A bill for an ordinance approving six (6) metropolitan district Service Plans for the creation of The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 1, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 2, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 3, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 4, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 5, and The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District. Approves six separate Service Plans for the formation and establishment of six Title 32 districts: The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 1, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 2, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 3, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 4, The River Mile Metropolitan District No. 5, and The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District in Council District 9. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 7-24-18.
Speakers must stay on the topic of the hearing and must direct their comments to the council members. Please refrain from profane or obscene speech. Direct your comments to the Council as a whole and refrain from individual or personal attacks. Councilwoman Sussman, will you please put Council Bill seven, nine, seven on the floor? Yes, Mr. President. I move that council bill 797 be placed upon final consideration and do pass. It has moved. Been moved. Can I get a second? It has been moved and seconded. The public hearing for Constable 797 is open. May we have the staff report? Good evening. My name is Andrew Johnston with the Department of Finance. We've been having a lot of metropolitan districts come forward this summer, so I have one more for you. And here is the Staff Report Council Bill 797 Series 2018 is for an ordinance approving service plans for six new metropolitan districts supporting redevelopment of the area commonly known as the River Mile, containing eulogies, amusement park and surrounding areas. The districts are called the River Mile Metropolitan District number one, the River Mile. Metropolitan District. Number two. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number three. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number four. The River Mile. Metropolitan District number five. And the River Mile. Platte Valley Metropolitan District. The service plans are being submitted for City Council approval on behalf of Casey Euless Gardens at Invesco Second City LLP pursuant to the requirements of the Special District Act. 30 2-1, Dash 201 and more particularly 30 2-1, two or 5.5 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Each service plan contains the district's purpose, powers, requirements and financing plan. The district shall be responsible for compliance with the city's municipal code rules, regulations, policy and other applicable laws. The District shall ensure that the District's public improvements are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards and specifications of the city and of other governmental entities having jurisdiction. It is anticipated that District Number One will act as the Management Management District organized to finance, construct, own, manage and operate the public improvements. Districts two, three, five are anticipated to be organized as taxing districts in order to generate revenue to pay costs of public infrastructure. The River Mile Platte Valley Metropolitan District will act as a regional district and will specifically assist, where appropriate, in the contribution of financing, construction, operation and maintenance of infrastructure related to the Platte. River and other. Regional improvements. Participation in this district is optional. The new metropolitan districts will be responsible for coordinating 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 districts will have the power to raise revenues pursuant to the authority's granted by the Special District Act, including the imposition of up to 60 mills plus rates, fees, tolls and charges. The new metropolitan districts will also be authorized to impose up to five mills for regional improvements at the discretion of the city. The total estimated cost of the public improvements necessary to serve the contemplated development are approximately $665 million. In order for the new metropolitan districts to have the financial wherewithal to provide the funding for the upfront costs of the public improve as needed in the service area, the new nature parks and districts shall have the ability to issue debt and impose a debt mill levy to provide funding for the upfront infrastructure costs. The new metropolitan districts will also have the ability to impose up to ten of the 60 authorized mills to raise revenue for operations and maintenance at completion. The current plan for development projects is at completion. The current plan for development projects, an estimated residential population of 15,000, with approximately 7700 resident residential units and 6,500,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, hotel, office space and other commercial space. The planned development will offer opportunities to better connect downtown Sun Valley and 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 downtown area plan and conforms with the area's plans. Recommendations to create a year round mixed use site and to improve connectivity within the service area. The new metropolitan districts are not currently located within an urban renewal area. The approval of the service plans establish the following. There is sufficient and sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area. The existing service in the area is inadequate for President projected needs. The districts are 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 or ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The facility and services standards will be compatible with the facility and service standards of the city and county of Denver. City staff does recommend approval of the service plans and the applicant and their representatives plus city staff are here tonight to respond to your questions. Thank you. Thank you. We only have one individual signed up to speak this evening. So, Reece Dugan, you want to come up, you have 3 minutes. Hi. My name is Reece Duggan, three through two for Town Street in Denver. I'd like to thank you all for considering these districts tonight. And I'm just here to answer questions this evening. Thank you very much. That concludes our speakers questions from members of council. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. First, I want to ask Andrew in some of the other ones that have come forward, we've seen 50 mills. So how are we making the determination of what that maximum of mills are that we're approving to move forward with any of these metro districts? Yes, that's a that's a great question. I'm 50 mills is our standard that we go to for our debt and operation in mill mill levies. That's what we start with. If we had a development that is showing that it has quite unique and community involvement with its public infrastructure and this this project doesn't elicit those kinds of pronounced infrastructure needs, such as revitalization of the river, including dredging of the river and an activities activation of the riverfront for an entire mile. And some of these additional community costs is what we considered when we were going through the extra 60 mills. Okay. So I'm assuming that that work will involve direct interface with urban drainage and flood control district to ensure that it's not creating any further impact downstream for communities that are already experiencing some flooding challenges like the Globeville neighborhood. Absolutely. I mean, this is the metropolitan districts don't are not addressing that tonight. There is definitely a tremendous amount of conversations that with many partners to try and solve those all of the city's problems and regarding flooding. So Andrew, what is the percentage of open space that Denver is requiring with this particular proposed development? I don't know the specific answer for that. I will bring up Stephen Ali from our Community Planning and development, who probably has that right off the top of his head. Good evening. Members of Council Steve Nally with community planning and Development. As you know, in the Denver zoning code there is a requirement for a general development plan which requires 10% open space. We've had quite a bit of discussion with the community through the Downtown Area Plan Amendment. There are a number of recommendations in that plan that talk about open space and engaging the river, the types of open space, not just one part but different typologies, a big central plaza, neighborhood parks, park pocket parks, dog parks. And so this is one step in the implementation process. There will be many more steps. We are working on a infrastructure master plan and development agreements and a rezoning that will be coming soon. And we will we love to talk about that at that time. Okay. So the 10%, does that include frontage along the river and does any of the river contribute towards that? Or they would have to create the the land that then interfaces with the river. So the 10% requirement is for open space on their property. Got it. Okay. Now their property abuts the river, right? But it's got to be on. That's where things get fun. Yeah. And the activation of the river. And so, you know, it could. It could in the future, the lines could be a little blurred. You may not know if you're on, you know, the former religious property and it may be a public park. It may be privately owned at that at that point. There's a lot that we are working through, but it's 10% on the private property. Okay. The last question is just about the. Cumulative impact. And this is for you, Steve, because you're at the planning department. And this should be this should be what you guys are looking at in terms of the vast amount of acres that are on the west side of the river, that are all proposed to have pretty high density development, that will then have further impact on the adjacent infrastructure and the adjacent neighborhoods. So how how are you all at the planning department looking at that cumulative impact and ensuring that we're we're taking that view? I mean, I use the example of the 41st and Fox, you know, area where we were seeing all these rezonings come in. But nobody was looking at the fact that we've got one road into that site and we really had the need to look at doing more, requiring all the developers in that area to do more and contribute towards not just the roadway infrastructure, but even some of the drainage issues because, you know, 38th Avenue floods in that area. So as you look at adding this many more people in traffic and higher density to the area, how are we moving to address that? That is exactly what we're working on right now. So we're working through an infrastructure master plan. We have basically every department in the city at the table from Denver, Department of Environmental Health to Public Works parks. We have urban drainage at the table. We even have Army Corps at the table, Metro Wastewater. The list goes on and on. Multiple agencies. RTD is our is our Office of Emergency Management at the table as well. So that is that is going to be part of the discussion. Not not yet. But that is definitely part of the discussion. You bet. So the the how close we build to the railroad tracks, how we buffer and protect the buildings and the people that will be in them will be all part of that conversation. That's right. Great. Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa. Steve. Only because that line of questioning sort of made me sort of think about this. Right. There's current entitlement with the land right now. Are there any mechanisms? I don't see anything in the service plan that doesn't seem to be any sort of there's acknowledgment that we just did a master in a, uh, area plan update, but there is no sort of compulsory or some sort of requirement that, uh, future that this area be rezoning in a manner sort of more consistent with those plan objectives. So is there any way to sort of convey to us that, um, that the current entitlement will be used with this metro district and that this is essentially a preliminary step for what is being proposed in a sort of more master plan sense. Okay. So just to understand your question, you are asking, should the service plans say that the current zoning will not be used to implement this plan? That would be great. I wouldn't go that far, but I sort of did so. So as you know, the downtown area plan envisions this future state. Right, this future neighborhood, and recommends that the site be zoned in order to implement or accomplish that vision. The service plan is in the Met Districts. It's it's one of many implementation steps. It's more closely related to the infrastructure necessary for that buildout. Now, I'm doing interesting thinking, but maybe you know. But the answer I don't think I don't think it includes the rezoning that the the neighborhood or the downtown area planning amendment recommends rezoning . And and we are, as you know, going through that process. So in. So where would we. This is getting complicated because. Right. They need that GDP in order to to start utilizing start doing infrastructure, sort of not do it willy nilly, but guided by the GDP. So is that GDP going to sort of hold off for rezoning or are they going to be concurrent or, you know, since that's public works how I mean, that's so you guys so how are we marrying those sorts of components, the other things that will sort of release the ability to sort of make use of this metro district. So the current plan is that the rezoning will include or there will be a development agreement that will accompany the rezoning. And that development agreement will go through a number of topics, including the requirements of an infrastructure master plan and a number of the kind of big moves that would be necessary on the site. That's the current thinking right now. But, you know, we're I was in meetings. Today, we're we're working very hard on this infrastructure master plan to ensure that all of the major infrastructure moves are in place as this develops over time. So. Those are those are great things because those things those all those documents sort of speak to how you might go about addressing the concerns that were already voiced in your prior questions. Maybe this is more of a question for you or Andrew. But again, those tools developer agreement would be with the administration infrastructure master plan. That, again, is sort of a purely voluntary effort. GDP would be a document, but that would simply be adopted by the planning board. So the only sort of next step that this council will sort of engage on would be the the text amendments in the map amendments. Where do those where do you foresee those falling with regard to those other three documents? So we we actually envision the development agreement coming to council. There may be some vesting rights that the developer is pursuing. I don't want to get into too much detail because this we're still working on this and you guys will be seeing this soon. But that that is the thinking that when we actually come forward with the text amendment and potential map amendment, that there will also be a development agreement. Yeah. So just because, you know, I'm not totally naive to this been part of many conversations that have gone down the central by that I've not been part of several as well. I understand that. But is it safe to say for the general public that many of these concerns will be some somehow articulated and in some degree codified where appropriate in ways that we have previously maybe not done at this scale or at least in this area. I mean, I think we have precedent examples. I'm pretty sure the Broadway station rezoning package and development agreement came before council because there were vesting rights as part of that development agreement, I think. I think we have examples of this taking place in the city, but that that's our current approach, as I described earlier. Right. And so I think I just wanted those, you know, have carried that conversation a little bit further. So thank you very much. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Ortega. Rebecca. Yes, Steve, just real quick. When do you anticipate that infrastructure master plan to be completed? Because that's looking at the whole area and not just this one site. Right. So the infrastructure master plan that we are discussing right now is for this site. Specifically not looking at the effect of all of the development. We're certainly considering the effect off site. Okay. Of of this site. And keeping in mind the development of other sites, there is a lot of engineering, there's a lot of work that goes into an infrastructure. Master plan is very expensive. And so we anticipate that that coming after the rezoning and I don't want to put a date on it. So after rezoning. Issues like roadway connectivity, I mean, you know, we've got the Burnham yards that are not far away from here that will soon be finished with the cleanup that the railroads are doing. And that's about 70 acres or so. So when you start looking at all of the development opportunities and how people get in and out of these sites, they're going to be utilizing existing roadways like 13th Avenue, Colfax that runs, you know, alongside this location. And for me, it's looking at how how is that folded into the big picture conversation? Because just like the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative was created to look at the cumulative impact of all the projects that are going on in Globeville area at once here and along the Brighton Boulevard corridor, and making sure that, you know, there's some interface between how they all connect to one another as opposed to just dealing with each of them piecemeal. So help me understand how much that. Infrastructure master plan and that big picture look that the planning department is doing factors in all of those things. Sure. That's our job. That's exactly what we're working on. You may not see in the infrastructure master plan recommendations for the next neighborhood. However, we're thinking about the impacts on the next neighborhood when working on the infrastructure master plan. It's not just the existing streets. There are also new streets and new connections that will be necessary. I would suggest to answer that question, looking at the downtown area Point Amendment and all of the connections that are recommended and the improvements to existing network that's recommended as well. Yeah, and that's important because that affects the connectivity to downtown. Excuse me. But then when you look at the effect to the Jefferson Park neighborhood, just to the West Side, you know, and I do know that you all work to ensure that 23rd Street was a major connecting route to the site, which I know is really critical for those neighborhoods, because that is an access road that not only Jefferson Park but Sloan's Lake and in those neighborhoods to the west utilize that road. So that was really important. That's right. Let me just get to my next question really quick. And this is about freeze. Would you mind coming forward? Do you have any anticipation and I know we're not there yet, but do you anticipate using tax increment financing as one of the tools to do any of the development on the site? We do not. You do not. Okay. Has the community been talking to you about any kind of community benefit agreement that would look at ensuring that there is affordable housing, that there is a commitment to jobs, you know, those kinds of things. Can you just talk about where you're at with those conversations? Yeah, we haven't had detailed conversations about those specific topics yet with the neighborhood. As Steve Downey. Mentioned, the downtown area plan speaks to a lot of those things. I think specifically as it comes. To affordable housing. If I recall correctly, the downtown area plans for a higher level of affordability of affordability here or so, more units of affordable housing here. Should I say more correctly. Than in other parts of the city. Given its strategic. Location and its proximity to rail transit. So let me make sure I understood that correctly. Was that a higher amount of affordable units or a higher level of higher, higher incomes that would be served? I believe the area plan speaks to a higher number of affordable units. Okay. And just to finish that thought, we've been. Yeah, I know. I had to clarify it for myself. I realize I misspoke. Sorry. And we've been in some. Fairly deep discussions with city staff on what that means and what that looks like. I appreciate it. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Seeing no other questions. The public hearing for Council Bill 797 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilman Brooks. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. I am excited to support this metropolitan district, primarily because of the systematic approach that we're in right now. We just approved a an area plan and went through a very in-depth time with our community and District one, District nine, talking about what we want to see in this at the 50,000 foot level . What we want to accomplish, the drainage issues, affordable housing, day care, jobs. All of these things we want to see encompassed in this area. And from there, you've got to fund it. And so this is a funding mechanism so that we can start looking at how to take care of all the infrastructure needs. And I appreciate the city, CPD, the developer, all inviting me to the table and other council folks as well. And so I'm I am confident that this is going to be an area in which we all are proud of and an area which invest a lot into the social fabric of our community. And in a development that we can be proud of. So I'll be supporting this and look forward to the coming months of negotiation of what comes out from this area. So thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Espinosa. If past is prolog we're we're this is just another step in a sort of incremental process to sort of realizing a very different future of those parking lots and and and sort of former railyard of Denver. So I'm just I'm encouraged thank you to Andrew and Steve and to Reece particularly, because, you know, it's not every day that a property owner, you know, invites a whole bunch of other stakeholders to sort of help them figure out what what to do with their land and sort of welcomes those comments and tries in earnest to to capture as much as possible. And so, you know, this is a tool that is if you heard me talk about it before, I'm not always the biggest fan of them, but this is the sort of exact situation whereby to me it's completely consistent but is bolstered by those other those other agreements and steps that still need to be done. And and I look forward to sort of seeing some of those as much, if not all of those ideas and things that have been articulated to date are being captured in in master planning and and developer agreements and and the infrastructure that goes in with this with this metro district. So with that, I'll be happy to support it and look forward to those future conversations to sort of continue to mold what Denver will look like 100 years from now. Thanks. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, seeing no other comments, Madam Secretary. Raquel Brooks. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore. Herndon Cashman can eat new Ortega SUSSMAN Hi, Black. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting and announce results.