A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project. Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed for the construction of a detention area as part of the Platte to Park Hill 39th Avenue Greenway Stormwater Systems project including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, contract rights, permits, and other appurtenances located at 4141 East 35th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-5-17.
Okay. Now we're going back to 1396 city council members. Good evening, council members. I'm Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of real estate for the city in Kenya. Denver, good transition timing, Councilman Brooks. So the Land Acquisition. Ordinance. Is a common tool that the city uses for acquiring property and property interests to construct public projects. Recent scenarios where we've done this is for the National Western Center, for South Broadway, for federal and for the 39th Avenue Greenway portion of this project. It's the first step in allowing the city to work with the property owners to access land for the purpose of the detention project. The city intends to follow the Uniform Relocation Act as a guideline. There aren't federal moneys in this project, so we're not required to, but that's what we have been using and will continue to use . It includes a process to ensure that the property owners and leasehold interests are fairly compensated and that will all be part of the upcoming negotiation process. The process will consist of the property itself has one legal address, so the property will be noticed. The detention area that is anticipated will be required is somewhere between 25 and 35 acres for the permanent easement aspect and then an additional 55 to 65 acres for temporary easement. So provided that the ordinance is passed, we will send the notice of intent to the property owner, engage an appraiser to come up with the values of each of the respective easements that are required. The entire golf course is going to be closed down for the duration of the project, which is anticipated to commence January of 19 and last basically to the end of the year and then go on. We see March 2020 as the anticipated completion and that is also looking at the timing of the reconstruction of the project to bring it back to a playable golf course. So the benefits this is relocation benefits, and that's ultimately the benefits that are going to be paid to bring the property back to being a playable golf course , will engage a golf course architect, will obtain bids to reestablish it as a golf course, develop a timeline for construction, and then determine what the damages is to all interested owners of the project. That's what we had for you today. And we're available for questions. Okay. No other material. Okay. All right. We have 26 speakers today. I'm going to call if you guys can go find another place to sit. Great. I'm going to call the first five speakers to keep us running pretty quickly. We are going to just ask these five speakers to come up. And as soon as they're done, we're going to ask the next five. So thank you. All right. Maggie Price, Deborah Montoya, Trina Moyer, Justin Feeder. And Jeff Rome. Romeo. Believe that's five. All right, Miss Price, you're a first. My name is Maggie Price and I live at 1465 Fillmore Street. Thank you for this courtesy, hearing and the opportunity to speak. In April of 2017, the Inter Neighborhood Cooperation Delegates voted for a resolution to encourage the city to acquire Park IL Golf Course if it became available and called upon the public officials of the city and county of Denver, quote, to commit to the preservation of Park Hill golf course and thereby prevent all or any part of it from being developed other than for Parkland. In November of 2017, and after an announcement of acquisition of the course, the IMC delegation again approved a second resolution that in part called upon the public officials of the city and county of Denver, one, to amend the proposed contract between Denver and Clayton regarding the Park Hill golf course so as to remove Clayton from being the lead of the visioning master plan. Process and to delete from the proposed contract reimbursement to Clayton for any participation it may choose chose to undertake in the planning process and to to commit again to the preservation of Park Hill golf course property as parkland open space. If the opportunity arises again to purchase this property, I urge you to keep this land is open space park land as an investment in the health of our city and a rare gift to its citizens. Many people have commented that the land's close proximity to rapid transit make it an ideal for development. However, its closeness to transit also provides a speedy means for our citizens to enjoy a large urban open space without having to go to the mountains. Please allow this land to remain cement free and to do what it can do best to provide green space for people to recreate, to absorb and filter water, and to assist in the mitigation of flooding. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Price. And I wanted to point out to folks speaking, just make sure you specify what Bill you're speaking on. So 1395, 1396 to park or the 39th Avenue Channel. Okay. And if you're speaking on both, you can say both. Ms.. Deborah Montoya. Good evening, Community. My name is Deborah Montoya. I live at 3924 William Street. I'm a lifelong resident of Curtis Park Call Community. My home immediately borders the proposed 39th channel slash Greenway. I was able to have myself appointed to the Community Working Group for planning and design on this greenway. The infrastructure change in our neighborhood was necessary to avoid flooding during massive storms, of which I have experienced many times. On the north side of 39th Street in designing, my emphasis was to secure that construction would mitigate any toxicity in the earth left behind by industry. And to secure that, the channel would be a beautifying, natural and serene addition to our community. I believe wholeheartedly that our working group accomplished this and that this Greenway will enhance our community with a beautiful natural environment, active amenities for all age groups to enjoy and create an infrastructure that will protect the neighborhood from flooding in the future. I fully support the construction of this greenway. Although I may not be able to enjoy it. The process as expected. Over time, the return of the angel population to the inner city has been met with new city investment. For myself, since December of 2015, my home has been threatened with eminent domain blight, blight designation and height rezoning that now invites high power developers and realtors to manipulate the market and homeowners to their advantage. This leaves me and others like me not knowing what the future holds. Even if I could get the best market price, I could never afford another home in my community. If I stay, could I pay the taxes? If I don't sell at the most opportune moment, might I end up this small home surrounded by high rises that would overshadow me and swallow me up as if I have gone through the process of finding my bearings in all of this and observing how the city planning committees work. Denver City Planning has no human component. Our council members seem disinterested and even dismissive in providing any help to residents or even listening to our concerns. Yet they seem very concerned with what is in the best interest of business and development and not the residential community, especially those who are poor, elderly and of course, people of color. There is no city agency. Or Council on Homeowners Rights and Protections from Abuse. Denver Planning works with numerous private businesses to accomplish their goals. They all get a piece of the pie, either payment directly from the city contracts, incentives or other compensation. Yet Denver Planning sees no need to address this human factor. If the city of Denver can pay bazillions of dollars to uplift every business partner in their plans, then it doesn't seem unreasonable to pay for at least a central help line. Is that too much to ask? No, it's not. So let me ask for more. Give us tax breaks so we can stay in our homes and continue to be the upstanding, contributing residents of our lifelong communities. And or supplement us like you supplement businesses so that we don't end up displaced and in poverty. Be accountable, Denver. Be accountable. Denver Planning. Be accountable, Mayor Hancock. Be accountable. Council. People must never tell you. How will you help this man? We cannot stop progress, Ms.. Montague. We will. Your time is a guarantee that this movement. Thank you with dignity. Thank you, Ms.. Montoya. Keepers, preservers. Ms.. Montoya, of this community. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.. Montoya. All right, Mr. Niemeyer. My name is Trina Moya. I'm a resident of the whole neighborhood. I'm speaking on 1396, I think the 33/9 Avenue Ditch. I just want to clarify, although I'm a member of the Neighborhood Association Board, the following comments are my own opinions. Well, I've been a resident of the Denver metro area for 32 years. I've only lived in coal for six years. I recognize I'm a part of the gentrification of coal and surrounding areas, and I stand here today and what I see as taking responsibility for my indirect role in bringing the type of development to the area that has resulted in projects like Plat to Park Hill. I was one of the community. Members who spoke to you. On December 18th about our concerns with potential environmental. Hazards along 39th Avenue, which has brought us to this courtesy hearing. I subsequently met with my neighbors to discuss which of the many points we wanted to stress tonight in our allotted 3 minutes that might persuade you all to hear us and grant our request to delay the approval of the SEMA contract until a full environmental risk analysis can be completed. The city has thousands of paid employees and contractors to call upon to defend their decisions. People who spend 40 or more hours a week preparing reports full. Of specialized data to justify those decisions. People whom the city can. Call forward as experts because they're paid as experts. Meanwhile, we, the citizens, must. Use the few hours we have free. Each week to wade through and decipher the technical information from those reports to do research and to attend a myriad of related meetings just to figure out what exactly is planned for our neighborhoods and how we may be impacted. It really feels like a David and Goliath scenario, but as one of my neighbors rightfully pointed out, the burden should not be on us to prove to you why this project should be put on hold until a full analysis is completed. The burden should be on you, the city representatives, to prove to us that we will be safe. Not to assure. Us with platitudes of we'll deal with any. Hazards as they arise, but to be able to say confidently with documented proof there is no risk. The ditch runs through the middle of a former Superfund site, but because it was paved over at the time of earlier remediation of nearby properties, we don't know for certain what lies below. And it has been omitted from the EPA's operating unit, one that surrounds it. The Opinion Soil Investigation Report states the number of samples collected in their analysis is representative of a small proportion of the material that will be included in the Plat Park Hill project and is a potential data gap. I've been aware of this project since it was first presented to us at the Kohl Neighborhood. Association meeting. In November 2015. Even though discussions and planning began months earlier, since then we have raised numerous concerns about the project, including the excavation of the 39th Avenue Ditch. As a resident of Cole, I feel like an afterthought at best. Or that I'm seen as a senior hysterical conspiracy theorist at worst. Our concerns and protests are a byproduct of a process that is being literally bulldozed through by an administration that appears beholden to developers before any others. So I ask you once again to please listen to us, to actually hear us, and to fulfill your responsibility to keep us safe. Thank you. Agree. Would you please stand? All right, Justin. Peter. Hi. My name is Justin Fighter. I live at. 1777 East. 39th Avenue. You pull your mike up so he can better hear you. You hear me now? Yep. I'm a board member of the Rock Drill Lofts. And pending everything this more I just said. And that the design of the 39th channel happens per the design that's been shown thus far that we approve the park and think it would be a great amenity for Cole. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Jeff Ramil. I ask anyone who is for saving the Park Hill golf course to please stand right now? My name is Jeff Romey. I'm a resident of the Overlook at Park Hill and I currently sit on our board. My wife and I have led the mass migration to Denver some five years ago in search of greater opportunity. We are blessed to call Denver our home and couldn't be happier with their choice to buy our first house in the north end of Dexter Court overlooking the Port Hill Golf Course. While it's clear we will be directly affected by any development of the park golf course, including the water detention plan on the northeast end of the property. I'm not here to talk about me. I'm not here to tell you. I'd like to continue to see the Rocky Mountains from my house or how I've been involved in a car accident on the corner of 35th and Colorado. Like many before me, due to the awful traffic conditions that already sit there. I'm here, though, to address a bigger issue that affects not just my neighborhood, but the community and the nation that surrounds it. And that is the issue of our physical and our mental health and the lack of spaces that allow adults to play. We already know that exercise is scientifically proven to reduce anxiety, stress and depression. We also know that being in nature leads to many physical and mental benefits. I don't need to throw those statistics out, but what you don't hear often is how adults, especially those living in big cities, lack access to spaces that provide opportunity for play . With City Park Golf Course. Closing Denver is slowly eliminating spaces for play. Not everyone can afford skiing and biking in the mountain. This amazing city, known for its outdoor beauty and active lifestyle, is the valuing how significant spaces that provide joy, energy and competition for adults really are. Play is more than about having fun. The state of social play brings us sanity. Play allows us to problem, solve, decompress and unplug from the screens and the stresses of our daily lives. It leads to higher productivity, lower anxiety, and simply are having a happier life. It enhances creative thinking and innovation. The Denver metro area has plenty of space for development, but not for open space. The Park Hill golf course is a direct reflection of the wonderful, diverse community that is Park Hill. While the golf course and banquet centers certainly need a major facelift and to be pulling in more money each year , the potential to make it a thriving community space is huge. It is a priceless sanctuary where people come to relax, vent, celebrate, practice, compete with themselves and strive to be better. Take away that space and you're taking away something sacred. We're quickly losing our connection with the Earth, the community, and the importance of play spaces to calm or busy minds and to let go in the warm sun to enjoy stunning snow, peak mountain views, crisp, fresh air, year round spaces that teach vision, confidence, action and follow through and consistency. Currently, I have a signed petitions circulating along with a nonscientific survey gathering all nearby residents that are simply against the development of this space. I'm proud to say that we've already already nearing about a thousand people against the development, and this is just after a month of circulation. The people want to be heard and they don't feel they are. This is my small way of providing a platform for them to voice their opinion without opening a can of worms with 100 different ideas of what to turn that land into. I'm on the front lines. I'm talking with the neighbors directly. I see the relief from the community gets from being out in the fresh air on real grass, not artificial. Mr. Roland, please keep one last outdoor playgrounds alive, because in this crazy, stressful world we live in, so buried in our phones. Your time for your time as. Never before has been more important for serve. Your Time is. I thank you for your time. Hey. So. So, listen, we're going to extend the time to make sure everybody gets in, but you got to at least be within the time monitors, right? So 3 minutes, please. Okay. We want to respect everybody's time. I'm respecting your time. We're going to call the next five up. Charlotte Brantley. Janet Feder, Pastor Dale Phillips. Becca Tur, Tallow. Sorry if I mispronounce your name. And Garrett Sullivan. All right. Ms.. Brantley, you're up. Good evening. Council President Brooks and members of the council. I'm Charlotte Brantley, President and CEO of Clayton Early Learning and I'm here to speak on 1396. The nonprofit that I lead helps ensure quality and effective early learning and care experience for some of the most vulnerable children in Denver. We are also the trustee of the George W Clayton Trust. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you tonight about the L.A. Four, a portion of the property currently occupied by the Park Hill Golf Course. As you are aware, this this land has been an asset of the Clayton Trust since Mr. Clayton's death in 1899, and its use was changed from agriculture to golf. The city as then trustee of the trust in about 1930. At that time, golf play was seen as the best use of the land to generate revenue in support of the young children who are the beneficiaries of Mr. Clayton's trust. We have partnered with the city for many years, both in providing services to vulnerable children through the Head Start program and in managing this property to ensure it contributes to to ensure it continues to be leveraged in support of the beneficiaries of the trust, as Mr. Clayton envisioned. His assets would be used after his death. For several years, we have been aware of the city's need for land to solve the flooding that occurs in the Park Hill Basin. We and some of the families we serve have witnessed this flooding firsthand. In addition, we are aware that the northeast corner of the property is a natural low spot and water pools there every time the summer rains come. Therefore, we support this land acquisition ordinance. As the city moves forward with design of the stormwater facility. We ask that you keep in mind that the purpose of this property is to support the beneficiaries of Mr. Clayton's trust. As you know, we have been and will continue to be engaged in a community visioning process for potential future uses of this property. While the exact timing of any potential future alternative uses of the property is not presently known, we hope that the stormwater planning process will be such that future considerations of the highest and best use of the property as a trust asset will be kept in mind. We'd also like to ask that you continue that we continue to be involved in the input process for the stormwater planning. Thank you very much and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms.. Brindley. Janet Feder. Good evening. My name is Janet. I am speaking on Bill 1396. I live on Gilman Street, about two feet away from the proposed 39th Avenue Open Channel. Since I last spoke to you two weeks ago, I discovered that old maps of my neighborhood at the Denver Public Library reveal the empty paved lot paved over a lot. Next to my home there once stood a duplex built sometime around the year of construction of my own home in the 1890s when digging for the 39th Avenue Greenway begins and the pavement comes up. The Stone Foundation to that duplex and whatever else was paved over will need to be excavated one block to the east of me . The lot at the end of Williams there stood as my neighbor, Mr. Ed Armijo has repeatedly said, a gasoline filling station. Absent any evidence of its removal, the pavement comes up there. We expect to find a leaky leaded holding tank. Please hear me. It's not the presence of these things that trouble me. It's the absence of curiosity, investigation and transparency on the part of the EPA and the attendant unwillingness to advocate for the well-being of the coal community. That has me so concerned. What would that advocacy look like? It would look like the EPA reclassifying these lots as part of the new one or creating a new force specifically for these parcels along 39th Avenue that previously went unclassified and need to be treated as the paved over industrial and residential lots. They are they need to be tested for contaminants. Now their designation has changed and that land is going to become the 39th Avenue Greenway. The EPA needs to treat them with the same care they showed to residential yards and parks, quite simply because, as we're told, 39th Avenue is going to become a park. There is a shell game happening here. We can see it and we're trying to stop it because we all know who wins at Shell games. So who are we? We are citizens with careers in a broad variety of fields. We are parents and retired folk. We are the self-employed and people who work for other people. We have both growing and aging families who need us first. It took us a while to get up to speed with the reams of data pertaining to soil and water and chemical contamination and the processes of city and federal government. We made our discoveries in fits and starts. We forged our acquaintances with each other as we shared and pondered the information spooned out to us at monthly meetings. We stayed in touch. We grew stronger and smarter. Many of us now communicate several times a day. The people in my community are being treated disrespectfully. We are not a sleepy, impoverished community, happy for handouts. We are a coalesced group of concerned citizens who have found each other. We found experts themselves concerned and also experienced to advise us. All of us spend hours upon hours to understand what is happening around us, not paying a penny while we face off against omnipotent acting planners and powerbrokers, representatives of government and a Goliath sized project. We've concluded that absent a full environmental risk analysis of this project as required by federal law, neither US nor SEMA nor anyone else can know what we're in for continuing to proceed as both fiscally and environmentally irresponsible, we are asking that you protect us and make decisions in our best interest. We've caught you not doing that. We are here to hold you accountable to the people who elected you to office, who pay your salaries, who you promised to serve this better. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Pastor Dale Phillips. Councilman Brooks and to all the council persons present. Pastor Dale Phillips. I am the chairman of the Colorado Black Leadership Caucus, an organization that comprises about 15 major community organizations that are part of the African-American community. In the brief 2 minutes and 42 seconds that I have, I want to try to review three important points that I want to make in regards to support for Bill 1396. The first is I do have an affinity and support for what the Clayton College Project is trying to do and harnessing the best resources from this property to continue their work with the constituents in that community, namely families from impoverished families that are given an opportunity for early childhood education. As much as I am in support of that, that venue, I have even a greater ideal that concerns me even about the conversation that's taking place today. Which leads to my second point, and that's the argument regarding open space versus residential space, very easy for people who have a home to make a decision for people who don't have homes, to not have the opportunity to find residents in that particular part of our community, to be able to talk about open space versus residential space, I think is a a great overlook of one of the greatest challenges we have in the Denver community, and that's providing housing for people who need it. We don't need more open space. We need residential space so that those who are having to live in open space because they don't have a home can potentially find residences. So I think that's important for the council to consider. One of the opportunities engaging with the project with Clayton gives us at least the possibility of creating residential affordable housing for people in that community. Which leads to my last point. There have been conversations or even concerns about whether or not Clayton should be engaged with the city and trying to create this kind of partnership, which would only lead the other alternative to bring in an outside developer to try to coordinate what's what would be best placed there in that area. I want to be on record saying that if we have to choose between a partnership from. An outside developer or. The city, I am on board for working with the city because I feel as we are doing here tonight, we can hold you accountable for what we want to see happen in that quadrant of our city, to be able to bring what's needed a balance of residential property, a balance of open space, a balance of business space in that community. And we thank you for your support. All right, thank you, Pastor Doug Phillips. All right, Becca TARULLO. Oh, I'm sorry if I misspoke. It's very close and everybody makes this look really easy. So I'm just going to own. That. This is terrifying to me. So my name is Becca Turlough and I live in the Clayton neighborhood. I'm the vice president of the Clayton Registered Neighborhood Association. I also serve on the Park Hill Citizens Advisory Committee. So I'm speaking about both issues. The first one being with 13, she's me 1396. Clayton has been actively involved in that process with sorry Clayton neighborhood has been actively involved with the Clayton early learning process for over a year. We are very much in support of the build the city utilizing approximately 25 acres for permanent detention with the remaining area needed for temporary construction purposes. I really want to take an opportunity to note that Clayton Neighborhood is excited about the opportunity to partner on the prospect for how this land will be used strategically. I'm confident that early she's being Clayton early learning is providing a much needed high quality service to families in our neighborhood, but also to families outside of it. Are we doing her? I do encourage and ask for yes and support on that. 1395 is trickier. It's two things. Oh, I am nervous. I am so sorry. But so we do. We. I do want to say that we have definitely been invited to be a part of the process and the planning process with that from the get go. And the Stormwater Systems team has presented at Clayton meetings on multiple occasions and included our feedback as far as the stakeholder working group goes and we've been able to share our priorities for the new space. We also know that there's been intentions to build relationships with the affected businesses in the community. That said, our neighbors have done. So much work. Put in so much time and energy in researching this piece around the EPA, the safety and the security and the fact that we have neighbors who go to work every day, come home and take care of their kids, and are spending hours advocating, seeking data, seeking information to make sure this is safe, is something that should be should be paid attention to. And so while we really appreciate the process that's happened so far, I definitely agree that we need more data and more evidence and a better analysis to say that what's about to happen in coal is safe for the families and for the children who live in that neighborhood. And that's it. Thank you. Everyone's all right. All right. Great job. And to allow. All right, Garrett Sullivan. Good evening, counsel. My name is Garrett Sullivan. I am a member of the Park Hill Overlook Overlook at Park Hill Ichi Association, and I am speaking regarding the preservation of open space, or at least the concept of open space in that area. If it's not returned to a golf course, I believe that we will be losing an important resource. Mr. Romero spoke to all the health benefits of open space. And I just want to second that, that the remainder of the property that is not used for water mitigation and storage of stormwater be returned as efficiently as possible to a golf course or an alternative use of open space, not to development. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. Okay. Thank you all. I'm going to call the next five up. Kimberley Morse, Mike Matheson, Kevin Doyle and Rex Kandi. And Ed our Mehul. Miss Morse, Europe first. My name's Kimberly. Morse. I live in the coal neighborhood, and I have a question for you. Has there been a misuse of taxpayer dollars or possibly an environmental cover up? And what might this mean for other environmentally compromised areas of Denver? There are pre excavation testing at global reported. 1% of one sample contained asbestos. The project budget allocated $255,000 for an asbestos inspector to be on site and $2 million for the removal of regulated asbestos contaminated soil, a much more costly disposal designation than ordinary soil. Through October, more than 80,000 cubic yards of asbestos contaminated soil has been removed. So our taxpayer dollars being misused for the soil removal, whereas the asbestos label being used as a pretext for other nasty debris and contamination at the Globeville site. Now, what precedent might this set for the 39th Avenue segment of the project? An ambitious drainage project is set to get underway inside of an area in northeast Denver. That. Although designated a highly contaminated Superfund site in 1999, has yet to be fully studied nor cleaned up. My own multiple direct requests to representatives of the EPA and Denver starting in 2016 to press the pause button and conduct a full environmental study, particularly for the 39th Avenue segment of the Park Project, have been met with silence or no's. Some agency employees will dismiss my environmental concerns as unrealistic because Northeast Denver has been an urban area for more than a century. But Denver City Council, you should not accept this as our legacy or our heritage. And what about that Swansea smelter on the map I just gave to you? I found it on an 1880s map of Denver, but I haven't seen any environmental documentation on the impacts the smelter may have had on Swansea, a coal or other close by neighborhoods. So before you sign that $78 million contract to authorize work in an area full of unknowns, I urge you to exercise your fiscal responsibility for ensuring taxpayer dollars are wisely spent. Cost overruns are avoided, and that you ensure environmental protections for your constituents by requiring a full environmental study of the 39th Avenue Channel with only. I have something important. So there are three borings done. That's the extent of the testing that was done by your contractors in the coal segment. Three borings in coal. That's it. And as we learned, Janet's fence is going to be taken down. That's how close is going to be. So with only three borings, lots of unanswered questions by Denver and local agencies, significant discrepancies in Globeville. I don't feel comfortable nor safe knowing this project is about to get underway so close to my home and that of my neighbors. Taxpayers and residents alike are on the hook for this very expensive project, and some have more on the line than just our tax dollars. We have our health and our property values. So council members, if I if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you, Ms.. Morris. Mike Matheson. Hi City Council. My name is Mike Matheson. I did want to say I love the Western wear tonight. I, uh, I recall not too long ago the stock show was very close to go into Aurora. And I'm very proud that it's still here in Denver. It's within a mile or so of my house and that that took all of you to be able to do that. And I'm very appreciative of that. So I want to bring that up first. As far as as far as the Council Bill 1395 and 1396, I am in support of that. I live in the 80216 zip. Code and I own land. Over in this area as well. And I think you guys have read reports that it's one of the most contaminated zip codes in the country. And so I'm very happy that this area is going to be cleaned up. I view it as additional parkland that we're gaining in this area versus losing parkland. And plus, we're getting the golf course redone. So removing contamination from an area that I live in, an area I go to every day, and we'll have a park that I can ride my bike, go with my daughter, I think is a great benefit. In addition, I've had experience with contaminated sites and cleaning up contaminated sites and finding additional contamination and getting no further action letter from the state. It does create work, but you unless you dig that stuff up. It does leak down to the ground groundwater. It's very hard to remove. And this these types of projects is what cleans up zip codes like the one that I live in. And so I'm very happy to see that that occurring. I love the additional open space. The CEO for Clayton Trust supports this project. And it's I know because I've been involved with some of the neighborhood outreach and involvement that the city has been doing this for a couple of years, and I'm very appreciative to be involved and informed. And, you know, thank you for putting. This project together and helping clean up our city. All right. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. Kevin Doyle. Thanks for the opportunity. My name is Kevin Doyle. I bought an overlook at Park Hill in 2002 with my wife, and we started our family there. Kaufman and Broad Holmes. Katie Holmes bought that land from the Clayton Foundation at the time. And they did it because the conservation. And conservation. Easement was put in place without that easement that we're talking about dismantling. My neighborhood wouldn't even be there. And we're one of the most unique and best neighborhoods in Denver. We're an owner occupied neighborhood, so we don't have a deed restriction. But we do have a covenant put in place by Clayton, by the city of Denver and by Coffman of Road Homes. To make sure we were different. You have to sign a waiver that says you're going to be owner occupied when you move into my neighborhood. Our values are not the same. Kauffman and Rowe did that show that people earning 70 to 80% of the area. Median income could afford in my neighborhood. And they did. I did. And that's still today. Right now, average. Single family home in my neighborhood goes for 254 to $268 a square foot. If you jump on the other side of Martin Luther King, you're looking at 300 bucks, 350 bucks a square foot. We are affordable housing. That was what we had. To be put. In for. I want you guys to know that as people talk about the need for affordable housing. I want to reiterate the need for open space and remind everyone that. City of Kansas City, Denver, was involved in. This. And the last time that the city of Denver and Clayton were free to range. In the eighties, the attorney general had to get involved and stop this. I'm not sure Clayton should be involved. I'm not sure any development should happen whatsoever. And I'm not in favor of the land acquisition ordinance at all. I'm not in favor of our conservation easement going away. I just learned last month that our conservation easement is in serious jeopardy. That was not the case when I bought our entire neighborhood was. Sold based on that. Up. We've reached out and we've done our own surveys. As Geoff Romeo has told you, we have almost 2000 signatures that are opposed to the, you know, the development of Park. Hill golf course. My counterpart, David Martin, over at Parkhill Village, he represents three different ways. He couldn't be here today, but I'm sure he'd be saying the same thing if he could. They're going to close down the golf course. Where are you going? To put all the equipment behind my house. My easement that I paid for along with the rest of my residence. We have over. $430,000 into maintaining an easement that we put in place. I have been trying to find out what's going to happen to easement since day one. No one has been able to tell me that. No one. And I've. Got an email here that I sent to you guys. City of Denver. In 2015. Saying, We are deeply, gravely concerned about the future of our community. That's in. 2015. And we were the last to get involved in this. We were the last to be a part of Clayton's peak committee. That's fine. And we are, you know, blessed to have the opportunity to be involved in this. But you guys need to realize that we've been trying to get in front of this. And. Mr. Dawson on this, it it's disappointing. And I urge you. To vote both these measures down. Thank you, Mr. Doyle. Okay. Rex Kennedy. I'm sorry. If you just cancel this. Rex Kennedy. Kennedy. And I'm very honored to speak to each one of you individuals here. I'm a long time resident of Denver and city of Denver. I've been here since 1972. I'm a licensed architect and a parent of two children at Clayton. And I'm also the chair of Clayton's Parent Policy Council. I represent hundreds of children and hundreds of parents. I would ask them to stand, but, you know, they're the city's working poor. They can't attend these type of events. But I am talking for them. We want to say that we do. We do support the city's land acquisition of the Park Hill Golf Course. It's a golf course. It's an area that's owned by by Clayton. And it's used to fund the mission of Clayton. And the mission of Clayton is, of course, as you know, to serve Denver's working families and Denver's zero to age children that can't afford proper daycare. It does a fantastic job. My child has been there since the age of nine months and now she is thriving and ready for kindergarten. I have a two year old foster to adopt son who's been there for for a year now and he has so far has fantastic has adjusted fantastically because of Clayton. So I would like you to know that the the family members and the children of Clayton would like to support you as you move forward with the purchase of your land acquisition at Park Hill for storm water planning. As long as you know that the area as long as special interests. Want to keep it. 100% open space. That type of development is probably not going to be able to support the true mission of Clayton, the trust of Clayton, and also the children of Clayton. If it's left open space and we have no, no, no resources to to to to raise funds to support Clayton, that mission that was that was created by Mr. Clayton in 1899, who will die. So I just wanted to let you know that is what's on our mind and what is our greatest concern. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Okay. Editorial. Good evening, Councilman. Councilwoman. My name's it. Ami Ho, 3647 High Street. Instead of me ranting and raving and I put my thoughts together because evidently the majority of you do not listen, please pay attention. It is all hand in hand. Good evening. I am very concerned about the 39th Avenue project. Both bills. There has been many poisonous chemicals released in the area for more than a century. I was poisoned in Vietnam with Agent Orange. Poisoned. Poisoned. I did not find out until 2006. I have a miserable lifestyle now in Danang, Vietnam. To this day, there are thousands of children that are so many from their families abandoned because they were poisoned. The air base in Danang has been covered with concrete to stop the spread of Agent Orange. It was in the water and it still is. And the food supply chain, it was too late to poison. Most of the Vietnam veterans were exposed. They carry the poison in their DNA. It is passed on to our children. My sons have DNA. I carry. My eldest son has a child that is affected. He is mentally slow. And his brain his brain is bigger than his skull to fit in. I have nothing. I have a non-biological grandson I raised since birth. He is 25 now. He's got the mentality of a seven year old and he's got medical issues. His real grandfather died of cancer due to Agent Orange poisoning. Pay attention. Poisoning. His grandson is also affected. That's the grandson I am raising. Think about the earth you are going to disturb. No telling what is going to be released. You have kids. You have grandkids. Some of you have probably have great grandkids. Put yourself in our shoes that are fighting this. Think. How would you feel if you knew your kids were exposed to poison and you knew you could have you knew you should have stopped it. Think with your heart, not with your pocket, not hanging around with all these developers, because I have seen a number of you after some of these meetings wouldn't talk to me. But George, buddy, buddy with the developers. Here is one resolution. Mr. Armijo. Thank you for your time. Let me read my resolution because this is very important to the audience or I'll just pass it on. I'm sorry. We got more folks right behind you. Thank you, sir. All right. The next five, Debi James, Jason Janz, Jay Morse, and Maria Flora. Lastly, Brad Cameron. Jason. Oh, Debbie Chance, you're up first. Deborah James. Ms.. James, you're first. Hi, I'm Debbie James. I live on the Sixth Avenue Parkway in Mayfair Park neighborhood, which is adjacent to Lowry. A few years ago, I looked out my front window and saw a man standing in my yard. I went outside and asked what they were doing. They said they were from Denver Wastewater Management, and they were looking at my property as a place to run through with a concrete ditch which would drain all of Mayfair parks. Large storm events. These large storms have been flooding my neighbors, my three neighbors homes to the south for years. Alarmed, I mentioned that Mayfair Park had never had a comprehensive stormwater plan. And why didn't we deserve storm drains, pipes and the rest of the infrastructure that most of the rest of the neighborhoods in Denver enjoyed? I was told that the concrete ditch was what wastewater was going to do to solve the problem of flooding in Mayfair Park. I told them to budget extra money to cover the lawsuit I intended to file. This is what I learned to do after working for nine years on the redevelopment of the Lowry Air Force Base. When the wealthy and developers colluded with the city to make lives of citizens in the adjacent affected neighborhoods miserable. We citizens of Mayfair Park fought back. And as a result, I was told by Jim Meadows, director of our Redevelopment Authority, that the LRA board thought you people in Mayfair Park were too poor and then educated to give us any trouble. A short time after the wastewater man's visit, my husband and our neighbors to the west and I were invited to a meeting where advisor the project was going forward. It would entail a ten foot wide, three foot deep, concrete ditch running window. Well, two window well between our two homes. My neighbor demanded to know what would happen when the ditch overflowed. He was rebuffed. My husband and I were advised that we would have to, at our own expense, cut down 50 year old trees and shrubs, tear at our redwood privacy fence, and demolish an art studio which all stood in the way of where the city would put its concrete ditch. Since we had dared place these amenities on our own property over an easement, despite improvements being done following Denver City Code, we were given site maps and later I noticed that the easement was for sanitary sewer, not waste water. My neighbor, who's an attorney, drafted a letter and so did my husband and I. The end of the story is that all of the sudden the city found money to install comprehensive wastewater infrastructure in Mayfair Park, which includes immense underground cisterns that hold big flood events until they can disperse onward. How this happened is still a mystery, but now an even worse plan for a ditch is being forced on other neighborhoods because we citizens are left in the dark until unwanted projects are about to unfold in our communities. And then we are traded for being too late to respond and further on told that our responses are inadequate. But tonight, members of City Council, you have a chance to set things right. We are the oppressed and trampled on. Citizens of Denver appealed to your hearts and compassion to do the right thing by calling a halt to the travesty of the 39th Avenue ditch. We citizens are being treated, can speak contemptuous of judges who handsome salaries we pay. I urge you to vote. No. Thank you, Miss James. Jason Janse. My name is Jason Jantz. I am a resident at 2938 Humboldt Street. I've lived in Northeast Denver for the past ten years and I'm the CEO of Cross Purpose, which is a career and community development program that helps 100 families, mainly in northeast Denver, move out of poverty and get a middle class income within 12 months. We also are one of the largest tenants on the current Clayton campus and I'm a member of the Peacock Park Advisory Council. Regarding 1396. My request is simply that the decision that is made in the land be used to further the mission of Clayton. For these children, Clayton must thrive. They educate hundreds of children. And early childhood, we know, is essential to the children in our city, especially those who are most vulnerable to get a great education. And I believe Clayton, after working with been on the campus for the last six years, that they invest serious effort and finances to do whatever it takes to get kids especially from vulnerable backgrounds, kindergarten ready. And so I my heart goes out to them and I just want to make sure that that mission goes forward. We are currently working with them to pilot a two generation approach to poverty, whereas even some of our adults that we are working with dropped their kids off at their learning center, and then the parents walk across the yard and they join a career development program. And we're seeing generational poverty being changed on that campus. Many. If not all of us in the neighborhood would like to preserve a good portion of the property for parks and open space. The extent of how much is probably the rub, and we look forward to a continued strong collaborative process to figure that out. And this is a complicated issue that many of us have a hard time keeping up with, as many of my neighbors have testified here to tonight. But I would just ask that in the decision you make that you really are at the forefront of the mission of Clayton as a serve the kids in the forefront of your mind. And by protecting their mission, you protect and provide for families that are vulnerable in our neighborhood. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chance. Jay Morse. Good evening, counsel. My name is Jay Morse, coal resident. And I just want to express my support for the Cole neighbors in requesting the council hold back its vote on the $78 million CMA contract until a thorough environmental study has been conducted. This is a Superfund site. EPA's EPA does not throw around Superfund site lightly, so please consider that when you start. Looking at these contracts. Three borings. As Kimberly said, that's it. Only three borings. There's a lot of poison out there. So I ask that you take that in consideration. And put a pause. On this vote until a full environmental impact study can be done. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Morse. Maria Flora. Good evening. My name's Mario Flora. I live at 26 Albion Street. I'm here just to oppose 17, 13, 96. I'm an open space advocate. I'm opposed because of my concern for the effect of this ordinance on that open space conservation easement that the city acquired in 1997 for $2 million. I don't believe that council has been adequately informed. As to the effect that this ordinance is going to potentially have on that conservation easement and the resulting loss of open space. Now, each of you council members received an email from Woody Guernsey on December 16 of this year or last year, rather, about the legal issues surrounding the conservation easement and the condemnation clause in the conservation easement itself. Mr. Guernsey warned of the Council's inadvertent termination of that conservation easement by exercising the right of eminent domain on that property and the concomitant loss of the $2 million investment that the city has made in that conservation easement and the loss of any opportunity potentially to preserve that as open space. By starting this condemnation process. I ask council to be advocates for the citizens of Denver in preserving this conservation easement, at least for the present time. Now, in the conservation easement itself, there is what we call a condemnation clause. And I don't know if you all have read the agency agreement, the conservation easement. All of these documents over the years that have come forward in this mess over the Park Hill golf course and the. Relationship with Clayton College in the city of Denver, it's an embarrassing mess, but there is a condemnation clause in the easement and it says that if there is a taking to the exercise of the power of eminent domain by the city. So that the golf course is no longer physically capable of being operated as a Regulation 18 hole golf course and driving range on that land. Then Clayton College has the right to terminate the conservation easement period. Now, this clause doesn't say, Well, it's okay if it's only for two years, it's okay if it's only a temporary easement on this part and a permanent easement on the rest. That's all left to interpretation. I was. Unsettled when I watched. The video of the. December 18. It's called the Finance and Government House floor. Does this floor five. As floor your time? I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Brad Cameron. I'm here to talk about Park Hill golf course, and I thank you for that opportunity. My name is Brad Cameron. I reside at 1200 Humboldt Street, which is immediately adjacent to Cheesman Park. I've lived there for over 20 years and during that time I have seen the public's use of Cheesman Park increased dramatically. And Cheesman Park is not the is is not alone in that regard. All of Denver's large regional parks have seen similar increases. I'm not complaining. It's wonderful to see so many people using and enjoying Denver's park system, and especially so many young people. But Denver continues to grow in population. We are on track to add 100,000 new residents this decade, with downtown alone expected to have 20,000 housing units added between 2010 and 2020. And this is an exaggeration, but sometimes it does feel like on a summer weekend they're all in Cheesman Park. Now, that's why preservation of open space, such as Park Hill golf course is so important to continue to be an attractive city for existing residents. It's imperative that Denver maintain and protect the open space that we already have. That certainly was the vision of Mayor Wellington Webb, who, with the help of city council back in 1997, led the city in its purchase of a conservation easement to protect in perpetuity the open space of park old golf course from development. That conservation easement cost the citizens of Denver 2 million, which at that time was its fair market value, and that was an arm's length transaction that Clayton knowingly entered into. Now, today, the benefits of that conservation easement are more important than ever. The Land Acquisition Ordinance before you today, most likely, in my opinion, will not in and of itself threaten the open space of the golf course. But there are few who think that this will be the final chapter of the story. A return to talk of developing Park Hill golf course is clearly in the wind. Now, finally, I want to echo the comments made by Councilwoman Kennish back in early December, when this matter was before the Finance and Governance Committee. Her request was that in the future, there be more transparency on the part of the Hancock administration when dealing with Park Hill golf course matters. Obviously, that is not entirely within the power of city council. But hopefully all of you will join Councilwoman Canete in requesting that from Mayor Hancock. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cameron. All right. We're going to call the next. Let's see here. Next five. All right. We'll call the next five people up. Kathleen Wells. Eris Shiner Shiner. Woody Guernsey. Georgia. Guernsey. Chairman say. And the last person I'm going to call up is Lois Dahl. These are our last six here. Ms.. Wells, you are first. Good evening. My name is Kathleen Wells. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm speaking tonight about the golf course. The Denver mayor is among the 388 U.S. mayors who have pledged to adopt the Paris climate accord. These mayors agreed in June of this past year they would refuse to endorse any executive order that rolled back policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, because to enforce such policies would threaten every American community's health and safety. Now the city of Denver recognizes climate change as a defining issue of the 21st century. And the city is committed to facing the challenges of a changing climate through preparedness. These facts have everything to do with tonight's discussion of the preservation or demolition of the 155 acre Park Hill golf course. Why? Because trees, grass and natural vegetation absorb carbon dioxide and therefore reduce the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere that contributes to global warming. The more open green space we have, the better able we are to mitigate and to adapt to climate change. Why should we care? Colorado will warm four degrees by 2050, causing loss of vegetation, reduced water quality, enhance ground level ozone concentrations and human health problems. If you think climate change is real but will occur some time in the very distant future. Talk to me after this hearing and I'll tell you about my sister who's moving from rural southern Arizona, a place she loathes due to the threat that increasingly severe heat, wildfire, smoke and dust pose not only to her way of life , but also to her ability to breathe. We have to meet the climate change challenge challenges seems simply incredible. A city that is landlocked would waste a golden opportunity to maintain a golf course or to create a regional park in light of the serious climate problems we face. A decision to develop rather than to preserve or expand greenspace would be an example of a seemingly innocuous or even positive public policy decision that in the end is at odds with our community's best interest in the most fundamental sense. Our growing population of young people, most of whom want more open greenspace, love the outdoors or committed to environmental, including climate related causes. Understand this issue better than any other demographic. Perhaps it's not there for us as well. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next up, artist Shiner. Uh, good evening. My name is Eric Shiner, and I'd like to lend my support to Council Resolution 1395. I've lived in central Denver for my entire life, and although I am a new resident of Cole. My wife Charlotte and I now own and live at 3846 Gilpin the house on the southeast corner of 39th and Gilpin directly. Adjacent to the planned Greenway. I believe that the Greenway and Open Channel is an excellent use of the land along 39th Avenue. While I do share some of the current concerns here expressed by some of my neighbors, especially concerning environmental hazards occurring during. And after the construction of what will eventually become the park space where people and families will gather. That said, especially having seen the planned steps presented earlier, I have full confidence in the city of Denver to proceed responsibly, knowing that it is accountable to its citizens. In the oversight of the project. And to mitigate any hazards as they may arise. I look forward to the construction of this. I look forward to the start of the construction and to a beautiful new greenway along the stretch of 39th Avenue in desperate need of renewal. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, Woody Guernsey. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Mary Guernsey and 46 year Park Hill resident and a retired attorney. And I've had the pleasure of meeting with many of you over the past several months and I've sent emails to all of you. In November and December regarding. The issues that are in front of council tonight. Tonight I urge you to vote no, or at least to table the proposed Parkhill Golf Course Condemnation Ordinance until the city administration. Guarantees you. That a condemnation action will not jeopardize the open space conservation easement that was purchased by the city in 1997 for $2 million. Under the agency agreement between the Clayton Trust and the City, the Trust now holds title and. Quote as agent. Of the city to hold for the benefit of the citizens of the city and the general public. The trust under the existing agreement has the unilateral. Legal right to. Terminate the agency agreement and thereby reacquire full title to the property. But at that time, the termination of that would result in the conservation easement coming back into place immediately. It's critical to the council's decision tonight that it knows that the trust has the legal right to terminate the conservation easement in the event the land is taken through exercise of eminent domain. The Clayton Trust could arguably terminate the easement in connection with this. Proposed. Condemnation action by the city. The golf course operator AQIS has until June 30th to exercise its five year lease extension option. In the meantime, number one, the city Clayton and Arcus can hopefully resolve critical issues related to the city's plan to install the stormwater detention facility on this land and thereby eliminate the need for filing any condemnation action. And number two, there's no present need for the city to initiate a condemnation action that could jeopardize the conservation easement. Having never practiced condemnation. I recently consulted with a very experienced condemnation lawyer in Denver. She advised me that the city can easily secure an immediate. Possession. Order in no more, in no more than, and likely fewer than 120 days from the filing of an action. Therefore, the city can easily wait until after June 30th to file a condemnation action if necessary, and still begin construction of the stormwater detention facility after December 31st. The city created this problem when it decided to install the stormwater detention in the Park Hill Golf Course under the Park Hill, the Platt to Park Hill Project. Now it must do whatever is necessary to guarantee that that conservation easement does not go away as a result of that action. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garcia. Georgia Guernsey. Hello. My name is Stuart to Guernsey. I'm a Park Hill resident. I am a member of City Park Friends and Neighbors, a park advocacy group, and I am also serving on the park. I'm here to support the conservation of the Park Hill Golf Course as open land. I love the way this meeting started because you addressed what I love so much about Denver. It's history. When I came here 40 years ago, I fell in love with the light. First off, I'd never seen anything like it. And I knew I'd found my place. And I loved the sheer guts and vitality of this place. It's such a young city. It was founded in 1856. The history and the people that work so hard to shape it and lead it are so vivid and accessible to me. The city's early commitment to open space particularly has astonished me as I've studied Denver history. And you have to wonder when all of these traders and cowboys and farmers and whatnot came here, it was empty. It was sand and tumbleweed and jackrabbits and cottonwoods and not much of anything. And they came and invest their hopes and their dreams and their love of this area and to make something to shape something wonderful, which is what we're experiencing today. In 1882, May or so for us, this is 25 years after the founding of the city, led an effort to purchase 320 acres of land in a square city park. Besides today. And it was out in the boondocks. There was nothing out there. What inspired them? They they knew that they wanted Denver to be something special. The 320 acres was not incidental. It's half what Central Park is. And that was intentional. They saw Denver as being competing with New York City and San Francisco. It was to be the Paris of the of the plains in. 18. At the turn of the 20th century, Mayor Robert Speer came forward and he'd been inspired by the City Beautiful Movement. And he implemented, again, another vision for open space of parklands connected by beautiful boulevards and parkways. Currency. I hate to interrupt you because you're on a roll, but. Well, I hope I've inspired you as the next leaders of shaping this this beautiful city to think about the open space. Thank you. All right, Chairman Sekou. Yes, sir. Mosaku Black Star Action Movement for Self-defense. Representing poor, working, poor, homeless and senior citizens. You know, I don't want to be redundant. And repeat a lot of stuff that's. Been said. But I heard one. Thing that was very. Disturbing. The people don't trust government. They don't trust. Now for some of you that are new, that's a. Serious caveat that. You've got to carry because of. Previous decisions and experiences that people have had with previous administrations, the city council. And. I was talking to a former. Council member. And Paul, you know who I'm talking about. She said one of the issues that she had by serving 12 years on council was that she was very naive. And that she accepted things on face value. That was not true. And in the process, as she reviews her term, she made a decision to come down and lobby. City council members who were known to share with them. You need to do your homework. You need to see the context. And you need to pay attention as to what is being said within the historical context. Now we have a strong mayor position and a not so strong city council. In terms of how decisions are made. So many times decisions are weighed down and they're convoluted because people actually in city council and we've all seen it, both are things that they're not necessarily for. Just on the strength of. They want to get some stuff done. But now we've got a serious situation here. All right. And that is city council. And I beseech you, must restore the confidence that the everyday people have in this body. And in the process of doing that, you're going to have to vote for some things. That you don't care for. And yet, at the same time, I'm suggesting to you, if you don't build it, don't vote for it, don't vote for it. Don't vote for this. Don't do that. Because in the process, you will continue on the legacy of destroying the people's confidence in this very institution. And this institution means more to the people than the people who come and go as elected officials. I've seen many come and go. But the people are always still here. They still. Come. And I've never in my life or 65 years of living in this city, and I've lived all of my life on the east side from five points to park, you must say, never seen an administration that would pit neighborhoods against one another and have people arguing about stuff. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cook. Thank you, Mr. Cook. All right. Is Lois doll here? Okay. You are the last one. At least. No. Last but not least. Last but not least, Mr.. I am not going to try to speed, speed, torque or read or anything. I have some. Information that I could say, but everybody else has said it already. I'm talking about the 39th Avenue Ditch. I live four blocks from there. And so I'm here as a selfish person, but selfish for my whole community. My daughter and her husband and my two grandchildren live a block from the ditch proposal. I am very concerned that or not enough testing has been done, not enough EPA backing and interest in the situation of digging up a Superfund site and letting the stuff fly all over the place while is being done. We are told I started helping work on this in 2015. We're told I've been to many, many meetings, were told that, well, we're going to wet it down when we dig it up. I don't feel like that's going to be the solution. That might help. I just saw them wedding down the tram building as they were tearing it down on one end of it. The dust was flying everywhere, including in my house. My grandsons are six years old and almost four. I have an interest in keeping their lungs pink and healthy. And as I said, you don't know what's going to happen 20 years down the road when. Your. Children, your grandchildren and so forth are exposed to this kind of thing flying in the air when it's dug up and scattered around. You don't know 20 years from now if they're going to have lung cancer or what else. I think it's really important for people who have the opportunity to safeguard our neighborhood to do it. You can put a hold on this until this testing is really done. Right. And so that we know that when it's dug up, if it's dug up, I hope it isn't. But if it is, if it's going to be done right so that it is not polluting our neighborhood people have been living there for a lot longer than I have. They have children and grandchildren and stuff living in the neighborhood also. And we're very worried about this. Thank you. Thank you. All right. I want to thank everyone who stayed the entire time and spoke. We have we got to all of our speakers and thanks for paying for parking, coming through security, sitting on those hard benches. You did a great job. All right. We are now going into questions for 1396. And first up, we have Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, these are questions just on 1396. Yes, sir. Let me ask. Charlotte Brantley is still here. Correct. Thank you. And maybe Jeff also. Do we know if the forced shut down of golf for the 2019 season will trigger the right of Clayton to terminate the agency agreement? The way I've read it is similar to the way Woody Garnsey read it, which is that if golf cannot be conducted, that and I know the intention is to restore it at some point, I guess for the 2020 season perhaps. But if it's not played for that season. Hi, John. You're also going to backstop this. Would that trigger Charlotte? Would that trigger Clayton's right to terminate the agency agreement, in your view? So, Councilman, if I may. I also have my attorney here today. Yes. I believe James and I would really prefer that he answer that question, if that's all right with you. Oh, okay. That means we're really in trouble. Good evening, Bruce James, attorney for Clayton Trust. I think Brad Cameron really said it correctly. Okay. Which is it defers the question. It is a factual question whether or not following the condemnation, the course can be restored to an 18 hole regulation, golf course and driving range. The city staff today believes it can be. Clayton is neither agreed or disagreed with that assessment in part because what we recognize is if arcus, the operator, renews its lease. Clayton is perfectly happy. This whole process started was because Clayton was concerned about losing its income in at the end of the lease in 2019. And if in fact Arcus doesn't renew the lease, we will have a future community discussion around the future of the golf course, much like Clayton has already initiated in cooperation with the city. So it defers the question to a later day. And of course, if ultimately there was a decision by the community with many of these same people in the room to move forward, this council again would have the chance to look at it. So the council's not waiving any rights tonight if it proceeds with 96. Nor is Clayton. But we will defer it to a future community conversation if the golf course operator does not renew the lease. Thank you. And that leases that options for five years? Correct. They have two five year options to five year. And it was correct. It stated they have to July one to decide whether or not to renew. Right. And one more question, Mr. President, on 96, and that is remind me, and I guess any one of you out there might know the answer. How will the Clayton Trust replace the income from ARX from the golf concessionaire for the 2019 season? I ask. The golf concessionaire certainly isn't obligated to make payments if it's not permitted to conduct golf. No, that would be part of the compensation. It would be paid as part of the reason. Yeah, exactly. The easement and part of the relocation, which is the restoration during the restoration, they would be compensated for loss of income. Great. All right. Thank you. That's all, Mr. President, on this one. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn, Councilman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. Sitting next to Councilman Flynn has clearly had an impact on the two of us. So I want to follow up on his same question. I'm going to ask it a little more narrowly, Bruce or Charlotte, which is not so much deferring the question of can the golf course be replaced? But the fear that's being communicated by the public is that even a temporary disruption in golf. You all could or might pursue action then. And so I'm asking if today you can clearly state that you would not. Proceed with any action, triggering that clause of the contract about condemnation based on a temporary loss of golf access. And I think this is less of a legal question and more of where is Clayton at morally? You've come forward today in support of this ordinance. You've taken a position and you've said this ordinance should pass. I would consider it incredible, bad faith that if you then said, oh, and by the way, now that you've passed it , I'm going to use this temporary disruption to trigger this clause. I mean, that would be extraordinary. So I think you've probably contemplated this question already. So I'm asking you just about your intentions with regard to temporary disruption of the golf course, if you can please answer on that and that point. I'm going to start until he pulls my coat and says, wait. So you've asked a really interesting question, and particularly when you you talk about morally and sort of where are we and what are we thinking? I guess the best answer I can give you to that at the moment is that we as the trustees of the trust, are legally bound to ensure that we are leveraging the assets of that trust on behalf of the beneficiaries of Mr. Clinton's trust. What he envisioned was that his assets upon his death would be used to ensure that vulnerable children in Denver primarily was what he was thinking at that time, that vulnerable children would be given a great start in life and would become his will, even speaks to becoming, you know, wonderful citizens based on the services that they were given. And so when you talk about where are we sort of morally speaking on this, I have to say that's where we are as the Clayton Trust in as the operator of the programing that we do. You know, what happens down the road here. We are intending to be a partner with the city in this transaction. That's been clear for a long time. We have been talking for, I would say six years now maybe about the fact that storm water naturally flows to that northeast corner. We've been talking about some way of using that as a as a way to mitigate storm water damage, flooding. So our you know, our position is that we intend to be a partner with the city in this transaction. And that's why we're here to support this this ordinance. I'm going to ask you may want to confer with Mr. James and I'll ask a different question, but you didn't really answer my question. So I and this is really important. My vote may depend on it. You have come forward supporting this ordinance. Would you possibly use this ordinance to trigger the condemnation clause that you're you're supporting this ordinance? Would you use that clause based on this ordinance, based on temporary disruption of golf? And if you if you know the answer to that question and again, if you guys want to confer, that's fair. But it's a really important question. Councilman if councilwoman, if I understand the question to make sure I get it correctly because I know how important it is to you is if the question is solely whether the temporary taking. The answer is I do not believe under the temporary taking that we would have the right to terminate the lease. Excuse me? Terminate the conservation easement. Right. If, on the other hand. We determine at Clayton if the golf course leases were not was not renewed, I actually believe we'll end up in the same collaborative process we started a long time ago. As Charlotte said, we've had these conversations for five, six years. But certainly Clayton's not waiving any rights regarding the permanent taking and whether or not it interferes with the ability to operate an 18 hole regulation golf course and driving range. And certainly we can't waive those rights, as Charlotte explained. We are here on behalf of the kids that Clayton represents and we can't give up those rights. But in terms of the temporary, the temporary itself know that that would not lead to the termination you've asked. Okay. I appreciate you putting that on the record. And I think the more we can separate out questions and to really distinct parts, it's going to be helpful for our debate here on the floor. So that's why I'm asking such narrow questions. So we heard a community concern. Could it be, you know, triggered based on the temporary loss we're hearing? No. And then the question about the permanent loss is one we can debate based on the many golf courses. So I would just like to pull up someone from the team. Can you confirm for me the number of golf courses you have researched that have included detention as part of a golf course design? Give me some sense of, you know, regionally what you've looked at just and really, you know, 2 minutes, don't give me don't give me 10 minutes. But just really quickly, there is a precedent for using a golf course for drainage. Yeah. Jason wrote with the PDP project team, you know, we're doing this in City Park Golf course right now. So there's one just adjacent to it where we've been able to do this. So it's not done yet though. So let's choose one that's done. One that's done. I mean, let me do this. There's there's a number in Arizona that we've researched. There's actually this is something that is done outside of Colorado quite a bit. Arizona is a place that has a climate, much like Denver, where they get large rainstorms and they use public assets like golf courses for detention. So this is something that we've seen in a number of locations and we've done research. We currently are in the process of looking at how that golf course would lay out with that detention, and there's ways to shape the detention to make the golf course work. Okay. Thank you for that. And this is my last question. Thanks, Mr.. I think. Oh, yes, happy, happy. Thank you, Councilwoman. Happy Haines, executive director of Denver Parks and Recreation. We did some research on this topic, and I don't have the paper in front of me, but we have seven golf courses in. At least five of those golf courses contain some amount of storm drainage. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. So one more question, if I may, and this one's for John, the attorney. The other question I heard from members of the the testimony was about development. And I think I understand where their confusion comes from because this conversation changed so quickly in the course of a month. We were talking about the potential development. I want to take us back to the ordinance that we're on tonight, which is about the purchase. And so I want to just ask you if you can read. Do you have that agreement in front of you? Which agreement is. The land acquisition ordinance? I don't have the ordinance. Okay. Well, can you refer to the limitations in the land acquisition ordinance? For what purposes are we authorizing, if this past May, for what purposes would we be authorizing any acquisition of any land on this golf course? Right. It's storm drainage, detention and conveyance. And when asked the question, I usually don't ask an open forum, but I'm going to ask you to answer it anyway. If the city acquired land under this ordinance and then used it for development, sold it to developer, did something, what were the potential consequences the city could face? And I'd have to research what the consequences would be. But the purposes for the acquisition would need to be tied to the detention and conveyance of storm water. Let's just say this if we acquired the land and conveyed it to a developer or conducted development on the land, would it be legal under the way this ordinance is drafted? I think not. It is not uncommon for an acquisition under a land. Acquisition ordinance to allow. For certain remnants of property to be conveyed to third parties. But by and large, that could not be done. Okay. So there would be legal risk to the city? Yes. If we were to proceed with this ordinance and then somehow sneakily give the land away at some point based on how it's written. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman. I can appreciate the questions, but they sort of don't they sort of miss some intrinsic facts, but sort of they touch on them. And I think it's worth getting those facts out. Currently, the the agreement with Clayton and the golf course provider provides how much money per year to Clayton. So the legal lease contract between us and Orcas Gulf is as it pardon me, it's a flat 700,000 a year. And then if they do exercise their extension, does that amount change or remain the same? They have the right to re-up that lease under the exact same terms that are in it now. So we're looking at 700,000 times six is the sort of maximum amount of money that Clayton could have coming to it. They have they actually have the option to re up for two, five year periods so that we ten years. So a total of 11 years this year, the last remaining year plus the two five year extension. So 11 years. So $7.7 million is what is essentially. You know, already agreed to if they re-upped. Twice, only if they re-up. Yes. The question your attorney seemed to imply that, you know, you would defer that question of development to a later date. I believe that the question of development is already deferred to a very date specific in the future. When does the agency agreement, the conservation needs of the agency agreement and the conservation easement and that that would be in place if the agency agreement were in place. When does that terminate? There is no termination. It's a contract between the two parties that could be amended or changed. No, there's a date of October of 2099 is a 99 year conservation. He's not a 99 year conservation, but it goes until 2099. Is that correct? That is correct, yes. So if if all the terms of the agreement that you have with us and Clayton entered into for the $2 million that was paid in 20 in 1994, were met and honored. We would not be having a discussion about development on there until 2099. Is that correct? I'm sorry. I need to confer with my attorney. I don't quite even understand the question, so. I mean, there's an agreement in place if we honor all the terms of the agreement and we don't do anything to disrupt the actual resulting in any sort of termination or cancelation of the easement, that that easement would be I mean, the land would be subject to either golf use or open space. Until the year 2099? Not necessarily. Okay. So what are the other options? In part, the the term conservation easement is a little misleading to folks because normally they think of conservation easements, they think of agricultural conservation easements that have certain IRS tax benefits and those truly run in perpetuity and extremely difficult to unwind a conservation easement for which all parties obtain tax benefits. When people ask me what this agreement really is, I explain to them it's a use restriction. It's a use restriction between two parties, the city and Clayton. And so at any time between now and 2099, even if we didn't have the condemnation action, Clayton could come forward to the city and ask permission to have that easement released in order to sustain the goals of serving the children that it protects. And so it is a contract between the city and Clayton. Like any other contract that the city has that can be amended. It can only be amended, though. Importantly, assuming taking for your question, moving the condemnation question to the side, absent a condemnation, it can only be amended by an action by this city council. So that's why I was suggesting you are deferring this decision to another day, because not only would if there was never a condemnation action, it would take an action by this city council to to release it, and further another action by the City Council to approve whatever development plan might be proposed by Clayton. And so to me, no, the question would likely always come up because I think what people tend to forget is when this was put in place in 1999, the golf industry was far different. I don't think anyone on the sitting on the council at that time realized that the possibility that for the last ten years our golf course operator has lost money. This is not a sustainable economic operation. And so if this ordinance 1396 never came forward, we would still be coming to this council at some point to explain that the golf course, you know, the golf course operators always told us they don't intend to renew. And we've been told in the marketplace that that 700,000 will dwindle if we have to go out and find a new golf course operator. In 2019. That conservation easement came in consideration of $2 million for the city and county of Denver. Do you then intend, if you ever were to really, you know, to to negotiate terms to remove the conservation easement, would that come with money back to the city and county of Denver? And in exchange for the the read of the development rights that you're trying to reacquire. I think what you're talking about is a sliver of what a Kintyre community conversation would be. And we've started that community conversation and we have engaged the community. Have you and so have. You have you engaged the community in earnest because the land is currently zoned for West, is it not? Yes. And what development rights exist on OSA today? No. Present development rights exist on the property. So if you've been clear that there is conservation easement and protections that actually that are reflected in that current zone district, that so that you're limited in development rights today due to an agreement that you made with the city and county in Denver in consideration for money from the city and county of Denver. We have been very open with the community. We have shared copies of the agency agreement on the conservation easement. We've explained the right of the golf course operator to renew. We've explained their right of first refusal to match an offer we've given through all that with the community and the Peacock is the acronym they use has been very engaged in the process. And so to ask the question with the money come back from the conservation easement, I think is just the start of the question. The question really is what does this community want? What would a future development do to serve the needs of Clayton and the community? And that's a conversation that will come back before this council many times with. The real struggle I have with that answer is that it's not to the Councilwoman Canisius point, we're in a very different place than where this came to us back in September, where we were not talking at all in these terms. Well, we were talking about as a quitclaim transaction that basically granted the the development, the ability to remove this conservation easement and then buyback this land for considerably higher value without any discussion about the fact that there were all these other encumbrances and things that we were jumping over, we were doing all these things to sort of circumvent a lot of things. And so the concern that you hear here is legitimate, which is did we just find another way to get the same outcome? But using sort of legal parlance and nuance of rules in a way to sort of get the same outcome. And what I'm struggling with is that one document that I shouldn't have had, that appraisal that shows that the value of that land as golf course land is $3 million in that value of that land, his development rate is $24 million. And somewhere in there in the 7.7 that this developer might me and golf course operator might pay you over the course of 11 years is probably a number that makes them comfortable with leaving that operation. And then you having the excuse to basically say our our operator left. It is no longer functional as a as an 18 hole golf course. And now we want to exercise this right, because we lost the land. And so we will then by by voting this as is without the guarantees that were simply asked and we could ask it of the city, we could ask of Clayton right now, will you guarantee that this we will not alter and do anything that alters the conservation easement that we have in place until this project is done and we have a much more public negotiation and dialog about the future of that land and the real value of Clayton to this community and what we're going to invest in it as a community and that land is open space. Councilman, is that a question? So I or you guys are willing to make that commitment, the guarantee that was asked for by Mr. Guernsey. Well, we answered councilman conditions answer a question by saying that we would not assert that the temporary taking triggers a termination of the conservation easement on behalf of the kids that Clayton represents. No, it cannot stand here today and say that the permanent condemnation does not create that right, because to do that would really put in jeopardy everything that Mrs. Brantley described to you about the purpose of the trust, what they do in the community. We've heard lots of conversation about that tonight and that would be really a breach of the fiduciary duty of the board if they agreed to that tonight. To be honest, I actually wonder if I'm even concerned if I if I share these concerns. And the reason being is this, that the conservation easement actually isn't in place today. Is that correct? That's correct. It's only triggered if Clayton comes forward and asked to reacquire the property. Right. And so that step has to happen first. Right. I mean, so so is the even any concern about a conservation easement not being enforced? I mean, there's other actions that have to occur because of the conservation easement that we're talking about. Doesn't even apply to the land today as we know it. So I mean, correct Hitler. Okay. Is that. Are you done counseling? Um, I do have some questions for our own staff about contamination, but I'll wait. That's for third 39th Avenue. Yeah. Okay. That's at the next bill. This is 1396. I got Councilwoman Ortega up. Thank you, Mr. President. I want to shift the discussion a little bit and kind of hone in on the budget. And I'm looking at an old notification that I was cleaning out some boxes and dumping out files, and this was in my water bill. And, you know, sometimes you get your wastewater bill with your water bill. And this was in 2011. There was it went into effect in July. So the council that departed before some of us came on in 2011 made the decisions about a rate increase to the wastewater fees. So in 2011, it went up 20%. In 2012, it went up 2%. And in 2013, it went up 2%. And one of the projects on here was Park Hill. This project was initiated following the August 17, 2000 Drowning of Fireman Bob Crumb. Some of you may remember that he went through a culvert trying to save someone, a woman who had slipped into that culvert. And so, you know, it was important for the city to begin to address this. But what is not clear to me is exactly how much money was spent and what exactly did that cover. With this, as is today and this is again going back to 2011, 17 million of storm drainage improvements and retention pond have been installed in this area. And this was around 50th and Colorado generally. But there were some other improvements in that, that sort of quadrant of the city. So I'm not sure who's the right person that can answer my question about what did the 2011 rate increase that followed with the next three consecutive years, which was before the wastewater increase that was approved by some of the folks on this on this dais when we did the rate increase to the tune of $300 million. Bruce Janek with Denver Public Works Long Range Storm Planning. I'll try to answer your question first. Happy New Year. I don't think anyone said that yet. So you're right, Councilwoman. The Park Hill project has been on our radar since about 2000. With the tragedy at 50th. In Colorado. We build build these systems from downstream. Upstream. So we started with the Park Hill Pond, which is at the. Northernmost. Point. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think it was around 2 to $3 million back in the day. And then we started to build the pipe system upstream. I think there. Has been. Three or. Four phases. The third phase got us. To. About 40 and. Colorado. And now then the fourth phase was along. 40th from Colorado to Dahlia and that's where we are today. And the fifth phase, which we want to start. Construction now is going to take us in dollar. From 48. So the RTD tracks. So all. Told, between the Park Hill Pond and the pipes. That have got. Us up to about 48 then dollar, it's been about $20 million. So that was funds. That. Were even predated the 2011 rate increase. But the 2011 rate increase allowed us to do, I believe, the phase four construction. Okay. So as we look at the budget now for Park Hill golf course, it's it's a $78 million. That's what we have in our contract to make sure I'm not confusing the two bills here. Okay. So 95 has the $78 million, but that includes acquisition for both the 39th Avenue Channel as well as the Park Hill Golf Course. Correct that at least that's what I understood from a meeting I had today with city staff. The $78 million, which would be 1395. And we'll talk about that later in detail. But that's for the construction of the channel and the budget that we're talking about for the Park Hill golf course is contained within the real estate budget, which would cover the cost of the permanent easement, temporary easement, and reconstructing it back to a playable golf course. Okay. That's that's not consistent with what I thought I heard today. So, yes, I was told 60,500,000 was part of real estate. But I was also told that the. $78 million budget included part of the acquisition for Park Hill. And then I later asked tried to get clarification on separating out the acquisition for Park Hill versus what we were acquiring for the 39th Avenue Channel. And you shared with me that 21 million is what we're looking at for the construction for Park Hill. Correct. And then we're looking at 10.7 million for the real estate for Park Hill. Yeah. So so what we are talking about today is we have the 78 million, which is for the SEMA contract. Right. And that is purely for the construction and implementation of 39th Avenue Greenway as well as Park Hill Golf Course. So you remember the document that we were looking at. We had one on line, the one line item, and then at the bottom we had the the line item for the real estate. And that's what Jeff was referring to. So so the real estate budget is separate from that CMA contract, and that's been used for the acquisition and relocation of the properties along the 39th Avenue as well as Park Hill. So the total cost that's going to be spent on the golf course improvements, which is construction and then re restoration. Right. Is in excess of the 21 million because part of that is built into the 78 million. Is that correct? So the 21 million covers the portion of Park Hill, which isn't just the golf course. It's also the pipes that are connecting to the outfall and connecting the Holly Pond to the golf course detention. So there's that portion. So that's all included in the 21.6 million. So that's all. What Seymour will be constructing and with Jeff was saying is he has that separate budget, which is the 10.7 million, which covers the acquisition costs for the temporary easement, the permanent easement, as well as the restoration costs for the golf course. So we're acquiring both a temporary and permanent easement for the golf course. If that's correct. Okay. So so one of the things I'm looking at and the reason I wanted to look at the the entirety of the budget of the plot to Park Hill, which originally we were told was the Twin Basin Drainage Project with the name changed later, was to really just kind of do a comparison. So when you look at the total cost of what we're going to spend on City Park Golf course, that is basically $45 million. Correct. And I know that's a complete redo. What's not clear to me is how how much of a. Complete renovation we're doing of Park Hill golf course to return it back to Clayton in a usable format that continues to make it marketable to the current vendor or anybody else in the future. So so the intent would be it's much different than City Park Golf Course because you're correct, City Park Golf Course, we are redoing the entire golf course. So this would be the holes that would be impacted by the detention. And there may be some relocation of those holes, but it's not covering the entire golf course. It's really just in that detention area. Which is primarily that far northeast corner of the golf course. Okay. And so we have been told over and over, we're looking at anywhere from 20 to 25 acres, the language that is in the contract. And I'm not finding the page number that speaks to 90 acres. I just want to be clear that that is specific to the golf course and that doesn't include the 39th Avenue Channel as well. Yeah, that's correct. The amount that is proposed for the golf course is between 25 and 35 acres of permitted easement between 55 and 65 acres of temporary easement. And that comprises the 90 acres that you're referring to. Okay. I have one other question that I want to ask of the folks from Clayton and either one of you can come up. So in let me just find my note here for a minute. So in at the time that the easement was placed on that property, the conservation easement, that was a $2 million revenue to the Clayton Trust. Right. And was the land that was developed on where there's new housing at that far north end of the golf course. Was that done before or after that easement was put into place? Was that sold after? There's actually two areas of land that used to all be part of the golf course. You just spoke to the north. And if you're talking about what's at 40th in Colorado on up to Smith Road. Yes, that area was actually sold off by the city of Denver when the city was the trustee of the Clayton Trust. Before Clayton Early Learning was even incorporated as a501 C3 that we are today. The other area that was sold off by Clayton Early Learning after it was incorporated we were incorporated in the mid-eighties, became an institution in the mid-eighties in the nineties, the area that is now the overlook at Park Hill that was sold off to KB Homes by the institution that I currently run today as President. CEO okay. Does that answer your question? Yeah, it does. That's helpful. And at that time, are you are you able to share what that was was sold for at that point in time? I do not know. I would have to find that out for you. It was long before my time there, but I am sure we could find that. Was done in the nineties. Okay. At this point, I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Councilman Espinosa, you back up two questions. One for Maria Flora and one for Mr. Armijo. Is Maria Flora still here? Yes, she is coming in the back here. Maria, what were your observations of 1218? That you. I'm sorry. Who's talking about? What were you thinking of on 1218. I'm sorry. Observations or your observations of think of the committee meeting of December 18th. Well, I was concerned. Let me take that out, because. Councilman Flynn. Asked. Uh, let's see, Mr. Feinberg, by saying that, Rick Steinberg, what the effect of the permanent easement part of this is a permanent easement, which is why I'm still concerned. Part of it's a temporary easing, as I understand the permanent easement is the part that the detention is going to be on. So that. So he was asked what effect that had on the conservation easement and the city said there's a provision in the conservation easement that says if there's something that's done that precludes us from being a regulation golf course, that the conservation easement can be terminated. As a result, we looked at it and said, okay, we need to bring this back to a playable golf course. So from the onset, we worked with public works and let them know that we have to do that. And that was what desire and intent is. And by virtue of bringing it back to being a playable golf course, the conservation easement. Councilman Flynn said stays in effect and the answer was yet yes. My concern remains that. I don't think we've nailed down Clayton College. And if it's a permanent easement, does what they said tonight still apply? And if you look at the letter of. The conservation easement, it can be terminated. And is at the committee meeting. Did you see even a schematic diagram of what was being proposed as far as the detention location? I can't remember if it was one presented. I don't know that it was a specific schematic. I think that there was the general area that was identified as the northeast portion where one already detains. And just as a reminder for for everyone. I don't I don't think it's confidential. I saw a schematic design layout. Very. Not even preliminary. Right. Because there's no design yet. That is part of the transaction that would have to occur in the contracts. But one thing that I can say comfortably is between the current depression in the golf course and the planned. I mean, where there's already a low spot. I am convinced that that, you know, the detention could be captured in an 18 hole golf course. And you confirmed that last at the last hearing. But could you confirm again that the the amount of storm water that that needs to be detained on on site can still be captured in an 18 hole golf course regulation golf course can still be maintained. I'm a real estate guy. I think that an engineer needs to answer that. Is there somebody. Yeah, we have an engineer. He's in the back or he's over there. If I can answer the part of your question, maybe what was said is that there would be 25 to 35 acres for the permanent construction easement. You might use. Your mike right here. I'm sorry. What was said was there would be 25 to 35 acres for the permanent construction easement for the detention, and then a 55 to 65 acres for the temporary construction easement. For the rest of the golf course. And this is this is. Maybe you can answer both of these, because I think the first question is, can you guys confirm that we can, in fact, design the required stormwater detention, capture the amount of acreage, I mean, water that we want to capture and still maintain an 18 hole regulation golf course. And then can you address the fact that I believe that even if there's a permanent easement, we can still make it so that it's playable? Correct. Yeah. So the so the first question on on the golf course being restored with the detention incorporated. Obviously, we're not to a point where we have 100% design, but we're confident that we can get to that point just based on what we were talking about earlier, that there's a lot of precedents around the country where where that's incorporated. And we're working with our partners at SEMA to make sure that the detention gets designed and incorporated into that golf course. The permanent easement. And just interrupt me if I'm wrong, but from the permanent easement standpoint, it would not interfere interfere with the golf course play now. And so I want people to sort of separate the project from this transaction because there there are to me, legitimate concerns about the sort of viability in this whole deal about the viability of the conservation easement. But what I am fairly certain been convinced of, and I think you guys have proven capable, is delivering an 18 hole golf course. Now, whether that's viable for the operator to sustain months or years without full play abilities. And you know, but that gets to my last question for Jeff is how do you determine the amount of compensation that is needed to sort of lost revenue? It'll be a combination of negotiations. I mean, what we first have to do is bring in an appraiser to come up with the valuation of what the value of of the permitted easement is on the 25 to 35 acres. And then the same thing on the temporary construction easement and then as we get to design. So there's a couple of aspects there. It'll be June or July 1st when when design of the detention in and of itself is, is put on the table and finalized. So there'll be a construction timeline associated with that. And at the same time, we'll be working with the golf course architect that will look at how we bring the golf course back to a playable golf course. So between the two, I think what we had in the presentation was from January of 19 until March of 20 would be the period of time that the golf course would be out of operation. I would imagine that with seeding and bringing it back to use, it would probably take it into a junior of 20 before it could be operated as a golf course. So that would be the period that would be looked at for replacement income. So then again, for my own understanding of the timeline. If you now know the approximate window that the course would be down and the duration, what is preventing you from doing an appraisal and coming up with that number so that we knew that going into it to sort of find out where the where the, you know, why why do we have to actually execute all this now? Is this because of some deliverable to see DOT on detention and the idea or not? No. I mean. As we sit today, we don't have the right to go negotiate or to do an appraisal on somebody else's property in the properties owned by the Clayton Trust. And what we would need to do, and that's what we're seeking for in the land acquisition ordinance, is the right to send a notice of intent letter saying that we plan on acquiring the easements. That we need to understand how we can be in negotiations with Clayton for six years under the pretense that they they might lose their operator and not be, you know, in such a collegial environment that we couldn't actually sort of work together on that and. So we haven't been in negotiations with them for six years. We've been in discussions with them because this has been a topic where we've looked at and again, as we had back in September, there was the potential where we could potentially have looked at buying a portion of the golf course. But we have to respect the contracts that are in place. And the contract that's in place is with the golf course operator. That goes to the end of this year, but it also goes until the end of June 30th or until June 30th, when they have to come up with the decision of whether or not they're going to extend their option. So we have to have all those things in place and can't take them out of order. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, what was your proclamation? Thank you. I'm hard of hearing. So could you please kind of speak up? And the hearing aids they gave me. What was your proclamation? DNA test, two citizens living within two miles radius of the 39th project. If any citizen tests positive for levels of benzo, a brain lead or spinsters, arsenic or eccentric because we know what's in that property 1/10 of a percent above normal EPA standards. The project will come to a complete halt and full EPA testing of the soil and clean up will begin and the 39th Avenue Project area every three months. After the clean up has been done, or if they said they were fine every three months or six months, don't eat or do a DNA test for the next ten years if they would have done DNA tests on us. I wouldn't be in the situation I am today. There would are number two. I'm concerned about all the kids because a majority of people have moved into that neighborhood that I've talked to. Even the ones living there, they moved there because they got tired of New York City. Live in San Francisco. They found their sweet little bungalows. Now they are barely finding out they're going to destroy all of northeast Denver in the name of the almighty dollar. Now, the reason I know about DNA testing, cause I was on a top secret island in the South Pacific. They didn't tell us what was on there, but I got everything from Vietnam to Johnson Atoll. These kids in their study said the Mexicans, which are Mexicanos from Mexico, were not intelligent enough to know English. At the same time, their kids were slower learners because of lead paint and whatever else the highway produces. If you do a DNA test based on the existing Campos, we as resident have either read about or know about. You would be able to have a chart for these families and have the families a to have the city of Denver. All the contractors like they did with Rocky Flats to pay for any medical issues. I've lived in that neighborhood since 1960. I lived in East Denver since the day I was born. Every time the city wants to do something, I help him clean it up in the nineties and 2000 and they promised hours. They're going to clean up the area. They're going to put us apart. None of that ever happened. But now all of a sudden they're saying, Oh, we need the land. And I've worked hard for the city for free as a volunteer from cleaning up the drugs, prostitution. I bought my mother's house for $18,000 with no intentions of ever moving out of there or having a monetary value on it all alone. Neighbors know me as either Grandpa Ed or the Mayor of coal where I live because I know so much about that neighborhood. I know. I've been on the Internet. I've been federal government, the EPA. Nobody can produce a physical record of Gardner Denver, which is the rock drill we take. Gardner Denver. Each one of them are parking facilities that all belong to Gardner. Denver. I used to work for Gardner Denver in the eighties. We use petroleum products to. Call the metal. That's poison now. I could not find documentation on 39th Avenue where Roman Church told me there's gas tanks buried there, etc.. So not to be rude, but you you are in fact opening up Pandora's box. My point is, and this box from my experiment with government, that I'm just anybody but you and you on that city council. Could you reason with people? Albert She's always trying to cut me off. But. But I'll just be. Be honest. There are we have verifiable, documented, all different. I don't believe that I worked at the refinery for 26 years because of my illness. I had to take a medical retirement. But they said the refinery was cleaned up, but we had a big old benzene taper in. Some of the guys already died. Exposures can happen so many different ways, and I don't deny that that is in fact, there is a definite history in certain parts of North Denver and East Denver, and populations long, prolonged, with long, prolonged exposures had definitely had health impacts and and generational health impacts over there. But Councilman, I got Ortega, okay. So I just wanted you to know. They offered the Yeah. Park heal that that it's not. You know, I'd be happy to talk to you. After we've shared if you talk to me, because I could tell you stuff. If you listen to reason. You would put this project on a screeching halt. I'm not dumb. I know a lot about chemicals in the refining naval nuclear industry with all my work. I work for Gardner, Denver in the Machine Shop, working at the refinery as an industrial mechanic. They even found this third. I mean. Nobody was there. Thank you. We're going to Mr. Mrs. Councilwoman Ortega. This is my neighbor, by the way. So I have heard all these stories, but. Councilwoman Ortega, thank you. I just have two more quick questions. So the first one is for is Happy Haines to hear. Have you would you mind coming forward? My question is, I know we went through this whole process when shortly after the first. I can't even think of the name of the Park Inn in far southeastern, but that drew attention to the fact that we had a number of on dedicated parks, and then we learned that there were certain parks we couldn't dedicate because we had conservation easement on there. So do you have a ballpark idea of how many parks or park land that we own that have conservation easements on them? No, I don't. Councilwoman Ortega not off the top of my head. And those those would be owned by someone else other than the city with a conservation easement but for for public access. So. Trying to think of. I know we have one up at it's next to Harry Potter and that little purchased with natural resource damage. So that's a great example. That's a state owned facility and there's a conservation easement on. So we're required to keep that as open space. It's part of our master planning. That's right. And it's not owned by it's owned by another government inside the city. Yeah. Okay. So it would be helpful at some point to just know that because we. Would be we do have that. I just don't have it in. Front of me. And I didn't expect you to answer that exact number tonight, but the fact that there are other easements on their owned by other entities means that we, the city, cannot turn around and try to dispose of that land that has an easement that we have no control of. I think every easement is different. So would yeah, I mean, generally that would be true, but every easement is different. So we would have to look at each one to determine what the conditions are. And I know you've been in northeast Denver for as long as you and I have known each other. But don't say please. Do you recall? And I'm going to ask Clayton to answer this question why the easement was put on the Park Hill golf course. It's my recollection I could be wrong about this, that it was because of the revenue that they were generating that they would have been taxed on. But by putting the conservation easement on there, it precluded them from being taxed for that revenue that was coming in from the private operators then. No, I, I, I don't recall. I mean, there were obviously I don't know if it was the conservation easement, the, uh, address, the tax issues or not. And, um, I, um. Yeah. Okay. Let me ask Clayton to just address that. Yeah. Because it's it's it's an easement that the city acquired, but it's not clear what that easement currently does. What? But access that gives. Us, if I may, council and that I'll start and then if I get in trouble, I'm going to have Bruce come back up here. So they're actually two different things at work here. One was the contract between the city and Clayton Moore. The $2 million was was exchanged. And at that point in time, as as Bruce had mentioned earlier, golf was a a good economic use of that property. And so it made a lot of sense to have it remain golf. That was 20 some odd years ago. Now that that was was looked at in that way. The agency agreement which is a separate it's a it's a contract between us and the city that came along a few years later. The agency agreement is what addresses the tax issue, the property tax issue. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, Councilman. Council president. I have no further questions. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. See no other questions on 1396. We're now going to move into the comment portion and closed 1396. So comments by members accounts. So, Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. You're going to do comments before questions on 95, correct? Thank you. The two weeks ago, when we had this on first reading, I offered an amendment to clarify the authority of this of the administration to go ahead and and acquire permanent and temporary easements and as necessary for random parcels around those easements to acquire by fiat. Simple because fee simple acquisition was included in there. And we understood that that's not the intent. But I was very concerned that by including the authority to acquire up to 90 acres for stormwater drainage, detention, etc. in fee simple that we were putting a foot in the door. Camel's nose in the tent. Whatever you want to call, whatever you want to call it without having to come back to the city council. If in fact the decision was to acquire by a fee simple rather than easement. And because of that, Mr. President, I can't vote. I can't vote yes on on. The Syrians have to vote now. The other reason is that I believe 90 acres is is much more than we talked about in the beginning. We were talking initially about a 25 acre detention area and whatever might be needed for temporary construction easements. 90 acres is just much, much too much for me to approve. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Herndon, would you like to go at the end or. No, Mr. President, I'm. I'm no comment. Okay, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I referenced in my my common question. We have good at mushing them together here. The fact that this has been a messy process. And I think I just think the city does actually have to take responsibility for, you know, entering into a legal negotiation without adequate information about the operator as well as Clayton . We should not have had an agreement on the verge of council adoption without that clarified much more definitively, and it has created so much confusion and fear. This would have been a totally different conversation had we not ended up there. So I think both parties bear responsibility for that. And I think part of what we all need to do in public service or in community service is take that responsibility. So that is unfortunate. And I really do understand why the community has the concerns it has, because that is the conversation we were having just a couple of months ago. And if that agreement were before me, I'm not sure that I would have been able to support it. But I am trying hard in spite of that mess and in spite of our failure to do our proper due diligence to really separate out just this particular proposal before me. And, you know, based on really a very clear ordinance that really limits the use of this land for the drainage purpose, that is the only thing we can acquire for. And and I respect in some way is Councilman Flynn's, you know, desire to not have this simple versus an easement. But the effect is the same, really, whether the city, for some legal quirk, has to acquire it in fee simple or for legal quirk has to do it as an easement. If in the end it's only for drainage and if the end it has to be put back as a golf course, that it's just a distinction without a difference. It's not something I hear from the community that you all care about. So. So I think I've tried to zero my questions in on the things that I have heard that people care about, because I think those things are really important. And so I appreciate Clayton being very firm about the fact that they are not using this agreement or I'm sorry, this ordinance as a as an excuse to to trigger, you know, a condemnation clause for a temporary loss of the golf course. I'm sure there will be all kinds of interesting and heated debates about how to protect the kids's interest in revenue and the value of land. But that's you know, that's all governed by a really strict process. So so I feel like I've done the due diligence that the community has asked me to do, that this land will be used for open space and only for open space. And so or I'm sorry, actions that we use for drainage. I'm sorry we use for drainage. It's late. I'm sorry. I'm getting a little muddled and so and that and that we have the protections in place for the next phase. It is incumbent upon the city to deliver land that can be used as a golf course. Right. And so and I feel like I have gotten enough, you know, and this is where, you know, Councilman Espinosa and I seem to be in agreement that there is ample evidence that this can be done. And so because of that ample evidence, there should never, ever be a triggering of the condemnation clause. If it can be built as a golf course, the condemnation clause never gets triggered. So the two are linked. And because there is ample evidence that it can. Be restored to a golf course. I feel confident moving this forward. And, you know, I appreciate the speaker who, you know. Echoed my words from committee, but I'll just do it in my own words tonight. Which is that. Let's not do this again with bad process. So if and when you hear from Argus or who you're if I'm saying the name properly of your of your golf course operator, we need really good communication with the community and with this council about how design is proceeding and how it's impacting decisions that you're making and things like that. I would ask that council get briefings on the confidential negotiations that are occurring. We seriously underuse executive sessions as this body. We should get a committee executive session to understand how negotiations are going on this discussion about this acquisition as it proceeds. It's highly public interest oriented and we it's just not appropriate for you to negotiate an entire agreement and then tell us about it at the end when there is so much confusion and challenge. So I would ask that you give us briefings. So with all of those, you know, kind of due diligence is and all of those requests to make sure that we stay a part of this conversation in an ongoing way. I appreciate that my questions have been answered and I will be voting to move this forward. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman. Can each. Councilman Espinosa, you're up? Yeah, I. I wish I could go there because it's a good stormwater project and a good way to incorporate this at relatively minimal impact. The problem is, is that we have this history of sort of protracted discussion about developing land that is not developable by design. It is a fallacy to sort of sit here and opine that that, you know, we chose a golf course because that was a good sort of revenue generator back then, and no longer is it. And now we need to change because that decision to make a golf course was in part because of the outcry for the open space. And so that was the sort of compromise that we were going to. We will we will do this in exchange. We will use this open space like a revenue generator in exchange for not losing a complete development opportunity here. You know, it was sort of I mean, it wasn't that it was, but it was a negotiation with the community at that time that basically said, look, here's a good compromise, a way you guys can have open space or at least that that that natural element, and we could generate revenue. And to sort of say that we're going to use whatever mechanism now to sort of to to throw away those ideas, those agreements of the past. And no one's sort of saying that. But what we are doing is creating a clear, clear path for that because of what we talked about. There is no easement in place today. But what there is, is an agency agreement, and that agency agreement allows them to terminate that agreement in writing at any point in time, at any time. They could have done it two years ago. They could have done it five years ago. They could do it tomorrow. But they'll probably if they're smart, they'll wait. They'll wait until it's clear that there's going to be some sort of agreement with their operator. And so when you do, they'll file the termination. And then the next action is they have to put the conservation easement in place. That is a requirement of their agency agreement. So when they terminate, they have to put it in the agency agreement. I mean, the conservation easement. And now because their golf course operator says that we can't use it and the amount of money that the city not going to give us isn't enough for us to endure two years and go on. They have the conditions to, to, to, to get rid of the conservation easement. And now, lo and behold, the development rights are there. Well, the cities already they had made very clear by virtue of the action back in September that we've got a deal, we've got a way to sort of promise upwards of $24 million to purchase that land with development rights. It's not good for us to buy open space for the cheap. We want to buy land that is developable open space that city of Denver residents fought for, earned and got this agreement and paid for. His, you know, 20 years ago, 20 plus years ago. And so what I've always maintained, and I'll be transparent with you all, is I might be okay with that if we could sort of create a win win for Clayton and a win for open space and a win for community, because there's definite needs and desires for certain uses there. It's definite infrastructure investment that we've made as a as as people in the city and state over there. And so there might be opportunity, but if you're going to have that much open space and capture that much value, I want a commitment that that money that goes to redevelopment of open space goes back into purchase and acquisition of even more open space in the city. You know, this is in why that and that might disturb some people going well wait a sec you're going to sell Park Hill. That's at a time when we're going to build the 39th Avenue Channel next to our biggest park in the city. You know, we have a equity issue on open space. And I think there's a way to sort of to do it more thoughtfully. But that's not what's happening here. All to to to Councilwoman Canisius Point. This happens so opaquely. That Council does not know until it's time to go. Six years of negotiation. I don't know how many members of council knew that this was going on for six years. You know, this council is asked for real estate updates in an executive session, a master plan, some sort of knowledge about what it is that we have as assets, what we're playing with, what we're exploring, and why. But we don't. The only way to know that is is is is in a stronger government to have that seat on the third floor. And we the best we can do is is what you're seeing here. And fortunately, this is a situation where the community knew better. I, Nancy, came out with facts and people came out in droves and so took two German speakers comments. I've been on that site just two and a half years ago. Right. And I have been right on that side. And this is a situation where, once again, you guys know better than we do. And so I'm mindful of that. We have oversight authority. That is our job as our lone, strong power as counsel is to prove or deny these sorts of deals. There's stronger provisions that we could be making for the health and safety environment. And I'm sort of spilling into my 39th Avenue channel, things that they apply here because we're talking about open space and that is so critical to well-being and that is so much why we live in Denver is the quality of life. And to that community that that that low income in the affordable community that is restricted next to this asset. I mean, that is an incredible asset. Not many low income communities next to a golf course, you know. And so we did that. Clayton did that willfully, and now we're doing this sort of deal to get out of it, sort of, you know, leveraging people, getting people riled up for what the potential is when that potential doesn't exist unless we do a whole bunch of other machinations to make it happen. And so let's be transparent about that and say here's what it's going to take. Here's what we're asking you. City of Denver. Do you guys want your assets, your money, your fees in storm water, your tax dollars in general revenue funds to go to this level of investment to support one organization, which is very worthwhile. And if so, to what degree? And then what do you want to do with your open space? You know, that is that is that the city's doing that. But we're not doing that. That's Clayton doing that. And that's that's just disingenuous. And that is not how we should be operating. As far as I'm concerned. So because that is in fact the narrative that I'm throwing out and I could be totally wrong in three years time. Four years time. I'm willing to be that. But if I'm totally right, you've got this point to remember. I thanks. I'll be voting no. All right, Councilwoman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting yes. This bill is not going to. And in the development of the golf course, it's actually a practical solution with an environmental benefit. One of the speakers talked about the importance of green space while the park, how a golf course will still be a green space. And under this bill. The green space will also be a green. Solution for a major flooding problem. And we've been talking about this for a year. And I know the common ground golf course is an example of drainage. The Lake World Golf Course is an example of drainage. We've asked about that in committee meetings is a green way to deal with drainage issues. So as Councilwoman Kennish brought up this bill is. Not going to result in all of the. Things that a lot of people are worried about. It's really. Just going to allow. For this drainage to be built and it will remain open space in the future. I'm confident that Charlotte Brantley and the Clinton Trust in partnership with the city and the community, will then work toward a community vision. I have the utmost confidence in Charlotte Brantley. I know she cares passionately about her community so I will be supporting this. All right. Thank you, Councilman Black, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, you can include me on the. A team that feels this is it's a little bit too muddled for my taste. Starting back with is, as Councilwoman Kenny pointed out, how how in the name of all that is holy and sacred, we get a contract that we're getting ready to vote on and nobody's talked to the golf course operator. It just feels like there's too much. I don't believe everything's on the table. I don't think council has been given the entire truth about what the plans are either by Clayton and I have great respect for the work that Clayton does for the kids in the community and the families. I have no problem with that, but I just don't believe either the administration or Clayton has presented the plans that already exist on their tables for our consideration. Another thing that that concerns me greatly well, I heard the most definite from all the speakers tonight was was from the attorney for Clayton, and that their responsibility is to their fiduciary responsibility to the Clayton trust and that that's fine. I understand that. But that's what I hear a lot more firmly than any commitment to preservation of open space. The another thing that bothers me is. I believe that the timeline for all of this is not driven by. Concerns for the community, but by the need to build this drainage project in agreement with dates that we've committed to, with, with the Department of Transportation to not hold up the I-70 project. And I think. I think that's affecting issues relating to both of the projects that we're considering tonight, that both could do with being cooked a little bit longer. So I will not be supporting this this evening. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, we know that we have some drainage problems in this area of town. And you've heard people, you know, in the audience talk about them. I've heard Councilman Brooks talk about, you know, his very neighborhood being flooded. But this has been a very messy process going back to when this body was asked to approve a proclamation. In support of the preferred alternative for I-70 way before the supplemental draft was even released. And I caution my colleagues to not vote for a preferred alternative before the actual supplemental draft of the EIC had been released, because we didn't know all the details of what was in that document. It was then later followed up with an idea that directly tied all the drainage in this area to the I-70 project. So much so that. We're. Responsible for maintaining the lid over the Hyde Highway, which is supposed to be the mitigation for the project. So I challenge why we we the city of Denver, number one, should have ever agreed to be on the hook for the maintenance of that lid. But then, number two, that you know, it it ended up in the idea. And then you look at the funny math that happened. We ended up swap swapping land that's underneath I-70. With see dot that became part of the budget of how we then fund part of the drainage they put their 40 million in and if it exceeded a certain threshold, which it already has, then they're on the hook for more money. But. The public process on the 39th Avenue Channel happened way after all of that approval processes had come before this body of city council. So when the neighborhood started coming to public meetings and learning about this 39th Avenue channel, and I remember being told we're either going to do City Park golf course or we're going to do 39th Avenue channel. But at no point was there a discussion that we would do both. But here we are. We're doing both, and we're doing the Park Hill Golf Course. So all of this and that's why I wanted to see the big picture budget of what was brought to us as one project, the Twin Basin Drainage Project, again now called the Platte to Park Hill. Project. And I guess one of my concerns is we're going to have a city park golf course, overland golf course, and now Park Hill Golf Course all down at the same time. Yes, we don't own Park Hill, but for people who golf and like to keep their revenue in our city and not go play in in neighboring jurisdictions. We're going to lose that revenue. Yes, will be compensated by the music festival for the lack of use, the lack of play, you know, at Oberlin. But we're going to have these three golf courses down at the same time. And, you know, that's on top of all the rest of the other construction that's going to be happening because of the geo on that past. We're going to have lots of projects underway at the same time all over the city. But I guess my just to get back to this particular bill here tonight, I want to first say that for those people who have raised concerns about the environmental impact, we just learned today that the materials management plan has been received by the city. They've got to review it. It'll probably be about three weeks before that document is public for everybody to see what the material management plan will be as they identify various materials or products that are in the soils that require action levels. You know, based on what what. What they have identified. And in the information that I received today, I was told that there were about 70 borings that took place on the 39th Avenue Channel. Somebody mentioned there were only three. So, Councilwoman, that's on the next bill. Okay. Yeah, sorry. We're still on part of alluding it all because in my mind I see it all as one project because that's how it was brought forward to us. Okay, so I'm sorry and I'll make my comments now and not make them on the next bill, but I'm just a little frustrated at how, unless we're asking the right questions and demanding information, that helps us understand the big picture of what we're dealing with. We see these things piecemeal and it's it's hard. It's hard enough for us to be able to keep it together. I can imagine how challenging and difficult it is for the community who's seen piecemeal as well. And and this is not to. Say anything disparaging against our folks in the city who have worked really hard to bring these projects forward, knowing full well we do have some challenges and issues that we're trying to address in this city. I'm just I'm just frustrated at our process in how we have roll this out to the community. And, you know, we've we've got a. A need that we're trying to address. But at the same time, it's not the what we're doing, it's how we've done it that hasn't felt so transparent and and upfront in in the information sharing that is is not only being shared with the public, but but oftentimes with us. And so I'm not sure how I'm going to vote tonight, but I'm just sharing some of my some of my concerns and frustrations with kind of where we've been with this. And, you know, some have had more history than others with this project from the very beginning, but I'm probably leaning more towards not supporting it in in in large part because, you know, we were told we only needed 20 acres initially. Now it's 25, but we're now up to 90 acres in Park Hill Golf Course. And and I'm not convinced that that is not in itself going to throw this budget completely on its head. So again, we went from $40 million with see not spending money to do drainage to the IGA that was later in excess of 150 . Then we were at 300 million when we did the wastewater rate increase. And I'm hoping that if we can. Do this without having to do 90 acres. We stay within that budget, but if we end up needing up to 90 acres, I'm concerned that there's going to be another ask to put more money into covering all of these costs for these four projects that make up this flat to Park Hill drainage project. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. See no other comments. Madam Secretary, roll call. Herndon High. Cashman. Can each new. Ortega. No. Sussman. My black eye. Clark, I. Espinoza. Flynn Now. Mr. President. I. Please for the voting in US results. I think we're missing somebody, said Sandra. Ortega. Seven ice, four days. Seven ice, four days, 1396 has passed. All right, Councilwoman, can you please put 1395 on the floor?