A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of the alley bounded by Cedar Avenue, South Birch Street and Leetsdale Drive, with reservations. Vacates the alley bounded by Cedar Avenue, South Birch Street, and Leetsdale Drive with a partial special reservation in Council District 5. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 5-15-18.
Adopted. All right. Thank you very much. All right. If you're up with the next screen, next item on our screen, Councilwoman Blackwell, you please for Council Bill 394 on the floor for publication. Yes, I move that council bill 18, dash 394, be ordered published. It has been moved and seconded questions or comments by members of council or Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you very much, Mr. President. Is there somebody from public works here? Sarah Stanek. Thank you. Come. Come on up. This has been one of the more interesting alley vacations in our city. We've had a lot of questions in committee and things have even been happening between committee and now. Just to help with a little bit of the history of this. Sarah, in the first sort of question came from a constituent about this alley where they discovered that there was a great deal of encroachment into this alley that the city owned. This was about six years ago. And at that time, the city decided they were going to cite the neighbors who had encroached and asked them to remove the encroachments that they had. Then there, about a year or two later, the city decided. That. Perhaps they would just vacate the alley and not continue with the encroachment. Do you know why the city changed its mind? Yes. Sarah Stanek from Public Works. My understanding is that we did begin in the enforcement proceedings and part of our process for encroachment enforcement is to look at alternatives. The vacation was offered as a potential alternative through the enforcement process, and we then received an application for the vacation, which we began processing. The vacation was offered by the city or offered by the neighbors. The neighbors applied for the vacation, the encroachment enforcement through that process. Again, one of the options that is presented during the enforcement process is an option to vacate. And the when we received the application to vacate, that was as we were going through the enforcement proceedings. And why does the city think that vacation would be better than enforcing the encroachment? The process that we take for all vacations of the public right of way is to review the use, review objections, notify adjacent property owners and determine if the area is serving the public right of way in this particular instance. All objections were reviewed and found to lack technical merit and the. Alley in. Question was found not to be serving the public right of way and could be vacated. Thank you. What is this does not pass and this alley does not get vacated. What will the city do then if the vacation is not passed? The alley will remain public. Right of. Way. And we will resume the enforcement process. Okay. Thank you very much. If there were a public easement put on the vacation, which there was for for a while, would Mr. Gidley be able to then have access and build his driveway? Is that alley were vacated and there were a public easement on it? Would he still be able to build his driveway? I'm not sure I can speak to that. The public works does not have a precedent for those types of easements. Within vacated once once an property is vacated once the right of way is vacated. It is private property and we do not have a precedent for determining public easements or cross. Access easements. Of private property. You don't have. So, gee, I didn't quite understand that answer. So if we did have a public easement on it, you don't know if Mr. Gidley would be able to use it. The easement the easement would be an arrangement between the property owners, the adjacent property owners, and not something that public works or the city would have a precedent for determining. And yet it was on the bill for a while before it got off the bill. My understanding is that the private parties were discussing other easements. There is a reservation and an easement for utilities for an Excel transformer that is located within the alley. And it's my understanding that the private property owners and their legal representation were discussing other easement options, but that none were filed with this particular vacation. We received a letter today from Mr. Gurley's attorney and saying that if there were a public easement, he would be able to have an alley there if there was public easement on the vacation. Is Mr. Gidley here? I would like to ask him a question about that. Would you like to come up and speak to that place, to the microphone? You have to come to the microphone. On Mr.. GIDLEY or. I'm Josh Porter. Which whoever Mr. Gidley thinks is appropriate, either himself or your attorney. Oh, yeah. Okay. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening. Just tell me, could you please introduce yourself? My name is Joshua Krieger, attorney for. Gary Gidley, who you just. Saw. Resident of 260 leads Dale and one of the adjoining neighbors on this alleyway at issue. And you wrote us today to say that if there were a public easement, he would be able to create an alley even though that alley was vacated. Could you tell us a little bit why you think that's possible? Just as was recently stated, there's no precedent for it. But if. The city reserves a public access easement, which. As you noticed, Councilperson Sussman. Was initially considered here as a mechanism to kind of preserve. Access issues in the alley. And was this public access easement? We see no reason why the city can't reserve that public access easement for construction. Well, Mr.. Gidley would need to continue. The alley from what is currently. Paved and currently blocked by retaining walls and landscaping. That is illegally encroaching in the alley by. The other neighbors. He would need to construct a continuation of that paved portion, a narrow strip along an edge of what is now the public right of way down to his property. And we see no reason why that can't be done under a public access easement. Lack of precedent does not mean anything is standing in the way. It would take some creative problem solving. Between the parties and Department of Public Works. But we see why that can't be accomplished here. I see. Okay. Thank you very much. Again, it means that neighbors have to talk to each other. And I want to ask questions about that, too, because the court, when they came to committee, one of the biggest issues that the committee had was they wanted people to the neighbors to work out some happy negotiations on. If the property were going to be divided, how it would be divided. I'd like to ask Mr. David Foster up here to talk about the division of the property and what the neighbors have come to an. Agreement on. About if it's vacated. David Foster, 360, South Garfield, Denver. You're on behalf of the whites. Who were the applicants on the location. So the property is you may or may not know once the city vacates, it actually is divided per state statute. It's not divided per private agreement. And so what we had discussed is whether or not there was a way to accommodate. Mr. Gidley so that he might have more property than would otherwise be granted to him via the state statute. And although we haven't reached agreement with Mr. Gidley, Mr. Gidley has reached agreement with at least one, if not two neighbors to have access and actually ownership of some property so that if the City Council were to vacate the alley, he will be obtaining more property vis a vis the Ali vacation than would otherwise be. He would otherwise be entitled to vis a vis the state statute. So per agreements he will be receiving more property than he would otherwise be entitled to under state statute. And you all have come to this agreement. Again, there is no agreement, but that is something that both the hamrick who are here today, Mr. Gidley, has reached out to his own neighbor, the Seltzers, and I know that he's reached an agreement with them, but you can ask his counsel about that. So the people that we can I wouldn't say control, but the people we've discussed and come to agreement with, namely being the Hamrick have agreed to convey property to. Mr.. Gidley. Okay. Thank you very much. I see that others have some questions. So I'm going to pass for now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Flint. Thank you. I don't know if you can answer this, but I think Mr. Foster has addressed it already. But under state statute, when a public right of way is abandoned, typically the adjoining property owners equitably split, like if it were an alley that went straight up and down. Typically, the owners on either side would divide to the middle and take possession of that. This is an alley that kind of reminds me of an Irish hurling stick. It's really odd shaped and it's dead end and it's got this big area sort of buried in the middle of the block. So it's easy to see why over the years, some of the neighbors illegally encroached into it innocently enough, but but not entitled to it. And it cut off the very dead end of the alley that backs up to Mr. Gilley's property. So I need to know before I can vote yes on this. That there is an equitable distribution of the property that is agreed on. And it doesn't sound like there is right now today. It's hard to vote on something that's still in process. So can you enlighten. Us on. Where this stands from public works standpoint and maybe Mr. Gilley's attorney and the white's attorney can elaborate on where the agreement stands? It's very hard for me to change a tire on a moving car, and I feel like that's what I'm being asked to do. Yes. So public works and the city would not take a position beyond the state statute in the division of the property once it is vacated. Let me let me let me interrupt there for to ask you, because one thing I have a hard time imagining is. What would do we know. Under the state statute what would be an equitable distribution of that really odd shaped property? Has anybody ever attempted to do the trigonometry on that? Did you, Major? Looks like someone might have. You major in trigonometry, David. You know, I did not. I provided that to you, Councilman Flynn. That is a engineered depiction. And I think we need to make sure that we're using the right terms when we're having this discussion. There's the legal. Statutory property. Division and then there's an equitable right. So those, I think are could be different if if it's strictly what the state statute says, you're entitled to the frontage and councilman. Right. You're you're right. I mean, there's this kind of hammerhead. I've called it a hammerhead. And so the analysis has been done that shows who has the linear frontage along that Hammerhead and who would be entitled to certain property along that Hammerhead. I have other copies if others are so inclined to see what that might look like. Beyond what the state statute allows for. And that's one of the exhibits that you have. What I've shared with you already is you do have an agreement from an abiding neighbor, Mr. Hamrick, to give additional property that Mr. Gately is not presently entitled to. Mm hmm. So that goes from beyond the legal to what I would consider more the equitable. More property than he would otherwise be entitled to vis a vis this disposition. Right now, I'm looking at the exhibits, and I think there is one of these purporting to be just. Objectively. Here's what the state statute would show, because I thought this was based on what the proposed agreement was. There are two. There are two. Depictions. One is the state statute. All right. And then the other was more of the equitable division of property that you had asked to see. Okay. All right. Thank you. But right now there is there is no agreement between the parties. Again. Mr. Hamrick, who is the neighbor, has agreed with Mr. Gridley to convey a portion of his property that would entitle him to more property than he would be entitled to under the state statutory division of property. Okay. So to Mr. Gibbons, attorney, what what else needs to be done to proceed with this? Well, I'll start by saying that it's. Incorrect and misleading to say that there are agreements in place that would give Mr. Gidley. More property. Than he's entitled to. As it stands. Mr. Hamrick Mr. Lee's neighbor to the west and the seltzer family, Mr. Ghibli's neighbor to the east, each of whom. Also border on the alley. Have already quit, claimed certain areas of land to Garrett. In return for various work Garrett has done on them on their properties. So Garrett of. He'll only get what he's entitled to under state statute. We realize that. But there are no agreements in place. Garrett is now in a position to gain more land than he would have. In June, May and June, when these quick claims occurred. But as it stands right now, there are no agreements that would allow Garrett to gain more property than he would be entitled to. Right now. He's just been able to achieve. Presumably under operation of law from the statute, which by admission is quite vague. The statute has two parts to it. If it's a. Straight right angle. Public right of way. As you noted, everybody just comes out to the middle line where where there aren't where it's the dead end portion. It's fairly vague and says, you know, to the adjoining landowners, essentially it's what it says. And I think we can agree that there's probably a frontage percentage calculation that goes on. And I think independently on each side, we have kind of come to some independent conclusions about. The Straight. There are two very straight, predictable portions of the alley that will vacate those owners right to the middle. And then for the remaining hammerhead dead end portion of frontage percentage calculation will go into play. But that's really anybody's guess. I think if this were to end up in a court as a quiet title action. Right. It could be a pizza pie. It could be straight lines. It would just be a percentage. I will note that following committee in June, we on invitation of Mr. Mr. Foster provided some settlement proposals and didn't hear anything on those for more than three months until Friday before this meeting I where a map was attached to a response to that that was outdated contained inaccurate information such as the new deeds. So we were just kept in the dark on this and it was kind of sprung on us to have to analyze this. Okay. We can't thank you. That's enough for that, because I see that there's shaking of heads. And also, I don't want to get into the into the private details of the transaction, but I think that's enough. And I think we're all going to need a vacation after this. Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Questions for Mr. Foster and Public Works. Mr. FOSTER. So there are currently at least three property owners and three encroachments sorry that that are sort of beneficial for access today. Is that correct? Only two properties that actually use the property for access. And there is at least that much agreement that if we what we know is that if the land is vacated, some owners might get something and other owners might get other things. And with those two that are currently benefiting from those encroachments, have agreements among themselves that they're going to continue working together to maintain the access that that they now currently have and sort of co utilize that? That is correct. It would. Be. The only thing that I will tweak there is that there is a third owner who doesn't use the alley. It's on the other side of their fence and they don't have any reason for this particular property. And my clients have been in communication with them to purchase that should the alley vacation come to fruition. So essentially the historic utilization to date will be maintained? That is correct. Okay. So to to to my colleagues, you know, that is actually more information than we have on any vacation that we've approved in the three years that I've sat on this seat. You know, we usually approve these things and then let the state do it. I mean, let let the lines sort of fall where they may. So what we actually have is actually general consensus that the current sort of multi means shared access that has been used to date is there. So my question to public works so well. And so yeah, so I'm concluding that, yes, we have more information to preserve current access and current encroachments that the city has already now deemed okay because they don't need the land provide. So but the current situation is that is in fact right of way. So if, if Mr. I mean a script the names if the if if if Garret were to you know, we have a lot of developments, particularly in my district where there's existing alleyways that are improved to some degree, usually not improved. I have seen developers replace entire alleys as part of their development since we have the right of way today. Could could Mr.. What's his name? Sorry, Mr. Gately. Could Mr. Gately come to the public works and say, look, I will I will construct I would like to access my property from the hour from from this right away . And I would do improvements to city standards from the from the entirety, from the existing street right away across this right of way to my home. And would that be acceptable to public works if they met all city standards for alley right away. I may need to call up one of our representatives from right away services to answer that. The city has no plans at this time to improve that alley as to whether or not we would accept a private citizen essentially making that offer. I will have Jim Barwick this evening. I'm Jim Barwick with Public Works right away services and I think the whole point of the vacation would be lost on that. I don't know how to get the other people to agree to that. Like she said before, we don't get a precedent like of vacating an alley and then an access easement. No, no, no, I wouldn't. I'm talking about if if if at the time when he came in and said, hey, I want to I want access, when the city thought he had alley access because there's a right away on a map and then they realize that actually it doesn't exist. If he had said, oh, I will do that, I will construct that alley for a public benefit. Would would the city would public works review that and consider that and maybe even approve it if it most likely? Yes, if you decided to. But from what I understand out there, the. The amount of construction would take to do that would be pretty immense. But yes, the answer is probably yes. So those are the two those are the answers I wanted, because what I've been doing, I mean, I sort of this is borderline commentary, but I think my colleagues should know this is that I've seen it both ways. And it occurred to me, too, that that, yeah, a proper alley could in fact be constructed there and in fact, reached out to Mr. Gidley and suggested that approach. And that approach has never been fulfilled. And so at some point, me personally and I can take this position because this is not a quasi judicial matter, I'm like , no, the standards are the standards. You meet them or you don't. And if you're in if you're not content with with doing that and satisfying what the city expects from us, Ali, improvements, then we're at an impasse and that the appropriate thing is to follow through with the vacation and let the let the castles fall where they may because we have deemed it if we vote that way, that it is no longer a piece of property that the city. Yes, I believe that's correct. Right. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa. Councilman. Real quick, sir. What's the. Well, if this vacation's approved, what's the status of that Excel equipment? As in and. I know. There is an easement for to maintain the Excel transformer so it will remain. Sale. Stay. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Menu. Councilman Sussman Okay. If I go to Councilwoman Ortega, of course. Councilman Ortega So I just want to clarify. If the. Mr. is that Garrett is provided more land than what he is entitled to, as was stated by David Foster. Does that still give him access? I didn't hear that answered clearly. To be able to get to the back part of his property off of that street. So if somebody could answer that question. It would not anything around. Mr.. GIDLEY As I guess, entitlements upon vacation is buried deep within that dead end of the alley, and he would still be isolated from the actual paved portion that the other neighbors are currently accessing. So in your mind, what solves that is a public easement that would grant access not only to him but to any of those property owners off that alley, regardless of which side of the the alley, it's you know, it abuts up to the different property owners on both the east and the west side. Yes. Either an easement or no vacation at all. And the city enforces the public right of way. Okay, Sara, the map I'm looking at shows that that is a concrete alley, not all the way. There is a section of a paved roadway extending from the north about some some feet below. It is unimproved after that. Okay. And so public works is not wanting to put a an easement on that alleyway once it becomes private. Is that what you're saying is what would set a precedent? Once it becomes private property, we would have no it would be private property. The city would have would have would not have a role in placing an access easement on it. Do we not have access easements for various utilities and other infrastructure on private property around the city? We do and I will. It looks like the city attorney's office can explain a little further. Hi, this is Brandt Eisen from the city attorney's office. If we wanted if there was going to be a public access easement, we would need to reserve that within the the vacation ordinance itself. Just like we're reserving the Excel easement, it would be through the entire alley, and it would necessitate that some of the neighbors that have improvements in the alley would need to remove those improvements. Is my understanding of to have full access, obviously. So it is essentially is like not vacating at all if you're doing it at one point, the portion that we were talking about previously there was going to be a public access easement was for two separate driveways at the top part at the hammerhead part of the alley. If we were to reserve an access easement through the entire alley, neighbors would need to remove parts of. I'm not sure what what dimensions they would need to remove, but they would need to remove improvements that are currently in the alley. So I can't tell from looking at this map if there is any access from what looks like the. I'm not sure if that's the north end on this map. It's the blue shaded part where Mr. Garrett's property is. Is there any access to Mr. Garrett's property from anywhere other than that current alley off the West Side or what looks like maybe the north side? Maybe it's a cell phone. I can't tell. I don't know. Yeah, I don't know the answer to that. Yeah. Jarrett's only vehicle access is off of Leeds Dale Drive. And when it was described a few moments ago that after the paving on the straight portions of the alley, that it's unimproved, it's unimproved and that it's not a paved alley. But the neighbors have put retaining walls. They've changed topography, they've expanded their backyards. They've planted trees in the alley. So it's improved in a personal property perspective, and that's what's blocking my clients access. Even though it's currently. Public right of way. Since it was platted and dedicated. 60 years ago. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. I have no further questions. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Sussman, you back up? Yes. And you can see how complicated this particular project has been. Sara, I have some questions and that's it's probably looking forward. The city wasn't paying attention when these encroachments happened. And it has caused this kind of, you know, worry between neighbors. And I'm wondering if the city has got a plan to using perhaps our wonderful GIS system to sort of study the cities to make sure that this sort of thing is not happening in many other places in the city. As of right now, our process for enforcement within the right of way is is to respond to issues as they come to our attention. That is certainly something that we could could review what that process looks like and throughout the city, what we might be able to do to improve how those things can come to our attention . But we are not currently planning to go out and do proactive encroachment patrols throughout every alley and piece of right of way in the city. But we can we do respond when the issues come to our attention as of in this case, from neighbors or other issues that come up. I certainly wouldn't expect you to do patrols, but I would think perhaps we could invent something with gas to take a look from a bird's eye view. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Councilman Espinosa. Yeah, David, I don't know if you have the answer to this, but maybe somebody else does. Do you know what the value of land is in this neighborhood? Because this is not an inexpensive place to live. I mean, we've had the property appraised. But do you know what the square footage of dirt is? I we. We have an appraisal that has that. I can't give it to you right off the top of my head. I mean, it's not it's not inexpensive. So it's safe to say, though, that pretty much everyone who borders that right away today stands the possibility of gaining land, except for the well, except for the actual applicant that filed for no money. They will be. Yeah. I mean, what, because it was dedicated at the time that it was platted. So some developer gave that land to the city 60 or 70 years ago. And the city is in the process potentially of giving it back, you know, to the subsequent owner, you know, 60 or 70 years later. Yeah, they're not paying for it. It goes back on the on the tax rolls as well. And it's taxed. I just I want to just make a clarification mostly for Councilwoman Ortega, because we haven't had a chance to talk about this. This property has been planted for 70 years. And for 40 of those years, Dr. Paul Stead, who's not here, actually took care of the city's property and he kept it as a community garden. And everybody had fruits and vegetables as a result of him maintaining the city's property because the city wasn't maintaining its own property. And and so. A. Garage was built with access off of this driveway. And my client's home was built before they purchased it with access off of a driveway. And the city approved those things using this as the access point to both of those improvements. So much to Councilwoman Testaments point. Yeah, I mean, there's some ownership that I think the city has to have in terms of how this circumstance has led itself to a half an hour or 45 minute conversation on a monday night, which is the first time I've experienced this kind of a conversation here and for many of you as well. But notwithstanding all of that, this is not. Necessary for even Mr. Gidley to have access, because he's had. Access off of lead steel. That home has had access off of lease sales since 1960 when the home was built. And that is and nobody is entitled to more than one point of access. It should be noted as a clarification that this issue arose to a site inspection because Mr. Gidley had sought a permit to build a new garage off of leads. Dale which is what resulted in the inspector coming out and noticing that there was this issue of the alley because the inspector thought. That the garage was supposed to be built off an alley that doesn't exist. That's how this whole thing started, because Mr. Gidley was building an improvement to his garage off of Lisa Dale. And that's the history. So one question to Mr. Diddley's attorney as well, because, you know, I tried to remedy that very situation, but that that entire history is very clear to me. And so but so too, to that point ish, Mr. Gidley might stand the possibility of getting existing right of way if if a vacation was approved by this council, Mr. . Gidley might stand to get some land as part of the subsequent parceling out of that former right of way, you know, which would eventually essentially expand the land area of his property, which would be available for backyard or development or other sort of personal use. What that he doesn't have or would never have with Right of Way. Is that true or not? That's absolutely correct. And Garrett would happily improve upon whatever land, whatever title vests in his name after vacation. But windfalls of land and cash have always been secondary tertiary to Mr. Hadley's primary concern here, which is safe access through the Ashley Weed Stables as a state highway, frequent accidents outside of his driveway. If you know the intersection of Alameda and leads Dale it's a very busy, very congested area. The driveway to the southeast of Garrett was blocked up and a wall was created because it was unsafe. And the neighbors moved their access over to the street, to the east. Not recalling what that street is, but it's primarily been an issue of access, and we've reiterated that throughout this entire process when I've been on board for the past year. Garrett For the years before that, that safe access through the alley. As the other neighbors are also able to enjoy has been Mr.. Gately, as you understand that that entire time, if you've been on board for one year, Mr. Gidley has had for that entire time the ability to go to right away with the drawings showing a proper alley being constructed by him from the road to the north all the way across. Relocating the transformer. Getting through those approvals all the way to his house. Not saying it, it would be a done deal because granted that transformers in the way. So there's a whole lot of work that could have been incurred occurring over this last year in good faith towards getting to a right of a proper alley that meets city standards the way any other developer would do, and that has not occurred. Do you understand that? That has always been an option? We are. And to my understanding, when Garrett approached the city several years ago, he was essentially told that it wasn't possible because of the improvements. It's a vicious chicken or the egg situation where the we are arguing for the legal status of the alley. The whites and the other neighbors are saying it's some sort of current physical use of the alley. So we we attempted that and we ran into serious. And there are signals from the city. We recognize that there is a legitimate hurdle with the transformer that exists in the right of way. And there is no there is. Even if we were to grant an easement, there is no guarantee that he would ever be able to access his property unless, you know, without some gerrymandering of the of that easement or some deference by Xcel, you know, this this was not we don't get to this point without serious consideration of the ramifications. And there have always been a sort of more proper channel in a more appropriate way to to address this concern. And and somehow we ended up in this situation where we have two attorneys sort of arguing both sides of of this before us. And that's actually none of this is really of a concern to at least me as a member of council on whether a vacation is appropriate or not. But thank. You. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. Councilman Flynn. Thanks, Mr. President. I really hate to. Reward an encroachment onto public property that has occurred over a significant amount of time. But it is apparent that the city has played a role in this as well. And I think I want to suggest a course of action for us, and that would be. To. To publish this on first reading and sort of pull the grenade pin on it. And the clock is now ticking. This has been hanging fire for such a long time. I think if we put this on first reading and then we hold it over for final and we can make a decision then based on whether the neighbors can come up with some sort of an agreement among themselves. I feel sort of like the the French cleric are no Amalric at the massacre of this gay and say let's just. Kill the alley and. Let the owners sort it out. So I advocate that we take a vote on this and move it on to publication. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. And I'll just jump on that and say that I am not at all comfortable with this yet. Still, after multiple committee meetings and tonight. But I completely agree with you that we should publish this because this is first reading, move it on and then we will be back. For some second Councilman Flynn's motion. So, well, that's the motion that's already on the floor. Conveniently so. Madam Secretary, Raquel Sussman. Hi, Black. I'm Brooks Espinosa. Flynn Gilmore. Herndon Cashman. Canete Lopez. New Ortega. Mr. President. I am secretary. Please close the voting. Announce the results. 12 days, 112 hours one day. Council Bill 394 has been ordered published. Now, Councilwoman Sussman, do you have a motion to postpone? Second, final reading. Councilman Flynn and Espinosa. And I'm ahead of you here. I move that final consideration of Council Bill 18 dash 0394 be postponed to Monday, September 10th, 2018. That's two weeks from today. It has been moved and seconded. Are there any questions or comments just about the postponement? Seeing none. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Susman Hi. Black Eye Brooks. Espinosa Hi, Flynn. I. Gillmor i Herndon I Cashman can eat. Lopez I knew Ortega I. Mr. President, I'm secretary. Please. Because voting in those results. 3939 as final consideration of Council Bill 394 will be Monday, September 10th. All right. Moving on, Madam Secretary, are you pleased with the next item on our screen and Councilman Flynn? Go ahead with your questions on Council Bill 863.