look forward to working with you in the future to make that a reality. But this could could not be a better naming of an early learning center. And I hope ultimately we all get an Anejo Heinz building in each one of our districts, because you have definitely changed the fabric of the city for the better. So I'm glad to support this and congratulations Anejo, to you and your family tonight. Thank you, President Brooks.
Speaker 0: Yeah, thank you, Councilman Gilmore. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 11: Thank you, Mr. President. Anejo, I just want to thank you as everyone else up here has, but I want to add my voice thanking you for your lifetime of dedication to what I think is the city's most important resource. And that's growing our children and raising them up to take our place in their time. And I think you've done a remarkable job, but I do have to wonder about one thing, and that is I think I probably met you 30, 35 years ago for the first time. How in the world do you manage to never age? I swear, you look the same as the day I met you back in sometime in the eighties. Remarkable. But it's my pleasure to support this. And thank you very much for your lifetime of dedication.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Sussman.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mr. President. My goodness. Love all the eloquence up here. I'm not sure I'll be able to be as eloquent, but I will be as feel it as much as anybody. I think I met you probably when I first came to Denver, and I'm talking about 45 years ago. We were we were each about ten years old. And and we just we look just like this, as somebody has suggested. And it was when you were starting the Head Start program. It it was. And it was controversial. And what a brand new concept. And I was at the community college system and ever since then just follow do and what you have done and what you have done for our city and what you've done for our children. And and and the fact that I think, you know, everybody in Denver and everybody knows you. And so it won't be too hard for people to say who was who is this and a Joe Haines, because so many people will already know it. I couldn't be more excited about this project and will be happy to vote for it.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. In Ajo, I feel like part of the Heins family. You know, going back to when Happy and I worked together in Lieutenant Governor George Brown's office. I've come to know your other your other children and really just seen that they have been very successful in their own right is truly attributable to you and your husband in the way that you raised them. But the the legacy and the work that you did, I know Martha Udoh still worked very closely with you. Sue Casey, who was one of the council members on this body, who was the original voice pushing for, you know, the Denver preschool program. We called it something different at that time, helping educate everybody around the fact that, you know, when you expose children at an early, early age to quality education, to, you know, good nutrition or all of that, that 80% of the brain is being developed in the first three years. And in giving our children the tools they need to be successful. Was was part of that education that got everybody bought in to making sure that we had the financial resources to help families who didn't always have the the financial assistance to put their children in quality daycare with the educational focus and people from other cities come and look at Denver and just look at how did we do this? They do the same thing with our CFD program as well, but they are just dumbfounded that Denver has this investment, this commitment to invest in our children. And you were such a catalyst in that process. And I appreciate the work. It is truly an honor to ensure that your legacy is left for this city by having your name on this building and having children who will be in and out of that building, wondering who is this missing of Joe Haines and in having this story told. It's an important part of. This city as we're seeing so many changes to have these opportunities to name buildings and some of our our parks and other public assets after key leaders in this city who have paved that path and created the opportunity for others to be able to benefit that might not otherwise have had the access to the resources. And in this particular case, with the Denver Preschool Program that helps so many families across this city covered the cost of their daycare. Thank you for your leadership. Thank you for your years of dedication and work to children and for just the incredible work that you've done with with your own children who , as I said, are leaders in their own right in our community. And I'm just honored to support this naming of 28. 51 three months street after in a joke. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Well, Miss Haines, I have not had the privilege to know you personally, but I needed to let you know that about halfway through the initial reading of your accomplishments, I literally wanted to stand up and cheer. And I have a hunch I'm going to get that opportunity in a little bit here. But I just wanted to thank you very much for your incredible contributions to our kids. And I look forward to supporting this ordinance. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 6: Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. There isn't a lot left to say. My colleagues have done such a good job with it, but I just. I wanted to speak up. You know, I sit up here, and so I guess that makes me a Denver city councilman. But really, in my heart, I'm an educator and my mom was a teacher. My dad was a teacher. My wife is a teacher. My brother is a teacher. And I spent the entirety of my career before landing here working with kids. And I just want to say thank you for what you have done for Denver kids. As someone who my true passion and my made the fabric of who I am is working with kids is inspiring to see the difference that a person can make. And I'm so excited to be able to vote and and name this building after you. And thank you for everything that you've done for Denver kids. Thanks, President.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Thank you. Councilman Clark. Councilman Canete.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. It strikes me as I listen to my colleagues and I want to think about the word that Councilwoman Black used, which was powerful. And I think so often that term in our current environment is really seen as a negative and can actually, often with women especially, be used in somewhat of a not so complimentary way. And I think the true test of whether power is achieving good is is for whom, you know, we speak when we have access and we have a voice that others may not. And so, you know, for children who often do not have a voice while they're young and developing their language skills, but also for parents who don't have access to the research that you had to to make the case as you.
Speaker 3: Did or to the people.
Speaker 4: That you had access to or the rooms that you were invited into. And so I commend you in, you know, not just.
Speaker 3: What you've achieved, but in the use of that.
Speaker 4: Power in such an effective and moral and highly outcome oriented way for people who really needed to have an advocate because they didn't have that same access. And so thank you for that. And I'm excited to see a powerful woman's name on a building here in Denver. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Good luck. Very nice. Thank you. Councilman, can each councilman knew.
Speaker 10: Crispbread as he's. I'm not sure I know you very well either, but we know your daughter very well. And then the qualities we see in her obviously come from you is no question about that. Your whole list of accomplishments were so impressive, just like were said earlier. I just love reading about it. And this naming was a small tribute to the honors that you've already received, and we are so look forward to doing that and everything on your behalf. So thank you again for all you do for preschool. We love preschool. We love reading the stories to the kids every year. And and I just want to feel proud to be a part of this small honor for you tonight.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Thank you, Councilman New Miss Sandwich Johanns, we apologize for keeping you here this late. No one said that, but we. We did not know who was going to run this long. But in the meantime, we honor you, Madam Secretary. It's been moved and seconded, and we have a roll call, please.
Speaker 3: Black.
Speaker 4: Hi, Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 2: Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I her name's Cashman. Cashman.
Speaker 3: Can each.
Speaker 4: Lopez. New.
Speaker 3: Ortega, I. Sussman Hi.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 0: Hey, man. That's an eye. Close voting announced results.
Speaker 4: 12 eyes.
Speaker 0: 12 eyes. The building at 2851. Fremont is now the Miss Anna Jo Haynes Early Childhood Center. I'm going to take a little bit of privilege and ask Miss Anna, Joe Haines to come up here and make a few words. Bless us with your words, please.
Speaker 3: Wow. That's all I got to say. Wow. You know, there was moments, this really wow moment. Mr. President and esteemed council members. I'm extraordinarily humbled. For this recognition. And I mean, use my cards because I was told by my children and other people who know me very well that I must, because otherwise we'd be here as long as we were earlier this year. So I won't I won't do that.
Speaker 7: I want to especially.
Speaker 3: Thank Mayor Hancock. From back when he was on the city council. I remember coming to him and saying, We're in buildings that you own that are in dire shape. They've been around for more than 25 years. It's time to do something about that. So he said the bond was coming up at that time and he said he'd work with me to make sure that we could get them in the bond. Well, we did, but I worked with him very closely and just talked to him all the time about early childhood. At the end of that time, when the bond won, he did say to me, you know, you really know a lot about this. You know, I think we had a name, a building in your honor. Well, that was several years ago. And so here we are today. So I want to especially thank you for thinking about me. There are several other people that I would like to thank, and it's the committee that put the petition together for me. This was going on for a few months before I even realized that something was happening. So I want to thank Dr. Pamela Harris, who is my boss now, and Albert Wedgeworth and Aaron Brown, the executive director of the Office of Children's Affairs, who I work very closely with. And. Dr. Lisa Roy and the many people who went to the committee and spoke on my behalf. Walter Eisenberg, Tracy Winchester and many, many more people. And I want to thank all the signers of the petition if they're listening in tonight or not. A lot of people couldn't come tonight, they said, but they were going to listen. And so I want to thank them. That was well. And I especially want to thank the literally hundreds of coworkers that I and colleagues that I've worked with over the years, just many, many people who plan, I think, to come to the dedication at some point. As I listened to the tributes tonight and to all of you council people speak, I was reminded me of the people who worked side by side with me to accomplish the tasks I was able to do and the tasks we set out to do. How lucky I was to work with so many people who cared so much about the children and the families. And, you know, it takes that village to raise a child. So it was really important. And I thought about each of them and thought about some of the things that people said about me tonight. And I said, Oh, I remember who worked with me on that. I couldn't have done it without them. I remember all those people and they were there, you know, in my heart tonight, because you can't do things by yourself. It takes that village not only to raise a child, but to make sure something happens in the process. Let's see. Let me tell you about a really important thing that I think you don't know about, and it's made it possible for this incredible recognition to happen. It's a serendipity. So I have to tell you just very few things about me. I was born on the orrery a campus. And so I think instilled in me when I was very little without even knowing that it would be an education campus. I kind of believe in those things. It was meant to be that I was going to look at education. So I lived there for a while and then I moved over to Northeast Denver and was lucky enough to go to Mariah Mitchell School. And. That names may sound a little familiar to you right now because Mariah Mitchell is being talked about as we speak because she brought a contingent of women to Denver in the late 1800s when the last. What do you call that? It's coming. The eclipse is coming. She was not looked at with much respect for most of the men in her field, and she decided to bring all the women engineers that she knew at that time and brought them to Denver so that they could see the eclipse. I then was lucky enough to go off through Mitchell in my fourth and fifth grade. I had two teachers who told me all about Mariah Mitchell, and it was the first time I knew anything. I thought, This building is named for her. Isn't this incredible? And she brought those women because she felt it was important for people all over the country who were looking at us at that time to know that there were women in this field and that they could really do something. So she taught me something very early on about taking leadership. So I'm grateful to teachers who taught me that. And to know that there were women that long ago out there really making sure that things were happening not only for women, but making sure the kids had what they needed to have. So I want you to know also that I grew up in this neighborhood and the building where the rec center is now was the old Clinton YMCA. And I grew up there going to teen campaigns. And then when I took one of my first jobs, which was with Parks and Recreation for the city, I became a coach and played basketball in that building before it was torn down. As the buildings were being looked at there, there were temporary buildings, but there. And so this is my neighborhood. And when it became time to bring Headstart into the city, I worked with people to do that. And it it was a huge payoff because what happened from that was the mothers said, our children have had a head start, but we haven't. We need that headstart and and we want to go to work. And so our agency came into being to help those people go to work. We worked very closely for help, and we got it. And we were the first contractor to do early childhood with the city and county of Denver through the Department of Human Services. Three years later, Mile High United Way stepped to the plate. And we grew and we grew to be the largest subsidized early childhood Karen Education Agency in the city of Denver and in the state of Colorado. We were only able to do that because in 1970 there was had many available and the people who were sitting in those chairs before you were trying to figure out what to do with that money? Well, I had a chance to talk to some people about that. They actually made the decision. To build the buildings we are still in. To this day they were the new Denver was the only city in the country that used HUD dollars for early childhood. And this was in the early seventies. So you should be very proud of what you did, because if you hadn't done that, I wouldn't be standing here today getting all this credit for having done something for the kids and the families that started right here in this building. So I thank you so much for this honor. Couldn't do it without you. Oh.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Wow. That was very sweet. We have another public hearing tonight. You. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You guys are welcome to stay for the next public hearing as well. Councilman? No. Will you please put Council Resolution 687 on the floor?
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance naming the City-owned building located at 2851 Tremont Place the Anna Jo Haynes Early Learning Center.
Re-names the building at 2851 Tremont Place for community leader Anna Jo Haynes. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-6-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07172017_17-0726
|
Speaker 4: Man. A man, councilman.
Speaker 1: Can we give it up for Councilman Lopez, please? How? All right. We're going to go right to presentations. Madam Secretary, do we have any presentations?
Speaker 3: None, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Communications. Do we have any communications?
Speaker 3: None, Mr. President. How about.
Speaker 1: Proclamations? Proclamations?
Speaker 3: None. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Great. Can you read the resolutions, please?
Speaker 3: From Business Arts Workforce Aeronautical Services 736 Resolution Protocols Agreement Change City and County of Denver. J.C. Watts, Inc.. Concerning Project Management Services at Denver International Airport 737 Resolution New Oppose Agreement between City and County Denver to Follow and Associates, Inc. concerning project management services at Denver International Airport 738 Resolution Approve any post standard concession agreement between City and County Denver Rocky Mountain Hospitality Partners, LLC concerning concession at Denver International Airport 739 Resolution Approve New Post Standard Concession Agreement between City and County Denver Host ESL DNF LLC concerning concessions at Denver International Airport 740 Resolution of Universal Standard Concession Agreement 13 City Encounter HFA Ltd HD An LLC concerning concession at Denver International Airport 741 Resolution of Revenue Agreement for Professional Services between City and County of Denver Metrics Advisors, LLC. Concerning the Premium Value Concessions Program at Denver International Airport. 742 Resolution Approve any post agreement between City and County for ABM Aviation, Inc. concerning operation of curbside transportation management services at Denver International Airport. 743 Resolution Approve any post office lease agreement between City and county Denver DNA Solutions LLC concerning office space at Denver International Airport 744 Resolution of Rooney First Ninth Amendment to Agreement between City and County of Denver Sky Port Holdings, LLC concerning concession at Denver International Airport Financing Governance 749 Resolution for new post temporary crane license agreement between City and County Denver South Broadway Station Improvements LLC for the temporary operation and use of a crane swing 753 Resolution approved impose a mandatory agreement between city and county Darren Caplan, Kersh and Rockwell LLP to increase compensation lane use transportation infrastructure 650 resolution approving post second amended three Concession License between City and county Denver ABC Evergreen LLC for Food and Beverage Concession, Evergreen Golf Course and a Modified Concessionaires Improvement Responsibilities and special event procedures for non golf events. 747 Resolution Laying out opening instruction as part of the City Streets System Paso Lane as a public alley founded by West 44th Avenue Zone. Rio Street. Sheraton Boulevard in West 46th Avenue. Safety. Housing. Education. Homelessness. 506. Resolution Approving Foes Agreement between City and County. Denver, Colorado Women's Employment and Education, Inc. Doing Business Center for Work Education. Employment to provide case management support for employment and Training Services to Temporary Assistance for Needy Recipients. 507 Resolution Approving Proposed Agreement to Man City Encounter and Jewish Family Service to Colorado, Inc. for Employment and Training Services to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families TANF Recipients 733 Resolution Approving and Providing with execution Post Grant Agreement between City and County Office of National Drug Control Policy concerning high intensity drug trafficking area fiscal year 17 program and the funding therefor 748 resolution approving the Mayor's appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Now read the bills for introduction.
Speaker 3: For Finance and Governance 659 Before Norton is naming the city owned building located at 2051 Fremont Place in a Joe Haines Early Learning Center 691 Bill for an ordinance monkey supplemental appropriations at Denver Municipal Airport System Enterprise Capital Equipment Improvement Fund and 735 bill for an ordinance establishing any new fund in the general government. Special Owner Fund for the Firefighter Heart Benefit Program.
Speaker 1: Madam Secretary. Is that it?
Speaker 3: That's it.
Speaker 1: All right. All right. Councilmembers, this is your last opportunity to call out an item. Now do a quick recap. Under resolutions, nothing has been called out under bills for introduction. Nothing has been caught out on the bills for final consideration. Councilwoman Ortega has called out Council Bill 726 for an amendment under pending. Nothing has been called out. Madam Secretary, can you please put the first item on the screen? 726 Thank you very much. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 726 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council will certainly be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: All right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilwoman Ortega, go ahead and make your amendment.
Speaker 5: Council members a move to amend Council Bill 17 0726 as follows on page one 926 Strike July 19, 2019 and replace with January 17, 2020. On page two Line 14, add the following phrase to the end of subsection four A except as specifically allowed in subsection four. See below on page two, line 18. Add the following phrase to the end of subsection four C except during the period July 21, 2017 through January 19th, 2018, on page two, lines 22 through 26, strike all references to 270 and replace with 365 on page two line to strike the word and on page to line 29 strike the period at the end of the line in insert and at the end of the subsection four print F and page two line 30 insert new subsection 4G that reads as follows. G during the period July 21, 2017 through January 19, 2018. Owners or tenants of existing buildings who have received an order to vacate from the city from December one, 2016. That's a typo. Through July 21, 2017, due to unpermitted work and or no valid certificate of occupancy may apply for a compliance plan subject to the conditions of subsections. Four Perin B Perin D for an E and print F above a light on page two Line 31 strike July 19, 2019, and replaced with January 17, 2020 2020. On Page three Line two Strike July 19, 2019 and replace with January 17, 2020. On page three, line 28, strike the word and from building official on page three, line 30, strike the period at the end of the line in insert end on page three line 31, insert new subsection six E that reads as follows For any owners of tenants who may apply for a compliance plan as allowed in Section four G above may also apply for conditional certificate of occupancy subject to the requirements of Section five through ten of this ordinance. And on page six Line one, insert a new Section 11 that reads as follows. Section 11 Every six months from the effective date of this ordinance, Community Planning and Development shall prepare a written report to be delivered to City Council, explaining CPD's activities related to an assessment of outcomes of applications and issuances of compliance plans and conditional certificates of occupancy. No later than October 18th, 2019, CPD shall conduct a policy review of this ordinance and report any recommendations to City Council.
Speaker 1: It has been moved. I need a second. However. David Braswell I see a typo in this. It says. Did you say owners of or owners or. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: I which.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry.
Speaker 5: It's e g.
Speaker 1: E parentheses e below. Page three.
Speaker 5: Owners of tenants that should be owners or tenants. Okay.
Speaker 1: Just just just want to make that. Let the record show that it's not of us or. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Um, let's see what your comments. Yeah, go ahead. Okay. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: So let me let me first say that there were a number of meetings that took place between CPD and the D y, a group that represents the artists in the Reno Arts District. You know, we had a public hearing last week on this ordinance. There were some concerns expressed, and I think we were able to work through all of the issues by sitting down with CPD. I was not party to the actual meetings but was in the loop on all the discussions going back and forth. So I'm going to just read this to explain what the amendments do. So this amendment extends the time frame of the ordinance for an additional six months. The amendment allows owners and tenants of existing buildings that have been modified without permits required by Denver's building code to apply for a compliance plan and conditional certificate of occupancy. Even if the owners and tenants have not voluntarily disclosed the existence of unpermitted work, but only for the first six months after the effective date of the ordinance. Additionally, owners tenants of existing buildings that have received an order to vacate from the city due to unpermitted work or no valid certificate of occupancy from December one, 2016 to the effective date of the ordinance may take advantage of the compliance plan and conditional certificate of occupancy process. Last, the amendment creates a requirement for CPD to prepare reports of the Conditional Plan and Conditional Certificate occupancy programs for City Council every six months and for CPD to review the program three months prior to the end date of the ordinance and report any recommendations to City Council. Lastly, I do want to acknowledge that there are representatives of the d y arts community in the audience. Just ask if maybe you raise your hands, acknowledge your agreement with the amendments. We are not having a second public hearing tonight, but just want to thank you for your input last week and to say that your input made a difference. So I just want to encourage my colleagues to support this amendment tonight and allow us to move forward and have safety issues addressed while at the same time really working with the artists community who are challenged. The last piece I'll mention is that we will. Councilman Cashman has committed to assist in trying to help us find some dollars that may be available to assist and hopefully work with the other groups in the Reno Arts District, whether it's the bid or maybe some of the businesses that are down there to match funding that might be used and assist the folks who are trying to get some of those safety life safety issues in your facility addressed. So just want to encourage your support for this amendment tonight.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. I say again, thank you for your support of this to get this going. Councilman Espinosa, you're up. And Mr. President, are we asking questions if we have a breath since you're here? Quick question. The the ordinance is clearly written around the 2015 code, which I like, because it offers some predictability. But since we're going out to 2020, there is a chance that something could come. There might be an M and a another adopted code between now and then. Do you see that happening?
Speaker 10: I wouldn't think so. I wouldn't think we'd have a coat of another coat adoption before the expiration of this time period.
Speaker 1: So, well.
Speaker 10: We could certainly address that. If we if that turns out to be, we can certainly mean that it would be for our version. You're saying no.
Speaker 1: She's not doing it again.
Speaker 4: I think we're going to have another code amendment. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Right. All right. Great. Thank you.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Good question. Councilman Cash, when you're up on questions, questions, comments. Yeah, you turn on your mike.
Speaker 9: Thank you very much. I just first want to thank Councilwoman Ortega for putting this together along with the.
Speaker 10: CPD in our DIY community.
Speaker 9: And I just couldn't be more.
Speaker 10: Proud.
Speaker 9: Of community planning and development and our artistic community.
Speaker 10: For.
Speaker 9: Coming to a compromise that works. It's going to be.
Speaker 6: The.
Speaker 9: Beginning, I think, of of changing or of giving a future to our bohemian arts community that I think is so important. And, you know, at the hearing last week, the number of issues that popped up, I wondered how it was going to resolve and the level of commitment on both sides made it fall into place fairly quickly . I don't know if it, in fact, does answer each and every detail of concern from from the artistic community. But I think it goes a long way and we can look and we will keep our eye on how this evolves and if it needs to tweak along the way, maybe we need to get back together. But thank you all for for some hard work. It's important.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Councilman Kasper and Councilman Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 7: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Little mea culpa for throwing out the idea of amendment, but then not having the capacity to really work her lead on it. So I just want to say that I appreciate the staff and Councilman Ortega really leading on the implementation. And I want to also just commend the department. You know, the idea of regulatory enforcement and flexibility are kind of an anathema. The two concepts don't really go well together. And so this kind of creative thinking is is really important. And I think it's it's a sign of our evolution, the idea that if we have a certain goal, which is safety and folks, you know, being able to come forward, that it's best served actually by something like this than it is by rigidity, because people are more likely to hide safety hazards without something like this, and that doesn't make us safer. So I think this focus on the end outcome and vision and goal versus the details along the way is is the right approach. And so thank you to the community for working with the department to find some of these changes this week. And I'll be happy to support these amendments.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Councilman, can you tell someone to take you back up?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I just wanted to extend my appreciation also to our city attorney, Adam Hernandez, who drafted the amendments, sat in on the meeting. And the meeting in Brad's office actually included the other agencies that would need to weigh in, like the fire department and and others, the building department, so that we weren't having to schedule more meetings and postpone the the the bill and the amendments, but really be able to bring everybody together all at once and and hash out the the issues and the concerns that were outstanding. And Brad, to you and Jill, in, you know, your efforts in pulling everybody together, I just want to thank you for helping make this happen. So I think this will be a good thing for the city of Denver. And just appreciate your support. My colleagues support as well.
Speaker 1: That's great. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, I just want to remind everyone, we're voting on the amendment that we have to vote on the bill 726 as amended. And my final comments are, I think CPD, our legal team building code, I said this last week, you all came quite a ways. And I think our artists, the fact that ours or in this building went through security and are sitting in these seats to to fight for an amendment, y'all came quite a ways. But this is not it. There's a lot of work that we have to do and this proves that we can do the work together. So thank you all for working very hard. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Ortega. Hi assessment i black clerk. Hi Espinosa by Flynn I Gilmore I question can each Lopez I knew Mr. President.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance establishing a temporary voluntary disclosure and compliance plan process for existing buildings that have undergone unpermitted work, and temporarily amending Section 142.2 of the administrative section of the Denver Building and Fire Code to allow occupancy of certain existing buildings prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy through a conditional certificate of occupancy.
Amends Chapter 10 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code (DRMC) to allow occupancy of certain existing buildings through a conditional certificate of occupancy. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-28-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07172017_17-0615
|
Speaker 1: Council is reconvene. We have three public hearings this evening. Speakers should begin their remarks by telling council their names and cities of residents and if they feel comfortable doing so, their home address. If you're here to answer questions only when your name is called, come to the podium. State your name and know that you're available for questions of council. Speakers will have 3 minutes unless another has yielded his or her time, which would result in a total of 6 minutes on the presentation monitors to your right and left on the wall you will see their time count down speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing. Ms. Director comments to the Council as a whole and please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments again to council as a whole. Okay. And no individual attacks, please, councilman. Oh, never mind. We're okay. Okay. Council Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 615 on the floor.
Speaker 6: It is the president of the council bill 615 to please two one panel final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved and seconded. Public hearing for council bill 615 is now open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 9: Thank you, Mr. President, and Councilor Scott Robinson with Community Planning and Development. This is a request to rezone 2901 Broadway from I.B.M. to an RMU 30 with waivers and conditions to see Annex 16. This and the next case. Right next to each other. But there are two separate applications. There'll be two presentations. The property is in Council District nine in the Five Points neighborhood. In the Navajo Market Development at the southwest end of the Brighton Boulevard corridor. Property is about an acre and a half. There's currently a 29,000 square foot industrial structure on the property. The applicant is requesting the rezoning to redevelop the site. The majority of the property is zoned oh two and then a small portion at the northeast corner of the property is review 30 with waivers and conditions. Which is the ambiguity of the Industrial Zoning Review. 30 years old code. Former Chapter 59 residential mixed use zoning and then see Annex 16 is urban center context mixed use with a 16 storey maximum height. Surrounding properties are either remunerated with waivers in conditions or B you go to as well. The waivers and conditions that apply to the small portion zones ami 30 limit the height to 75 feet. There's a 12% minimum open space within the general market GDP area and a few other things. There's a GDP, a general development plan that covers the majority of the general market area.
Speaker 1: Scott, can you hold on just a second, Madam Secretary? We are not finding this PowerPoint in our. In our slide deck. Do we know if it's. Okay.
Speaker 4: You can see if I'm just looking at the staff report.
Speaker 1: Okay. So members of council, you can either look on this slide deck in front of you or there's a staff report that you can pull up as well. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 9: I'm sorry. So there is a general development plan for the general market area that covers the majority of site. And that was done in conjunction with the waivers and conditions zoning in 2007. But this property is not actually covered by the GDP. So there is a slight mismatch in where the zoning was applied and where the general development plan was applied. So a portion of the zoning with waivers and conditions was applied to this property. But the general development plan was not. As I mentioned, the site is currently has an industrial use. There are new apartments in the target market area just across the way to the north railroad track to the south and southeast and then vacant land on the east and west. You can see the new apartments there on the top left. The existing building there in the center and the railroad tracks down there on the bottom. Right. This application was reviewed by the Planning Board on May 17th. They voted 7 to 2 to recommend approval. There was no public comment at that meeting. I also went to the Land Use Transportation Infrastructure Committee on June six and we received no written public comment on this application. So, as you know, to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria are met. The first is consistency with adopt plans. There are three adopted plans that apply to this property. The first is comprehensive plan 2000. As described and staff report, staff has found that the application complies with these four strategies from the comp plan, mostly relating to mixed use development and redevelopment. The second plan is Blueprint Denver from 22. The plan designates the future land use concept for this property as mixed use, which calls for a mix of employment and residential at higher intensity than other areas in the city. It's also designated an area of change. Blueprint. Denver also includes street classifications. However, a waterway, the street on which this property sits, did not exist in 22 when the plan was adopted. So it doesn't have a designation in Blueprint Denver. But looking at the other local streets within that did exist in 2002, which were designated and designated locals. We assume that move all the way would be designated local as well. Which intended to provide access to individual properties and connect them to collector in arterial streets. Broadway and Brighton to the east are just a mixed use arterial. The Allegheny is a residential collector and that connects to Park Avenue, which is also an arterial. The River North Plan from 23 includes specific recommendations for the general market area, also designated as residential mixed use, which says both residential mixed use and commercial mixed use zoning are appropriate and calls for a compact, mixed use pedestrian friendly development in the area and does not include any specific height recommendations for the property. So Steph believes that the proposed Connect 16 zoning is consistent with the adopted plans and finds the first criterion met. The second criterion is uniformity of district district regulations. Steph finds that the proposed rezoning will result in the uniform absolute application of the annexed 16 zoning. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and general welfare of the city. Steph finds that the proposed rezoning will do so by implementing the city's adopted plans. The fourth criterion is for justifying circumstance. Steph finds that there are changes in changing conditions in the inarguably development area and in the broader Brighton Boulevard corridor to justify the rezoning in this case. And the fifth criterion is consistency with the neighborhood context, zone, district purpose and intent. This is where the planning board had some discussion when they looked at it. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the purpose and intent of the scenic 16 zone district seem like 16 does call for development served primarily by major arterials . And while this property does not have direct access to a major arterial, the area is served by, as I mentioned, both Broadway and Park Avenue, and the locals provide pretty quick access to both of those arterials. It's also well-served by transit and has good bike infrastructure, with both the South Platte Trail and the new cycle tracks that are going in on Bryant Boulevard. So that staff finds that the intent of the Connect 16 zone district is met and that all five criteria have been met and therefore staff recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Scott. Great presentation to the point. All right. We have three speakers this evening, if you would, please. Yes. If you please sit up on this front bench when I call your name. James West. Dudley Simmons and Chase Hill. James West. Your first. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 9: I'm James West. My address is 24 2017, number 316 here in Denver. I'm just the applicant here to answer questions.
Speaker 1: Great. Thank you. Dudley Smith. Simmons.
Speaker 10: Dudley Simmons. My address is 24 2017, Suite 3016. Here to answer.
Speaker 1: Questions as well. Great. And Chase Hill.
Speaker 9: Yes. My name is Chase Hill with Alcohol Residential. My address is 2420 West 17th Street, Suite 3016 here in Denver. I'm here to answer questions as well.
Speaker 1: Thanks. Thank you. You guys practice your speeches together for your candidate, okay, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I was going to ask if community development could come up again and talk about the slide that flashed on the screen really quickly. And it said that one of the conditions of the site was that there was a requirement for an affordable housing plan. But I don't remember you discussing that in any detail. So I wanted to ask if you can please go into as much detail as possible about that current requirement and then what the new zoning is carrying over.
Speaker 9: Right? So this was for the portion that was zoned AMI 30 with waivers and conditions, which was just this the small portion over here. So this was a part of the target market general development plan. When I was adopted, there was a requirement for a affordable housing plan to be put in place before the first development was approved and constructed in the target market. So that already took place with several developments having already been constructed in target market. The affordable housing plan was pretty similar to what the the affordable housing requirement was before the adoption of the fee last year. So is that for sale? If there was for sale product built in the general market area, a certain portion of it had to be affordable. And so so far there hasn't been any affordable housing or for sale housing built in the general market. But this property being re zoned out of that small portion that was covered by that being rezoning out of that will now have to comply with the current affordable housing requirements.
Speaker 7: Great. Thank you. And if I can ask someone from the team, you guys can decide who's appropriate, what your intentions are. The current ordinance, you know, has a fee per square foot, which obviously for the industrial and commercial floors that you'll be doing in your building would would would be appropriate. But for the residential, it allows to perform on site and build the units on site. Have you given any thought to how you plan to approach that?
Speaker 9: Yeah. Can you repeat the second part of that question? Yeah.
Speaker 7: So the new linkage fee that the council passed last year applies and that there's a per square foot fee on all development regardless of the type. But if you're building residential units, you could choose to include affordable units instead of paying the fee, you'd get credit towards the fee. And I was just curious if you have had some conversation yet about how you're going to go about approaching affordable housing in the project if you're planning just to pay the fee or you're thinking about building some affordable units.
Speaker 9: Rates are currently only for multifamily. It's a dollar 50 per square foot. So for the we're calling the phase three, which is the western side, it's about a 250 to anticipate it to be about 25,000 square foot sites that be about at $375,000 fee. On the fourth phase, the eastern side, that's probably about the same 200 to 200000 square feet. Again, a $385,000 fee. So combined $750,000 linkage fee. And currently that's what we intend to do. Obviously, we know that was formally adopted at the end of last year and we intend to pay that, obviously to adhere to that.
Speaker 7: Okay. I just I would just well, it's not comments. So you could talk to the department about the possibility of including units. I encourage you to think about that. Well, thank you.
Speaker 9: Let me just say that in Austin, Texas, the requirement is actually inclusive, affordable housing instead of a linkage fee. And a lot of developers and a lot of constituents and citizens of Austin are actually more in support of the linkage fee. The problem we've had and projects in Austin too that come to mind where we did have 10% affordable at 60% of in the thigh one and the other one is 10% and 80% of it. So we actually had a hard time leasing those units even at the affordable rates. And I'm not sure if it's that they're one and two bedroom units in the locations or the amenities aren't attractive to those people that that could choose to live in the projects. So we've actually had vacancy in those units, surprisingly. So we think the linkage fee is actually a better solution because it allows you, the city of Denver, to take the funds into the paid into that that linkage fee account or fund and decide where you want to build affordable housing, how you want to build it, what kind of amenities you want, include kind of finishes and , and really have a project at a location of your choosing to address that need.
Speaker 7: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: Yeah, thank you. Can someone can each councilman as well? Yeah. Along that line, is there some documented stuff or is that just purely anecdotal?
Speaker 9: In Austin, Texas, or in Austin. You want me to file documentation that we did that did the timbers and affordable it to projects in Austin?
Speaker 1: Yeah, but is that true for all these projects that have.
Speaker 9: Been recalled or I can only think of the two that we've that we built in the past three years. But I've heard that's the case that other projects as well, surprisingly, that when there is an affordable component, you think there would be a line out the door to live in those units and the wait list for those units. And in fact, that hasn't been the case. Again, both those were urban infill projects. So some of those affordable units were 600 square foot one bedrooms, some were 900 square foot two bedrooms. And perhaps that's not the right unit mix or unit size for to address that need. So that could be an issue you would have here in Denver, I would imagine, if you try to do the same thing.
Speaker 1: Sorry. The the the. And this is helping me sort of understand the the sort of the option to continue to buy out rather than to provide the. Do you think. Well, I'd be curious to. To. Councilman, there's so many things you can think about. Come right back. Yeah, that'd be great. Sorry. Councilman Cash. Okay. So quick question. Actually, Scott, let me have you answer this. So we're rezoning this to 16.
Speaker 9: Correct.
Speaker 1: Currently, we're in conversations coming before this council of the 30th and Blake Station Air Station area. They would not have to comply with the design standard.
Speaker 9: Right. This this property is not included within the 30th and Blake.
Speaker 1: That's right. It's right outside. Okay. Sorry. Sorry about that, huh? Let me just ask let me ask some one of you all to address this question. This process at the rhino area has been through for the last two years, looked at addressing affordability, what you guys just talked about. But it also looked at design standards. And so we will be passing hopefully through this council in October, November design standards and guidelines. And just we're really concerned about that just because, you know, we have national and international developers now coming in and throwing up a lot of stuff. And so just wondering, have you all looked at what the standards will be and have you thought about if you'll be able to comply at all to those standards?
Speaker 9: Yes. We have looked at the proposed standards that are that are on the books. And for the most part, we do believe that we would comply. We're looking forward to seeing how those hashed out. The one stipulation.
Speaker 1: I think, that's in the proposed.
Speaker 9: Design standards is the ground floor having a ceiling height of, I believe it's 18 to 25 feet, which is a little bit awkward for residential ground floor units, unless there's a mezzanine allowed. But still, it's still within our.
Speaker 10: Intention to comply.
Speaker 9: With the adopted plans, assuming that there's also no conflict between the design standards and the normal.
Speaker 1: Marketplace. Okay. So just just real quick, just the mass reduction, you know, at the top end and also retail on the bottom or activation, I guess. So those those two would comply.
Speaker 9: Correct. And residential really counts as an active street activation.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Oh, sorry I missed you because you can go. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thanks, Mr. President. Just briefly, Scott, could you discuss the transit accessibility here? Because I'm fairly familiar with the routes there, and that's kind of sitting in an island where you can't really get to Broadway because it's down in the in the cut and union stations a mile away, the commuter rail platform.
Speaker 9: Right. So there's there's no transit directly within the general market area. Right. But as you mentioned, there is transit on Brighton, Broadway, and there's a stop right up here at 28th. So that's a pretty short walk up to there. And then there's also a stop up at Warren Park that serves a lot of.
Speaker 8: That's yeah, that's a very robust one on Park Avenue. Right. The one on Broadway serves one rally.
Speaker 9: Around.
Speaker 8: 48 that has 30 minute headways during the peak and one hour in the off peak.
Speaker 9: Right. So just one in one route on Broadway there, but quite a few there on park.
Speaker 8: Okay. So the transit accessibility is the I believe it's a little over a half a mile walk to Park Avenue.
Speaker 9: I think it's less than half a mile to park. Okay. I mean, it's just. Sorry. That's just up right here. Right up the ramp.
Speaker 8: Just. Just a little cheat here. I did the Google walking distance while we were talking. So it's about a half a mile.
Speaker 9: Okay. I'll take your word for it.
Speaker 4: That's all.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. All right. I think I got it now. So the 10% that Austin requires, is it do they provide assistance when you do that, or is it strictly on your guys's nickel?
Speaker 9: Our responsibility.
Speaker 1: Okay. Do they offer any reduction in that percentage if you increase the number of bedrooms per unit?
Speaker 9: They're learning a lot of lessons right now. Our project in the East Charleston Core Zone was one of the very first projects to have this inclusive, affordable housing. Our second project, called Burnham Marketplace, is the fifth or sixth. They're learning as they go. Initially, they did not have you allocate between ones to threes. So it left the developers the option to put all the affordable units in their smallest units, which obviously is not not right and not what the community needs for affordable housing. But so they solved that problem. But it is entirely up to the developer to provide the affordable housing and in proportion to their unit mix. Or if their unit mixes 70% ones, 30% to use, their affordable units have to be 70% ones, 30% twos as well.
Speaker 1: So I appreciate your candor. I appreciate my colleagues entertaining this because I am I am actively trying to sort of structure something to address gentrification, particularly in northwest Denver that is, I think tends to be very pro developer. But I want to make sure that we're thinking about it in ways that get outcomes that we're trying to get, which is people actually using marketing of the units. Do you have to self market or is there a centralized service that with Austin housing of some sort? You know.
Speaker 10: In in the projects in.
Speaker 9: Austin we've teamed up with a local housing authority that's helped with that that the residents and make sure that they're qualified to meet those and as units were tied down for 40 years. One one thing I want to address also what's up for consideration in Austin right now with their new.
Speaker 10: Zoning.
Speaker 9: Is the planning commission has been considering in lieu of a certain number of units the 10% number that you could do, a 10% of the gross square footage as an option to to be able to play with larger unit sizes, for example, if that's what's deemed necessary.
Speaker 1: So if you could please contact my office after this, I'd like to throw our concept out for you guys to review, because the idea is, is that we'd have our market developers doing affordable housing. If it makes if it can make sense to particular to this, then it looks like through the documentation that the application was sort of ruminating and being applied to somewhere in February of this year, there are 9 to 6 to nine nanos, depending on sort of the veracity of the R.A. that we're talking about. When did you guys do the outreach to the R.A.?
Speaker 9: We met with Councilman Brooks six months ago, seven months ago, and started the process of reaching out to all our no's shortly thereafter. So I would say the first quarter of this year, I think there were nine or nos. We reached out to all of them, had conversations. A couple of some were less responsive, as you might expect. But we did have several conversations with around our district as an example, and so we've reached out to all those groups.
Speaker 1: So was it before or after the application was filed?
Speaker 9: It would have been. I think it was right after the application was filed, we started reaching out to them after the application was filed.
Speaker 1: Okay. This is how sorry. I'm looking at my own notes. Yes, I know. That was. That's great. Well, and how how would you characterize the nature of that input? Obviously, no one's here in opposition. So I would.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 2901 Broadway in Five Points.
Rezones property at 2901 Broadway from I-B UO-2 and R-MU-30 with Waivers and Conditions to C-MX-16, (industrial and residential, mixed-use to commercial, mixed-use) in Council 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-6-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07172017_17-0616
|
Speaker 1: Okay. This is how sorry. I'm looking at my own notes. Yes, I know. That was. That's great. Well, and how how would you characterize the nature of that input? Obviously, no one's here in opposition. So I would.
Speaker 9: Say that from the feedback, I figured it was good, was helpful. One of the things we'd like to incorporate in our project, again, we did this in Austin in a similar neighborhood. You know, the East Austin area of Austin's very similar in a lot of ways to Reno, a lot of art artists and coffee shops and bars , a lot of great retail. It's gentrifying quickly. And one of the things they ask us to incorporate in our project here that we've successfully done in Austin is live work units a place for the artists to have a gallery but a way to live space, a functional living space in the back. So a storefront along the street with their with their art on display and then a bedroom, kitchen and closet bathroom in the back. So we're incorporating a 4000 square feet and possibly more. It depends on the frontage, but we're gonna incorporate hopefully around 7 to 10 of those live work units on the street frontage.
Speaker 1: And is that codified in some sort of way or or just.
Speaker 9: It's not yet. It would be, I guess, codified in the side of the same process or perhaps I guess a concept review approval. We could do that.
Speaker 1: Okay. But you didn't enter into any agreement with any of the surrounding arnault's or birds or something like that?
Speaker 9: We weren't asked to, but again, it's on the site plan they've seen. We intend to provide it.
Speaker 1: Are do you guys lease these projects when you in after you've built them or.
Speaker 9: Yes. They're all be rentals, including the live work units. Okay. Um.
Speaker 1: The reason why I ask is we know that a live work scenario is something we, we got in a development to element 47, in particular in Jefferson Park. But they were they're just they're live units. You know, they have a commercial storefront on the ground floor. Or is there some way that you guys compel this to actually be a storefront or operate as a business through the lease agreement of some sort?
Speaker 9: The leases are structured like a traditional apartment lease. That's one of things that's attractive about it because a lot of the we found in Austin, a lot of the artists or could be a a spray tan studio or a hair salon, they wouldn't qualify for traditional retail space because of the requirements from the lender for the loan for the TY work. So they're structured like traditional 12 month apartment leases, and that's what we intend to do here.
Speaker 1: Mm hmm. Yeah. So, all right, no further questions. All right. Thank you. Public hearing for council 615 is not close comes members of council. I'll start out being that this is in District nine. You know, the proposers, I think, had a chance to sit down with me some several months ago. I asked them to to reach out to Arnaud's and find out some of the issues and they did immediately. Not a lot of pushback from Arnaud's. You know, I wish that it was going simultaneous with our new 30th in Blake, but it doesn't matter because this is barely outside of. But I really do hope that you all will work with what the community has come up with, which I think is an incredible affordable housing plan and also a design standards and guidelines you guys are making a decision to pay into a fund, and that's up to you. I'm glad we passed that in September, but I really would hope that you would think about the life of this building. Hope you think about the life of this area and how to give back to it. So we will have those done in October and you'll have plenty of time to look over it. I hope that you can comply. Thank you. Seeing no other comments. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Black. Hi, Clerk.
Speaker 10: Hi.
Speaker 3: Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 4: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I Cashman can Kenny Lopez.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 3: Knew. So I'm just looking. Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I was wondering these results.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes.
Speaker 1: Ten eyes. Council Bill 615 has passed. Congratulations. Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 616 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Mr. President, move that council. 616 me please to one final, final consideration do pass.
Speaker 1: It has been moved in second at public hearing for council bill 616 is now open. May we have the staff report? Scott, you're back.
Speaker 9: Yes. Thank you again, Mr. President. And Council. Scott Robinson with community planning involvement. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this application is immediately adjacent to the previous one, but it is a separate application. So this one is 3204 and 3206 Tanaka Street. The request is to go from review 30 with waivers and conditions to and if you go to to see Annex eight again in District nine, in the Five Points neighborhood in the Largo market area. And this one is part of the Largo market general development plan. The property is about two and a half acres currently vacant and again requesting rezoning to redevelop the site. Currently, the majority of the site is Army 30 with waivers and conditions. So again, that's old code. Former Chapter 59 residential mixed use with just a very small portion at the east end of the site, I.B. Hirota, which is an industrial zone district. The request is to go to see an x eight. So urban center neighborhood context mixed use with an eight storey maximum height. As I mentioned, part of the Eden Argo Market General Development Plan from 27, which calls for between 2020 500 residential units, 125,000 200,000 square feet of commercial space, residential retail office uses and a 75 foot maximum height. And there are urban design standards and guidelines that apply to this property. As I mentioned, the site is in the city with waivers and conditions and a small portion year or two surrounded by the same zone districts. The waves and conditions. Same ones we talked about with the 75 foot maximum height, 12%, minimum open space within the GDP area and that same affordable housing requirement. That the plan was in place before the first development occurred in the GDP area. Property, as I mentioned, is vacant with the industrial use just to the east, the railroad tracks to the south, new residential to the north, and other industrial uses to the west. There you can see the surrounding buildings. This application went to the planning board on May 17th, where it was recommended for approval by nine. A vote went to the Land Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on June 6th. I received no public comment at the planning board meeting or since. And again, there are five criteria that must be met for the rezoning to be approved. The first is consistency with the adopted plans. Three plans here, the first being conference of Plan 2000 as described in the staff report. Staff has found that the proposed rezoning complies with these four strategies, mostly dealing with mixed use redevelopment. Blueprint Denver from 2000 to designates a future concept land use in this area mixed use calling for employment and residential uses at higher intensity than other areas. Also an area of change. This one is again fronted by waterway, which as we discussed, was not in place in 2002, but we infer that it would be in a designated local, and then it also has frontage along DeNardo Street, where it turns into the Lake Del Gainey Street, which is a residential collector. The Reverend Ross plan from 2003 designates this area residential mixed use and also includes specific recommendations for the general market area, including creating a compact, mixed use, pedestrian friendly development and recommends residential mixed use or commercial commercial mixed use zoning. And again, no specific height recommendations in the River North plan. So that staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the adopted plans and the first criterion is met. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in the uniform application of the Sea and eight zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and welfare state finds that the proposed rezoning would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and facilitating the redevelopment of a vacant parcel. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. Staff finds that there changed in changing conditions in the generic market area in the larger Breton Boulevard corridor to justify the rezoning. And the fifth criterion is consistency with neighborhood context, zoning, district purpose and intent and staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in development consistent with the purposes, purpose and intent of the Urban Center, Neighborhood Context and the Max eight zone district as described in the zoning code, so that staff finds that all five criteria are met. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you. We have. Three speakers again. You know, we just got through this. Okay. James with Dudley Simmons, Chase Hill, James West. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 9: I'm James West of the applicant.
Speaker 1: My address is 2420 17th Street. Number 3600.
Speaker 9: In.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Dudley Simmons.
Speaker 10: Dudley Simmons, 2420 17th Street.
Speaker 8: Here to answer questions.
Speaker 1: Thank you. And Chase Hill.
Speaker 9: JAY So again, same address as in January 24, 2017, three, three, zero and six.
Speaker 1: Just for the record. Thank you. All right. Questions by members of council. Question. Councilman Espinosa. So different question. It looks like the app came in at the exact same time. When did you start the present process? Because this probably wasn't really straight forward or was it?
Speaker 9: Started the prep process late last year, I believe in.
Speaker 1: December of 2016. Oh, so it only took two, two and a half months of wrangling with the zoning. Okay, that was it. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinoza, Councilman Flynn.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 3204 & 3206 Denargo St. in Five Points.
Rezones property at 3204 & 3206 Denargo Street from R-MU-30 with Waivers and Conditions and I-B UO-2 to C-MX-8, (residential, mixed-use and industrial to commercial, mixed-use) in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-6-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_07172017_17-0633
|
Speaker 8: Thanks, Mr. President. Maybe Scott could address this. We Want Away is not a public street. It's a private street.
Speaker 9: Correct.
Speaker 8: And so the the metro district will take care of the maintenance on that repaving, etc.. So it's not a responsibility of the city.
Speaker 9: Correct? The street is already built and it is maintained by the metro district there.
Speaker 8: Okay. And the applicant, what is your relationship to the Donato Metro District?
Speaker 9: I'm actually the architect and the planner for this project.
Speaker 8: Okay. What was your. Are you. Are you in any way affiliated with the Metro District or you just own property or the master.
Speaker 10: Developer originally ran the infrastructure and.
Speaker 8: Helped to form the metro. Okay. So we we still retain one parcel. Yes, very like that. Okay. Thank you. That's all.
Speaker 1: Right. Thank you. All right. This concludes a public hearing for 633 Thomas by members of council. As a representative, I'll go first again. Kind of the same comments we've met, reached out. This meets all of our criteria. I hope that again for this rezoning that the same criteria for design standards and guidelines will be met. And I'm grateful that we're capturing a linkage fee into our city wide linkage fee. I would love for it. Affordable units to be right there by that station, that billion dollar station. But I do recognize that every every project has to make their own decision. And so I'm glad we're capturing something. Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr. President. I just couldn't resist the second bite at the apple on this same conversation, which is just that I, I, I don't know of a single project that has had an absorption problem at 60 to 80% of Am I in Denver right now? I know that Austin also has some rent challenges, but I don't know that they have been as acute at the percentage levels that we have. And, you know, all of the over construction of the luxury market has not trickled down. And so, you know, I'm thinking about three or four projects in Councilman Brooks's district that closed their waiting lists with 400 names on them for 80% of my units. So I just I would encourage you to spend some time talking to the Office of Economic Development and talking to those folks who are building that product. I think you will find that there is not been an absorption problem with the price point that you're describing. And I think there is an opportunity to do what Councilman Brooks has described within your project, and I hope you'll take a look at it, because I will say this, the Tiago Market affordable housing plan, and this is no fault of anyone sitting up here. It was it was before most of our time, but is the weakest in the city. If you look at the Central Valley, if you look at Green Valley Ranch, if you look at Stapleton, no other major redevelopment area in the city had such a little requirement. I'm not quite sure how that happened happened during a time when I was transitioning between kind of work. But but I do think it's a missing piece of that neighborhood. It's not just a missing piece in the city. That neighborhood itself has not really lived up to the mixed income potential that we expect of other areas. And so I hope you'll you'll spend some time just doing the research on it rather than dismissing it on comparison. That said, I understand the vote tonight is on the criteria, and I understand that the criteria are met, so I'll be supporting it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Great seeing no other comments. Great comments. By the way, Council can each see other comments. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Raquel Black. Hi, Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 3: Gilmore, I. Cashman. Kenny Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sorry, Mr. President.
Speaker 1: I please. Very nice. Results.
Speaker 3: Ten eyes.
Speaker 1: Ten eyes, 615 passes. Thank you very much. Congratulations, Councilman Lopez. As I said, 615 tonight. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 3: Oh.
Speaker 1: You're supposed to catch me on that. It's 616 has passed. Just for the record. Congratulations, Councilman Lopez, will you please put Council Bill 633 on the floor?
Speaker 6: Now, Mr. President, I move that council bill 633 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 1: It had been moved in. Second, did the public hearing for council bill 633 is now open.
Speaker 0: Jeff Hurt. Welcome back.
Speaker 10: Thank you, Mr. President. So Jeff heard was CPD. So this is a request for a rezoning for properties at 60/40, an inker to go from IAU oh 2 to 0 eight. It's in Council District one. Look at it in the Sunnyside neighborhood. So this these properties encompass most of one city block. It's sort of bisected by an alley. And you have one portion of the site sort of carved out for the the commuter rail pedestrian bridge platform in the northeast corner. All told, the properties are about two acres. So the subject site is zoned I.A., which is a light industrial zone district. And you oh two, which is a billboard use overlay district. And they are not requesting to retain the billboard use overlay. The surrounding zoning is to the West IMX three six industrial mixed use and to the north is the same zoning as the subject site light industrial you go to. And then to the south southwest you start to get some more into the residential with the you t you see. So the existing uses on the subject property, most of it is currently vacant. There is some industrial and office uses. And you look at the surrounding properties to the north, you have more industrial and then to the west and you transition more into the residential. And then soon to the east you have the railroad tracks for the commuter rail and freight rail as well. So looking at some images of the subject property, so this is standing on the commuter rail platform looking south, that sort of the the eastern half of the site that's across the alley. So you can see the proximity to downtown. This is a subject property looking north from 40th Avenue. So you see the alley that bisects the properties and then the image on the bottom of the screen is looking northeast, standing at 40th and Jason Street. And then since this is a large site, a couple more pictures. So this is a subject property from Jason Street looking northeast. You see some of the existing office uses. There's a residential structure that was converted to an office use some time ago. And so this is looking south at adjacent properties. So looking south from 40th Avenue, you see to the right on this top image is, I believe, a four unit residential complex and to the left, a warehouse that I believe is not there anymore. And then the Bonhomme image looking south. I'm sorry that I don't know that. That's right. So that's 40th Avenue looking east in the subject. Property is on the right, so you can see the more industrial uses to the north. From Jason Street looking west. So you see some residential. The top image is sort of the southern half of the that block of Jason Street. You see some warehouses and industrial type uses and then the bottom image is more than north half of that block. So immediately across Jason Street where you see the residential, so the requests to go to CRC, which is commercial, it's a residential mixed use district that allows for up to eight stories. The process for the rezoning followed our standard rezoning process that led us here tonight. We did receive there were no comments received in error in time to make it into the packet, but we did receive a letter of support from the Sunnyside United Neighbors. I'm not sure they came in to me today. I'm not sure if that made it to all the council members. But it was a letter of support for the request to S.R. eight. Public outreach went to all the Arnaud's listed on the screen here. So pretty extensive. And so these are the criteria that staff uses to evaluate each of the rezoning requests, and I'll just hone in on a couple of them. Certainly more detail in your staff report. So as far as city wide plans can't plan, Steph does fine. The requests are consistent with the comp plan and a number of strategies are listed here, most of which relate to the idea of promoting infill development and in areas that are well-served by services and infrastructure which this property is, particularly with the new commuter rail station immediately adjacent to it. In addition to utilizing underutilized or vacant land on which this property, in staff's opinion, is underutilized land, given the proximity to the station blueprint, Denver has all of these surrounding streets as designated locals, but it does show the subject property as within an area of change and an urban residential concept land use. So as far as area specific plans, we have both the Sunnyside plan and the 41st and Fox station area plan. The Sunnyside plan is more dates from 1992, so the guidance isn't as specific as the 41st and Fox stationary plan, which was done in 2009. That does that plan does call for urban residential 2 to 8 stories on the subject property. So staff does find the request consistent with that designation and to hone in on one other criteria justifying circumstances. This is an area that's seen a significant amount of change recently, not only with sort of public infrastructure, with the commuter rail station and pedestrian bridge over the tracks. But you also see an excellent new multimodal connection with the with the off street pedestrian and bike path that follows anchor and actually takes you right into downtown, sort of over and under the highways and 38th Avenue. So a lot of new changes to this area, areas for the public infrastructure, a lot of not only rezoning requests but site development plans in this area as well. So a lot of development activity in this area. So CPD does recommend approval of the request based on the criteria, and I'd be glad to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: All right. Thank you, Mr. Hurtt. And then you since parking. Okay. We have three speakers this evening. Please come to the front, Tony. The simian is first. I'm sorry if I missed. I pronounce your name. Ambrose Cruise and Sid Container. Please come to the front here. All right, Tony.
Speaker 10: All right. Thank you. My name is Tony de Simon. 430 in the street in Golden. And I'm here tonight. I represent the applicant council and companies, and I'm here to answer any questions.
Speaker 1: Great Ambrose Cruz.
Speaker 12: How's it going? Ambrose Cruz, third generation North Sider. I live very close to the proposed area of this application, the zone request. I'm also here as a represent representative of United Northside neighborhood and we are strongly against the zone changing because of for one of the area that it's in. It's very congested already because there's already multiple areas for housing, for a site, for apartments, for shops and things like that that are very nearby and walkable distance. Something like this will just bring congestion to that area even more, even in a place that there is no real emergency exits. The highways are very there's one area, one way and one way out, not very many areas to be able to transport things around. So congestion with traffic will be a very big issue over there. That will mean you won't be able to get ambulances and won't be able to get a fire fire department in there and things like that. We just won't be able to happen with this type of congestion that it'll bring to go eight storeys up. It'll bring a lot of people here and we don't need that anymore. I mean, like I said, within walking distance, we have everything that is possibly could be bought with this type of zone change. Again, it's in walking distance from this area. It would be irresponsible to add this this amount of congestion again to our community. But for us city council, there needs to be a stopping point to this this type of gentrification in communities like that's happening in our communities and we're all being displaced. People can't afford with these these buildings are going to be put up. Nobody that lives in that community longer than ten years can afford it. The people that are going to be displaced because of the property taxes will not be able to afford these places that are going to be put up there. So it would be totally irresponsible for this council to approve this application just along with any other ones that come up like this, alcohol or anything like that. It's coming to a point where we have too much there. You need to realize that you can be the city council that's known for the ones that allow the congestion and things like that to happen to the city. And it'd be overpopulated. Yeah. Maybe some areas are underutilized as they're being. That's been stated. But to utilize these places properly, we don't need condos, we don't need yoga studios, we don't need these businesses. We have plenty of them, but we need these community centers that have already been displaced by this. We have one community center left for an entire district. I think city council dropped the ball on that one. If nobody here can can see that that's a problem in a community that's that's under the poverty line to some people that live there, a high number of people that still live there under the poverty line. And we have one community center that's irresponsible. I got to say.
Speaker 1: Thanks for screws. Sit on a.
Speaker 11: Hello. Good evening. My name is Quintana. I'm a member chairperson of R.A.. I am the original North Denver individual. I was born and raised there and now living quick. Newton projects three blocks from where you're talking about. All of what Mr. Cruz said is absolutely the truth. Come and spend the day at my house. Because if you park, you better not move because you won't have parking to come home and unload your groceries. I'm 67 years old. They pulled me out of the closet. It's time that you guys realize that. North Denver. Needs to be left alone. This zoning six storey building. How are you going to fill a IT truck down there? I know. I played on that street. But I do represent at least 300 residents that are not ignorant. They've been ignored by the city in council, city council and city of Denver. We're still there. I'll be representing them and fighting no on this. Because we don't need it. If we needed it, it'd be different. We don't need it. Gentrification. Has anybody done any studies on what it does to the people? I don't see anybody raising their hand. You remember that were there? We've been ignored since this gentrification. And this is our last stand. And we're going to stand diligently. And I represent a minimum of 300 residents in north Denver. We're not ignorant. We've been ignored. And it's time you stop ignoring us. And we say no to this project. You've tore down our whole community. You've okayed this. It's not okay with us. You haven't asked us. We haven't been here. We're not ignorant. I'm here. He used to my face because I'm going to be coming back. We need to place our kids can play. We need a community where we can park at our home. It's so congested and so full. I'm going to jail for stopping my car every time somebody asks me to do over the speed limit in a residential area. If you're that late, get up earlier. It's that simple. We're so congested, we can't do anything.
Speaker 1: Superintendent. Your time is up.
Speaker 11: That's good.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 11: Nice to meet you all. I'll see you again.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Hey, Jeff. This is now. Question. Question portion. Jeff, can you tell me what what neighborhood plan did? Did you all use doing your analysis?
Speaker 10: There's the 41st and Fox station area plan and the Sunnyside Neighborhood Plan, but the 41st and Fox stationary plan is the most recent of the most clear guidance. Okay. That's from 2009, I believe.
Speaker 1: Okay. 2009. And do you was there a community outreach process that allowed stakeholders in Sunnyside, in the neighborhood to be a part of the rezoning efforts?
Speaker 10: Yeah, you know, it was before my time, certainly. But, you know, it's well documented in the plan itself and in the supplemental documents, the engagement that did happen. So there were numerous community meetings and a lot of it centered around land uses and building heights and things like that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. The. So I brought this up in, in a in ludi on a, on a rezoning in the same area about the concept plan that is in the. You know, it's a it's exactly, I think two pages away from that site plan. Yes. Two pages prior. So what I'd like to do is I've seen what's been shared with the community and isn't part of this rezoning. But I think I would like my colleagues to the degree that it is an actual it's here to be discussed and it's actually in the in the the owner or whoever is capable or yourself as comfortable talking about. But the city has invested in part on this property. Is there any agreement related to that that we, the community, can sort of be assured that certain things are going to be delivered by this development that would come with this rezoning?
Speaker 10: I'm not aware of any. We wouldn't typically include that as part of the rezoning process. But I don't know if you. You know, as part of this project, we've been at it for about 16 months and we originally agreed to do the project. We committed to to to bring in 21% of our of our units, both for sale and for rent to the community as affordable. We call them workforce. That's that's in the end, that's going to equate to about 87 workforce or affordable units that we'll be bringing to this community. And so I know this was discussed with the previous applicant of of do you do you build those units out or do you pay a fee from a developer? It's much easier and much less risky just to pay the fee. And that's not something that that we want to do. This is a property that we want to own long term. And that's why we're looking at 40 year financing on it. And we want to control the experience. And so with that, during those 16 months, we reached out to the community. We not only had one, but we had four meetings in the community in a public setting with the Sunnyside neighborhood. And as Jeff mentioned, we had a a glaring report of of support that came through. And I apologize that you guys have not seen that. But in those public meetings, I know Councilman Espinosa has been there and we've gotten a lot of support. So I'm a little disappointed to hear that, that there's some opposition. And, you know, we didn't know about those those issues. But this is the right place for density. And we're trying to create a walkability in this community and help get some of the cars off the road by doing that and allowing access to that light rail station. So with that, there's also a need during those meetings for neighborhood retail space. And if you look at a lot of the the housing in the neighborhoods is not as walkable as you would think. And we've heard a lot of different concerns over over retail that the neighbors would like us to bring there, and we're actively seeking that. So I you know, I can't commit tonight that we're going to do that, but we're going to try the best we can to do that. So as far as what's what's coming, it's 21% affordable workforce.
Speaker 1: Okay, good. Councilman Espinosa, I'm sorry I missed the. What was the number of affordable? 81, I believe.
Speaker 10: I, I don't want to get pinned down on a number because we're still working through the planning. It's 21% right now, but that works out to 20.
Speaker 1: To 20% affordable units with.
Speaker 10: 21%, sorry, 87 total.
Speaker 1: At what level am I?
Speaker 10: So it's a combination between 80, 80% and 95%.
Speaker 1: Okay. All right. Go ahead, Councilman. So. Was it always that because so you know, I be I became first cognizant of the potential development proposal back in June of 2017, 2016.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I thought at that time there was some greater, deeper levels of affordability or my mistaken.
Speaker 10: I don't I don't believe that to be the case.
Speaker 1: Okay. So but it is both for sale and rental affordable.
Speaker 10: Right. And I think that's a unique thing about this property. And we control both sides of that and so on. The on the condominium side, those are going to be for sale, affordable. Again, 21% of those will be workforce or affordable.
Speaker 1: Okay. One of the things that is, is the city money still involved and will continue to be involved in this development or not?
Speaker 10: Currently, there is a loan in place with the Office of Economic Development.
Speaker 1: Yeah. In in that to some degree allows you the latitude to sort of enter into the sort of a of some affordability that you might not otherwise choose to do.
Speaker 10: Right. That's correct. And I think the other key point here is the ability to go eat stories also helps because at the end of the day, as I mentioned, you either pay a fee or you subsidize internally. And that's what we're able to do here, is subsidize those affordable workforce units by increasing the density on the project , and that allows us to deliver those so much higher.
Speaker 1: In the early discussions when we were talking, you know, the potential for a project and the potential for a rezoning, I made it very clear that my concerns were essentially eyes on the pedestrian bridge. So to sort of ensure safety for anybody crossing over the bridge that, you know, there was some comfort level that people were and there was activity around that and people were watching. And there was early consideration in in sort of schematic design, further consideration and development of that design. Even though we're not talking about projects here, I think it's important because a lot of times you hear council people lament. The fact that we're not talking about project is that I'm a little worried that, you know, the ground floor retail component that seemed to be part of integral into any scheme might be on the block is the activation around the stair tower and the elevator in the bridge also is subject to going away.
Speaker 10: No, that's that's still currently part of our plan. That whole street frontages is frontage by retail space as well as trying to create that pedestrian plaza. Right. Right. Where that stair platform, you know, comes down to the street. You know, we've taken a lot of other comments that have come through both both meeting with you and the neighborhood. And instead of kind of creating a community that faces inward, we've created one that faces outward. And so we've activated the alley, allowing pedestrians to come through through the community, as well as create outdoor space that faces outward and gets eyes on the street and kind of handle some of those concerns.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So, so again, we're not looking at projects. I wish we were, but to the degree I mean, it's a shame that you don't have the the level of development and how far you've progressed because, you know, that is what has been shared with the community and got you the support that you earn. And, you know, I'll reach out to Ambrose and said, I actually go ahead and actually I'd like to maybe ask you both, have you seen the development proposal that was shared with the community? I've seen the development proposal that was shared the community with the mixed use Mr. Quinn container come to the so that you could be on record. Mr. Cruz. Okay. No, it's not. Here it is for you. Go ahead. Yeah, it was at the public meetings. Where were you able to see it? What was being proposed?
Speaker 11: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay. And you're still opposed?
Speaker 11: No. Yeah, I'm not. I'm opposed.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 11: Absolutely. We don't we don't need it. It's we talk about density. How? Against when I don't want to be rubbing elbows with you. Yeah. I don't want to be sharing my parking space with you. You're not paying my rent and I'm not paying your mortgage. And that makes a difference to the people that still live there, the people that have been ignored. And there's a large group of them. And they haven't been ignored. And they don't not come here because they don't care. In Arkansas, they have to work and feed their kids. They have to worry about the traffic that congested streets that their kids don't get here. Yeah, that's what we have to do. We don't have time to be coming. The city council. They picked the old guy. So you got to go. And this is where our vote is and their vote is now. Okay. So you've abuse our our communities been abused. With this gentrification, we still have people older than me that were born and raised in North Denver. And I happen to know. And they they don't. They have nowhere to go. I'm not going to plead with you's. But there's enough families there to make a difference and their vote is no. Period. We've been abused enough. Give us a break. Give us a moratorium on this rezoning and this gentrification. Let us breathe. Let us enjoy. Let us enjoy a year of our life to make these important decisions. But they have to have me come up here. So that they can get their kids in bed, so they can finish their work from their job. That's 300 people. That's 300 families. That's why I'm here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Said. Thank you.
Speaker 9: You're welcome.
Speaker 1: Jeff, I have a question. The the.
Speaker 12: The. I just want to let you know, every resident I talk to in the area, there had no idea of this proposal.
Speaker 11: None.
Speaker 12: No. And I've talked to almost every resident that lives within, like, a three block radius of that area. I went personally and knocked on all their doors and showed them what was happening. And none of them knew. No. Two of them, like 30 people or 30 doors are knocked on, knew what was happening there on Jason and in the street, two out of the three doors nearly got knocked on. So no, nobody knows about what's going on because they're too busy trying to live. The outreach that he's done, I never got a call about the zone changing. I'm the chair of R.A.. I never got a call. So there's your answer. No, people don't know.
Speaker 1: My struggle there. Cruz, is that your ANA was notified at every point in the process and I wish you had reached out to my office. We would have been happy to advise you.
Speaker 12: Like you said, though, some of us are trying to survive. But I have reached out to your office for a number of things. And when I do reach out to your office, I'd appreciate a response from you directly, because you are who I'm trying to speak to. Okay.
Speaker 1: Or Jeff. So my question is. The the stationary a plan which I am going to reach out to both Ambrose and Sid in particular on the stationary plan. What's that? I have to go. Okay, but I want to reach out to you on this stationary plane because there's a lot here you need to know about. On the stationary plan sort of conveniently ends before it gets too quick. Newton. Do you know where Craig Newton and the residents of Quick Newton specifically are specifically involved in the stationary planning process?
Speaker 10: I don't know. I could certainly find out, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: Okay. The reason why I ask is to some degree, yeah, there is a there is no onsite parking for all those units. It is all on street parking and it does get congested over there. And as we know and that's what I want to, you know, advise my my constituents on this that plan does call for 2 to 8. It does have relaxed parking because of its proximity to the station. So the things that they were speaking to specifically are exactly exacerbated by the plan recommendations. And it's concerning to me that there might, in fact, be a disconnect between, you know, existing long time residents and what the stationary plan calls for. So. Thanks. Okay. But before we we we get in to two comments, I'm just going to ask you one more question. You know, I think before councilman. Lopez did a couple West Side plans, neighborhood plans before Council Monteiro before me did Global or Swansea. There wasn't great attendance in the neighborhood plans meetings, right. And I guess that's where I'm kind of struggling with and CBD is acknowledge that neighborhood plans have been largely Anglo represented and in communities of color they've really struggled in that. I think that we're seeing that here today and I wouldn't just ask them had they been a part of the process they say they haven't been reached out to. And so I guess I want to know more about that 2009 plan. You weren't here, so it's unfair. There's no one else. So I'm just going to leave it as an open question. But I would love some folks to get back to me around that 41st and Fox. I know my side of the tracks in Globeville there was, but I'm not sure about the sunny side. And it's troubling. And as you can see, this is this is what we're seeing in our neighborhoods. That's kind of a question. All right. This closes. Councilman Espinosa, you back up, are you? Yeah, I'd like to say a few comments. Okay. Council Bill 633. Public hearing is now closed. Councilman Espinosa. Yeah. To what you're saying. The thing. The reason why I was bringing up the context plan and I did bring it up in the in ludy on it, on a related rezoning or in the same area, is that the context plan shows a stepping down. Shows the highest density right at that right along Inca. And then it transitions down. It even shows illustrations and and visuals, photographic visuals of what that transition should be. And even though it's not for consideration, the project, the project that has been shared and, you know, acknowledges that mean it does, in fact, step down. It transitions from an eight story approximately down to a five storey as you go at least south on the site. And you know, where if you look at that concept plan, it is very consistent with that transition into the neighborhood. And that's important because that is one of the things that I have heard from people that I know were part of the of the station area plan in 2009. That said, because we've done so many rezonings across the tracks in the 12 and 20 story range, I don't have any problem saying that. Yeah, I, I believe the plan should actually be revisited because maybe the density wasn't enough to go to, to, for this opportunity. That said, you know, eight storeys is consistent. A storeys was supposed to be along Inka Street and then transitioning down into the neighborhood. I wish there were language to to capture the transition, but this is the this is the way we go about things. You know, I wish the developer luck and I will be supporting it because the the activation, you know, the things the core things that they've communicated as desires seemingly can be captured in this rezoning have been
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 4000-4090 North Jason Street & 4001 Inca Street in Sunnyside.
Rezones property at 4000-4090 North Jason Street and 4001 Inca Street from I-A UO-2 to C-RX-8, (industrial to residential, mixed-use) in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-6-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06262017_17-0653
|
Speaker 2: All four questions. Is that right? Correct. All right. Under pending Councilman New has called out council bill 565 to postpone final consideration. Correct? Correct. All right, Councilman, news night. All right, Madam Secretary, please put the first items in a block on our screen. Councilman, to go ahead and ask your question. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Okay. This is going to be the first and final consideration.
Speaker 2: This is for final consideration. 5326.
Speaker 1: Just say the question. I wanted Richard Scharff to come up and talk a little bit about the convention center. There would be one of the primary beneficiaries of the new tax tourism taxing district and the amazing contribution that the convention center has for our city and and what the expansion of the convention center will have so our residents can have a better idea.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Richard Schaaf, president and CEO of Visit Denver. Currently, every year, the Colorado Convention Center generates anywhere from 5 to $600 million a year of economic impact. The conservative study that was done by a strategic advisory group that looked at the National Western and the Colorado Convention Center expansion felt that conservatively Denver could add another $85 million economic impact if we expanded the center, and that was primarily to do multiple events at the same time. And then, of course, go after some of the larger events that currently can't come back to Denver. However, the larger events weren't included in the economic impact. So just to highlight a couple, we have the 22,000 person American Dental Association that would like to come back in the twenties but need more space. And we have speech, language and hearing a national association with 14,000 people would love to come back, but can't unless we get this new space. So a lot of additional economic impact as a result of the expansion. And then, of course, everyone probably has heard where we're growing in the metro area, about 7500 new hotel rooms in the metro area by 2018. So we really need to generate more demand to fill these hotel rooms.
Speaker 1: But it's no taxpayer dollars. It's really tourism dollars that'll be helping pay for the expansion. Is that correct?
Speaker 2: Correct. That is an additional 1% fee on a checkout tax when you leave a hotel that is paid for by the visitor. And of course, that will benefit all of the city and the residents alike. And I think I say this probably more often than I probably should, but, you know, tourism visas, they they create economic impact . They create jobs. The new the new AC Marriott Meridian that's going to open up here probably in about a month is going to generate another 200 jobs on that property, plus, obviously, a lot of other jobs to support it. But visitors also pay taxes that residents don't have to pay. And according to our figures in the state tourism office, if we took tourism out of the economy, each resident would have to pay about $500 more in taxes just to keep the same basic services and programs in place.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, Richard. Thanks. Great job, your staff. Thank you very much. In other words, I have always asked Brendan to come up and we've had these tax exemption issues tonight and just wanted to make sure that all of us understood what these were about. And so if you could give us a better explanation, please. Sure.
Speaker 6: Brendan.
Speaker 2: So just to be just to be clear, are we still under the tiered or is this under a different. That's another bit of the charitable. Okay. So this is under. Yes. 653.
Speaker 1: Now, this this is 526 through 529.
Speaker 2: Okay, Madam Secretary.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance adopting a new Article XIII in Chapter 20, Denver Revised Municipal Code to authorize the creation of tourism improvement districts.
Amends Chapter 20 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to enable the creation of Tourism Improvement Districts (TIDs) to fund tourism improvements and services citywide. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-7-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06262017_17-0526
|
Speaker 2: Okay, Madam Secretary.
Speaker 1: You know, jump the gun, please.
Speaker 2: Put that up. Yeah, we just need to switch it over real quick. There we go. All right. Go ahead and ask your question. I'm going to actually quickly hand this off. Good evening, Citi's chief financial officer, and to have Steve Ellington, the city's treasurer, talk about the process that got us here and in the methodology behind it . And please give us a little context of what we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: Sure. So, good evening, City Council. My name is Steve Ellington. I'm the city treasurer and we have four ordinance proposed ordinances before you today. The first one, 17 526 is an ordinance requesting to repeal the tax upon taxicab operators. That was a tax that was first implemented back in 1953, but was never actually imposed by the city, and we were not certain why it was never imposed. We have some theories that it had something to do with back. At that point in time, the PUC was coming on board and started regulating the taxicab industry and what fees and charges could be imposed on them. And so therefore, the city never imposed this this tax. It's been on our books that we're looking to just go ahead and have it repealed. Let me see here. Ordinance Bill. Request 1705 27 is a request to go ahead and completely exempt water from taxation. Currently, water for domestic use is exempt if you buy water at home and it's exempt. But businesses that use it in industrial purposes currently would have to pay use tax on it. Denver Water is not imposing the tax, so it's on the business to pay pay the use tax to Denver. Currently, Denver is one of only two municipalities in the front range that impose this tax. And so we're trying to align our code with the other home rule municipalities that we that share borders with us. So to make it easier on the business community to impose the taxes. Let me see your set, bill 17 0528. Is is a rather long process. We worked with all of the other jurisdictions through CML. This was mandated via a bill that was passed by the state legislature back in 2014. It was asking municipalities to look at our tax codes and to standardize our definitions to make it easier for businesses that do business in multiple jurisdictions, to know that the definition of a chair is the same in every jurisdiction. And so after a whole lot of work with all of our other home rule municipalities and and CML, we came up with this list of standardized definitions. And so that's what we have before you today to to pass into our sales and use tax codes. And then the final bill that we have is 17 0529, which seeks to. Change the definition of charitable corp. Currently, the Denver Revised Municipal Code has a very narrow definition of charitable corp, so we're looking to expand it to fall in line with what the federal government and most state governments impose. And that's the 501c3. So basically any business entity association or what have you that qualifies as a501c3 under the IRS code would now be exempt from paying Denver sales tax use tax lodgers. Tax in business occupational privilege tax. Right. And there's still a loss of about, what, $14 million, something like that, or the estimated impact for for that provision of of the changes that we're seeking is between 11 and 14 million is what our estimate is budgeted for this year.
Speaker 2: So it.
Speaker 6: Is. And that's.
Speaker 2: Why we have a multiyear.
Speaker 6: Implementation of this proposal over the next three years, starting in 2017.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the clear explanation. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. And then, Madam Secretary, can you now pull up council bill 561. Councilman New has called this out for postponement. Councilman Flynn. I'm sorry. Yeah. 565. Councilman Flynn, we need a motion to take this out of order.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an Ordinance repealing Article X (Tax on TaxiCab Operators), Chapter 53 (Taxation and Miscellaneous Revenue) of the Denver Revised Municipal Code.
Amends Article X of Chapter 53 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code to repeal the tax upon taxicab operators to reflect that the City has never collected this tax. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-16-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06262017_17-0565
|
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you. And then, Madam Secretary, can you now pull up council bill 561. Councilman New has called this out for postponement. Councilman Flynn. I'm sorry. Yeah. 565. Councilman Flynn, we need a motion to take this out of order.
Speaker 8: Yes, sir. And I move that council bill 565 series of 2017 be taken out of order.
Speaker 2: All right. It has. My screen just went blank. It's been moved in second it. The motion to take out of order is non to marble. Man of surgery. Roll call.
Speaker 4: New Ortega. Hi. Black Eye Clark Eye Espinosa. Flynn. I Gilmore. I. Herndon. I. Cashman. I. Can each. Lopez. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Very nice.
Speaker 4: Results tonight.
Speaker 2: All right. Ten Eyes counts for five of these. Five may be taken out or councilman new your motion to postpone to final consideration.
Speaker 1: A move the final consideration of House Bill 565 with its public hearing be postponed to Monday, July 24th, 2017.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 4: One moment.
Speaker 2: Well moment for the mover and seconder. All right. It's been moved. And second questions. Council members of council and councilman do.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Mr. President. Postponement of an exploration of this resulting video before Easter. Martin Luther King Jr Junior Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard is required since there were delays in posting notification of the original public hearing date.
Speaker 2: Okay. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thanks, Mr. Brown. Just a quick question, Councilman. New if we know what the reason for the delayed posting was. Was it on the part of the applicant or was it on agency part? Just so we don't avoid this in the future.
Speaker 1: Is anyone here to be able to explain their great cause here? Thank you.
Speaker 2: The Kyl daughter here to explain why it was delayed. Good evening. I'm Kyle down with the Department of Community Planning and Development. In this case, staff provided design to the applicant on time, but the applicant just failed to post the sign on their own property in a timely manner. They informed us of that. So we ask that the the hearing be postponed. Great. Thank you. Good thing you're here. All right. Madam Secretary, Raquel knew Ortega.
Speaker 4: I. Black eye. Clark. I is. Let's see. Flynn.
Speaker 8: Hi.
Speaker 4: Gilmore, I Herndon. Hi, Catherine. Hi, Carnage. Hi, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please call the voting and US results tonight. Tonight's final consideration of Council Bill 565 with its public hearing has been postponed to Monday, July 24th. Okay, that concludes all the items to be called out. All of the bills for introductions are ordered published. We are now ready for the black vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote and will need to vote. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item. First of all, Councilman Flynn, will you please put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills on final consideration for final passage is on the floor.
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass any block for the following items. All series of 2017 663670 671. 672. 673 677 681 629 674 675 647 654 660 5666667668669 653 526 520 7528 529 646 658 six 3652.
Speaker 2: All series of 2017. You already got that. I did. All right. It has been moved in second. Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 4: Black eye. Clark. Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. I heard in Cashman I can eat new Ortega. I. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I. Please, please the voting announce the results tonight. Denies resolutions have been adopted in the bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass. Tonight there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 613 amending Ordinance 902 series of 1995 by modifying the legal description of the area covered by structure for preservation located at 1942
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 8504 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard in Stapleton.
Rezones property located at 8504 East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and 2962 North Central Park Boulevard from C-MU-20 to M-RX-5A (commercial, mixed-use to master planned, residential, mixed-use) in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-23-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06262017_17-0613
|
Speaker 2: Speakers must stay on topic of the hearing and must director comments. The council members as a whole please refrain from profane and obscene speech. Direct your comments to council as a whole and refrain from individual personal attacks. Councilman Flynn, will you please put Council 613 on the floor?
Speaker 8: Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bills 613 be placed upon final consideration and do pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. And second it the public hearing for Council 613 is open. May we have the staff report?
Speaker 3: Caroline for you.
Speaker 7: Good. Good evening. This is for the amendment of a designation of a property at 1942, 1946, West 33rd Avenue is in Council District one and it is highlighted here in yellow. So the address is 1942, 1946, West 33rd Avenue. This is come came forward from the owner. It's a general location is at the corner of Tahoe in 33rd Avenue and the current zoning is max five. It's in the blueprint area of change. And so far on this, the entire yellow area is what is the existing Denver landmark. And they are looking to reduce it down to the red dashed area. This is a picture of the existing historic building. And on the right side is an empty parking lot that is part of the landmark designation application or part of the part of the existing landmark. So it was initially there was a mixed use residential apartment and grocery store that was constructed in 1892, and it's this highlighted there by the purple. This is a 1905 based map. Then the adjacent apartment building was constructed in 1895, and that is the existing Denver landmark. In about the 1980s, the mixed use building was demolished and condemned. And then in 1995, the lots that are noted in the lower map lots one, two, three and four highlighted in red were designated as a Denver landmark as a whole. And then in 2004, a non contributing garage was constructed. In 2015, the Landmark Preservation Commission approved a zone wide amendment that split the lot. And then in 2016, they approved the demolition of a non contributing garage. So they are currently looking to amend the boundary to remove the west portion of the property from the Denver landmarks. So Landmark Preservation Staff and the commission met all of the commission notices to the registered neighborhood organizations, notified and put signs up on the property for the Landmark Preservation Public Hearing. According to Chapter 30, any procedures to amend or rescind a designation are slightly different than the other designation. It goes to the Landmark Preservation Commission and typically they can terminate, change or recommend that it's forwarded for anything that is amendment. It shall be sent to you for your consideration regardless of the Preservation Commission recommendation. But it does have to follow the standard Chapter 30 dash for procedures and it needs to maintain its historic and physical integrity. Meet one designation criteria in two or more of the following categories history, architecture and geography. And it still needs to relate to a historic context or theme in Denver history. So when this property was reviewed both by staff and the Landmark Preservation Commission, we looked at the existing building and then the attached carriage house. As it was noted in the original designation, that particular apartment building retains its design materials, workmanship, location, setting and feeling, which are the aspects of integrity that you look at to determine if a property retains its physical integrity. And then we looked at the associated vacant or empty lot, which is noted by the purple. That's where the lot is located now. It used to hold a mixed use commercial building that took up basically the entire lot. It has been that building was the one that was demolished in the 1980s. So the vacant lot that's associated with the historic building retains its location. But because it's a vacant lot, it does not maintain its design materials, workmanship, setting, feeling or association. So the lot itself that's being looked to split off does not retain its physical or historic integrity. The 1995 landmark designation when it went through originally was determined to have significance under history with direct and substantial associations with particular persons and under architecture for distinguishing architectural characteristics. The Landmark Preservation Commission looked and found that the existing apartment building was still associated with Lina C Seacole, who was the original owner. He constructed both the 1892 mixed use building that was demolished, as well as the 1895 existing apartment building. He owned it until about 1919, when it was sold to Frank De Rose in sort of an it was part of Little Italy at the time. Based on the original 1995 designation, it discussed that there were rumored associations with the Mafia, but there was never anything that substantiated that. The vacant lot which used to hold the historic building is no longer associated with Cole or Rose as it is a demolished building. And there is. Since there is no integrity in the vacant lot, it can no longer convey its historical associations with either Little Italy, the beginning of the Highlands area, or either of the two members , Cole or DeRose, who were associated with the buildings. Under architecture, which is what it was looked at in 1995. The existing building was called the Victorian Eclectic Style. The building itself still retains good integrity. It still has the Tuscan columns and the swag at the top, and so it still retains its association with its particular style, the vacant lot, because it was the building was demolished in the 1980s. It no longer retains integrity to convey any architectural style. Historic context in theme was added to the Denver ordinance in 2012. So the 1995 designation does not really address whether it meets Denver's historic context or themes. And so what that called for in the 2012 amendment of the ordinance is to compare it to other structures and that it still retains its physical integrity. So the new boundary designation application does address that, that the existing building is still related to a 19th century apartment rentals in the area, that it reflects the growth of the Highlands and Denver during its early boom years. But that vacant lot, since it does not contain or does not retain integrity, does not relate to or convey a historic theme in Denver's history. We did not receive any written public comments, and there were no public comments at the Landmark Preservation Commission public hearing. The Landmark Preservation Commission found that the apartment building itself retains integrity, but the vacant lot did not. They found that it still met the history criteria as associated with persons who had influence in society, but the vacant lot did not. They found that the existing apartment building still reflected the architectural style and type for which it was originally designated. But the vacant lot that is now partially parking and a picket fence no longer has any architectural style. And they found that the apartment building related to the themes and context in Denver history, but the lot did not . They voted 6 to 0 to recommend approval of the amendment of the boundary of the structure for preservation.
Speaker 2: Great. Complete. All right. We have four speakers this evening. I'm going to call you to the front. Please. Please come on to the front bench. Hmm. Andre Cove. Lillian. I'm sorry. David Burton. Weinstein Hall and Timbers. Please come to the front. So clearly you had your first 3 minutes.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Counsel, I am going on. My name is Andre Kwan. I'm a representative of the applicant and owner of the building, Elmer Weinstein Hall Jr. I'm going to let him talk a little bit more in depth about. About the situation and about his experience. But just to give you just to clarify a few things. This is not in this building is not an historic district. It is an individual landmark that actually the owner and applicant, Mr. Stein Hall, stood before city council and applied for in 1995. He is the one who is now asking that that that the boundaries be amended to this individual landmark. And I think all that I think a of them take it from there.
Speaker 2: All right. Thank you, sir. David. David, you have to go in order. I'm sorry. David Burton. My name is David Burton, 2899 North Spear Boulevard. I am a representative of Weinstein Hall as well, the owner. As Andre said, the building originally was built in 1895, and when landmarked the building as a city of Denver landmark in 1995 , when he landmarked the property, he didn't realize he was landmarking the entire zone lot. Subsequently, in the past two years we have separated the zone lot and the parcel. So there is a vacant lot. That's a separate assessor parcel and a separate zone lot. And then there's a building, an apartment building that retains its original historic character. So our processes amending that individual city of Denver landmark to only include the building and not the vacant parcel.
Speaker 6: With nothing on it.
Speaker 2: So from my from my point of view, the building is being preserved and will be preserved as a city of Denver landmark. And the city of Denver should not have a vacant.
Speaker 6: Parcel as an individual.
Speaker 2: Landmark. So that's why we choose to amend the boundary. All right. Thank you, Mr. Burton. All right. Mr. Weinstein. All. Hello. I am the owner, Weinstein Hall. I go by wine. And I did designate this property historical in 1995. I believe I've kept up his integrity as far as, uh, uh, I've applied, you know, for tax credits for all the work that I've done in prior years, which took a fortune, by the way. And then, uh, I've maintained the historical upgrades and will continue to maintain the historical upgrades throughout time. Uh. And I hope you approve the Boundary Amendment, basically. Thank you, Mr. Tunnell. Thank you. And lastly, we have Tim Bowers Borst.
Speaker 6: Good evening, counsel. My name is Tim Burst. Where's normal phonetics?
Speaker 2: Somewhere in the middle or.
Speaker 6: And I live in the Highland neighborhood in Denver. I chair the Planning and Community Development Committee for Highland United Neighbors Inc, that R.A. that covers the Highland neighborhood. And I'm here to speak in opposition to this adjustment of the boundaries. Our committee voted on this earlier this month. We didn't come to this decision readily. We didn't come to it quickly. Rather, we looked around the Highland neighborhood and looked at the massive changes that continue to go on in our neighborhood. Since part of our neighborhood is an area of change. We're getting lots of change. What we recognize over the last two or three years is a pattern where we have either landmarked properties that have been subdivided or we have landmark eligible properties slated for demolition where the neighborhood has gone to the to the landowner, usually with help of our councilman, and have discussed means of saving the buildings. And we've been successful in saving a couple of buildings. But the success is a mixed success. The buildings are still there, but the context has changed. And what happened in the first of two was that when the property was saved, it was renovated, it was sold, and then the property was subdivided. And so without any neighborhood, say, neighborhood control, certainly no landmark input. New new construction was added on what had been a large corner lot. And it's it's out of context with what's around it. It's it has no the new construction has no relationship to the existing. And so we're not looking for new buildings to be historical replications by any stretch. In fact, we would oppose that. But we are looking for things that that relate to the to the buildings around us. And we've seen a second one where we negotiated to allow two new houses and an 82 to be added to the property to save the existing house and existing house and was painted, which it wouldn't have been if it had been landmarks. But all these were agreements by not landmarking something. So to have this new situation, which is highly unusual in the city of Denver, to have subdivided property and then to take off of the landmark to take landmark designation off of a parcel of the property leaves us in the same position that we've been seeing in other situations . So there's no protection, there's no input from the Landmark Commission to suggest how to do things a little bit more appropriately. So, see, my time is up. Thank you. Hope you'll think about opposing us.
Speaker 2: All right. This concludes our speakers this evening. Questions by members of council. Councilman Espinosa And just one quick question from LPC staff or CPD staff. There was a mention of. There's my note that this was an individual landmark. And if I recall, sort of based on prior conversations, there was some I don't know if it's actual or just lay terms that individual landmarks are more significant somehow or have a higher sort of, uh. I don't know. Let's put words in my mouth in this case, you know, Overland Park districts.
Speaker 7: There, I mean, they're they're all designated they all go through the design review process the same. But individual landmarks are oftentimes seen as more significant because it's a single property that was deemed to be highly significant on its own to be designated. Whereas when you're looking at an entire historic district, not every building within that district would be eligible for individual landmarking. So you could see it that an individual is slightly more significant.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you. That's that's my understanding. Thank you. All right. Councilman Espinosa. Anything else? Okay. Councilman Flynn.
Speaker 8: Thanks, Mr. President. Kara, could. Could you explain? I don't think you were here in 95, but how did a vacant lot that at least now the assessor shows as a separate parcel? How did that get included in the designation in the first place? If there's nothing on it. The building was torn down in the early eighties. This is 1995. How'd that happen?
Speaker 7: So we don't have the record of that. We have some supposition. So it was one parcel and historic.
Speaker 8: Split since then.
Speaker 7: Yes. So it's been split. And so that was done in 2015. I'm sorry to have to go back to the site. I believe in 2015 it was that the zone lot was split. So typically within nationwide preservation policy in an urban area, the entire parcel is what is landmarked if it is historically associated with the building because there were two there had been historically two buildings that were associated with each other. That's my belief. Likely why it was landmarked as a whole.
Speaker 8: Even though the building was no longer there.
Speaker 7: So the building was no longer there. But they did. When the building was demolished, they took the bricks from that building and made a garden that was associated with sort of that apartment building. And so in that sense, they were kind of associated at the time, although it wasn't a historic building that was still standing.
Speaker 8: Let me clarify then, because you used two terms that mean different things. I make sure I understand a zone lot is different than a lot. So you're saying at the time of designation it was a single lot or a single zone.
Speaker 7: So single zone lot.
Speaker 8: Sorry. Okay. But they were separate parcels at the time.
Speaker 7: I believe it was the same parcel. I would have to go back and check on that. But I believe it was the same parcel. It was the same owner of all of it.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Actually, since the owner is sitting here, maybe I could better directed him. Wayne, could you come up and address that? If you recall.
Speaker 2: When I when I designated a lot. I was actually trying to designate the actual building. Right. And had no idea that I was designating the whole, you know, the whole encumbered lot. However, yeah, like Kara said, some of the bricks that were from from the building that fell down, we had made a garden and, you know, there was little brick pathways and stuff, you know, and actually in remembrance of the Garden, I actually did a mural of a garden that, you know, that replicates a garden anyway to try to, you know, preserve what I could or do what I could and. But basically that's what I went through in 95. That is, I thought it was a special building and I did get the historical designation. And, you know, actually, I was hoping to get grants, but I never got those right. But, uh, you know, I, I basically, you know, I, I got the designation, I've followed the rules, and I've kept the integrity of the building. Okay.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Carrie. One more question, then. Do is there any other example in the city of where we've designated as a Denver landmark, a vacant property?
Speaker 7: Not that I'm aware of. There are. Oftentimes, a house will be on multiple lots and lots and lots, but multiple lots. And so say it'll be like a corner house. And they will have intentionally, historically have landscaped yards that have always been associated with that. So there are cases where that is one landmark, but the land itself is considered part of the property because it's intricately connected to the house itself, because someone chose to buy a bigger lot, keep it landscaped.
Speaker 8: It was integral to the the use of the property, perhaps in the in the in the time period in question. Yes. Okay. And if I. One more question, Mr. President, for the gentleman from Tim, was it. Yeah, from honey. Are you suggesting that we should retain the landmark status of this vacant parcel, essentially, for the purpose of preventing it from being built upon? No, in a way other than that is in character with the neighborhood. Or would you would would honey like to see it built on in a way that is consistent with what used to be there or with the rest of the neighborhood? Or what exactly is the purpose for opposing this?
Speaker 6: We'd like to see some design review by folks.
Speaker 8: Who are landmark.
Speaker 6: By the neighborhood, and by the landmark commission who can take into account impacts of what new construction would look like there relative to the historic apartment building. Okay. So what it looks like exactly. We don't have any. Right.
Speaker 8: Sorry, but you don't want it to look like some cubist architect on psychotropic drugs. Developed it like we see elsewhere in the city. Your words.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 8: Sorry to tread on Councilman Cashman's turf. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Chief Counsel, we're flying off the rails tonight. All right, let's see. Councilman Cashman, you're in.
Speaker 6: And I got my question answered.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's good. Thank you. Councilman Cashman. Councilman Clark.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Mr. President. Back to the lots. So we talked a little bit about what the lots were possibly, but now they're separated. And could the vacant lot be sold to a different owner? How they're set up now.
Speaker 7: I mean, it could be landmark preservation. It does not have any purview over the selling of any property. So they could sell it as a whole. I suppose they could sell it as a separate zone lot. That's not something that landmark has a purview over.
Speaker 6: But that they're separated enough right now that you could have a different owner on the part that's landmarked, that has the building than the part that's landmarked. And so we could end up with a lot that's landmarked with nothing on it. And that's what they own.
Speaker 7: Yes, I believe so. Yes.
Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: All right, Councilman Clark, Councilman Espinosa, back up. I was going to try to avoid getting in the weeds on these things. But the zone lot has sort of is the earth is is separate or part of the irrespective of the parcels. You know, you can you can have a parcel that's on a different on an extended zone line. But so this is a question they brought up and I didn't want to bring it up now. But since you brought Kyle, can you speak to the the are there exceptions? I mean, what are are there any provisions in the main street zone? Is it Main Street or what is the max? Max seem to see Max relative to existing buildings on zone lots. Are there exceptions that are are given because of the existing buildings? Well, when Kyle doesn't want to answer a question, who did he say it is? Is that not. Is that not germane to this conversation? I mean, canwe. Okay. You want him to restate, rephrase the question? Yeah. The reason why sort of the challenge is, is that. I think we're getting confused by the zone lot split. Whether that was one lot or two lots didn't preclude development or sale of the land. It could have been developed at any point in time. As a matter of fact, it was developed in 2004 with the garage structure. And so there's you know, and so it just is how does the zone land split even play into any of this if it doesn't? Well, that I defer to Kerry. I don't think that there's any anything about the zone lot that the landmark ordinance addresses, you know. Yeah. So you just it was five. It's still five, correct? That's correct. Thank you. Thank you, Kyle. All right, Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to ask the applicant, Mr. Steinle, if you can come to the microphone, please. Can you just tell us what you plan to do with that corner lot if this goes through?
Speaker 2: I'm not absolutely sure right now. Uh, I might possibly build a house. I live. I live on the property right now.
Speaker 5: So you could build up to a five story building.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to build a five storey no, no. I don't envision any monstrous building. In fact, you know, I would never I don't think I'd even exceed, you know, three stories at the very most.
Speaker 5: Okay.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And I just have. Yeah. Councilman Espinosa, I just had one question for Mr. Steinhoff. So when did you realize you said you didn't intend to include this parcel? When did you realize that it was included in. Excuse me? That happened probably, what, back a few years ago. When? When we were doing the you know, we were looking at splitting. And then found out that the designation still included the whole entire lot. And I was never aware of that when I got it done. They just put a plaque in front of my building and I thought it was just a building. I had no idea that it included the whole entire. So as a time you went to LPC in 2004, you didn't realize that that was encumbered? Not at all. In fact, I never had any backlash for building those garages ever. Right. Because it went through the design review process. Yeah, I did. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. No other questions. I actually have a question for Mr. Spurs from Honey. I notice that I could not find a letter from honey in the packet. Now, you may have made a decision after we brought it through committee that the ludie committee that you had.
Speaker 6: Dated on Friday the 23rd, and. Oh, you have all received an email of that last Friday.
Speaker 2: Okay. That's right. Okay. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers and the public hearing from counsel. Bill 613 is now closed. Comments from members of Council Counsel. Councilman Espinosa. So this came to us without much debate because it's not a matter for LPC to even opine on and in. But they did mention sort of in passing at the end of their conversation about oh well this will this mean that this can't come before us. And the member acknowledged that that would be the case. And and that's really the crux of of the matter here, is there's development rights there. They they've been there. They remain it's just a matter of whether this goes through design review or not. And quite frankly, you know, that is been the lack of design review has been one of the sort of hallmark concerns of residents in all of northwest Denver, particularly an area like this that is is essentially it's got significant value to this city. It's desirable because of its sort of character, its past and its present in. And LPC has proven very capable at mixing new with the old and and and our design community has been less so. And I think if you read the Highland United Neighbors letter and you saw the three examples that they gave you with the illustrations, you would see that, yeah, you don't get the best outcomes when you just create a use by right situation adjacent to a landmark property. There's a reason why we defined areas around there, and in this case, the whole reason to sort of remove this, I mean, to go through this process is to remove a property from that little additional step, which the applicant himself has already been through once before. Actually, twice before he had to do it through for the construction of the garage and for the demolition of the garage. So LPC is is really capable and cognizant that change happens and it needs to happen and it will happen in a thriving city. So design review is more about how these buildings relate. And most of the communities that have design reviews sort of really genuinely benefit from that. And so I won't read the letter, but I do appreciate the letter that came from the R.A. and its committee. I hope, I hope my colleagues have seen it all. Otherwise I will go through it because it's got some really, really illustrative, illustrative examples of why this is important, to actually have this little bit of oversight in the process, especially on such an important Main Street commercial corridor as Tyrone. But so, you know, to to quote, it says, we are concerned about that without design review, the new structure could have impacts similar to those cited. And that's the three examples that were given and are in your packet. It is important to note and this is still quoting is important to note that maintaining landmark status in this pardon property is not taking the property rights. The entire property was landmarked by the property owner originally to protect the property. Not allowing the property owner to carve out and remove a portion of the property from the existing landmark. Protection does not change the property rights that currently exist. So so you know they go on to say we urge council to reject this request to remove landmark designation from the vacant portion of this property, landmark property to remove landmark protection. And this is key I added that from a portion of this property would set a precedent for other landmark Denver landmark properties citywide that have open space remaining. So just because it's vacant doesn't mean it does. It's not important to set up the context for that building now and in the future. I mean, it was an individually landmark building because it meant that threshold. So design review it to. And many architects has nothing to fear and is a wonderful asset to many of the communities that have skilled reviewers. And landmarked districts have proven capable of better integrating new with the old where needed. And it is needed here in northwest Denver. I will be voting against this area modification and urge my colleagues to do this to see. Likewise. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Canete.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in and explain my vote before I do. I think the argument that's been raised about design review in Landmark Review is an important one in terms of the context. And I recognize that. I think the changing nature of our neighborhoods is a huge concern for communities, and it's one that I share. I guess I am worried about a different precedent. I have voted for several designations on this Council for Homes that I thought met the criteria. But some of my colleagues disagreed and felt that because of the economic impact and because of the economic concerns on the owners, they were not comfortable designating. And so those designations failed and those homes were lost. And so I you know, I can think of at least two homes that I voted to preserve, that my colleagues disagreed in part because it would limit the owners ability to economically recover their their needed costs. And then there are other homes that maybe have never come forward, because as much as I appreciate that some architects don't fear Landmark, I have gotten a number of constituent concerns. That Landmark is not easy and that it can be very difficult. And it is it is one of the reasons that gives people pause about designating. It's why so many of these compromise solutions involve not designating but someone coming up with a side agreement because there is a concern. And so here's my concern about the precedent, is that if we say no to what you know, our you know what, on its surface looks like a fairly common sense. Why have a parking lot designated? I am very concerned about the odds of future homes being saved and I think it will make it that much harder. If we had a context where we were saving the homes, then I would move on to the bottom of the of the context. But we're not even saving homes right now. And I think these economic arguments are used from folks who, you know, in their in their weighing of the factors have voted against it. So so I, I do feel concerned that saying no will give future owners pause about being able to do this. And I want homes saved. Right. Or properties I shouldn't say property. They're not all homes. Some of them are. This is apartment buildings. Some of them are businesses. But so so with great due respect to the concern about context, I think it's really important to make it as easy and to make it as appealing as possible to save the historic structures. And so I'm weighing it in that regard, and I'm going to vote for this amendment today on that basis. So I just want to explain that. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Councilwoman, can each councilman.
Speaker 1: Now thank you for you know, this is seems to be a situation a design review for this property. And and what you're planning on doing with the property is seem like a just a perfect recipe for our development agreement with the neighborhood. I've seen those work very well. This specifies what's going to happen with the property and there's a participation in it and it fits in well with the neighborhood. So I sure would encourage you to consider that with the neighborhood and let them be participate in the design and and your plans and and move forward and help develop the neighborhood. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman. No, and I'm actually glad you said that. You know, it seems like the crux of the argument now is is about review. And I'm a little surprised that we haven't maybe we have had the conversation, but this is the first time I'm having the conversation. And. We're not in Question Time, we're in communist time. So I guess I have a rhetorical question, but people can shake their heads if not. But have we had a conversation over the neighborhood getting a review of the potential property? Okay. Well, I think. Just just go ahead, man. I'm president. I might as well go ahead and break my. I'd just like to comment what she said when, you know, it does, you know, doing this historical designation. I didn't think it'd be such a stranglehold and it has been. Yeah. You know, in some parts I've I've, you know, I've, I've abided by everything there is to do with it structurally and try to maintain its integrity I guess. And I'm just saying that would you, would you, would you be amenable to a development agreement with the neighborhood? Well, we already went to Hueneme before we even came here. I know for for the future development of that piece of the property. I'm just curious if you've had that conversation. We haven't actually up personally. No. Let me let me just finish my comments. I appreciate it. I appreciate you coming forward. I guess I guess, you know, my comments are very close to councilman news. And in many of my neighborhoods, this has been an issue. A development agreement has been something that we could bring both sides together. And it seems like something that's ripe for this situation. Unfortunately, I wish we could have a lot of time to talk about this and see if we could get this hammered out before the vote. So I just wanted to say that I think it's incredibly important, especially in interesting I've never I don't know if we've ever had a amendment to a landmark area that wasn't exactly a building. So I'm struggling with this a little bit. But, um. Councilman Espinosa? Yeah, I just. I want to say that this island is the home of the largest landmark district in the city, and Tim has been a member of PCD for over 30 years and has had numerous of these conversations and have led to wonderful outcomes for Northwest Denver. But that is only when it's essentially a part of the process. In our blanket zone districts, and you've heard me say this time and time again, that process is cut out. There is no requirement and it's purely voluntary to have good public input or any sort of professional design review. And so we don't we don't have a conservation overlay like Curtis Park does for the entire area. We don't have designer, if you like, Cherry Creek. You know, we have these little bits and pieces of of our history that remain. And this is one that was voluntarily protected. It has been through LPC several times to, you know, to to to the benefit of the owner. He even stated that he received tax credits as a benefit of this designation. And so when when there is public involvement here and a willful commitment to that ultimate, you know, this little bit of follow through is not too much to ask because that's the only way you get that level of experience that that this community has invested in, in its in its leadership and in its outcomes. Get people to that table to have that conversation. Hey, this is what we want to do. It's four stories tall. It's mixed use or all residential. It looks like this. You know, what do you think? We think this and I think the LPC values that input from the community. It's nice to have it, but if we don't have it, I can show you and I think I've driven many council my colleagues around areas of my district that do not have even this level of scrutiny and what goes on there. And so why would you strip this community from this little bit of input when all you have to do is say, note your existing development rights and requirements remain just like they have been since 1995. For the last 22 years. You know. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I was actually talking about South City Park and the sprouts there and the development agreement that the community came up with the developer there, which is it was a big deal in 2012. But seeing no other comments by members of council Madam Secretary and Anita. Okay. There it is. Is there. Madam Secretary.
Speaker 4: Rocco Espinosa.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 8: Flynn, I.
Speaker 4: Gillmor. I Cashman. I can each. New. Ortega? No. Black eye, Clark.
Speaker 6: All right.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I please close. Very nice results.
Speaker 4: Nine eyes to.
Speaker 2: Nine eyes to two nays. Counsel 613 has passed due to 4th of July holiday. Council next meeting will be July 10th, 1217. How a safe holiday. There's no other business before this body. Thank you.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance amending Ordinance 902 Series of 1995 by modifying the legal description of the area covered by structure for preservation located at 1940-1946 West 33rd Avenue.
Amends an individual Denver landmark designation by reducing the size of the landmark boundary area for property located at 1940-1946 West 33rd Avenue in Council District 1. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-6-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06192017_17-0498
|
Speaker 2: Two nays. Counsel Bill 497 has passed. All right, we have. Councilwoman Kenney, will you please put on Council Bill for 98?
Speaker 7: Yes, Mr..
Speaker 3: President, I move that council.
Speaker 7: Bill 498 be placed upon final consideration and do.
Speaker 3: Pass.
Speaker 2: It has been moved. It has been moved in second at the public hearing for council bill 498 is open. May we have a staff report.
Speaker 9: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. And Counsel Scott Robinson again with community planning and development. This is a request to rezone 300 to 306 North L.A. Street from you rh h 2.52 You and X to property is located in Council District seven in the Baker neighborhood. It's at the corner of LRT Street and Third Avenue in the Baker Historic District. Property is about 3600 square feet. There's an existing commercial building on site and the applicant is requesting to rezone and to allow the existing commercial uses in the commercial building to continue to operate without having to go through additional processes by rezoning from you. RH 2.5 The Urban Neighborhood Context Real House two and a half storey maximum height to you Annex two Urban Neighborhood Context Mixed Use two storey maximum height. Property is surrounded by you are h 2.5, although there are a few small annex to properties scattered throughout the bigger. They just don't show up on this map. The property Baker neighborhood is mostly residential mixed of residential with single family, duplex and multifamily units. Although, as I mentioned, there are scattered commercial corners throughout the neighborhood, including this one and the one directly across the street on the west side of LRT and into to the south is the Fairmont School. You can see the subject property there in the center, a two story brick commercial building and the one across the street there on the bottom. Right. Otherwise, residential buildings shown at the top and the school at the bottom there. This application went to a planning board on April 19th, was approved by nine oh vote. Two members of the public spoke in support and also went to the Lands Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on May 16th. You know, in your packet you have a letter of support from the Baker Historic Neighborhood Association, and I believe the applicants also passed out some other letters of support that have been received. As before to approve a rezoning, the city must find that these five criteria have been met. The first is consistency with adopted plans. There are three relevant plans for this property. The first is comprehensive plan 2000. In the staff report, staff describes how the proposed rezoning meets these strategies, mostly related to re-use of existing buildings and creating mixed use neighborhoods. Blueprint Denver from 2002 designates the future concept land used for this Single-Family duplex, which calls for primarily residential but with some complimentary small scale commercial use such as this building currently has. It's also an area of stability which says in some cases it may be appropriate to change the zoning in an area to create better match between existing land uses and zoning, which is the proposal here. Both LRT and third are on designated locals. The Baker Neighborhood Plan is from 2003. You'll notice in the map here that north is to the right and its property is designated a single family and row house residential district. There are multiple recommendations for that district, but mostly it's to rehabilitate and reuse existing commercial structures that provide neighborhood services. Which this proposed rezoning would allow. So staff finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with adopted plans. The second criterion is uniformity of district regulations. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would result in uniform application of the units to zone district. The third criterion is to further the public health, safety and welfare of the city. Staff finds that this application would do so by implementing the city's adopted plans and encouraging reinvestment in the area and these businesses allowing them to continue. The fourth criterion is justifying circumstances. There's a fairly lengthy discussion of justifying circumstances in the staff report. I'll be happy to answer any questions about that if they come up. But basically, staff finds that the proposed rezoning is justified by the change in changing conditions in the area. There's been investment in the bakery neighborhood, especially along the edges. Increased density that results in increased demand for these kind of neighborhood services. So the rezoning to max two to allow the existing commercial uses to continue. It's justified by these changes. And the fifth criterion is consistency with the neighborhood context zone, district purpose and intent. Staff finds that the proposed rezoning would allow businesses and uses consistent with the urban neighborhood context and the annex to zoned district purpose and intent. Staff finds all five criteria are met and recommends approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Scott. We now have let's see here. Four speakers Heidi Martin, Lucia Browne, Sarah Martin and Jeff Martin. Please come up to the front here. Heidi. Martin, you will be first and you have 6 minutes.
Speaker 3: Hi, I'm Heidi Martin. I live at 641 South Pearl Street and my office is at 302 L.A. Street. First of all, I'd like to thank Scott and all the city staff for helping me through this process. Speaker Neighborhood Association Neighbors, my attorney Allison with Hutton. Johnson They've been very helpful through this process since the building at 306 300 to 306, a lot was erected in 1936. It served as commercial purposes, pharmacy feed, store, sewing shop, retail shop and office. And currently the tenants are waffle up, which is a restaurant Blackbrook Art Gallery, which is an art gallery and Intelligent Investments, which is my office. The reason I'd like to change the zoning is the zip pin process is quite onerous, time consuming. So I have to go through that for every new tenant, even if it's the same use. It takes me several months to get through that process and identify a new tenant, so the zoned of mixed use will facilitate attracting and keeping tenants in that space. I purchased the building in May of 2000 for my family and I just saw the the beauty in it, even though it was considered an area of blight. And we had heard earlier from Councilman Lopez about a unit that was in his neighborhood that was nicely developed. We were inspired by what we saw, even though it was in terrible shape, and brought it back through the historic neighborhood association to bring it to what it had originally been designed for. The tax bill is now ten times the the ten times the amount that it was when I purchased the building in May of 2004. So I am paying commercial taxes on the property. I received Mayor's Office of Economic Development Funds to help renovate the building with commercial commercial components. I put a new electrical lighting, plumbing, floor tiles, new roof doors, all renovations to maintain the historic character of the building. In connection with the rezoning, I met with the Baker Neighborhood Association on numerous times neighbors. Also, you have letters of support from neighbors and the Baker Neighborhood Association in your packet and the tenants also support the use as you Memex to zone. Similar properties in this neighborhood were zoned residential earlier and were all developed earlier as commercial buildings as well as mine. But in 2010 they were all changed to you imx to zone and I just could not figure out why my building which was like those buildings at 61 west second to 80 Gallup pay go five or one west first and 303 West first. We're all zoned you max two but mine remained residential zone. Um, we've enjoyed being part of the historic neighborhood. We're so proud of the building we created and maintain rezoning would make it appropriate for the building type and I wouldn't have to go through the zip code process anymore. So getting new tenants in and keeping new tenants would be very helpful to me. It would save us money as far as having to go through these transitions which are time consuming and it would be able enable us to redirect funds to maintain and improve the building. I thank you all for the consideration and I respectfully request your approval and would like to use any time remaining for questions.
Speaker 2: Great. Thank you, Ms.. Martin. We'll call you up if we have questions. Let's go, Brown.
Speaker 3: Hello, everyone. My name is Lucia Brown. I live at 132 West Fourth Avenue in the Baker neighborhood. And I have been active in the neighborhood for 20 years. And as Heidi was saying, the building has operated with businesses since it was built. And the neighborhood loves the businesses that have been in there. Humble pie, waffle up the gallery. And the fact that it's not zoned unmixed to now was simply, in our opinion, an oversight on both the city's part and the zoning committee and was unintended excuse me, unintentional. The light commercial use of this site is congruous with the vision of the city for more walkable and livable neighborhoods. As a former president of the and active member of B and A, we welcome not having to go through this process every single time a new tenant goes in. We got a lot of stuff going on in Baker and we would really rather spend our time dealing with these other issues than dealing with yet another business that wants to come into this property. So we fully support this zoning change and I hope you'll vote yes. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Miss Brown. Sarah Martin. Jeff Martin. Once you both come to the front here. And Sarah Martin, you are first. You have 3 minutes.
Speaker 3: So I love.
Speaker 2: To see your name.
Speaker 3: First. My name's Sara murray and I live at 641 South Pearl Street. And I love living in an urban neighborhood. There are tons of different little businesses nearby where I can walk to, such as over. It's a restaurant and I can go there and a place that I can go get my bike pumped up. And it's I they bought the building two months after I was born. So I've seen this building go from start to finish. And I know that this would be very helpful to get tenants in and out of there quickly and make it easier on everyone. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Good job. All right, Jeff Martin.
Speaker 5: I thank you for allowing me to speak. Once again, like to reiterate what Heidi mentioned before. It is very time consuming and it takes up a lot of her time and also. Takes up a lot of my time too, as well. I'm the person who has to put the. The signs and the building. And what? How many times have we done this? Five times in the past couple of years. So please think about her time and putting money back into the building. It will make the neighborhood much better and will make the process, I think a lot. Streamline in the future.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you. All right. This concludes our speakers. Are there any questions for members of council? All right, CNN, the public hearing for counsel. Bill 498 is close. Comments by members of Council Counsel Clarke.
Speaker 5: Thank you, Mr. President. Just wanted to thank everybody for coming down to speak on this, especially you, for taking time out of your night to represent the neighborhood association. Always very appreciated of the neighborhood voice live and in person. And I know it's not easy getting down here. So thank you. And Sarah. Yes. Awesome. Thank you for coming down and sharing your voice as a voice that we could use a lot more of down here at city council. A voice like yours. So thank you for coming down. You know, I think there's one for me is pretty straightforward. A mistake of some sort was made somewhere along the line. A property that should have been commercial was zoned in a way that allows commercial use, but only jumping through a lot of hoops. That causes a lot of pain and suffering for the the owner and for the neighborhood association. And there is a lot going on in Baker right now. I can understand why zip in on change from humble pie to waffle up is not a high priority here, especially when it's not necessary. And so I think that this is a slam dunk. Open and shut case. Thank you to CPD for the work on it and I would ask all my colleagues to please vote yes. Thank you, Mr. President.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman Cashman.
Speaker 9: Yeah, thank you, Mr. President. I just want to say, I know this building very well. It is, as Councilman Clark.
Speaker 5: Said, to think of it as anything other than commercial. I mean, it just screams out the period that it was built in. It fits in so beautifully with the area. So I look forward to supporting this. And if if we'd have had a gold buzzer, I'd have hit.
Speaker 9: It as soon as she started speaking.
Speaker 2: So I concur. Councilwoman Cashin, any other comments? This is this is a project I'll be supporting for the for the obvious reasons stated above, and because this meets all of our standards. But I really am doing it because it was so incredible. And I hope I hope that we have more young people like Sarah advocating in their neighborhoods. All right. With that, Madam Secretary, roll call.
Speaker 3: Black eye.
Speaker 0: Clark. I.
Speaker 4: Espinosa.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 3: Gilmore. I.
Speaker 0: Herndon. I.
Speaker 5: Cashman.
Speaker 4: I can. Lopez. I knew.
Speaker 3: Ortega. I.
Speaker 4: Susman. Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I saw the voting and not the results.
Speaker 4: 12 Eyes.
Speaker 2: 12 Eyes Council Bill 498 has passed. Congratulations. On Monday, June 26, 2017, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 613, amending the individual Denver landmark designation by reducing the size of the landmark boundary for properties located at 1943 1946, West 33rd Avenue in Council District one.
|
Bill
|
A bill for an ordinance changing the zoning classification for 300-306 Elati Street in Baker.
Approves an official map amendment to rezone property located at 300-306 Elati Street from U-RH-2.5 to U-MX-2 (urban row home to urban mixed-use) in Council District 7. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 5-16-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06122017_17-0631
|
Speaker 3: So as you just said in your explanation that this is a $1.1 billion project, that ch2m Hills is is programing. So are they actually is so is that actually the total cost relative to the project actually diminished because they're actually doing program management for the entirety of the project, even though they're the $14 million was only based on the first.
Speaker 7: So so the. So two parts there, Councilman. One, it would be it would make no sense. Even though we're focused on phases one or two and it's an eight phase project, we have to think about all eight phases because things that we're going to do in the early phases ultimately either allow us to get to future phases sooner or certainly have an impact on future phases. So we always have to think about the campus as a whole, which is another reason why you have a program management team always thinking about the larger aspects are impacts on the overall program as we break the project into individual project components. So we're going to, you know, one of their roles or the collective role of the National Western Office is to think about the whole campus and the planning. So the design standards and guidelines, the ride away, the infrastructure that ultimately feeds the campus, all those things have to be thinking thought about as a whole and not just the individual parts, because if you only thought about them as the individual parts and started at the project level first and work back to the program, we could find errors that we missed in thinking about things the overall campus might need. So again, this is an approach that we we thought long and hard about and one that we've we've always thought about it from the campus first. And we're putting in place more and more detail so that when we do go to a project level, we are then managing the appropriate levels of risk as opposed to trying to do it the other way around.
Speaker 3: Okay. Mostly I was concerned about. Does that mean then that that somebody would come by come back in later years asking for the balance of the program management for for for projects that aren't essentially in phase one or are they in fact, programing phases one, two and beyond.
Speaker 7: So the so again, remember, the 14 million that you keep referring to is a maximum amount. That doesn't mean we're going to spend all 14 million. That is our best guess as to what we think it's going to take could take to fulfill the objectives of of the program. Certainly, you know, the time frame and I remember it's three years, Steph, three years for the program management and it's for predominantly over phases one or two. But I could argue we're actually leveraging the the investment that they're making in the time they're there. They're putting into this because we are thinking about the full program and not just those first two phases as well.
Speaker 3: You know, the reason why that all that matters in recognizing there's a maximum is this could be a sub consultant to coach to m through their contract. Not necessarily direct they know they couldn't.
Speaker 7: I don't.
Speaker 3: Sorry. I was reacting to your teammates that were saying that that couldn't be the case.
Speaker 7: So what's the question?
Speaker 3: So it just again, I would rather us my concerns then and as they are now, is is is making huge allocations for four unknowns.
Speaker 7: So so but I can I mean, again, I've been doing this a long time. And the decisions we're going to make as a team and that and the work that the team collective team is doing over the next, let's say 12, 18, 24 months ultimately affect the whole campus. So the fact that we are bringing in the best and brightest, I think, in terms of helping us think through this is.
Speaker 3: Maybe I didn't say that right in that I'm not concerned about the work product that's going to be generated, actually expected to be superb and world class and in precedent setting. I wouldn't expect anything less out of you and your staff and your team and the resources that are are being allocated to this. It is more of a of a fiscal responsibility. These are large sums of money. And where this comes from is, is I, I represent a district that is ten times the size of the 250 acres. That is the structure. And I would love to have design guidelines and standards in at least targeted areas of my district, which require the city to allocate funds to that endeavor. And since to 2012, my taxpayers in my district have been paying loads and loads, millions and millions and millions of dollars to the city expecting those sort of services, and they have not received them in any great detail. And so here you are receiving these sorts of funds through a taxpayer, my taxpayers approved bond request, I mean, a tax ballot initiative. And so the expectation is, is that we are in fact, my concerns are that it's trying to find out and give them some assurance that the this is the most fiscally responsible way that you guys are, in fact, doing that in a fiscally responsible way, because these are very large sums of money that pay for very good consultants that I'm sure my own constituents would love to have addressing their own physical built environment concerns in the district, which has not happened.
Speaker 7: So I can only speak to the project for which I'm in charge, and I can say in the strongest way that I absolutely believe we are being fiscally responsible. And ultimately the decisions that our collective team will make will deliver the project on time and on budget. And hopefully what you're going to see later this year is a schedule that moves faster and is really smart about how we deliver a very complicated program. So I'm I'm standing here before council telling you I feel very good about the decisions we've made. It's been done in a competitive procurement process. We've seen some great firms and we're standing before you today as a result of that. One of those processes bringing forward this this professional service provider to help us move to the next stage.
Speaker 3: Wonderful. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Mr. President. Kelly, can you tell us if you're still looking at a P3 partner to accelerate the build out of the the overall vision?
Speaker 7: Sure. So the short answer is, is yes, because again, the work we're doing now predominantly focuses on phases one and two, although that impacts 80% of the project. You know, the focus really is between and I wish we had a map here, but between the Burlington Northern, which is divides the space all the way to the river , that's where these first three facilities have to be built as a result of the time frame we're under because of the state RTA money. But to fulfill the future phases, which is phase three through eight, we are exploring a wide range of other funding options and certainly one of those that we're exploring is a public private partnership that that will have to go through its own level of due diligence and scrutiny as we get there. But we have certainly been active in engaging folks that do that sort of work and we'll we'll look at it in due course, but it's one of many possible future strategies we use to complete the campus.
Speaker 8: So I'm assuming if there is something moving in that along those lines, that would be part of that schedule that we would be seeing later on.
Speaker 7: Absolutely. And, you know, and there's a bigger effort afoot, obviously, within the city where we would be one of many possible projects looking at those sorts of arrangements where there's got to be a structure put in place that all city projects that might explore, that would would go through some evaluation. And we would just we would have to marry up and go through that of. I was like any other project.
Speaker 8: Can you tell me if the project in general is expected to be a design build?
Speaker 7: Don't know yet. I mean, we are. So I want to share with you. I mean, I've you know, I presented I've presented on this in front of industry probably a half dozen times over the last year. And one of the things that that I've said and our team has said is, you know, again, with a program like this, it's so complex, we have to actively engage industry to help us think through different procurement ideas, design, build. Being one of many. And then the interesting thing about this program is there's certainly a variety of procurement strategies that may make sense. And my hope would be is that we align the right procurement strategy with the right project at the right time. So we're we're actively talking to industry. We're going to continue to do that. Our team is right now thinking through a preferred procurement approach or approaches for these early phases, which include both infrastructure and ultimately vertical development . We will reengage industry again before we actually settle on a strategy because we want to make sure that industry is comfortable with the approach that it makes sense. How is it aligned with, you know, attracting businesses small, medium and large to a program like this? But we haven't we have not yet settled on an approach or any approach for any of the program at this point and are going through that process now.
Speaker 8: So can we talk about jobs for just a second? You betcha. I know you all have hired some folks to help begin to look at that. And I'm not sure that you all are planning to put some dollars into apprenticeships with the kind of construction that's going on in our city today. I know every big project is dying for a trained workforce, making sure that they've got the best folks on their team to help build out what they have envisioned for their location. And I also know that Seedat will be making an announcement this week in terms of what that structure is going to look like for rolling out the apprenticeship jobs that they will have as part of the I-70 project. So can you just speak to a commitment to apprenticeships and to both construction and non construction jobs that will be part of national Western?
Speaker 7: Sure. So, you know, we have, as you know, councilwoman, and it's been something that I've certainly personally been passionate about, is how do you leverage projects like this to to do some pretty incredible things. And, you know, Colorado is in a unique place. Denver is in a unique place in leveraging projects like National Western to build the next generation of of skilled workers for our city. So we have two people on our team that are that are specifically working on that one from stage two and then one that is part of the DCC shared resources with NewCo and one that's really focused at a neighborhood level and one that's thinking about it from the business side. But the long and short of it is, is we're going to lay out a workforce development plan as part of the National Western Center. That's going to include collaboration with projects like Sea Dots, I-70 Project and others. And how do we align forces and leverage resources to bring workers on? And absolutely, I think apprenticeships have to be part of the mix for us to to provide a range of opportunities for folks to find the right place to enter and then ultimately get the training they need and then move on to projects and helping us deliver those projects. So I can guarantee you that apprenticeships are going to absolutely be a part of that effort.
Speaker 8: Thank you. I have no further questions.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman new you're up.
Speaker 7: Kelly, you just wanted to say you get a lot of questions. Were so proud of what was going on out there. You know, it's going to be one of the greatest assets we have and and really gives the public an opportunity to hear you talk a little bit more about what's going on out there and the progress that you're making. Just one question. I had one of the issues that you talked to us a good bit about land acquisition and getting the properties there. How's that going? And, and, and what's the update on it? So, you know, I knew someone was going to ask me about land, so I called my land person. But I will tell you that, you know, again, there are 38 private parcels that have to be acquired as part of this effort. As of this last week, we now have 28 of those, 38 under some level of control, which is about 74% completion. Again, my goal was we started last April, so April of 16, which is when we issued the first two seed money for our per, our project, our program. My goal was to have be at 50% by April. So here we sit in June and we're at 74%. So we're a bit ahead of schedule in terms of where we need to be. We just had a property come under our control here, this in the last week or so. That's at the north end of the campus, which is the largest land component to help us build the equestrian center. So we are in in a really good place with we still have some tough ones ahead of us. But I'm feeling with each passing day really confident that we're going to have the land we need assembled well in advance of when we need it to start demolition and then ultimately improvements on the site. That's great. Nice for you and what your team is doing. Appreciate it. Thank you. And thank you for your continued support.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Councilman and Councilman Snow, you're up. But I'm have Councilwoman Sussman go because she hasn't had the opportunity to speak. Is that okay? Yes, absolutely. Got some assessment group.
Speaker 8: I just want to.
Speaker 2: Echo councilman news thoughts about what a great job that's happening there. Also to let them let folks know that you do quarterly reports, land use, transportation infrastructure which are televised and can't remember the next date.
Speaker 7: You're coming up here this month. I think it's the 27th Council.
Speaker 2: Something something close by. So people that do want to get all the straight skinny about the Western Center.
Speaker 8: Can tune in to Ludi on Tuesdays at 1030.
Speaker 7: Well, and if I can, I mean, obviously, I'm the one that usually gets to stand before you and for questions like this. But there's a team of people that in our combination of city employees and. Attracted employees to help us get this done. And I couldn't be more proud of the team we have and I would stack this team up against anyone in terms of the work they're doing, the commitment to the project and helping. And it's not just about the project. We constantly talk about the importance of making sure that we deliver on our promise for the adjoining neighborhoods Globeville area, Swansea and everyone is committed to figuring out how we leverage this effort to make sure that as we reconnect global interests. Swansea, that there have been a factor as well.
Speaker 4: All right, Councilman Espinosa, you back up?
Speaker 3: Yeah. I just wanted to let you know that hearing you say that, you know, there's a dedication or commitment to an apprenticeship program or some sort is music to my ears. And I think before we become the agricultural Mecca, I think we could lead the way. And we're skilled workforce training and development with with the scale of project that we're talking about and the number of project opportunities. I think it would be really, really good for this city to do that. And again, like I said, I think we have the right team to do that. I know we continue to do that. So thank you very much.
Speaker 7: Well, you know, and I would just you know, on the workforce side, I think one of the interesting things that we have to think about is, you know, if you if you talk to economists, they say we're at full employment. Right. But the reality is, we know that's that's not the case. Right. And I think it's it's moments like this where industry, both public and private, have to come together and reevaluate our traditional approaches to growing our workforce. And is there is there are there new creative ways or are there different ways to think about old ways of doing things that make sense? And I will tell you, I just had a great conversation with folks from AGC, and I think everybody recognizes that not just what's going on in Denver, but in the entire front range is really forcing industry to rethink how we grow, attract and build a workforce. And I'm really excited about about what could be in front of us if we do this right.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Kelly. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. All right. So that was just for questions. Last comments, that is concludes all the bills that we called out. So we're ready for the black vote. All other bills are introduction to Order published. And Council members. Remember, this is a consent or block block and you will need to vote I. Otherwise, this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman. Sir, are you pleased with the resolutions for adoption and the bills on file consideration for final passage on the floor? Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration, and do pass in the block for the following items. All series of 2017 627 six 539 612 576 2621 622 623 624 631 499 593 610 488 489 494, 91 492 four, 93, four, 94, five, 63, five, 71. And I think that's all of them. Yes, sir. You get them all. It has been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Roll call.
Speaker 2: Black. All right. Espinosa. Hi. Flynn. I. Gilmore. I. Cashman. Hi. Lopez. I knew Ortega, but. Sussman. Mr. President. Hi. Dennis.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Tonight's resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed on final consideration and do pass pre recess announcement tonight. There will be a combined required public hearing in Council Bill 435, changing the zoning classification for 4201 40 2003 4211 and 4022 4221 Brighton Boulevard in Elyria, Swansea and Council Bill 436 Changing the zoning classification for 4000 4020 and 4120 Brighton Boulevard in Elyria, Swansea. Anyone wishing to speak on either or both of these matters must be the Council Secretary to receive a speaker card to fill out and return to her during the recess of council. If there are no objections from members of council, it seems like we do not have a lot of speakers. Let's see if we can take a five minute recess. Council members, please be back at 615.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed on-call engineering Agreement for Campus Placemaking Services at the National Western Center between the City and County of Denver and Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Incorporated.
Approves a two-year, $5 million on-call contract with Moore Iacofano Goltsman, Inc. for campus design standards and guidelines, facilities program refinement, a campus public realm study for design, and construction procurements for the development of the National Western Center Campus (201735049). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-26-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution by consent on 5-30-17.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
DenverCityCouncil_06052017_17-0421
|
Speaker 2: Okay. And then we'll put a question for 577. Right. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, please bring up the block for Espinosa's resolution for 21 two for 27. Councilman Black, we put resolutions for 21. For 2022. For 23, for 24, for 25 and for 27 on the floor for adoption.
Speaker 3: Yes, I move that resolutions for 21. For 22 for 23, for 24 for 25 and for 27. Be adopted in a block.
Speaker 2: All right. It has been moved. And seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: Actually, I had a question, but is there anyone here to speak on? Thank you. The first question was, as there are six contract contracts being amended, but the amended briefing materials that were given to council last week only include an abstract, abstract information about four of the contracts how how much of its environmental, technical solutions and foothills been encumbered for.
Speaker 1: Those are 2.48 million as well. So the two that were not called out or that were not given more detail, those are consultant contracts. The four other ones are either abatement contractors. So sometimes the consultants do the advising, the scoping, the budgeting and the oversight of the contract work to make sure that it's done to adequate standards
Speaker 0: . Right. So they were actually $1 million contracts. They're the lesser of the group. But so my I'm just trying to understand so that you provided information that shows we're probably close to 80, 90% or 90% on most of these contracts. Are we also 90% on on there for 84 consultants, or are we actually have some room there?
Speaker 1: That is correct. They're close to contract. I was.
Speaker 2: Introduced herself.
Speaker 1: Oh, sorry. Steve Gonzales. City and County. Denver. Denver Health Department. I'm Greg Thomas. I'm the division director for the division. I manage the contracts and the two you called out. They are the oversight, as Greg was mentioning. They're the oversight consultants for the contractors. Every time we do work with the four contractors, the two consultants are involved in some capacity for oversight actions and will get used to the contract values or less because they're their capacity. They're not labor, they're a kind of documentation and oversight, and that's generally a less dollar value than the labor.
Speaker 0: Having been familiar with both Foothills and ETS in my past life as an architect, I was aware of that and sort of expected that to be the answer. However, I just wanted to point out that the language in the Indy Council agenda and thus the bill request is identical for the other four contracts. Despite the fact that there are different services, as you're saying, as you're explaining. So anyway, the rest is comment. You can stay up there if you want to respond, but I'm not. Thank you, guys. So on Monday, May, June, May 22nd, 14 days ago, I proposed to postpone action on these resolutions due to a glaring lack of information supporting a more than tripling in authorized contracts going from 3.4 million for three years worth of work to 12 nearly $12 million, adding nearly $8 million for two additional years. Well, questions were asked in committee. The responses should be seen as interests insufficient to approve this multimillion dollar increase without clear delineation of the increased need. More than a week passed when our legislative staff inquired about the lack of follow up by the agencies requesting these these amounts and backup, despite the fact that the supposed contracts for these supposed projects for these contracts should have been defined years ago and revisited many times, particularly in the last few months through the Gabon process, the requested supporting projects and cost estimates for the needed abatement work was not at the ready. How how these numbers were arrived at for these contracts without this? How were these contracts arrived at these amounts for these contracts arrived at without these basic this basic information with two weeks to provide information that should have been at the ready . Getting contract, justifying information should not have been any issue. Yet it took nine days to present this response. These two pages that are now at each of my colleagues desk. Please note that there are no estimates, no project years, be it 2017 this year, 2018 or 2019 included with this information. I remind my colleagues that we constantly fight for scraps of money for our mobility agenda or to improve access to affordable housing. And yet we approve unsaid unsubstantiated contracts in the millions that far exceed the amounts that the administration allocates to either endeavor. What's more troublesome about these request is that some of the abatement work will support the NWC, a project with which taxpayers agreed to fund through to tourism related taxes not to expend their general fund dollars on. Even more egregious is to spend our limited general fund dollars on a PDP stormwater project. When this council already approved nearly 400 million in obligatory fees to all Denver property owners to fund these improvements. Now we are asked to approve an indeterminate amounts of Denver sales and property taxes to these two projects on top of the over billion dollars that have already been essentially allocated. There are many worthwhile projects in the city that go unfunded year in and year out. These two projects, the National Western Center and the PDP Hill, are not among them. I recognize that many that they may have in those two projects may have indeterminate needs, but those projects are substantial enough that they should be contracted for separately so that all of the other cities abatement needs aren't at risk by the unknowable of those major projects, and that the accounting of our large projects avoid obscuring their total cost to Denver parks tax and fee payers. Given that the administration has three months because these contracts don't end until August and September to revise and substantiate the appropriate contract amounts for the four typical agency needs. Rather than relying once again on this behavior of getting the foot in the door with a sub, a small sub, $500,000 contract, and then pumping the amount 400% and including projects that weren't even approved by taxpayers or council at the time of the 2014 contracts, the time these 2014 contracts were passed, I urge this Legislature, legislative body for once not to be complicit with this conduct and say no to these resolutions on your own without direction from the administration. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Was this does this come to committee for a discussion? And were some of these questions answered as a part of the overall? Just want to make sure we're being clear here. The overall programmatic needs and construction that we approved and planned to park last year.
Speaker 3: They were answered satisfactorily for me. I'm not sure it was the same for. Okay. Okay.
Speaker 2: Great. Um. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that did not go in consent, and we had a full discussion within committee. Okay, great. Councilman Ortega.
Speaker 6: So I don't want to debate the merits of the particular resolutions that are in front of us and go back and rehash the overall drainage project that was proposed that includes Globeville Landing Park, the Open Channel, the. City Park Golf course. I think what my request is, is that we have an update on where we are at in the total cost. As you all know, this came to us as one project. It was called the Twin Basin Project that was part of the intergovernmental agreement. And I think it would be helpful just to have an update on the overall cost of where we are at in terms of how much have we spent and how much do we still expect to expend for all of that? And if we could schedule that to come to committee, I think that would be extremely beneficial to just know where we're at. Are there more contracts coming down the pike? Is this the end of it? Where are we in the big picture scheme of things?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there are probably several more contracts I think because of the abatement contracts, but I think that would be okay. Councilwoman Sussman, would that be okay to schedule an update in your committee?
Speaker 3: Of course. Be glad to.
Speaker 6: Okay. And if you could just let us all know when that does get scheduled.
Speaker 2: Thank you. And, Gaby, you hear that from the mayor's perspective? County Councilman Espinosa.
Speaker 0: And I just respectfully disagree with the comment that everything was there presented at committee to satisfy these things. Here was what was presented as part of that. The presentation clearly says about these contracts on the slide, and it includes Public Works Project Project and applied to Park Hill and geo bond projects. I mean it states that and it can and possibly included. I mean, we couldn't at 2014 when this thing was approved, we were you were still working on the stormwater master plan that was still in draft mode. So plan to Park Hill wasn't even, you know, a glint in somebody's eye, maybe at the executive level, but we're not privy to that. And so as we get is what you guys provide, the executive provides the legislative branch. And I'm telling you what was presented at committee and what I have in hand based on additional asks remain insufficient. My colleagues may agree that our lack of information is thorough and worthwhile, but I'm sorry my the taxpayers didn't put me in office to rubber stamp these things.
Speaker 2: Councilman, I think every person up here does their own research and to to attack their research and say that it's a rubber stamp is is probably it's a huge overstep. So what we will do is have a conversation. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We'll have that in the committee about the overall budget of a contract that we originally approved a year ago. And that's what we'll do. And every council person can vote this up or down. Madam Secretary, it's been moved the second to roll call.
Speaker 4: Espinosa. Nick Flynn. I Gilmore.
Speaker 1: Herndon High.
Speaker 4: Cashman. Kenny G. Lopez. I knew. Ortega.
Speaker 6: I.
Speaker 4: Sussman. I. Black.
Speaker 3: I.
Speaker 4: Mr. President.
Speaker 2: I believe clubs close voting and as a result.
Speaker 4: I'm just checking. One is missing.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes to name.
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Ten Eyes. Two names for 20. One through four. 27. I'm going to say I'm just for the record. Resolutions for 21. For 22. For 23. For 24. For 25. For 27 have been adopted. Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, please, will you please put the next bill in by?
Speaker 4: Yeah. It's 577.
Speaker 1: Excuse me. Go ahead.
|
Resolution
|
A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and JKS Industries, LLC to extend the term and add funds to provide on call asbestos, lead and mold abatement services.
Amends a contract with JKS Industries, LLC to add $2 million for a new contract total in the amount of $2,480,000 and to add two years for a new end date of 8-3-19, for nuisance abatement actions for residential properties and environmentally regulated building material abatement and demolition activities of city-owned facilities including those associated with the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative and Platte to Parkhill projects (ENVHL-201415783). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-12-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 5-10-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, May 22, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, June 5, 2017.
|
DenverCityCouncil
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.