A resolution approving a proposed Third Amendatory Agreement between the City and County of Denver and JKS Industries, LLC to extend the term and add funds to provide on call asbestos, lead and mold abatement services. Amends a contract with JKS Industries, LLC to add $2 million for a new contract total in the amount of $2,480,000 and to add two years for a new end date of 8-3-19, for nuisance abatement actions for residential properties and environmentally regulated building material abatement and demolition activities of city-owned facilities including those associated with the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative and Platte to Parkhill projects (ENVHL-201415783). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-12-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 5-10-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, May 22, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, June 5, 2017.
Okay. And then we'll put a question for 577. Right. Okay, great. Madam Secretary, please bring up the block for Espinosa's resolution for 21 two for 27. Councilman Black, we put resolutions for 21. For 2022. For 23, for 24, for 25 and for 27 on the floor for adoption. Yes, I move that resolutions for 21. For 22 for 23, for 24 for 25 and for 27. Be adopted in a block. All right. It has been moved. And seconded comments by members of council. Councilman Espinosa. Actually, I had a question, but is there anyone here to speak on? Thank you. The first question was, as there are six contract contracts being amended, but the amended briefing materials that were given to council last week only include an abstract, abstract information about four of the contracts how how much of its environmental, technical solutions and foothills been encumbered for. Those are 2.48 million as well. So the two that were not called out or that were not given more detail, those are consultant contracts. The four other ones are either abatement contractors. So sometimes the consultants do the advising, the scoping, the budgeting and the oversight of the contract work to make sure that it's done to adequate standards . Right. So they were actually $1 million contracts. They're the lesser of the group. But so my I'm just trying to understand so that you provided information that shows we're probably close to 80, 90% or 90% on most of these contracts. Are we also 90% on on there for 84 consultants, or are we actually have some room there? That is correct. They're close to contract. I was. Introduced herself. Oh, sorry. Steve Gonzales. City and County. Denver. Denver Health Department. I'm Greg Thomas. I'm the division director for the division. I manage the contracts and the two you called out. They are the oversight, as Greg was mentioning. They're the oversight consultants for the contractors. Every time we do work with the four contractors, the two consultants are involved in some capacity for oversight actions and will get used to the contract values or less because they're their capacity. They're not labor, they're a kind of documentation and oversight, and that's generally a less dollar value than the labor. Having been familiar with both Foothills and ETS in my past life as an architect, I was aware of that and sort of expected that to be the answer. However, I just wanted to point out that the language in the Indy Council agenda and thus the bill request is identical for the other four contracts. Despite the fact that there are different services, as you're saying, as you're explaining. So anyway, the rest is comment. You can stay up there if you want to respond, but I'm not. Thank you, guys. So on Monday, May, June, May 22nd, 14 days ago, I proposed to postpone action on these resolutions due to a glaring lack of information supporting a more than tripling in authorized contracts going from 3.4 million for three years worth of work to 12 nearly $12 million, adding nearly $8 million for two additional years. Well, questions were asked in committee. The responses should be seen as interests insufficient to approve this multimillion dollar increase without clear delineation of the increased need. More than a week passed when our legislative staff inquired about the lack of follow up by the agencies requesting these these amounts and backup, despite the fact that the supposed contracts for these supposed projects for these contracts should have been defined years ago and revisited many times, particularly in the last few months through the Gabon process, the requested supporting projects and cost estimates for the needed abatement work was not at the ready. How how these numbers were arrived at for these contracts without this? How were these contracts arrived at these amounts for these contracts arrived at without these basic this basic information with two weeks to provide information that should have been at the ready . Getting contract, justifying information should not have been any issue. Yet it took nine days to present this response. These two pages that are now at each of my colleagues desk. Please note that there are no estimates, no project years, be it 2017 this year, 2018 or 2019 included with this information. I remind my colleagues that we constantly fight for scraps of money for our mobility agenda or to improve access to affordable housing. And yet we approve unsaid unsubstantiated contracts in the millions that far exceed the amounts that the administration allocates to either endeavor. What's more troublesome about these request is that some of the abatement work will support the NWC, a project with which taxpayers agreed to fund through to tourism related taxes not to expend their general fund dollars on. Even more egregious is to spend our limited general fund dollars on a PDP stormwater project. When this council already approved nearly 400 million in obligatory fees to all Denver property owners to fund these improvements. Now we are asked to approve an indeterminate amounts of Denver sales and property taxes to these two projects on top of the over billion dollars that have already been essentially allocated. There are many worthwhile projects in the city that go unfunded year in and year out. These two projects, the National Western Center and the PDP Hill, are not among them. I recognize that many that they may have in those two projects may have indeterminate needs, but those projects are substantial enough that they should be contracted for separately so that all of the other cities abatement needs aren't at risk by the unknowable of those major projects, and that the accounting of our large projects avoid obscuring their total cost to Denver parks tax and fee payers. Given that the administration has three months because these contracts don't end until August and September to revise and substantiate the appropriate contract amounts for the four typical agency needs. Rather than relying once again on this behavior of getting the foot in the door with a sub, a small sub, $500,000 contract, and then pumping the amount 400% and including projects that weren't even approved by taxpayers or council at the time of the 2014 contracts, the time these 2014 contracts were passed, I urge this Legislature, legislative body for once not to be complicit with this conduct and say no to these resolutions on your own without direction from the administration. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Sussman. Was this does this come to committee for a discussion? And were some of these questions answered as a part of the overall? Just want to make sure we're being clear here. The overall programmatic needs and construction that we approved and planned to park last year. They were answered satisfactorily for me. I'm not sure it was the same for. Okay. Okay. Great. Um. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that did not go in consent, and we had a full discussion within committee. Okay, great. Councilman Ortega. So I don't want to debate the merits of the particular resolutions that are in front of us and go back and rehash the overall drainage project that was proposed that includes Globeville Landing Park, the Open Channel, the. City Park Golf course. I think what my request is, is that we have an update on where we are at in the total cost. As you all know, this came to us as one project. It was called the Twin Basin Project that was part of the intergovernmental agreement. And I think it would be helpful just to have an update on the overall cost of where we are at in terms of how much have we spent and how much do we still expect to expend for all of that? And if we could schedule that to come to committee, I think that would be extremely beneficial to just know where we're at. Are there more contracts coming down the pike? Is this the end of it? Where are we in the big picture scheme of things? Yeah, there are probably several more contracts I think because of the abatement contracts, but I think that would be okay. Councilwoman Sussman, would that be okay to schedule an update in your committee? Of course. Be glad to. Okay. And if you could just let us all know when that does get scheduled. Thank you. And, Gaby, you hear that from the mayor's perspective? County Councilman Espinosa. And I just respectfully disagree with the comment that everything was there presented at committee to satisfy these things. Here was what was presented as part of that. The presentation clearly says about these contracts on the slide, and it includes Public Works Project Project and applied to Park Hill and geo bond projects. I mean it states that and it can and possibly included. I mean, we couldn't at 2014 when this thing was approved, we were you were still working on the stormwater master plan that was still in draft mode. So plan to Park Hill wasn't even, you know, a glint in somebody's eye, maybe at the executive level, but we're not privy to that. And so as we get is what you guys provide, the executive provides the legislative branch. And I'm telling you what was presented at committee and what I have in hand based on additional asks remain insufficient. My colleagues may agree that our lack of information is thorough and worthwhile, but I'm sorry my the taxpayers didn't put me in office to rubber stamp these things. Councilman, I think every person up here does their own research and to to attack their research and say that it's a rubber stamp is is probably it's a huge overstep. So what we will do is have a conversation. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. We'll have that in the committee about the overall budget of a contract that we originally approved a year ago. And that's what we'll do. And every council person can vote this up or down. Madam Secretary, it's been moved the second to roll call. Espinosa. Nick Flynn. I Gilmore. Herndon High. Cashman. Kenny G. Lopez. I knew. Ortega. I. Sussman. I. Black. I. Mr. President. I believe clubs close voting and as a result. I'm just checking. One is missing. Ten Eyes to name. Yes. Okay. Ten Eyes. Two names for 20. One through four. 27. I'm going to say I'm just for the record. Resolutions for 21. For 22. For 23. For 24. For 25. For 27 have been adopted. Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, please, will you please put the next bill in by? Yeah. It's 577. Excuse me. Go ahead.