A bill for an ordinance approving the Service Plan for the creation of Football Stadium Metropolitan District. Approves a service plan for the Football Stadium Metropolitan District in Council District 3. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 6-26-18.
Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilman Espinosa, will you put Council Bill 686 on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move the Council Bill 18 0686 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Councilor Bill 686 is open. May we have the staff report? Take it away. Good evening. My name is Andrew Johnston with the Department of Finance. I'm here to give you the staff report on the new metropolitan district. It's a Council Bill 686 Series 2018 four, an ordinance approving a service plan for a new metropolitan district titled Football Stadium Metropolitan District. The service plan is being submitted to City Council for approval on behalf of the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. Pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act, sections 32, dash one, desk 201 and more particularly 32. Dash one, dash two or 4.5. The land on which the football stadium and its parking lots are built is owned by the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, which is created pursuant to the state statutes. This is the Seven County District created to initially fund the existing stadium with a sales tax. The sales tax supporting the stadium expired in December 31, 2011, when its related debt was paid off. The stadium is 18 years old and leased by the Denver Broncos and Stadium Management Company, LLC. The purpose of the new development on the Southern parking lots that will continue to be owned by the football stadium district is to create a sustainable revenue stream over time to contribute towards capital improvements and repairs at the stadium without having to go to the taxpayers for additional funding. The sustainable revenue stream will come from the long term ground leases that developers pay to build on the land. The new Metropolitan District will facilitate the needed public improvements and financing required to prepare the southern parking lots for vertical developers. The new Metropolitan District 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 new metropolitan district will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authorities granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 50 mills plus rates, fees, tolls and charges. The new metropolitan district will also be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the discretion of the city. The total estimated costs for the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately 146 million. In order for the new metropolitan district to have the fiscal wherewithal to provide the funding for the upfront costs of the public improvements needed in the service area, the new metropolitan district shall have the ability to issue debt and impose a debt mill levy to provide funding for the upfront infrastructure costs. The new metropolitan district will have the ability to impose up to ten of the 50 authorized mills to raise revenue for operations and maintenance at the completion of the current Plan for development for development projects. An estimated population of up to 2000 people in 2022 and include up to 3.5 million square feet of retail, restaurant, hotel, office space and other commercial space, which will provide for a long term recurring income stream to support football, stadium repairs and capital improvements. Under the supervision of the football stadium district, who will continue to own the stadium and the property, the planned development will offer opportunities to better connect downtown Sun Valley and the West Side neighborhoods with transit corridors and the South Platte River, including park and riverfront enhancements. The planned development is located in the city's 2013 Decatur Federal Area Plan and conforms with the Area Plan's recommendations to create a year round mixed use site and to improve connectivity within the service area. The new metropolitan district is not currently located within an urban renewal area. The new metropolitan district will cooperate with the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, Stadium Management Company to support and strengthen the long term viability of the stadium facility. The approval of the service plan establishes the following. There is sufficient existing and projected need for an organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for present and 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 does and will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and the service standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city. Staff is here and recommends approval of the service plan. The applicant, their representatives and city staff are here tonight to respond to any questions you might have regarding this bill. Thank you very much. All right. We have six individuals signed up to speak this evening. If you are sitting in this front bench and you're not speaking on this issue, I'd ask you to please make room for our speakers. I'm going to call up the first five speakers, and I do apologize if I mispronounce your name. If you could make your way to the front bench as soon as I call your name, there will be a slight delay to give you time to get to the podium and then your time will start. So our first five are Michael Pierce, Jerry Leslie, Tor Gorski, Rudolph Gonzalez, Craig Umba and Mack Freeman. And Michael, you're up first. I'm Michael Persichetti with RBC Capital Markets 1801 California Street, Suite 3815. I'm just here to answer questions. All right. Thank you very much. Next up, Leslie Tarkowski. I thank you, counsel, for hearing my comments. My name is Leslie. Terry. Gorski, and I'm standing before you as director of the Federal Boulevard Business Improvement District. We are so supportive and excited about the concept of development in the Broncos stadium and I was asked to be. Part of the stakeholder. Group and our first public meeting. My job was to stand at one of the boards where we got to hear feedback of what people wanted to see in here on Federal Boulevard, and we heard nothing but positive comments. In fact, in the weeks since this has been going on, I have yet to hear one negative comment about the concept of developing this stadium. I will continue to work on the public outreach. We're very excited. And I do want to give a big thank you to Councilman Lopez and Councilman Espinosa. When this started, we were very concerned that the master plan would be limited to the actual property line. And with the help of Jason Whitlock and Karen Goode and Public Works, they have drawn the plan to include thoughtfully West Colfax Federal Boulevard and the surrounding neighborhoods. So we can have a more holistic view and not just not just have all these different plans that are not talking to each other. So again, we're very excited and we thank the Broncos for bringing much needed development to Federal Boulevard. Thank you. Next up, Rudolph Gonzalez. Hello. Thank you. City council names Rudolph Gonzales. Rudy Gonzalez. I'm the executive director of Servicios de la Raza right there on 14th and Grove, serving primarily West Denver. But I'm also coming to you as a committee member of the redesign committee for the West Colfax Clover Redesign Committee. What, Dan? So I'm first, I want to thank Councilman Lopez for his invitation to sit on this committee and to do more work. But it's important. I think this committee was very inclusive. I saw representation from the Sun Valley Housing from GI Forum, which has been a long time entity right there on Colfax and 17th, and other Latinos and Latinas who sat on this committee and worked at these meetings. And I'm here in support of this bill. And but I also want to city council to remember that when this comes to reality that we are talking about not just affordable housing, but low income housing to augment the 333 units at Sun Valley, we need more. And that's why I'm also on the West Colfax Clover Redesign Committee, because there's a lot of acreage there that also can be some of that dedicated to low income housing. We need that in Denver to keep our diversity. Thank you also for the rezoning. Right. We await the rezoning on this property. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Craig Omar. Good evening. I'm Craig. I'm bar 1601 Water Street. I'm here as general counsel for the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. We are in support of the creation of this new special district. This, as Andrew did, a great job of describing this. It is an attempt to put into place the financing for the infrastructure that will allow us to do and look at development on the south parking lot. We are doing this as one of the many ways to try to generate. I think our estimates are over the next 30 years will need 500 to $700 million to maintain the stadium as the first class stadium it is today. So I'm also available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. And next up is Mack Freeman. And then if we could make room on this front bench for our last speaker, David Roy Moore will be next. Go ahead, you guys. Good evening and thank you for your time. I'm Mack Freeman, the chief commercial officer for the Denver Broncos, and I reside at 758 Franklin Street in Councilman News District. I'm here obviously in support of this bill. I think as you've heard from a couple of previous speakers, we have a daunting challenge maintaining the the taxpayer owned asset in the stadium. It's 20 years old. It's getting it's getting older. It's getting more expensive to manage. And as Craig said, we've done a deep facility dove and it's about 500 to $700 million over the next 25 years. This effort is to is to try and preempt a real problem and solve it now and and why the metro district in particular is so important to what we're trying to do is our project does not have a for profit developer involved yet. This is something we're trying to do with the community. And obviously from the Broncos standpoint, this needs to be a really important focus that we're able to operate and deliver a great gameday experience for our fans during periods of disruption. So the Metro District formation allows us the early funding to get ahead of certain things. Infrastructure wise, the most important for our forward operating is the parking. We need structured parking built before we can start addressing the surface lodge that that we plan to to develop on. I think, you know, this is sports facilities being used as as demand generators is happening all around the country. Atlanta, Tampa, Boston, L.A., Detroit, Dallas, San Fran. Many other cities are using the same plan of using the demand generator to support a new development around them. AS And thank you all for your time individually. We've had a chance to discuss these face to face, but this is a unique development and the revenue generated from these ground leases are going right to the Metropolitan Football Stadium tourist district. None of this money is going to the Broncos. And as much as I appreciate their compliment, we're trying to be to be a instigator of this development. But we are not a for profit developer. We don't have any desire to be we're trying to run this process the right way. We're involved in a in a really great public process. You heard about some of the comments about how positive they've been. They've also had phenomenal turnouts. I think we had in excess of 160 people at a stadium meeting. So we're getting great engagement from the community. And again, I'm running out of time. I just say, you know, I appreciate your your consideration. I humbly ask for your support. And I think we'd like to be a part of. Delivering Denver's next great neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker, David Roybal. David Roybal, where's Denver United? Live in Lincoln Park West, 9742 Avenue. And I just want to bring up you know, I've been there since beginning since Mike Nichols Arenas is Mile High Stadium Sports Walk. I mean, that's my neighborhood. Born and raised and growing up there, I feel that you can have fun as a kid, the community had more fun with less money. There was always events going on. Now it's expensive. Can't even afford a Bronco game, can't even afford concerts. I mean, look at all that that's going on now. I mean, the Sun Valley redevelopment, Federal Boulevard redevelopment, it kind of seems that, you know, why did it take up to this time to do it? You know, when Sun Valley was going through so much change, having the highest crime rate nine years ago, you know, I mean , that's a big thing. Not one thing was brought up about that. I mean, it's the same neighborhood. But is this going to bring the neighborhood? Is it going to bring stronger? I mean, how are the residents in Sun Valley? Are they going to be able to benefit, start their own businesses? Is there going to be more affordable housing there? Because remember, just ten years ago, people really want to park their car down there. Now, it's a culture shock. It's the other way around. I mean, look at how much has changed. And I just hope that the history and the culture is represented within this. And when they say community, I hope it is a business community. Is it the homeless community? Is it who is it when they say community, if people could be more specific and I'll speak it for the people that's been removed. My grandma lived in the Sun Valley for 52 years and I know lots of people that's been moved out and I just hope that the new generation can benefit from this change and that the people set the right example for the youngsters to stop seeing it as money and being about greed. Because it's more than that. They're putting all this money in all this project, 2000 people. And then on top of that, the Pepsi Center property, they're going to put housing there. Like, is that bringing unity? Is that bringing in new people? Is that, you know, where's the culture? Where's the history? I hope that's represented very well. Thank you. Thank you. That concludes our speakers. Are there any questions from members of council? Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Mr. President, I wanted to actually bring my Chris Parker. I see you over there with the. Chris has been involved. You've been involved just to the south with with the with Sun Valley, the planning in Sun Valley. I know the answer to this question, but I think for the record, and just for the folks who are here and watching at home that can be here, in a nutshell, what's going to happen in Sun Valley? Our folks who are living there and there's a lot of question this is a serious question from folks, our folks who are living, they're going to be displaced. Are we redeveloping it? And if if we are redeveloping it, what's going to happen? Are we pushing people out? I know the answer to this question, but I want you to address it because you've been working on it for quite a while. And I want folks to hear it in the chambers. What the intent is in the future of Sun Valley. I think Council Chris Parker, Director, Sun Valley District Trust, working in partnership with Denver Housing Authority, is my guest here as well. Thank you. And you're exactly right. I think we counted up a little while ago. We're about I think we're in our eighth year of planning in the Sun Valley neighborhood. And that was born about with the of federal stationary plan process. When that started, that really activated the overall planning process with Sun Valley. And I think that's the key is that we realize that we can't just look at, you know, drop a drop of station in, but we have to look at the whole neighborhood and really look at what the dynamic is. And, you know, we really know looked at Sun Valley. It's about six years of overall larger disinvestment. And so we're missing many services. So I think I think that's something we hear. It's deprived of services. We have concentrated poverty in Sun Valley homes. And, you know, but the flipside is the neighborhood is very vibrant, it's very proud. And it's it's been a really interesting process to work with the neighborhood and go to that. I think the key is at the end of the day, because we have we always call it the gift of time with the planning process, that this has not been a story about redevelopment coming in and then what happens with affordable housing, but it's been affordable housing led process. That's been the conversation from day one is what does it look like with development where we start with the conversation around affordable housing and then how does redevelopment occur from there? So to answer specifically with your question, so many homes, approximately 333 units of Sun Valley homes are public housing. And this gives us the opportunity with the land that's available as well to come in and triple that density. And so we are more than doubling the affordable housing and that will come at different scales with AMMA using low income housing tax credits apparently through the Denver Housing Authority, but then also with private development coming in through social impact financing as well, bringing additional affordable housing. And so I think that's that's the key that we're looking we come in and triple or quadruple the density because some valley homes itself right now is very low density site and then opportunities there. But it's actually an opportunity increase. And for all the residents here, there, they, of course, have the right first the right to return as well and the opportunity to try to develop to the greatest extent possible offsite. You know, again, there will be there will be demolition, displacement at times. But I think that that's the point, is that we can bring back that housing a much more vibrant structure. So you're looking at I mean, and Chris, quickly on a third, which is 333 units of public housing right now, DHP operator owned and operated public housing, those are being replaced 141141. Not just the units, but the bedrooms. Okay. Yeah. Then you have the other. So we're looking at tripling was just tripling for example. What are the other two like the other if we were to divide into three, what are the other two. Is that all market rate is just 33 unit 333 units market rate or is there affordability and market rate mixed in? And what's the purpose of that? Yeah. And then next that next bucket of affordable housing is going to be blended with 40, 50, 60% of the area median income. So that's true. That's usually in predominately the low income housing tax credit program. And again, those will be developed directly by the Denver Housing Authority, which they can speak to as well. And then with market rate. And I think that's part of the to the next group is market rate and that brings more disposable income to the neighborhood. But many times that market is comprised of workforce housing as well. So I think it's very, very important understand that this product is delivered in a mixed income format. So it's not it's not bifurcated with different buildings, but it's mixed income throughout. So that's a rough description. Okay. Thank you. And, Mr. President, if I may ask one more person to come up, and I appreciate that. But, Mr. Freeman, if you want to come up Macarena, can you talk a little bit about the process and this you talked about a seamless neighborhood. I we sit on the steering committee. We help, you know, we're helping participate. It's very exciting. Folks are mentioning things like affordable housing. They're mentioning things like, you know, jobs, things especially affordable housing right now in this crisis. What kind of commitments, what are what's at the table with the intent in terms of what happens on the district? And I think this is something that also the metropolitan football stadium district wise, want to. Answer that question as well, too. You're welcome to as well. Thank you for asking that question because I think I would love to have more concrete answers because, you know, we're still in our public process until we know what we're able to build. It's tough to talk about specific units or or the specific benefits. I think we're maybe two months away from being able to do that. But what I what I think I've said to every one of you is we're committed to making this a brilliant opportunity for our neighborhood. This this is a neighborhood that that I personally have driven to work in for 20 years. I worked at the old stadium and I've been there since we opened the new one. We we have we have always tried to be good neighbors. We want this development to be the thing that, as Chris Bar talked about, this Sun Valley has been sort of isolated from everything. What we can do, we can connect through the gulch to them, the bike paths. There's so many things we can do to to break down the walls that have sort of isolated that neighborhood. Again, as as you get to specifics relative to affordable housing, I've several of you, when we had face to faces challenged me on that directly. And, you know, without knowing the numbers yet I don't want to get over my skis and make promises that we can't deliver on. But I can tell you, the first thing we're going to do is try and figure out whether we can exceed some of the requirements. I know. I know. You know, we're going to get our feet held to the fire when we get to the zoning aspect of this. I get it. But I think, you know, our plan is to come to you when we get to that window and you're going to hopefully look at us and go. Wow, all right. You meant what you were saying. And so that's that's how we're operating again, until we know. You know, we've tried to again, our process has been really unique. We're not backing into the square footage of development based on what we bought the land for and the ROI we needed to return. We've backed into this rough three and a half million square foot number based on what the street and the traffic and those studies suggest the system can support. So we're trying to do this the right way and not not be guided by financials or anything, you know, specific to to return. We're trying to do what makes sense here. And I think, as I said, we're I've been in a number of public processes going back to when we built the stadium. And I would say the positive engagement that we've had in these public meetings and steering meetings is unprecedented from everything we've seen. And I think that's because we're not we're not going in with a plan and trying to jam it down anyone's throat. We are we are truly we want we want this process to tell us what some of these community benefits are so that I answer that appropriately. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll hold my rest of my questions because I know the council members are trying to write. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. So, yeah, I apologize first to my colleagues, but I do have a ton of questions and I'll do the same thing. I'll start some and then defer. But it's along the lines of to whom much is given, much is expected. And so I you were right. And Mac, in saying, we know we're going to get our feet held to the fire. So my questions are going to primarily to get things on the record here in this public hearing so that, yeah, I'm going to hold your feet to the fire if I'm still here when this all starts coming to fruition. With that said, the first is this is not I'm not putting you on the skewer here, Chris, but I do have some questions based on your comments. You know, you're doing a mixed use development in the eco district. You know, is there if you've seen the makeup of this, what's in the service plan, the 2000 units versus three and a half million square feet of nonresidential, primarily commercial hotel retail? You know, will that be a you know, how will that impact the plans for the eco district? And your commercial viability there as well. Yeah, I want to make sure I answer the question appropriate so I'll I'll answer it in this way that I think, again, going back to the fact that we've had a handsome time process associated with this because we've had a great opportunity through the community process to going back to the stationary plan, to talk to the community and think about what the comprehensive development looks like. You know, I think we need to include obviously not just the affordable housing piece, but, you know, we as we say, a lot of words that don't sometimes land on plans, but they don't have the time to come up with strategic planning around it. So we talk about jobs without the hot buttons, affordable housing jobs, transit, lowering utility costs, things like that. By looking at this as an overall district, I think the same decision. The Broncos have been a fantastic partner in that conversation. They've allowed us to bring our conversation about development to them over the years. And so right now we are a point of at a point of many years deep in the conversation. So when we see what could be here, we don't want we want to look at this as a overall holistic neighborhood. So not every single site has to solve every single problem. And I think that's why we look at the whole area as a district. You said, how does it work as a district? We're excited because this technically you talk about the square footage of commercial that puts jobs within walking distance to all the residents in Sun Valley . So that's a very key piece. Now, is the plan done? Know that that's what Mack's referencing, that we need to get into a lot of details. A lot of things have not been figured out, but that opportunity is exactly what we want to look for, for that type of holistic, well, well-rounded development. What worries me in that response is a lot of words and nothing about how you might actually structure some sort of agreement so that you don't get a situation where it's an us and them situation. Because that's part of the historic problem in and in Sun Valley. To David's points originally and what your comments about 60 years of disinvestment is if you're doing mixed income development, the idea was, is you have a fully healthy community in the eco district. But if there's if there's a market segment that migrates to something north of Colfax and the residual properties in your development just cater to the lower end. How do we how are we structuring something so that actually there are some some some sort of cross-pollination of those two development and enterprise opportunities, not just in jobs, but in actual service and community. And and and so I don't hear that in, in your eight years of planning and whatever has transpired thus far. And that's concerning to me. Yeah, that's never been part of the conversation. So I think there's a lot of details in the plan. So I think that's if we need to do a deeper dove on what that looks like. But again, they're starting their planning process. But that's always been a piece of our conversation. And why specifically, Councilman, to your point, there has been a separation physically across the neighborhood. We've done a lot of work among the parties, but also with the city and looking at different land utilization. So how do we start to close that gap, how we activate the station and take away this North-South barbell effect and actually close that gap physically because the physicality and making a walkable neighborhood is a big piece of that equation as well. But everything you're talking about is definitely in our conversation. I think we're excited to bring forward what that would look like. Great. So the thing we're holding to the fire is the connection and that in that and everything you just said there. Okay. Thank you. You can do. So, Andrew, sorry, does the city need. So you talked about why the service plan. So does the city need this facility? Why or why not? So the question I heard was, does the city need the metropolitan district? Why and why not the facility? So you said that the service plan, the metro district is there to, you know, to essentially support a service. I forget how you actually worded it in your presentation, but it's there. We're doing this metro district for a reason. Or are you just talking about for the purpose of the infrastructure? Yeah. So that so there's two metropolitan districts there, right. One one is the one that was used to help the seven counties and they used had a tax issue, sales tax issue across the seven counties to help support the repayment of the debt that built the original stadium. That that tax is sunset. Now, we are looking at putting a new metropolitan district on top of that metropolitan district that was existing. And that one is going to be used to impose a series of property taxes to help pay for the bonds that will then have proceeds that will be used to put infrastructure in place that will allow for vertical construction. The ground leases that will be used to go towards that will come from the vertical development, will be used to help support a capital program at the stadium, which will then give it a sustainable revenue stream for capital improvements going forward. So the purpose of the metropolitan district, that's a floor before you today is a really an infrastructure financing tool. So that's what I'm saying. So it's all financing this this the maintenance and operation of the stadium. So do we need the stadium? Why or why not? Do. Does a city need a stadium? Yes. If you want to have an NFL football team to have a place to play, then you would need a stadium. So okay. Now that gets back to your other answer. So actually, the state didn't pay for the stadium. The seven counties did. So the seven counties built this facility. Do they similarly? Do they? So they obviously also they need it. So what is their mansion? 146 million? Towards this end. So the question I think I'm hearing from you is what is the infrastructure that this stadium metropolitan district is matching? Is that the question here? So the stadium metropolitan district, which is the existing stadium, just because there's so many stadium districts being set here today, the existing stadium district has no revenue stream. And so without that sits, it doesn't have a revenue stream. We're putting the new proposed metropolitan district in place to create that revenue stream. So there is no if you want to say to looking forward to the new infrastructure that's being put into place, there is no match coming from the existing metropolitan state stadium district. Okay. Thank you. And so then I the rest of my questions are towards Mal, actually. Is the stadium district property subject to property taxes? So it is a it is tax exempt. But when they do that, they do ground leases out and it'll be a tax exempt entity that is doing ground leases. And when you have a tax exempt entity that does a lease like that, much like how when there's a rustles in the web building that creates something called a possessor re interest and that possess free interest is actually creates a property tax event. The improvements upon the land are generally not part of those ground leases and the improvements upon the land are subject to just standard property taxes. So I'm glad you mentioned the possessor interest because that's our infamous Clayton property deal. Clayton Trust the Park Hill deal. But that said, once these convert to ground leases. You know, there is a revert or clause when the land no longer needs is no longer serving stadium purposes. It goes back to in the case of Denver owned land, it comes back to the city of Denver to do what we please with our own property. If we're ground leasing to an agency, I mean, to somebody that can then be taxed. How do we justify statutorily that it is still for stadium purposes? So it's an interesting question. Thank you very much for asking the. I would I think I heard you say is. The. The land has a revert or clause. I think it's a right of reentry so that if the stadium ever stops being used for stadium purposes, that the city and county of Denver has a right of reentry and that. Q I'm going to call someone up who may be more educated on how to answer that question. Thank you, Craig Amber, again. If I understand your question correctly. So the property was acquired was purchased by the Metropolitan Football Stadium District. And I guess I should clarify this at the moment. The confusion created by the state legislature naming this the Metropolitan Football Stadium District is not a metropolitan district. It is a district akin to the scientific and cultural facilities district or artist. It is a statutorily created district. So I wish they would have given us a different name. So the MFS acquired the property for approximately $28 million from the city. There are land use restrictions on that property, as Andrew just referred to and as you councilman just referred to regarding the use of. It can be used for football games, concerts, parking ancillary uses to the football stadium. If it has ever ceased to be used for those things, then there is a default provision in the city after five years. If the default isn't clear, it has the right to come back. And if they want it, take the property back. We're in discussions right now with the city attorney's office and others in the city, obviously using this property on the south lot. Will I fall into one of those categories if the building is a hotel? If it's affordable housing, if it's an apartment, it's not going to satisfy that. So we're going to have to have a discussion and we'll be back and I'll have to come before city council on that thing. So I believe most of the discussions we've had with the city to this date have been if the football stadium and the football use went away. The city at that time would have the right to look at those rights. At that point, the Metropolitan Football Stadium District, the original entity, probably doesn't have a lot of reason left to exist other than. Operating those ground leases. So that is something we'll have to do. We're in discussions about you're going to have to continue to discuss. So thank you for the candor and in response, because that has long been my concern. When I first broached the subject in early June, which was that this stadium district and the conversations that had to have gone on with Mortenson to produce ay ay ay ay ay estimate and the parcels that had to be considered in order to produce the map and the conversations that must be having to address these sort of statutory concerns and whatnot, involve conversations about what might go there. And all of that went before we had one meeting about what the future of that property was from a master planning, zoning, land use sort of standpoint. And so it's always felt like cart before the horse. So I hope whoever you're working with in the administration will start to be more transparent in meeting with members of council or coming to committee on progress of this. And it doesn't get too far ahead of the planning process. Councilman, I don't want to stop you too much, but I do have a question in there. Can you save some of that for comments, you think. I will say. Well, yeah, that's enough comment because that's again that's again why I'm going on record with all this. Thank you. And I the rest are sort of more nuts and bolts on the actual service plan. So I'll defer those to till later. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. Andrew. Maybe you could help me see things a little more clearly than are evident in the map in the service plan. But the one in the service plan, inclusion of land, says the district shall not include any property outside the inclusion area boundaries except as set forth in the Special District Act and with the manager finances written approval. So the inclusion area boundary I've noticed, is much smaller than the district boundary. Can you explain where the taxable properties will be and why are the district boundaries so much larger than the inclusion area boundaries? And so to that to that is the fact that most the area is going to be actually included in the district right from the get go. And so there's only small amounts of land that are going to be included at a later date. So that is why the inclusion area is so much smaller. It's almost inverse to how we see some of our other metropolitan districts start where they have an inclusionary that is actually very de minimis and it grows to the inclusion area as the development phases out. Okay. You said he inclusionary. It looked like it was a very small portion. So. The exclusion area should is not the is is like maybe like three or four parcels of land. Five, six. Yeah, but very small. And the initial district boundaries though is a much larger area. Right. So you'll start off with a full large area as the district boundaries and then as those other parcels are developed, they will add in to the main area in the future. Mm hmm. So the hundred and some odd million and improvements will be conducted throughout the entire district boundary, not just in the inclusion area. That. That is correct. Yes. Thank you. Light bulb. Just turn it off now. Thank you. I think also Matt cutting. With the need for the for the revenue stream to maintain mile high stadium at such a at a serviceable level as we go into the future by the way is at mile high stadium right now. I believe it's Broncos stadium. Broncos stadium that's currently. Okay. We're we're working on that as well. Okay. The pressure to achieve to maximize revenue. What is you? What is your feeling about the impact of that on plans to include affordable housing and other aspects that might not generate as much or might require subsidization? Well, I think we're again, we're trying to approach this in just a really logical way. And again, until we have square footages of what we're planning on building, getting into those specifics are tough to to handle. But I believe we're coming we're going to go to market with with something that is going to have a unique value proposition for for the people who are going to build it. And we will have things built in that they may not like. We may have some things in there built in that they do like just going through the process we're going through. I mean, being able to have the Metro District and and get to that infrastructure early and how that's going to make this more attractive. There will be some things, again, I think once we get there, community benefits, they're not things you would normally see developers embracing. But I think we hope in the aggregate that we're creating a very attractive deal. And it can it can deliver for the community, it can deliver for Broncos fans and and deliver for the partners we engage going forward. And and you're committed to a high level of community involvement in this? Yes. Again, I think our our public process to date is somewhat unprecedented for my experience. So I think we're very encouraged. And again, I, I took over management of Old Mile High in the late nineties for the city and I went to neighborhood meeting after neighborhood meeting and got absolutely destroyed. And we have we have tried for the past 20 years to be better neighbors, to build trust and rapport. When we had the first meetings in Sun Valley a couple of years ago with the neighbors, it was one of the best meetings I've ever been to because for the first time ever, kids and adults and others were . When asked what the biggest assets in their neighborhood were, they said the stadium, which is not what I had experienced in other neighborhood meetings. So I think we we've got a great engagement level right now and I think we we have a great ability to to, in fact, impact Sun Valley, everything the CRISPR and VHA are doing with the eco district as well as connecting all of these neighborhoods. I think there's been an awesome collaboration with both sides of the river, north and south, and trying to make this a real hub and connection point for for the entire community. Thank you. Thank you. So, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, if you could step there for a second. I have a couple questions for you. Would you remind us what the anticipated square footage buildout is for commercial? And then it was, what, little over 2000 residential? Yeah, all those are the breakdown is I again we got two, three and a half based on what the traffic in circulation suggested made sense. As far as that breakdown, I think we we've come to that rough mix that's out there just talking to to people in the marketplace, knowing different uses and where demand is. It also had a thoughtful approach to having a balance of all those. But those are those are definitely very early estimates of what the breakdown would be. So I I'm not sure there is there's too much depth into each one of those does break out square footage is okay. Andrew, would you come up, please? So obviously the amount of meals that are being factored into this particular metro district anticipate a certain scale for a project, because if we were talking about something much smaller, we probably wouldn't be looking at 50 mills. Correct, depending on how much infrastructure needs to be built to support that? Correct. That is a correct assumption. It's a it's not exactly cut and dry because it's also, you know, smaller sites sometimes need smaller amounts of infrastructure, but they also contain sometimes less assessed value that's lost revenues. So there's there's there is a relationship of looking at the whole in order to understand that the number of mills necessary. So I want to get back to a question that Councilman Flynn was asking about the adjacent parcels that are not currently included in this metro district. Are any of those parcels currently owned by the city? I'd have to take a look at my map. So, for example, the old public works maintenance facility that's that's owned by the city. Still, correct? Correct. And that may be one that would be added in at some point in time in the future. Right. So, yes, if that's in the inclusion boundaries, I'd have to look at my map to reconfirm. Okay. So has there been any internal city discussion about parcels owned by the city that we should retain for the purpose of ensuring that we have affordability? You know, I don't know what kind of cleanup that site might need, given the kind of use that was on there or any other parcels that might be owned by the city. So rather than just assuming they're all going to be absorbed within the metro district. You know, was there any internal conversation about the city just keeping those sites for some of the priorities that we have identified for this city? Affordable housing being one of those. Obviously. I'm not aware of all the conversations that go on in the city. I do know that there have been conversations about working collaboratively with DHS and help and supporting their the movement of affordable housing onto this site while they're going through their redevelopment activities to create the eco district. But I am not aware of any specific ones to where we've talked about the public works facility. Okay. A couple other questions. So when we. Look at the amount of development that's being proposed on this side of the South Platte River. So we've got 62 acres. That's part of the Ilitch Gardens site. 52, roughly for the football stadium. About 80 acres for Sun Valley. Burnham yards, which may or may not happen in the in the near future. That's 70 acres. That's obviously on the other side of the river. And then just down the road at the Denver Post say we've got 41 acres. And I want to know what kind of conversations the city has had about the cumulative impact, particularly if each of these large parcels are looking at building to maximum maximum density. What kind of discussions have there been? Who's looking at that to to ensure that we're not overtaxing the adjacent infrastructure like Federal Boulevard, which is already one of the most unsafe transportation corridors that we have in the city. Some of us are involved in discussions around safety on Federal Boulevard with CDOT, for example. So can can you talk a little bit about that? Sure. So you're right, there is a there is actually a tremendous amount of development occurring when you look at, you know, the things along River Mile. You look at Sun Valley and what's going on there and the proposed development here for this metropolitan district right just south of this football stadium. And there's a lot of plans going on. And some of the city council members have been sitting on steering committees. And we look to like what does when we go through the zoning applications and things of that nature, there is a look at how does that particular development, as well as what is adjacent to that development, impact the infrastructure to not just the roads, not just sidewalks, too, but we also are going to be looking at those wet and dry utilities and just making sure that if that maximum zoning does come to fruition, it doesn't say that it will. But if it does that, the systems can handle what it is going to what what is going to come to fruition. Now, it may mean that there still has to be things that have to be built as part of that development when they come in for site plans and things of that nature and that will they talk about it at that time. But it's an ongoing conversation and it has to do as each side comes forward through the planning process. So how much of that gets covered in the rezoning conversation versus, you know, getting it rezoning, waiting for a developer to then look at putting, you know, their their overall site plan together, assuming that they're looking for one master developer to to. You know, come in and assume that responsibility for the build out. I'm going to bring up Karen from our planning department. She's. She can probably best answer that question for you. Good evening. Karen Champine, Director of Planning, Community Planning and Development. Let me make sure I understand your question. So you're asking at what stage do we start to look at the cumulative infrastructure? Exactly. That's great question. So it comes in multiple stages. So at the first stage, as Andrew articulated, there's a planning process. And as we go through that process, there's always an initial analysis to just sort of gut check the policies and the vision against sound engineering principles. So we always do that at the beginning of the planning phase. And then with a large scale site like this, we always then do concurrent with a rezoning conversation. We do and we do more detailed infrastructure master planning so that we can take a closer look at pipe sizes and all of that fun stuff so that then we can dial in a little bit more specifically, the zoning, the regulations, other development agreement needs, as Andrew mentioned, what other upgrades will be needed to the infrastructure to support what could be allowed by zoning? So that would be the second opportunity to take a closer look at infrastructure. And then the third opportunity would be when they actually come through with a site development plan, that means they're ready to go vertical, as we call it. There's a building. We know how many stories. We know what kind of units. Then we take another look more specifically to say, okay, now that based on what they're actually proposing, do we still have the right infrastructure in place? Do we need additional investment or is everything that we plan for appropriate so we can make calibration adjustment along the way once a particular developer knows more about what the project will actually be. So at which point do you all normally see a community benefit agreement tied to that process that you just described? So community benefit agreement is an official is not an official terminology in our work. However, where we have seen community benefits sort of guaranteed through the developer is at a development agreement, through a development agreement. And typically what we've seen as very good practice in the last few years is at the time of rezoning, because what we want to do is make sure that before we change the entitlement to the land, we have clarity on the other goals that we want to accomplish. So we start to look at it as a regulatory implementation package of all the ways and tools we have available to us to help implement the vision and guarantee the outcomes that we want. So, Mack, I'm going to bring you back up just for a second. Yes, ma'am. So part of this is is about timing. Right. Ensuring that the discussions that are being had with the community around some of the benefits that the community wants to see, whether it be affordable housing. Looking at the impact to the adjacent infrastructure, I'm sure the city will weigh in on a lot of that as well. But. What what commitment is there that as this moves forward? You know, this is a little different because. You all will continue to own the land. This. The Metro no metro district will continue to own the land. The stadium metro district. And and there's that relationship between that and this metro district that we would create here tonight. It's a little different from from some of the other processes we've had where, you know, there's an agreement that gets crafted with the neighborhood association and the developer coming in asking for the rezoning. But in some cases, unless that is a covenant placed on the land, if that developer sells the land to somebody else, that agreement doesn't necessarily carry forward. And so, you know, there's going to be some commitment to assurances that whatever these commitments are that come out of this process with the neighborhood will carry forward regardless of whoever is selected to do the development on the land. So I want you to speak to that. Yes, ma'am. I think, you know, the the one of the big differences of this process is there is an a for profit developer who's going to move on. I still have to go to work there every day. The Broncos are still going to play there and hopefully as a part of this will play here for decades going forward. So I don't think we we look at this as, oh, we just got to get through this date and we get then we're free and clear right where I've been going to that office for 20 years and that neighborhood, I hope to be going there for another 20. So I don't think I think the idea that us falling down on the commitments we make, that's not something any of us want to live with every day. And I think I think our record in this community and in that neighborhood speaks for itself. We we we fulfill our commitments. And I think I think you should all feel confident we will be doing that going forward. Thank you. I appreciate your your response. I have no further questions at this time. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. Freeman. Sir. How are your knees doing? Getting up and here? Still functioning well. That's good. So I was going to address this in comments, but realized I might have misunderstood something that was said. So I wanted to ask it as a question and give you a chance to respond. So I'm well aware at this point that there is a difference between the Denver Broncos football club and the Stadium District. But at times I think that difference is is made to be more than it is. And what I thought I heard you say was that the money from the ground leases will not come to the Denver Broncos. They'll go to the stadium district. That is correct. Right. That is technically correct. But the repairs made with that money on on Mile High Stadium and should I live to be 155? It will always be Mile High Stadium no matter what you or anyone else should name it. But the repairs that go to that stadium, as well as if everything proceeds and you get this district and you get this rezoning that somewhere down the road this vibrant community which is potential extremely exciting. Will also those two factors I would assume will greatly increase the value of the Denver Broncos football club. So while those dollars may go into a bank account called the Stadium District, the benefit as well will accrue to the value of the football club. I would not argue the fact that we will benefit from what you're saying as far as valuations of teams and things like that. I think a brand new stadium would do a whole lot more for the valuation of the team. And but but we're again, trying to do the responsible thing. We've put a lot of our own money into this building, and it's in great shape. And we shouldn't. We're not we're not interested in heading down the path of a discussion of the next one. We think, again, we have the solution in front of us to get another 20, 25 years out of this building. And that's the right thing to do. The taxpayers, to the question of, you know, do we need a stadium? The taxpayers voted for this stadium. All right. And so I think we have that answer and we're just trying to be responsible and keeping it up. Absolutely. Our fans and the organization will benefit from the stadium being in better shape. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I'm sure the greater things about valuations of teams, I think that there are lots of different things that go into that. Sure. Thank you for that. And my my other question is, again, let's assume all this happens and we maintain this stadium at an even higher level with the monies that are generated. Are you able to give any sort of a guarantee as to how long the Denver Broncos remain in the city and county of Denver? Not at this point, I think. I think it's obviously you know, I think the demonstration of our commitment to pushing this process forward, we are we are the ones funding the front end of this process with no promise of even being reimbursed for this, even though that revenue will not go to us. So I think we're we're in this. We're in this and putting our own money out there to push the process forward because we want to be here. The path to even talking about stuff like that, it's not necessary if we have a functional building to do plans. Well, it's necessary. We're committing we're in a position to make a commitment like that. But this is this is part of the process to getting there. Yeah, it's. As a fan. I think while it's I understand that the technicalities of the little bit I know of life and as a professional sports franchise but assessing deals of this nature it would be nice to have a guarantee that we'll be around for 20 years, 30 years, whatever. And we've all seen franchises pick up and move on because the decision is made that dollars outweigh loyalty. So when this does come to rezoning, I think this will be a little bit more difficult discussion. Yeah, but I would just. One perspective I would share is that, you know, relative to that part of it. We still need to see this development generate the revenue, we hope. I think so. You know, the approval of the service plan or even zoning, you know, none of that guarantees that that revenue will be realized. But I think if we're in a seat where we feel like the financial future of the building is in a good place, I think we have been open. I think the stadium district would tell you that we're open to having those discussions. Thanks for those answers. Appreciate you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman New. Just those knees again. Can you. One thing I keep seeing is I 25 separate new and in the downtown area. Can you talk a little bit about the connectivity between this project and downtown? And I think that's a real asset, but I still have a hard time visualizing that. Yeah, well, I think, you know, the city has obviously spent the last ten years growing toward us. I think when when I first started working in the neighborhood, downtown felt like a ways away. The area plan obviously continues to evolve and everything's moving closer to us. Again, I can't speak for all the various projects that are happening around us, but we have made great efforts and I think tried to collaborate with all the different entities that have things going on. I mean, Councilwoman Ortega, Ortega's comments about all the stuff, you know, we're trying to be mindful of all the different things that are happening so that we can create connections. And and again, with Sun Valley break down isolation walls. And I think where we're located with the with the river, the highway, the bike paths, Federal Colfax, we have the the ability to connect a lot of the city. And even earlier the discussion about bridges. I think it's amazing what's happened in the Highlands by having bridges and ways for us to do that with River Mile connecting to the south, the Sun Valley. I think there and even to Colfax, obviously, you know, there may be opportunities in this window to to to help support, you know , some solution for the Cloverleaf and things like that. So I think we're trying to be mindful of all of our edges and trying to reach out and collaborate and connect with with everyone who's working on stuff so that we can hopefully make this is as good a project and a smarter process as we can. All right. Well, I hope that comes true. That'll be a great, great advantage. What's the timetable on this project? I couldn't tell you. I again, this is. What's your best guess? Well, I think if if if we had if we get to the end of the public process on the master plan and we feel like the for the first couple buildings that there's some sense of we know what we should do and how it ought to occur. I think I think two years is really the thought. I think I mentioned it earlier, but the parking structure and that's again back to the the creation of the metro district, the ability the first thing that needs to happen before we build any buildings is a is a structured parking facility so that we can operate as we as we build out the site. So I maybe we'd stay if everything works out the rest of this year on a on a really fast timeframe, maybe we're talking about a parking deck next year, but I don't I wouldn't say a building any time. Okay. Thanks. Last question. City risk or cost to Denver taxpayers or to Bronco fans in this project? Not that I not that I would see. Now, I think, again, we're trying to avoid the bigger risk, which is going back out to the ballot. I think for any of you that follow this and I think I raised it in in a lot of our one on one meetings, the Los Angeles building for the Rams is now north of $2 billion. The building in Las Vegas is 1.6 billion. You know, we we were fortunate in the window. We built this stadium. I think we ended up with 460, something like that, all in. So the idea to go out and talk about those kind of numbers when, again, we've invested in this building, both our money, the district money, it's in good shape. We we we were trying to avoid the taxpayer risk. To be honest with you. And the fan risk cost, too, right? Yeah. Well. You know, I wouldn't I wouldn't want to leave anyone with the idea that, you know, we're capping everything going forward. We're in a very competitive business. I think anyone who's followed our team knows that Mr. Bowling has not been about making money. Yes, the franchise is appreciated, but that's all on paper. Our ownership has been about winning and the dollars we make go right back into the football side so that we can compete. We always like to say, I know Councilman Lopez is a fan of this. You know, we our punch, our weight, and we continue to do that because we've had a commitment from ownership to to put resources into our on field product. And I think it's one of the reasons that this community is so proud of our team. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman to Councilman Espinosa, you back. I'll try to save you. Go ahead. Hey. Yeah. Doo doo doo doo doo doo, folks. First thing for the record. Councilwoman Ortega, if this if you were talking about the public works space between the river and old Colfax and Canosa that what that is being held by. Hey, good things. So the. So the series of questions are not intended to embarrass their intended to just get things on the record. And again, things that you've already actually said. But in some cases they but just not explicitly the. But what we're approving is the service plan. And there's a lot of language in the service plan. And in later, I'll come to ask the city attorney how how. The prescriptive. This language is the. So how much? So this is speaking to section four, which is description of project and plan development. So how much mixed use neighborhood development experience does the Metropolitan Football Stadium District have? Yeah. Look, Craig answered for himself. Craig I'm off for the Metropolitan Football Stadium District Plan. We have our experience has been limited to constructing a football stadium. And those facilities, as I think has been mentioned, is kind of the first step in a long process. At some point we'll be. Looking for smack has said. They're not developers, we're not developers. Whether we look for multiple developers or a single master developer, that will be another step in the process. So the second part of that, and MCC didn't want to answer for you, but maybe I'll answer for him is how much does the stadium management company have in mixed use neighborhood development? I would I would say similarly very little. And again, not trying to be a developer of mixed use. So in the plan, how was the 2000 population estimate arrived at? So you're looking at the estimate that was in the narrative. That plan development is projected to have an estimated population of up to 2000 at buildout in 2022 and include up to 3,500,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, hotel, office space and other commercial space, which will provide long term recurring income stream to support the football, stadium, maintenance and improvements. All right. So the question is actually going to be both. How did you get the win there? I can take a stab at it, but if you're looking for the exact count, I'll call up the specialists that worked on the study. What was your what would be your preference? Sure. Yeah. Because 2000 is a pretty what I'm trying to what I'm trying to understand is District one also had the St Anthony's redevelopment. And in that proposal it was all five story and it was expected population was 1800 and then it ended up it's going to be something far south of that with eight and 12 story development as part of that. And so I'm just trying to understand the difference between projection and reality. So how close to this is is is this number. Sure. Let me try answering that for you. Like whenever. We. Were doing service plans or any sort of planning exercise, these are estimates. And what you do is you look at what is possible out there and you're still going to have to do the community outreach and you're still going to have that community planning effort. And that will really drive what ultimately gets in there. And then that could be a year or two from now. You may have some actual market changes and it'll drive what the market may or may not want in the future. And all of those things mean that there's an estimate today. And when we leave this public hearing today, those estimates will be wrong. They're they are estimates. I think what we get to is that there is a contemplation of a certain number of residential units that will be put in there. We had they had a real estate specialist look at what those residential units would be, how many units they would have, and an estimate of usually about, you know, what a certain number of people who would live in those residences. And then you come up with an estimation of their population and then you usually rounded up to the nearest thousand. So I'm guessing then there's nothing about this project and planned development description that is at all binding, both on the square footage or the delivery timeline that is laid out in it. Is that correct? You're saying you didn't see anything in here? No. I'm assuming these very specific statements about how many, you know, the estimated population, the the maximum square total square footage and the delivery date in 2022 are not at all binding. They are not binding. Okay. So I just want to confirm, you know, that the billion dollar stadium, which is probably easily its value over 20 years next door, does not generate enough income to support its existence, meaning 146 million. That is needed to maintain that. Correct. So the 146 million that you referenced is the amount of the dollar estimated for the infrastructure that is going to put in horizontally. 300 to $500 million. That was that was cited as what they would need to maintain it. Right. They do have higher estimations of like about over the next 25 years of nearly like 7 to $800 million worth of capital improvements to be made to the stadium of which the ground lease revenues that are what you referenced is the 3 to 5 million hopefully potentially estimated that might bring forward something to help offset those capital infrastructure costs to help maintain a productive football stadium. So they they are all estimates, but they are that is that is a piece of a sustainable revenue stream to help make future football operations possible at the stadium. Okay. I think this question has already been answered and there's no answer to it. But I still want to say that I had this question because the next line is the planned development will offer opportunities to better connect downtown Sun Valley in the West Side neighborhoods. And so I was wondering how but we clearly know that we there's a lot of ways. And so I actually appreciate the responses that came from Mac previously to my colleagues because you're it it represents a level of understanding of the complexity of the problem and an openness to having that conversation as part of this development plan in a way that I wasn't comfortable with a month ago. So thank you for for for for learning, I mean, feeling what the commentary and where everyone was going with this process. It also says including a riverfront park, including park and riverfront enhancements. I was going to ask what those enhancements were, but I think what we're going to say is we're going to have dialog, but it will be it's part of the development plan and it will be part of this infrastructure improvements. So then the next question was along those lines. So is how will a parking structure connect to downtown or Sun Valley or the West Side neighborhoods more than surface parking? How will a parking structure connect to the adjoining neighborhoods? Is that what I'm hearing you say? Yes. So the parking structure is, you know, as you think about the stadium, there's there's a parking lots there now and there's a requirement in order for those cars to be able to park on game day. So they need to have a facility as they start rebuilt, redeveloping all those areas in order to park on game day. Those those vehicles that come to that hold people and come to the games. So the connectivity doesn't come from a parking garage. The connected the garage is part of the entire development. It's a whole package. And the whole package of the development will connect those neighborhoods, as you've heard Mack talk about, like looking at their borders and working with the neighborhoods and working with the FHA and Sun Valley. If this is not the answers, don't lie in one particular aspect, like a building or a parking garage or a park. It's how all of those things work together to bring connectivity not only to the neighborhood, but throughout the city. Yeah. And so the reason why I'm asking that question is I'm trying to get some sense of how this project is going to be faced, because the connections to these surrounding communities, the the river connections as well, those don't interrupt necessarily game day activities because they're and so what is articulated is sort of the first thing we're going to do is a parking structure. And so it tells me that some of these connections and even as soon as next year, that some of these connections we're talking about are not primary. And granted, you probably want to cash flow on some other things before you do those. But I'm looking at this service plan and what I see is a bunch of structures with some timelines, but I don't see amenities listed at all. And so. With any sort of timeline. So I am assuming they're dead last or no. Councilor, if I could jump into that one, I think the reality is we've you know, from the first utterance of the idea of redeveloping the South lots, I would say nine out of ten questions and inquiries we've gotten from either fans, the public, the media has all been about the parking. And so I think that has risen to our priority list because, one, it's a function we absolutely have to have to operate. Once we started addressing surface parking lots to say we wouldn't consider any of those things that they possibly could go on in those earlier windows. If you if again, this is part of the public process, invite if there are things you think we ought to consider that don't could coincide in the same window as the parking structure. I'm not sure we're opposed to that. I think we've focused on the parking because it as it one is the most critical thing for us to continue to operate. It also has been the single sort of highest anxiety topic that's come out of mentioning development around the stadium. So that's why I think we've had an increased focus on that. It is not to say we wouldn't consider anything else. So then it says the district under district governance, it says the district board shall be comprised of eligible electors residing within or owning property within the district, as provided by the Special District Act. How many? Groups make up this group. Craig. I'm back in the. Current contemplation at this time when we initially create it will be it will be steady management company and the football stadium district. So two owners. Will vote on the creation of the district for how many acres? For the 52. Acre 62 acres. And. Okay. And then increase. So this is the last bit. So increased mills and increased costs in relation to the same land uses that don't have this obligation. So you're going to build retail, you're going to build housing, you're going to build hotels and commercial and all these things, but you're going to have additional millage on this and and a piff. What's Piff stand for? Again, they said, look it up here. Piff stands for project improvement fee. So so there's no added cost that won't be on other properties in the city of Denver that don't have metro districts in pass. So to some degree, that cost will be transferred over to the people engaged in that in this location, making it even more cost prohibitive to to to interact down there. How are you addressing likely inclusive inclusivity of both residences and nonresidential opportunity in the in the stadium district. Hi, my name is Jim Cobb and I am working with the Broncos in the Metropolitan Football Stadium District on this development. And Councilman. Could you repeat the. Question? So basically, I'm saying they're inherently going to be added cost to anything that you do relative to somebody doing it, say, on federal that doesn't have the burden of infrastructure. And if so, it's going to sort of inherently that added cost is going to make it slightly more exclusive of a of a place. So how are you going to address and make these areas more inclusive, both to to to residents and nonresidents alike, as far as, I mean, commercial properties and opportunities for for establishment of business or whatever. So the Metropolitan Improvement District that is. Before you tonight is is really no different than any other. Across the city. To my knowledge. And so, yes. With a if it ends up being a 50. Mil levy. On the improvements within this district. Sure that's going to. Cost more. Than, you know, across the street on federal where there's not industrial. However. Our ground lease. Yield assumptions are based on land values that we think reflect that that. Location versus, for instance. Union Station, where, you know, those values are just. You know, out of control, to be honest. And so we think from a developer. Partner standpoint, we're going to be offering. More. Attractive. Ground values. If we if you will, even. Though we're not selling the land, we'll be leasing the land. Secondary. Andrew mentioned a possessive interest tax. Versus a standard real estate tax. And as we've looked at possessor interest tax. Taxes. Around the city, they are generally at a fraction of of what a standard real estate. Tax would be. So that tool. Will. You know, provide, you know, sort. Of financial advantages for development. Partners within. This project. So when we did the stadium and I, I wasn't here for this, maybe Councilman Ortega can't speak to it. There was some sort of commitment, I think, to involve and engage small local business providers as part of the concessionaires and things like that. So you're going to be leasing these spaces. Is there any commitment to that and to sort of make sure that there is some sort of local aspect? I think we we consider all that to be part of the community benefits discussion. I think all of that plays into it, whether it's wage related or or minority women business participation. I think we view that as all part of that community benefits less that were again, we're we're looking at some of the standards that Councilman Lopez mentioned. He was in Seattle and saw some interesting things being done there. So I think, again, in full transparency, we're we're open to ideas and talking about how we can make this as impactful as it can be. But again, we haven't really gotten to the specifics, but I think we know those are part of the community benefit discussion. That's great. That's sort of music to my ears. The because the. You know, there's another opportunity here that I don't think we've mentioned, but with the eco district to the south, local higher provisions, you know, that were our emphasis to try and actually create job opportunities as this bill gets built and sustains itself. Because if the plan is 30 years, that's that's a career for somebody. And so building I mean, there's win win here, but only if we're mindful of it in the process. And I think. I believe. That does it for grandma. These assumptions? Yep. I believe that does it for my questions. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega, you back up? Yes. Two questions. Current zoning on the property is C, Amex C, CMU 30. Is there any anticipation to build to that height limit on this site? I don't think nothing that I've seen in any drawing or contemplation has as looked at anything that I, I don't believe will be sticking with the same obsolete zoning. I think there there are more applicable codes within the city now that will be looking to move to and I don't think we'll be asking for 30. Even in even under the what we would anticipate being a different code. And it guess Karen are you guys like guiding them towards a certain zone district as they're looking to do this buildout? Yes. One thing to clarify, the current zoning of CMU 30 to 30 does not indicate maximum height in the old code. So the 30 is just a number that was assigned to the zone district. Don't ask me why, but the the height under the old code is just a floor area ratio. So yes, looking ahead, we always support a project or a site moving into the new zoning code because there are more new standards. We there's access to a lot, lot better policies and updates over time. But at this point, we have not dialed into anything specific. I mean, certainly something mixed use something with a walkable urban standards will help implement the vision. But we're not that far along to know more specifics. So you can't speak to a maximum height that the city would consider on the site. We're too early in the process to really speak about building heights yet. We haven't talked to the community about that yet. Okay. And I know that will come with the zoning, but I want to make sure that we're cognizant of the fact that part of this area is within the state capital view plane and want to not continue to, you know, penetrate that. I know when the stadium was originally built, part of the not the roofing but the rim around it had to have a waiver. I don't know if that's the right terminology. That is the old city hall view plane. The site really isn't subject to the state capital view plan. It's the old city hall view plane. Okay. I know that discussion is is being had right now with some of our folks doing development across the street and concerned about how high some of the development that may occur in this area and what impact that might have on the Mountain View from from the capital. Yeah. And I don't know whether this includes any of it at all, but potentially with the Sun Valley development, it may if there was any proposal to go very high. And you all know that the view plane ends at the river and this is all on the other side. So potentially they could do that. But so I'm just curious how much you all at the planning department are, you know, paying attention to that and trying to work within that as opposed to, you know, just say no, that's on the other side. Don't worry about it. We'll just you guys can do whatever you want. As I mentioned, the site is within the old city hall view plane. So as we have the conversations around building heights for this site, we will look at all those types of applicable regulations to see what's feasible and what's not. If the heights we're talking about are not consistent with the View plane, we will take a look at that and see and see what what the right path is. And so, yes, we're very mindful of the existence of the view planes. Okay. And introduce one very last question. The pith is that on top of the 50 mills or is that within the 50 mills? So the PIFF is a fee that is not collected, administered or any way managed by the city at all. It's a private covenant that's managed by the landlord, which would be the existing stadium metro district, I imagine. But it is it's a it's a it's a fee that's based on retail sales. So it's not I would it's it's another revenue generating source, but I don't know that I would call it like on top of the 50 mills. So it's a fee for anybody that is a consumer purchasing goods, services, whatever that will be on the site at the time the development is there. Very similar to Ballmer. You know, you go there, you pay the extra because that developer was able to. I'm assuming. That. Yes, that is that is true. It's a it's a it's a it's a taxable sales, usually. An. Additional fee. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's a great question. Thank you. Councilman Ortega, Councilman Lopez, do you have more questions or. No, I just want to just just to remind that, you know, a lot of this will be discussed at a later at a later date, when we actually look at the plan that's going to come before us in council that we have to adopt. And I think a lot of those questions in that process, when it does can when it does come, will come and we'll have an opportunity to really hash out a lot of those details. I think right now, I think the the district, the financing mechanism, the horizontal thermal development is is is on the table. All great questions. And for us that I'm taking a lot of notes, but I just wanted to remind that and I do have a comment on the comment period. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa, to have another question, could you make it quick so we can move on? One more on Exhibit H. That is the development summary divided into 14 blocks, but it has start dates for all the proposed developments. And I'm just I mean, I don't know if you're guy who whoever did this, you know, is the the last two buildings out of all these proposed projects. The second to last one is the A4, the only one, as noted as affordable apartment. You know, is that the you know. I don't know. Maybe that's just a question I just want to point out to my colleagues think, you know, if you look at Exhibit H 2 to 2 of 13, you will see that everything starts according to this plan in February of 19 or February of 20 or 21 or 22. And the only three projects to start in 22 are one of the three is affordable housing. And I think that's a mistake. Ah. Didn't sound like your question or comment, but I. Wanted to make it a question. I couldn't resist a question. All right. So we are going to move on. The public hearing for counsel because 686 is now closed. I will remind my colleagues that we do have a courtesy public hearing. A lot of folks are hanging out late to be here for that. So if you could please keep your comments to the subject of this bill and as concise and quick as possible. Councilman Lopez. Thank you. Mr. President. I did. You know, there was a lot of questions tonight, a lot of very good questions. We've hashed out a lot of issues, I think, in committee as well in terms of notification and what we can negotiate with, with with the district and what we know and what is being asked of us today. I you know, I I've been in the process with the with the state, with the football stadium match upon district, with our task force and kind of looking at through the steering committee, how do we how are we going to build the extend this neighborhood of Sun Valley, right. I mean, it is Sun Valley. This isn't a brand new neighborhood. It's Sun Valley. It's always been Sun Valley. But we've we've never had the appropriate land use. He's never had the appropriate planning or foresight or even population to be able to do that. And when you look at the history of Sun Valley and you look at the history of this stadium, I mean, the stadium has been there since 1948. It was a former landfill. It's the stadium isn't going anywhere. This neighborhood has been built around the stadium, for crying out loud. I think I can think of Westwood. Westwood. He was there was even the city county in Denver before Barry Stadium existed on that site. And so a lot of what's happening there has been just we haven't done it from in a strategic or a coordinated effort until now. Right. And then and how do we build a neighborhood that is seamless to the rest of the surrounding neighborhoods right there at Mile High Stadium using those lines? So it is an absolute necessity. This task force is convening and looking at everything from transportation to land use to what, you know, how do we envision it? Where does it open? Where do you access? So there's a lot of that, right? And in my heart and I'm very excited about that process, however big. And I want to make sure I mean, I know that Max spent a lot of time up here, man, but the Broncos spent a lot of time up here answering questions . But at the end of the day, this is the football stadium, metro district, and this is indeed the public entity, the governing entity of the site. Right. And with every public entity like this, it has to be held accountable to public priorities. Right. To though, what are those public? Public priorities, right. When it comes to housing, we have an affordable housing issue going on and a crisis in Denver. We got a lack of connectivity. We have aging infrastructure. And so it's it's looking at jobs. It's looking at opportunities. So when you think about this and not just necessarily in the built environment, but you look at it as an opportunity. Right. It's a highly under-utilized opportunity that's and that's in front of us, an opportunity to create local jobs. And now opportunity to create opportunities for local businesses. An opportunity to create housing that is also affordable. I mean, just because we have housing in Sun Valley that was affordable, you heard Chris PAs up here doesn't mean that that we can't meet that mark as well, too. And it's a heck of an opportunity to create this neighborhood that is seamless. And I want to really point out that at that at that word, seamless, because of a lot of these developments around the country are on these sports arenas. And sports facilities are seamless. The good ones are seamless. And you want to kind of build that in. And you want to make a neighborhood that doesn't just operate for eight home games out of the year. You want something that operates year round and you want that opportunity there. And I think when you look at that in that valley, you know that Cmax is going to turn into something different. Right. When you look at the land uses on the on the south side, that's a it is. I mean, sorry to see Sammy the C it's a CMCs eight, it's an IMX eight, it's an IMAX five cinema x five in some areas and some value so that that'll all work itself out. At the end of the day, I think we do have an opportunity we have been engaging with, with, with the Broncos on the conversation of community benefits with the ministry on this idea of community benefits and what that looks like. Right? Those jobs, those business opportunities, those burrito vendors that turn into restaurateurs. Right. Or I can think of myself when I was just a kid living in South on second and play in Valverde. I was 14 years old and ride my bike down to the stadium and I worked for it for 25 an hour, taking tickets, sweeping concourses. Right, and working as an usher. Although it was an opportunity for me, it was one of my first jobs. And I work there with so many other people who did so many different things at that stadium. So if you can amplify that and use this as an opportunity to amplify that, that's a neighborhood that does create that's an economic engine for the rest of the city, but also for that immediate neighborhood. Right. We have a housing crisis, but we also have an opportunity crisis. And I think this we can we can use this as an instrument to be able to move that forward and also maintain an iconic piece of architecture in our city, an iconic history and something that's helped put us on the map. So I do look forward to that. I have been in conversation. So I have you know, I talk to my colleagues as well, too, and we've heard from folks in the community and at least I know for the remainder of my term on this council is to make sure that that this that we do reach those kind of agreements, that we do reach that kind of acquire them. Right. To make sure it's an opportunity for the community. The last thing I did want to address. Well, something that Mr. Roybal said from the neighborhood. So why all at this time? Why is it all happening on this time? We have all this pressure of development, all this build. It's because it's been ignored for so long. Right. And so if you see those street pavers cruising down there, if you see that plan rolling through and being adopted, if you see all this happening, it's exciting time. But we want to make sure that folks who live there now are still able to enjoy it. And that's a and that's a big deal. And these are those commitments. We have a commitment from the Denver Broncos to sit down with the stadium, to talk about with community, to talk about what exactly those benefits look like. Right. How exactly can we expand those opportunities? And then and then coming back and being able to to bring something that not just is done to the neighborhood plan, just for planning sake, some document, some pretty little documents going to sit on the shelf collecting dust in the city, but something that is actually going to be living in implementable and also have that social side of it, that economic side of it as well, too. And so with that, I do have a lot of I do anticipate the plan moving forward. Hopefully it comes forward. I know that we've had a lot of public engagement and I feel good about it moving forward. I had a lot of questions on the on the map district and the timing and the that coming to council. We like to see these things come to council way ahead of time. We like to be I'll be brief and make sure that. The the. Council and the executive branch are communicating when it comes to this. But I do support this moving forward and look forward to the plan, bringing the plan to this Council for adoption as well as a a robust and I think unprecedented community community benefits agreement as well to. So. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Espinosa. I spy Ismael Guerrero with DHEA in the in the crowd. And so I'm going to continue on the housing part of the service plan. Why I think it's a mistake to put it last or near the end is is a 60% Army unit, can can can house can capture an apprentice sheet metal worker or electrician or something like that. And so it's a chance for them to, while they're learning to trade, live affordably and in with the potential amount of development that's going to happen in Sun Valley. And now this hopefully they can find work proximate to that. And I understand, Ismael, that, you know, the the metrics of building affordable housing, they tend to like having a bunch of amenities there in order to support. And in land you have LAX that right now but getting people into the neighborhood early gets them established as part of the neighborhood. There's a mistake that we made in Stapleton, which is we built all Northfield before we started putting affordable in, when if we could have gotten them there, these units there, then we could have maybe again helped create jobs, you know, find work opportunities in the neighborhood and from from early on. So I think there's too much opportunity here. The city has too many resources to not move quickly on housing down here, where the opportunity lies, both in the eco district and closer to the site. Once this planning process is concluded, I do think that it is a bummer that this service plan does not include the federal boulevard parcels to the north of 17th because that's in the view plain shadow. So if you're going to ever have a fighting chance at breaching the view plane with some from some buildings, it would be the ones that are behind the building from Old City or Old City Hall view plane. And so having those included in the plan would have given you an opportunity to sort of think about that entrance on both sides of Decatur Boulevard rather than half of it. And I've said that before, and I'll make my case here again. The so I just I do have concerns that with this language and the ability to do everything that it does, that we might the group might start marching forward on something that is is incongruent with any potential plan that might get adopted, and then you'll have to work around it. And so I would like this council to possibly consider a temporary moratorium on development on these in the in the plan district area until the plan is adopted. Yeah. So that is something that I want to throw out there. The but and it's partly because of what you said about this being a hub. It is. It could be a hub. I mean, it already is. Right. That stadium in a park was part of the whole conversation 20 years ago, and it gets way more used than the old stadium did. Omar I never had people jogging around it all the time, and you can go there at any time of the day and you will find people utilizing that as in a minute of public amenity and building off of that and figuring that out. How do we just how do we activate it but not actually can be a passive sort of activation when it's not in use and still be there because it's clearly going to be prominent. So the fact that you're thinking that way and the fact that we as a community already recognize it that way, this process will, if done right and can build upon that. And so the structure is there. So that gets to why I will be supporting this is as Andrew made it very clear, this is just the enabling language. It's not determinant. But I think we've made it very clear in all of our comments and continue to do that, that we can create enough partnerships, synergy around this place, the proximate proximity to downtown, where it is centrally located with all those transit options that we can sort of pair. However, we need to pair with all the different agencies in the state to sort of make this a real vital part of Denver going forward and this tool. Is one that you guys can use to be wildly successful in that process. So I will be supporting it for that. But I'm going to throw this in there because you set it back. And this is only especially because Mr. Bolen is not about making money that yeah, this is a $146 million contribution towards the naming rights of that stadium as Mile High Stadium. And I do think to your other point, that that actually would increase the valuation of this team more than having the ability to negotiate that on a sort of rotating basis. Because the reason why people from those seven counties wanted in on this team, you know, on the stadium is because of that team and is because of that history of the old stadium, Bears Stadium, becoming Mile High Stadium. He had no problem naming many Mile High Stadium, Mile High Stadium. Let's make mega mile high stadium. Mile High Stadium as well. Gentlemen, before. We get too far down the tangent on naming, could you stick to the bill? So, I mean, to me, it's all rolled up because we're community building and we identify this region invested in that stadium. This metro district is investing in its perpetual maintenance, locking in the mile high stadium name. Is that investment that the sort of the community contract that that will always maintain value for that organization and so that so with that, I'll be supporting this. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. I fully understand, Mr. Freeman, that you cannot guarantee how long a sports franchise in this case our Broncos, is going to remain in any given location. And I don't mean my comments to be confrontational. I hope when you come back with your conjoined twin, the stadium district, with it with a rezoning application that we have a Kumbaya moment and we all do a conga line through through the chambers. But these agreements that we talk about, whether it's some sort of a neighborhood agreement with the community or a development agreement with the city, those are our chance to guarantee something that will last. I mean. The Broncos are not leaving Denver is what I want to believe. Dodgers left Brooklyn and the Colts left Baltimore. I have no idea where the Raiders are at this point and don't really care. But I think they're gone again, aren't they? Off to somewhere else. So in all seriousness, these agreements are critical to the future of the city, because unfortunately, I can't imagine a Denver without the Broncos as horrifying as I personally find that. So when this comes back a while, my loyalty to the Broncos, which is strong and needs when I'm sitting in this seat, needs to take second place to my loyalty to the residents of the city and county. So we will have a good discussion on on what those plans turn out to be. But tonight, at this point, glad to move this stadium district forward. And I appreciate the and the answers from all around these difficult questions. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Lopez, you back up for some quick. Yeah, I just wanted to I know that the statement was made out there about development. And why not now is because we want to make sure that the community I from from my part as the councilman in the area want to make sure that the community is engaged in the process of making those decisions. We can make easily make those decisions at those standards, but not even an understanding how big of buildings that we're going to build or what we're going to actually put on that site or what that foreseeable future it looks like. I want to make sure that the community is engaged and we are in that process. They are at the table. I want to continue to make sure that they're are the framers, because without community, there's no ownership. You want to make sure that there's ownership for from here on out. And that neighborhood, that neighborhood could be named. I mean, we can name the neighborhood, Mile High neighborhood, right? It can be the new neighborhood amount. I'm just getting it. Sun Valley will always be Sun Valley. And I just I wanted to thank the Broncos and even R.T. for making sure that. We're up to date and. Looped into the process and actually coming to the table, making sure that community's at the table as well, too. So thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. I think there's one thing that's evident from the conversation that you all have a lot of work to do. This is step one, but a lot of work to do on this community benefits conversation, a lot of work to do on how this will be a responsible development and what it means to our city. But tonight, we're voting on this service agreement, and I will be supporting that with that. Madam Secretary, roll call. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman. Black tie. Espinosa. Flynn, I. Gillmor, I. Carson. Can I. Mr. President. Madam Secretary, please close the voting, announce the results. Lebanese. Lebanese. Comfortable. 686 has passed. Moving right along. Councilman Espinosa, will you please put Council Bill 788 on the floor?