A bill for an ordinance vacating a portion of right-of-way at 2329 Eliot Street, without reservations. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Vacates portions of the alley north, east, and south of the carriage lot with the address 2329 North Eliot Street in Council District 1. The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 6-22-15. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 5-21-15.
What what you're being asked to do is to vacate the alley. That that is. To the east of the carriage lot and to the west. Of that, we will continue to remain in place. It's the alley to the west of this property. That that will continue to run north. So it's one half block east of Federal Boulevard, and the two alleys that run east west will remain, as a matter of fact. This development incorporates more land going towards the alley so that the traffic can get in and out of the proposed development, which is on a slope, by the way. So looking at the legal description of of this proposal, there is alley surrounding the carriage long wreck on all four sides. So a three. Sides. On all four actually. That's what this vacation is doing. It is vacating that portion of the alley that is to the east of the carriage lot and west of 2329 Eliot. Okay. So if there is in fact an alley that is on the east side and I've driven through this property in the front, I have not driven in the back. I've looked at the city's maps and didn't realize there was an East. So given that there are alleys on all four sides, wouldn't it make sense that the the vacation would be divvied up among all the adjacent property owners, as opposed to just the two properties that are to the east of the alley? The one of the ground rules in the statute that I described earlier that makes it very formulaic in terms of how the property vest. One provision of that statute says if the adjacency to the property being vacated is owned by the public, it doesn't vest in adjacent public property. It only vests in adjacent private property. And as I'm looking at the diagram that Mr. Hernandez was just referring to, the only adjacent private property is the Eliot steep street property. And so by operation of state law, that's who the vacated right of way it goes to is where there's contiguous adjacent private property. And that's who the applicant was for for this vacation to begin with. But you could argue that there's contiguity across the street on the west side and across the street, the alley on both north and and south of the carriage lot. So the adjacency, if it's bordered by four alleys. Like many of these carriage lots are. I'm not understanding how the. Priority should go to. The property owner on the east side as opposed to a property owner on the north or south or across the alley on the west side. The diagram submitted with the application shows an unvaccinated alley on the West Side, so the vacated area doesn't touch any private property on the West Side. There's still going to be a city alley on the west side of the carriage lot. That's that's why there's no contiguity on that side and there's no vesting across that alley to the other properties to the west. The benefited property is going to be the property on Elliott Street. Okay. All right. Um, so I guess we're having to vote on this, and that's answered my question, so I'm done. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Rob. This is a total aside. I just wanted Councilman Brown to know that the attorney for Alfred Parker in court later shot a Denver Post editor. I thought you'd enjoy that tidbit of history. That's certainly a reason to historically designate the Property Bureau. Well, all right. Amy. All right. Back to the 356. Any other comment or question? Two, three, five six is on the floor for final consideration. Do pass. Seen none. Madam Secretary, roll call. To. Brown. Hi. Fats. I. Can eat layman. I'm going to pass. Lopez. Pass. Montero I Nevitt I Ortega no grub no shepherd i susman. I. Brooks seven I carnage. I've seen. Lehman. Brothers. No. Lopez. No. No. Sorry. It's so funny. Lopez. Lopez. Rocky. Thank you. No. No. Okay. Uh, Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close the body. Announced results. Eight eyes, four knees, one abstention. Eight eyes, four days one abstention. 356 has been placed on final consideration and does pass. All right. The next one, Madam Secretary, I believe, was 400 councilwoman farts. What would you like for us to do with this? Put it on the floor for a vote. Certainly. Councilwoman Shepard, could you please have 400 be placed on final consideration and do pass? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Council Bill 400 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass. Has been moved and second make comments. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. Yet another six month extension for photo red light program. I wish to be consistent and continue voting no, but I want to add a couple little factors. I noticed that the Denver Post editorial staff was suggesting that maybe cities might want to consider a modification of this program, and it certainly would please me if we went in that direction so that when it comes up, I'm hoping the new council will look more favorably at some modifications. Secondly, you might have noticed that there was a gentleman who's going after Sheraton on all photo enforcement. Guess what? He's my constituent. I plan to vote. No. Thank you. Councilwoman fights Councilman Ken each. Thank you, Mr. President. I couldn't resist the urge to just end on a somewhat agreeing note with my colleague, Councilwoman Fox, because she was not here last week, one of her probably only four years. But when I when I called this bill out just for comment, I will be voting for it today. But I wanted to assure you, councilwoman fights that it will be the last and only time I vote for such a contract extension unless there are significant changes. And so last week I outlined all those changes. I won't bore everyone again. But it involves more focus on deterrence and education and information and less on, you know, surprise catches. So with that, I will be voting for it tonight. But but it's my my last time. And we need a really very new approach, new structure. And there's actually new technology where you can see the speed you're going when you go by the camera. We should be doing all of that very differently the next time around. So thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman. All right. You know, the comment on 400, which is on the floor for final consideration and do pass to none. Madam Secretary, Oracle. Fox No Carnage. Layman Lopez AI Montero. Nevitt AI Ortega. Rob Shepherd. Susman. Brooks Brown. Hi, Mr. President. Hi, Madam Secretary. Please close the voting, announce the results. 12 one. Nay 12. As one nay accountable. 400 has been placed on final consideration and does pass next. When we have Madam Secretary, I believe it's 371 called out by Councilwoman Ortega. What would you like for us to do with this? I would like a vote, please. Certainly. Councilwoman Shepherd, could you please have 371 placed on the floor for final consideration and do pass? I move that Council Bill 375 series of 20. 1571. I'm sorry 371 series of 2015 be placed on final consideration and do pass. It has been moved and seconded. Comments. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I made most of my comments last week when this bill was on first reading. I do not believe that we should be making this change. I do. I did support the amendment to our rules that would make it stronger, but I just think that Council should not be abdicating any of its authority to take a second and more thorough look at some of the legislation that comes through here, particularly contracts which we currently review by two readings by ordinance. And this would change it to a one reading by contract. The amendment the councilwoman brought forward to our rules would basically allow us to have any one member of council hold up a particular contract that they have questions or concerns about or possibly send it to committee. I think that is good, but I just don't think that council should be making this change when what we're talking about is a $39,000 cost savings in our $2 billion budget in eight days in our contracting process. And our our days are pretty prescriptive. And if we delay contracts by a week, we're really not saving a week. And so I just don't think that this particular bill makes sense. I do appreciate the work that's been done by the city clerk's office who brought this forward. I know it's been part of some discussions they've had with the city attorney's office in trying to look at where some condensing, if you will, of the contracting process can take place. But I think where it would make a huge difference is to have consistency and clearly defined steps that people in the agencies have to follow that have to do these contracts. And I think that's something that's continuing to be worked on. And I just know that from having been involved in one of the city agencies where there weren't clear guidelines and steps for me to follow when I had to deal with contracts. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I also think, as I shared last week, a little bit longer, a little bit more of a reason why I did not support this. It had nothing to do with the Kirkland Kirkland record. I didn't do it. My my colleague introducing me and bringing it forward. I just I do not I absolutely think that this weakens the legislative branch of government. I think that it gives us that extra opportunity, that extra week provides for us to have more insight, to ask more questions, have staff get back to us without having to pull it out with no facts and just whims, just on a whim. That this may smell bad. I think that extra week gives us the opportunity investigate, which is another chartered council power that nobody really uses to investigate investigatory power. And I think that's the one thing in addition to our our power on on contracts, where we have that check and balance, a much needed check and balance. Again, there is this contracting process in the city, regardless of the department is not perfect. There is. SHENON There have been shenanigans that taken place. We passed it on. We have a study that proves it. And on the other end of it are minority and women owned businesses, folks. It is a hard ballpark to play in without that. And the buck stops with the council. That's why they took it on. That's why they gave themselves that power in the eighties. It is a value that this city holds. And I don't want to let one bit of it slip, but I'm voting no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Lopez. Any other comments? 371 on final consideration and do pass. Si none. Madam Secretary. Roll call. Ortega. No, Rob. I shepherd as Susman. Brookes I. Brown Hi, Fats. No can eat lemon. Lopez? No. Monteiro. No, never. Hi. Shepherd. No, Mr. President. Hi. Catwoman Shepherd. Oh. My little button went away. It went away. And now I'm saying to you, can you bring that in? Councilman Shepard was a no. I'm sorry. What is your vote? She was a. I'm a no, thank you. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please close the door. Only announce the results. Eight eyes 598959. 371 have been placed on final consideration and does. Pass. All right. I believe we have one more 512 court out by council and thoughts. What would you like for us to do with this? I'd like to make a comment. Please go right ahead. This is an ordinance dealing with the health insurance for employees. And one of the points that I just want to raise to put on the record, it deals with allowing us to go to high deductible health plans and an accompanying health savings account contribution. Federal law, however, prohibits some individuals from being able to have a health savings account. And so I have asked the committee and we've had a little subcommittee meeting there, something in progress to try to be sure that all employees are treated as equally as possible given that federal prohibition. So there will be a subsequent ordinance coming at a later time as my hope and just be aware for that. But it's the idea to have equity among employees. Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. All right, Madam Secretary, quickly. Point of order. At least myself and one other councilperson heard this bill referred to as 512. Are we talking about four for 13? It was for 12, Constable. Four. Did I get the number? It's Council bill for 12. That you're speaking to. Thank you. Okay. My apologies if I said the wrong council, Bill. All right. Now, Secretary, that was it correct? Ever get out of here? Oh, okay. So it seems like the system we lost our no votes on 371. So for the council members that voted no on 371 for the for the records for the minutes was Councilwoman Sheppard. Councilman Lopez. Catwoman can eat. No, no. Ortega Oh, I'm sorry. Councilman Ortega. Montero and councilman fights those. Those are our five, Madam Secretary. Thank you. You're good. All right. Now, since that is. That is done. Our other bills are introduction of order published. And we are ready for the block votes council approval. Councilman Shepard, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption and a block, please? Thank you, Mr. President. I move that resolutions for 34. For 36 or 37 for 39 for 68 469 for 91 for 90 to all series of 2015 be placed on final. Consider it or be adopted. Excuse me. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Seen no comments. Madam Secretary, roll call.