Approves an increase in sanitary sewer and storm water charges beginning 7-1-16. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) The Committee approved filing this bill by at its meeting on 5-4-16.
So, Councilman, you can question Councilman Flint for a vote. Yes. All right. So I thought. All right, so, Councilman Clark, will you make the motions for us today? Happy to. Mr. President. First thing we need to do, we need to have 306 ordered published. Thank you, Mr. President. Four, move that council, bill. Three six we ordered published. It has been moved and second it. And Councilman Ortega, I know you have in the script for postponement, we first have to vote on the publication descriptor. Kind of wrong the way it's written. So should three or six pass on publication? Then I'll come to you for the postponement. But the Kersey public hearing. Feel free to offer that when you come to your comments. You. All right. First one in the queue. That's Councilman New. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm sorry. I guess so many questions. We really didn't have much time in our in the committee for a lot of discussion. And so I do have a lot of questions, I think, for wastewater. Is it Bruce Burdick? You pronounce your last name correctly, I hope, which I probably did not. Hi. It's Bruce Janek, H.R. and Ike Wastewater. Right, my colleagues. There are three documents that I put on the. On your desk. Each one. There's. There's the consulting report that this is. I saw this for the first time over the weekend. It's not quite completed, but there's a map on page 12. There's three maps I'm going to ask my questions to you may help you as you look for. So page 12 and the concern report is the map of the 2014 master plan. And I apologize to the public. We'll post all these maps so you can have the available questions. And so says 2014 storm drainage masterplan. The the second is is is a water quality map you'll see this is they're laying it out says overall water quality study basin scoring. And the last is, is the map that George Delaney's been using for us in our briefing, which is the, the $383 million plan that we have going forward for these fires tonight. So you got those three and it'll help you figure those questions. I was when I was looking through the consultant report this weekend, I had no idea. I didn't get quite oriented to how complex this project is and this whole master plan is. Now, I learned that this plan is $1.5 billion, the entire plan for the master plan. So it's quite impressive and I'm not surprised. I've been in large cities where these infrastructure projects are are coming right to the forefront all the time. It's quite, very, very expensive. So one question I have is about the the map on this page. Well, that has the master plan priorities and the scoring that was developed by the consulting firm. And I was really impressed by the methodology and the way they scored things. Could you talk a little bit about this map and then also the map for the $383 million? How did it translate? How did the scoring and the consulting report, even though it's not quite finished, how did it translate to the 383 plan? Sure. Let me I'll try my best, councilman. Thank you. So the storm metrics map there, 67 based on citywide. And we we always ask ourselves, where is the highest priority, where should we spend this money? And so we thought if we do this in an objective way. And so we developed these criteria where we say, well, where's the flooding? Where is the storm the most undersized? And then we came up with other those were kind of the technical criteria. Then we came up with some more social criteria, like social justice. We prioritize residential versus commercial and industrial, and we kind of put that all together in a very metrics based system. And it scored these 67 basins and we created this heat map. And as you can see, the red is kind of the highest priority basins. And lo and behold, it's the oldest part of town, which in common sense, it makes it makes the most sense. And you see some of the lesser priority are those newer areas like Lowry Lake Stapleton, where we've seen big storms hit those areas recently. And we really don't have the complaints in those areas. If you do have if you do flood, please call us. We're happy to document these, but that's kind of how it came about to answer the second part of your question. So that's looking at the whole city at 40,000 feet. Now we have a bucket of money and we developed this six year plan and we say, well, where can we start to spend these this bucket of money? We just can't spend it all in one place. We separate in a different buckets, but we have these large projects which have a need. There you go. I'll go to that one. And so we said, well, we're going to we're going to kind of split this up and we're going to prioritize these major outfalls where there's the greatest need. And so you see, there's a correlation between the red basins, the highest priority basins that you saw on the previous map versus this is our six year plan with the proposed rate increase. So if that answers your question, I think they correlate nicely. One kind of objective and then this one is the actual plan. Implement implementable plan with the rate increase. In parts of the $383 million plan. There are areas outside this red area. There will be projects that will be needed. And I don't disagree with as a lot of stream storm drains, we've got to fix these problems and protect our citizens and our homes. So how did how did that translate to to the the 383? There are some areas that are really not included in the 383 that are in the red, but not most of it. So how how did you determine those areas that are outside of the red high priority area? Right. So, you know, there's there's these critical programs. There's these annual programs that we want to do that help people that help these localized flooding areas. And that's our that's our general storm. And so that's a citywide program, about $25 million over six years. There's a water quality program about the same amount. Then you see the red. Those are the focus basins. And that was the one you're talking about that has the kind of the most money, the biggest bucket. And then the blue lines you see on the map there, those are our focus waterways because our waterways, they have a need as well. A lot of them are undersized. Then they also have some water quality problems as well. So it's professional engineers and using sonar determine those is the high priority areas that need to be fixed for sure. We tried to divvy it up kind of fairly based upon this judgment, but it's also very objective with the metrics. There's 383 million. It's going to be it's about one fifth of the or maybe a little bit more, 30% of the 1.5 billion. Our plan and this is going to be six years. Is there a phase two that's going to happen in the six years after this one that we'll be able to use? Some of the the $383 million in fees will still continue, you know, in year seven. So unless they're revealed, that money will still be there. Is there is part of this consulting report that's going to be completed. Is it going to identify the phase two so that the public will know what areas are going to come next for for assistance? I think the metrics is a tool, right. It's it's going to identify those priority basins. And we feel good that those priority basins are kind of there pretty good. The second part of this metrics is going to identify specific projects within each basin, because there's a chance that there may be a high priority project in a low priority basin that makes sense or vice versa. There of high priority basin doesn't mean we should just go build every single project in that basin, the red basin, so to speak, and then we'll move on to the orange ones and then the yellow ones. There's a prioritization within that prioritization, if that makes sense. So, you know, so the 1.5 $383 million takes a big bite out of the apple. But there definitely there are still be needs after the six years. Okay. Going through the water quality map, then, how does that relate to the storm drainage map? Because there are some areas that are considered high priority to storm drainage, but really low priorities in the water quality. How does that fit together? Because 21 million of the 383 million is for water quality. I'm sorry. I was messing with the computer. I heard water quality and prioritization. How does that fit with the storm drainage? Some areas in the storm drainage your high priority and and really are lower priority for the water quality as well. I'm trying to figure out how that fits together. Right. So so water quality is kind of its own little entity. Water Quality Projects is a program that we want to really improve because there's mandates by the EPA, by the CDP to clean the water before it enters our waterways. Right now, there's pollutant levels that are, quote unquote, too high. And we want to we want to take care of that. So water quality ran its own metrics based upon their own criteria. And to me, when you look at the water quality map, you're looking at the kind of the dirtiest basins. And it's really that that for urban jewel, it's that first half inch of rain. It's those oils, it's the sand. It's everything that washes into the into the river. It's not necessarily the two or three feet of flooding that you would see in a major storm. So water quality has its own, quote unquote, bucket in our six year sip at that $25 million range or so. And the water quality program is it's a standalone program, but there's kind of a synergy between water quality and storm because you can build projects together. So it's separate, but yet it's it's very in line with Lake Montclair. That basin in the middle is a high priority basin, just like it is for storm. But they use different metrics, different criteria. Okay. Thank you. The I'll get a lot of questions about the Park Hill and its relationship to the I-70 storm drainage project. So can you can you describe and explain whether apply it to parking areas related to I-70, drainage or not? And I'll probably ask my colleagues to answer that. Um, the. Since I'm here. I'm Leslie Thomas. I'm their city engineer in public works. Thank you for that offer. To clarify, the drainage project that we're doing here is solving a major drainage issue that we have within the city. It is not happening because of I-70. There are two separate things happen to be in the same place. Very confusing. But the drainage that we're doing here is to solve the drainage problems in the city and county of Denver. I understand that the budget total of 206 million for the project of Park Hill really contains 54 million for the A70 drainage. So it's really 152 million for a plant market, is that correct or. Is that. Right? Most spring in these numbers. You're springing these numbers on me here. If you really want to talk numbers, Jamie can come up and really clarify for us. I think one of the main things that I want to make council aware of is that with the AIGA, we see that they are providing us contributing to our project to leverage those dollars. We are there's no dollars going to see that. Would would you be doing these drainage projects, whether our services construct constructed or not? Yes, sir, we would be. Okay. So they're high priority, just like the maps? Yes. Okay. The other issue is the golf course, you know, and being a golfer is really torn between this, I hate to say a big retention pond, bill, but also I see an opportunity to improve that golf course which it needs. So I have my buddies. Magoffin Buddies, we, we don't play over there much, but we would love to see that golf course improved, especially the, the views of the city that are just spectacular from that golf course is a city considering an arrangement with a golf professional design firm like Nicklaus or any of them to to really try to if you're going to if you go to tear up the golf course with the drainage, are we going to put it back into a much more higher quality golf course? Yes, we will be doing a RFP reviews, that type of thing for a design builder that would include a golf course designer and a contractor that specializes in doing that type of work. So we're excited to be able to put it back in even a better condition than we have it now. Right now, I think it'd be a real asset for the city. We feel a little rushed on on these fees coming forward, you know, and I do, especially maybe my other colleagues know, but maybe I just didn't what is oriented to the whole project as much as I should have, and maybe it's part of my fault. But is there a sense of urgency about getting these fees increased tonight? Is it have a relationship to the idea with deadlines that are really urging us to come forward and do this tonight? Yes, we have an opportunity to leverage our dollars now with the seed dollars. And part of that idea, often when people make contributions to your project, they have things they would like to have in return. And so to have the the timing work out is a benefit to to their project as well as to our city. So the timeline is important to us to allow us to get going on our project and serve the citizens of Denver as well as leverage what's happening in our community. Was there a particular reason why these fees, at least for last year, any piece of the IJA not approved last year when the idea was approved. At that time we were working with budget and management and our rate consultant ref. Tell us still to really understand what the needs of the Enterprise Fund were, it's a utility and so that is a rate based enterprise. And so we needed to understand what was needed to do that business and we were still in that process. And the outcome of that study in that conversation is what we bring to you today. I just do a survey with my district in residence and we had about 500 responses and and we asked a couple of questions. Do they support the the plan? And and 43% said yes and 20% said no. But what was surprising to me is 33% said they don't know, they're not sure they need more information. So I'm sort of worried about whether the general public understands the complexity of this whole project, which and the need and we've got to do this restructure projects. There's no question in my mind about that. But understanding all the relationships and complexities of that, a sort of took that away. I also had a question about Globeville. I misstated and said that there is a hundred year plan with or not, but it could be a potential and they're going to do a study. And I think that everybody that the responses I had on March 11 and the various supportive mitigation plan, which I believe you said the city would help support if there is a problem with that area. Yes. Right. In the last I asked about voter approval on this, you know, this is 383 million. And I know I'm not going to talk about funding source was fees or taxes or whatever. It's all coming out of the taxpayer's pocket. So the ten year, you know, better bond issue is 550 million and the one that's coming up hopefully in 2018, me I hear it can be that high, maybe 350 million. So it's quite, you know, sort of surprising to a lot of my residents got a lot of comments about, wow, you know, the largest increase that wastewater has ever had was 50 million and now it's 383 million. And so they were just confused about how how how that came about was so suddenly. So I think it just goes along with that need for more information. So I really got that question about whether would. Problems with it, cause if we did defer this to for voter approval in November. I'm going to turn to the makers and the lawyers. I'm George Delaney, chief operating officer for Denver Public Works. As you know, the wastewater fund's an enterprise. It's really a utility. And as a utility, it is funded through fees and fees under TABOR, as an enterprise, recognized enterprise are not required for a vote of the people. We have to keep in mind and Leslie mentioned this is a utility. Utilities have to cover their costs. And you're we're asking you today to determine what those costs are going to be, because we're asking for a certain level of investment in capital and for the reasons we're giving you. But once you determine what that level of service is, then the utility has to raise the dollars that it needs to provide that service, whether it's Denver Water, CenturyLink, Comcast, Verizon, they're all utilities. And you don't vote on utility increases because you vote on the level of service you want from that utility, and then that utility does the cost accordingly. So because and I think that was recognized in the TABOR Amendment that you don't have to vote on fees because fees cover the cost. They're not for anything else other than the purpose for which they're intended. So there's probably this question wouldn't really would come up if I guess if the public knew more about the project in itself. That's what I'm taking away from my survey is this the general public needs to know a lot more about the about the project and how complex it is and in the future, too. To me, this is about the future of Denver. You know, this is enormous cost, 1.5 billion in the future. But we've got to do it from a from a quality infrastructure point of view where we're going to be a great city. One thing I would say to that point, and granted, this is a citywide impact fee, but for the Platt, the Park Hill project, Jen's just telling me we had over 90 public meetings over the course of the last several months to discuss this project to find that interesting funding. Mr. Delaney. Mr. Delaney, I would ask that you please address to the accounts and to the members in the audience, if we could please. We have a lot of council members in the queue that want to ask questions, so if we could please allow that to happen anyway. So but that those meetings were done in the area that's impacted by this. So perhaps, you know, maybe, you know, in your area or in the southwest Denver where they're not necessarily impacted, they may not have had the opportunity to go to those meetings. The meetings were held and public outreach in a good faith effort to at least advise the people who are going to directly be impacted by that project, that they be made aware of it. I was just going to mention the birds and mining meetings included a lot of different things. So we looked at different strategies, including house chats, where we would meet around dinner tables, your your main public meeting that you all are familiar with, with open houses we did where, you know, we had stakeholder meetings. So it's a vast kind of tactic of that. We took that trying to get to each and every individual. We also have media tools like our website. We have updates to the public on a weekly basis that sign up to the stickler. So it's not just your standard public meeting, but we really try to get out to the churches, to schools. We sent home information and packet. So we really did a. True effort to try to share as much information as we possibly could. With the. Could you just say your name for the record, please? I'm sorry. I'm Jennifer Hillhouse with Public Works. Thank you, Jeff. I don't doubt that at all, but I think we need to do more do a better job somehow, because just I just looked at that consulting report and I was so impressed. But then it didn't conclude, you know, here's a consult report that should have been a great instrument to tell the future of Denver in terms of infrastructure improvement. And it just didn't do the job. And so that makes you wonder, you know, how can we improve these tonight when we all of a sudden the recommendations are not quite there or there's questions about it, but there's no question we need to improve our infrastructure. And so I really appreciate Georgia's orientation. I appreciate all the work that Leslie has been done with me and to talk to me, to explain stuff. But but I hope we'll do a better job with educating the public. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. George, not a question, just a comment inadvertently touched on something that I've been trying to put into words when he said in response to councilman knew that with regard to the fact that this is a utility and we set fees for service, that once we determine the level of service we wish to provide , then we set the fees. My concern about this is that we're going about it backwards cart before horse and that we're setting the fees before we know exactly the kind of service we're going to provide. I have a great deal of concern about what's been added to this post. Ortega and I do support doing the scope that is in the seed Ortega and I wish that the administration would give us a fee structure that would allow us to proceed with complying with the iwga and build those elements and give us the time to do some more preliminary engineering and some better cost estimating. On this, I have a feeling that we're opening up a box of unintended costs that can haunt us in the future. I know I spent years covering the CIA construction. I spent years covering our treaties fast tracks project. So I know what can happen when with cost overruns, even when you do a lot of preliminary planning. We have on on the slide that was presented at the last Infrastructure Committee. There's a paragraph that really struck struck fear in me right now. This is from the presentation. Right now we are moving into the preliminary design phase for the plans for Park Hill projects. Those are the ones beyond the site Ortega. And as we do, we will refine the scope of each project and assign budgets at a project and program level. I can't support the totality of these fees, which increases over five years by 66%. The annual bill that homeowners will get, that property owners will get for storm runoff, just for storm runoff, 66%. I can't support opening up the wallet and giving that 66% without knowing exactly what we're going to be building other than what was promised in the Senate. So, Mr. President, I would really I would like a vote on this because I can't vote yes for fees that I don't know what we'll be building with them. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. So it is it's on the floor. So we will see as we get through all council members. Councilman Ortega, you're up next. Thank you. Before I put the motion on the floor, I also have some questions. I first want to start by thanking city staff and folks from urban drainage who have met with me on multiple occasions to address many questions that I've had about this project. And for me, some of them go back to when we were asked to approve the idea for, you know, the the wastewater, the stormwater improvements that we're talking about doing that were going to be coupled with the I-70 project. My first question is, I would ask, I think, George, if you could come forward. What is the largest bond that we've ever done using wastewater feeds, and were they only storm fees or were they also sewer fees? We we've done two bond issues for the storm. The first one was a $30 million bond issue that was done back, I believe it was in 2006. We then in 2011 refinanced that 30 million and added another 20 million to it. So we've had a $30 million issue, a $20 million issue, all so total of $50 million. Our annual debt service is $4.3 million to pay off that $50 million. It was all four storm projects. But one of the uniqueness, unique things about the Wastewater Enterprise Fund is that even though we are keeping storm dollars separate from sanitary dollars, when you do a revenue bond for the Enterprise Fund, you can cross pledged revenues. So the purpose of the bond was for storm. The money was spent on storm projects. But if Storm did not have the resources for some reason to make that debt payment, which they have sanitary, could backfill that amount of money under the enterprise, under our statutes. Correct me if I'm wrong about the storm fees actually come from the impervious surface charges that go to each property that has either rooftops flat work that does not absorb water. And and so each property owner is paid in that based on that square footage. So help me understand how we can significantly increase the fees when their square footage does not change. Well, what we try to do on the end to balance some of that concern, and you're right, is Storm Bill comes to you annually and the storm bill is based upon your impervious surface on your lot, which means basically the concrete, the roof, the patio, everything that where the water cannot be absorbed. What we do is we look at the ratio of your impervious surface to your total surface, and then we charge you a rate based upon that ratio. So the, the lower your ratio is less. In other words, the less impervious surface you have compared to your total lot, the rate that you pay is reduced because it's a it's a ratio based rate. And that's our intent. The purpose for that is to say if there's something you can do differently, if you can if you want to put in a third driveway, you can do it, but you're going to pay for it. If you want to take out one of your driveways and put it in something else that the zoning might allow. You can do that to or reduce the size of your patio, etc.. So in other words, there is there is a recognition of your ability to adjust your bill by reducing your impervious surface. So the data that we've received on the rate increases that each property would receive looks like that was equalized. So can you clarify that? Sure. It was. What we did was we took the average lot size in the city of Denver's 7500 square feet, the average impervious surface in the city of Denver, based upon that average lot size is 25, I believe it's either 22, 50 or 2500 square feet. And so the average bill that you see that's going to go up a dollar a month for a storm bill 20, 20 $12 a year is based upon that ratio of about one third impervious surface to to tooth to the whole the host lot size. And that's an average across the city of Denver. Okay. Let me go into my next couple of questions. Jessica, you want to add something to this? Jessica Brody, Denver City Attorney's Office. I just wanted to clarify, in chapter 56, you see rate tables that break down for impervious surface area and different sized properties. What your actual charge is going to be and if you look at the ordinance that's before you, it updates those rate tables so that you can see exactly how that would play out for a different property sizes. Thank you. I want to go on and ask a question about the Army Corps study that is being done that ties into a look at the river corridor. And I'm not sure who wants to answer this question, but it's my understanding we're talking about $18 million for the entire study. Is that the entire corridor that goes from Chatfield all the way to Weld County? Peter Bart along with Denver Public Works. I'm the project director for the Army Corps Study. The Army Corps study is a $3 million feasibility study. Denver is paid for half of that study. The Army Corps of Engineers has paid for the rest, and Denver has several partners in our $1.5 million. So the study that we have going today is a one point or is a $3 million study of which the city has paid 1.5 million, along with sharing some of that cost with its partners. How much of that have we already provided? We've provided all of it in a contract. Okay. So where does the $10 million come from that we're going to put into it that sort of helps complete that study? The. Upon completion of the feasibility study. It's a planning level study. There will be, you know, at some point in the near future the need to do preliminary design on the projects that are selected as a result of the study. So the 10 million, 10.5 million that is in the current rate structure proposal is the seed money to begin that process. Okay. And why is it so expensive? Why are we talking about $18 million that needs to be spent if we're going from. Basically Littleton, all the way to Weld County. How come Denver's having to pay half of that? It's half of the river corridor, actually, in Denver County that stretches the respect. I don't know where $18 million came from. But the Army Corps study is like in the end, the projects are three major go to Major Gulch is Harvard Gulch and we're Gulch along with half of the South Platte River from Sixth Avenue to 58th Avenue. So several miles of that in Denver. I don't know how much those projects will cost. They will they'll be quite expensive in the end. And that's why we're doing it with the Army Corps. But the design costs on that will be a substantial amount of money. So is Littleton in Weld County and Adams County contributing to this entire study that's being done since it's from basically one end of almost the range to the other? I, I think there's a little bit of confusion. Let me let me ask Paul. With the urban drainage and flood control district to go ahead and talk about the fad study. So there's a flood study that's being done. The Army Corps study is a set of improvements to the river. So there are a couple of things. It causes things to get very confused. A time where it's fall here. What people. Yeah. And please note that our study is in Denver. Okay. So the amount in Denver is the $3 million is what you're talking about. Three. And I'm the project that we're doing with this. The study costs $3 million. Okay. You want to come up and add to this? Paul Heineman, executive director of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The core study is just in Denver. The other study that was spoken of is a floodplain study that goes all the way from Chatfield up to Brighton and into Weld County. And that's one that urban drainage is administering. And the other communities do have money in that study. The Corps does not. It's too there's a lot of different flood models that have been done over the years, and that study just puts them all is putting them all together. But that there are two separate studies or. So let me make in Denver just correctly. Yes. So we've got the Army Corps study that's going forward and then urban drainage. So where is the coordination happening? So that, for example, as we have seen developers that are trying to develop in the Globeville neighborhood. Correct. They're being told they've got to build four foot foundations in the area that is on the west side of the river. And in one case, the Army Corps data was showing the water flows at a different rate than what the urban drainage flows are showing. And I'm not sure which of those are actually being used by our CPD agency to now mandate that people wanting to build in Globeville. And keep in mind, we've had a little investment in these neighborhoods. So when you have somebody that actually wants to invest in the neighborhood, not on the Brighton corridor, not in Reno, but in Globeville. Right. You know, we're making it cost prohibitive. And so I'm not sure which of those two studies and you can't speak to this because you're not from our public works department. But, you know, it's it's confusing because we've got two different things going on at the same time and the city's using one of those two. And I'm not sure which of those two studies and I know the Army Corps study won't be done for about another 18 months. So help me, Peter, if you're the one that would address this. Help me understand where we're at and don't go, because I have another question for you. Okay, Will. Peter, do you want to help address this? There were two issues that we're seeing in Globeville. One is a potential spill in the South Platte River. And as Paul indicated, the urban dredging flood control district is modeling the entire river to really lay the foundation for what's going on in the river. That's a separate effort than the Army Corps study. The Army Corps study is looking and specifically within the South Platte River, on what type of of habitat improvements can be done within the river to improve the the natural environment within the river. A side benefit of that project could be floodplain mitigation in case. So urban drainage is working very hard to to put the benchmark on what's really going on on the South Platte River. The Corps study is coming up with solutions for habitat, which may also include floodplain benefit. So two very different things. The same people, the same staffs are working on both of these within Globeville. There's been identified the potential of a spill out of the river, which is why it's being modeled and why it's being looked at to see exactly what's going on within the South Platte River. In addition, just like you see in Montclair and some of those neighborhoods, the original channel, the drainage systems, other things out there are not up to snuff and there need to be improvements done. So those that lack of major drainage work within the global area, the outfalls, those things that get the water all the way to the river are not in place. And that causes localized flooding within the Globeville area. And so when you when when you talk about is it this study or that study, there are 2 to 2 items, two conditions within the west side of the river area, where you can either have a spill for a potential spill out of the river or you can have inundation areas as a result of insufficient local drainage systems. So I was just looking for a copy of a press release that came out in 2008 announcing that Denver had spent $25 million to take Globeville out of the floodplain. Did we get it wrong? How is it now that Globeville is still being flooded? And let me bring Paul back up to talk about why we did what we did and why we have the issue that we have there. Before I start on that, I'll just. Add two more sense to the conversation on the two different studies. I kind of do a little bit of training for my board when because this, as you can see, all of this is very confusing, storm waters confusing. So I talk about hydrology and hydro and hydraulics and the study that urban drainage is doing is called hydrology. And that's how much water is at a certain point and how deep it is. And the core study is looking at the hydraulics and that means what to do with that water. Okay. So if that helps a little bit, I don't know if that does. The the project that you're referring to is. Yes. When we went into that project, we had a certain flow rate and the a certain model that we were using to design that project in Globeville. And that model actually started at 38th Avenue, which is kind of unfortunate at that area, because now as we're going through the entire model and and melding these two models together and looking at new technology, because over the past 40 years, obviously, we've gotten better at predicting what these floods might be, which is hydrology. Let's talk about so when the project was that you're speaking of was completed, it did show that it contained the water that was at the time accepted to be the flow rate at that area. With this new endeavor, it's showing that that was probably a little bit an error was an error. So yes. So now the flow rates are with the new models intermixed are are greater in and excuse me in showing a spill. At approximately 38th Avenue. So as part of the 2008 work, did that include the levee that was done on the west side of the river? I believe it was. Yes. And I recall that that was it was talked about extending that levee to the south side of 38th Avenue during the time that that study was going on. Do you know why that levy wasn't done south of 38th Avenue, which is where we know the water leaves the river bank and floods the west side of the river into the global neighborhood. Yeah, I don't know that answer. I wasn't intimately involved in that. I don't know. One of the Denver staff knows the answer. Paul, can you answer one last question? What is the normal size of a project, size or even scope that requires urban drainage to do an environmental impact statement on your projects? Normal is kind of an interesting word. What urban drainage does is we are in charge to assist local governments in projects that drain basins, which are larger than 130 acres. So that's pretty small, but yet we don't go all the way down to the storm sewer level. So where does this fit, this plot to Parkville fit into that scope? This is this is a big. This is one this is a big project. This will be a major project for us. One of the larger ones we've done. So is Urban Drainage, the lead agency doing the work, or is it actually the city. In the city right now is the lead agency. Okay. So is there a reason why we did not do an environmental impact statement on this project, given that it's much larger than the scope of what urban drainage normally does? I'm going to have to relay that to someone else that has that information. The. Environmental Impact statement is related to funding and is related to federal funding on projects. This project right now does not have federal funding in it, and so we have done public outreach. And Jen can speak to other things that we've done historic analysis, environmental analysis, things like that that are similar to that. But there is no federal agency involved, so no federal referral to go to. So it's just not. But doesn't the idea directly tie some of the seed dollars, which are most often federal dollars to this project? No, I mean, we've got an Egis that clearly speaks to the need for the drainage. And I understand the reason for wanting to leverage and be able to address, you know, what has been a drainage problem for this area for some time. But but we're not receiving federal dollars. Federal dollars are not being used on the project. So that's why. It's a funding requirement. Okay. I have one other question before I move the motion. These are not the end of my questions. Each time I have like I think three or four sets of questions that I have sent out. And when I get the answers, it raises additional questions. And I appreciate the patience of my colleagues in allowing me to just ask a couple of these. One of the concerns that I have is that although when you look at this map, it shows that the Globeville neighborhood is very much within the impacted area. And again, this is in the document that Councilman New referred to. This is the Storm Metrix analysis. But yet, when you look at the 2016 to 2021 map, it takes it's taken out. And so what that says to me is, if we're using the 2016 to 2021 storm capital program as the guide for how we're going to move forward and spend future dollars, Globeville is not going to be taken care of. This is an environmental justice community. They're going to be impacted with an I-70 project, with the National Western Project, yet they're going to still have serious flooding problem. We're not calling it. You were calling it an inundation area, not in the floodplain. But the fact is they'll still have flooding problems. And yet we were not addressing that in the 2016 to 2021 storm plan. I think that is a huge problem for me being able to support the storm fears. When I first started meeting with city staff and learned way later they Globeville was still going to be flooding even after spending $25 million to take them out of the floodplain. We're not addressing the problem for this low income neighborhood. And if if the inundation area shows throughout this process in the Army Corps and urban drainage projects are completed, that potentially puts them back in the floodplain. And for these neighborhoods, it'll be cheaper if they start getting flood insurance now, because once they're actually found to be back in the floodplain, it will cost them more money to to get floodplain insurance and to not address this, which, by the way, was studied. We've got copies of studies that were done, even going back to looking at the levee that should have been done south of 38th Avenue. But yet the plot to kill was not even one of the projects that was in the budget. And so we're spending a majority of these fees in an area where it's needed. I don't disagree. The need exists, but. We did this whole approval with this IGA on the front end and we've been doing the community process on the back end and it's why I think you have community people who have been very concerned that. Their voice had not been factored in throughout the steps of what is normally done in in this process. So I'm just making the editorial comment. I'm not looking for a response at this point in time. I guess if I could clarify, I would appreciate it. So what are you trying to clarify? I am. As far as Globeville, I just want to be clear that Globeville is not ignored in this plan. We have said that there is a study that was previously funded to the tune of $3 million. That's not in this plan because it's already been funded, and another 10.5 that will be used to do the work that we need to do that Peters, Peter and Paul Heyman and the urban drainage team with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We need to do our work. We need the time to do that so that we can understand what improvements do need to be made. And then as we go into another six year needs assessment, as Councilman New has brought up, those types of projects will come out and Wolf will figure out the next step that's appropriate at that time. So I apologize, but I just really wanted to make sure that people were clear on that. So, Leslie, let me just be clear about one thing, because I've been told that, you know, we're looking at a distance of the river from Sixth Avenue to the end of the city limits. Does the 10.5 include that entire corridor, or are you saying that the majority of that is going to be spent in the Globeville neighborhood ? The 10.5 that's identified in that urban waterways is to support that grant as Bruce Hornick, who's our head of Master Planning identified. There is neighborhood dollars in there, 25 million, I believe it's about 5 million a year that can spent be spent without this throughout the city. So as projects are identified, Globeville is certainly a high priority area and I would expect that we would see projects in there. And what is the total cost to fix the Globeville problem? I've had some. Estimates thrown out to me. The storm drainage master plan puts the the small infrastructure, excluding the river at about $80 million. Remember that a citywide citywide need of 1.5 billion. So we have 80 million in Globeville. I don't yet have an idea of what the South Platte River improvements will run. I mean, we're still in the middle of the study, and I just I don't have those figures yet. So it would be 80 million to fix the problem for Globeville, but we only have approximately 5 million a year that's spent citywide to address storm drainage problems. Is that correct? Well, the 80 million is correct in the 5 million per year is correct. How we go about doing this is something that we need a little more time to study. We're working on it and we're not ignoring it. And and the city has been at this for a long time and will continue to be at it until we get them all. I may not be here, but we're going to continue to work at it. Mr. President, may I put the motion on the floor at this point? Do you want to wait to call folks who are in the queue first? If it's regarding second reading, we have to first vote on the publication, so it has to first be valid publication. But Councilman, if you wanted to do your one hour courtesy, you could go ahead. And that's. That's what I. Meant. Oh, go right ahead if you want to do that. Okay. Mr. President, I would like to move that. I'll make sure I have this correct. Council Bill 306 be that that we have on second reading a public hearing on Monday, June the 13th, 2016. So I guess I need to formally postpone the bill so that we can have the public hearing on June 13th. So, Councilwoman, you're just requesting a one hour courtesy public hearing? That's yes. It doesn't require doesn't require a vote. Okay. So we've had a lot of back and forth going on all day long about this issue with our staff about whether we needed a motion. So you're saying we don't need to move. Any courtesy of this this. Okay. These don't don't require hearings or councilmembers requesting a courtesy public hearing. So right as as council president, I could say no and then we could vote on it. Or as council president, I could say yes. So. Well, I just want to be clear that I did make this request when it came to committee, but to formally make sure that we have this done, the request is to do it on June the 13th because we will not have a quorum next week, as you indicated earlier. So, yes, so we will pending publication don't want to get the cart before the horse. Of course there will be a one hour cursing public hearing. Council Bill 306. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Next in the queue, we have Councilman Espinosa. I need to figure out how to get courtesy public hearing at first reading because I think it would be nice to be able to have additional questions before it's sort of just going to get motioned on the floor and moved that way. But they do have a series of questions here. Thank you. First to my colleagues, councilman and councilman Woman Ortega, for asking such thorough questions. I wish we again had dealt with this, continue to deal with this at the committee level rather than what had transpired there. But that's our our process. And I'm just going to say that. So my question is and I don't care if it's George or Jennifer, but when the 90 meetings that you cited with the community, when did those begin and when did they conclude? Thank you for your question. Jennifer Hill, House of Public Works. So we started in July and it was the end of July 1st public meeting though was in August when we went out to the public was just kind of the need. We had public meetings and process and again, you know, these included tours, R.A. meetings. We went where the people were. We had our own meetings, so we really did everything. And then we concluded, we extended it by three months. We heard from the public that it just wasn't enough time, very complex issue to news comment. And so we did extend by three months. We were hoping to be done in January and extended into the spring. So our last public meeting was in April. So again, for timeline purposes, this well, I want to get the exact quote. When did that you guys scored? Based on the heat map to generate the six year plan and so you generated a priority list but your your public meeting about $206 million worth of this 383 all predated this draft January of 2016. This is the draft that talks about priorities that didn't come in until essentially five months after the IGA in full and months after the meeting, which actually predated your meeting with the community. It's sort of back to Councilman Flynn's concerns or questions, which is that we should be approving projects, not putting the cart before the horse where we're actually approving money without having done this process. I mean, I have to ask time and again at committee personally, and now I finally got this is the first thing that indicates any sort of attempt at prioritization. If you go back to the. So I do have a question related to this, which is why don't we where is that list? So I have this map that has a bunch of stars on it. But if you look at that $1.5 billion stormwater master plan, there is page after page after page after page of project in there with dollar amounts assigned to it and ideas. Scope may be wrong. It's very brief obviously for the nature of that plan, but where's that for council that shows every single project that is part of the balance of the 383 that is not the 206 because I had a slide out committee that said we've got some neighborhood plans and I mean neighborhood projects , and I know that they're out there because we don't dream up 383 without assigning numbers. Hello again, Bruce Janek with Public Works Wastewater. So as as you pointed out, Councilman Espinosa, we did prioritize the basins first. That's kind of the 40,000 foot level of saying, what are these highest priority? Let me let me back up. But did that happen in draft mode in 2000? And I guess even before that, when before this study was even in a draft, we were building projects based upon where people flooded. Well, you know, where our models are showing the greatest street depth. And so we kind of we had an approach when it was a good approach, but then we really went to the next level of using these 12 criteria and prioritizing it as a whole. And we started the basin level because there are 67 of them and we're we're confident. We like the map. It's defendable. And now we're digging into the project level because like I was saying earlier, there could be there's a variance of priorities of the projects within the basins. Like you look at a red basin, I mean, as. I'm trying and trying to understand these two maps. So this map that was up on the screen shows four labeled areas. I won't call them basins because I'm confused by this map, which is I understood where the basins themselves. Which is it? Which one? Which one has the base. In your left hand. The one that citywide. That's the that's the metric study. Those are that's our those are 67 prioritized basins using that red, orange, yellow kind of heat map. Okay. Because I'm concerned about what has gone on and I don't know what went on in those public meetings, but I do know what happened in my 1 to 1 briefings and at committee. And what had happened was some obfuscation, which is the stormwater master plan deals with these basins labeled as they are on this map, which are the 68. And what clearly is happening is that we are diverting water from one basin and routing it through another basin to the global outfall. And it happens to be that that basin is actually actually already got pretty good water quality per your plan. But now on this map, we seem to have combined it. So it looks like we're we're just draining one big basin, right. When it what concerns me is that and now I get it. I get why Leslie insists that. And she's the only person that continues to insist that this has nothing to do with I-70. And it's probably because they're federal dollars link to I-70 and boom, now we're an environmental impact study. And so rather than do that, we're just going to bear this whole cost on the city and county of the taxpayers, of the city and county of Denver through a fee so that we can avoid actually studying the impact of this, which is significant. It is the largest project that urban drainage is undertaking, and we're just missing that. And so why this matters on these basins in your maps is that we are routing. I mean, there are there are eight there are eight basins on here that are red. Six of them are sort of captured in these four basin drawing that you've done here, sort of observe these getting how these basins are subdivided. Yet. We don't show those two basins that are on the other side of the river like they don't they're not a priority. Are are they? I think Leslie and Peter spoke to who they are already with that $3 million Army Corps study that we're that's undertaking. Ten years down the road. We can start thinking about that. But these have to happen. The study is underway right now. And that serve the difference in the basins where you're counting eight versus four is in the in the one in your left hand. Those are those are collection systems, basins, and the other ones are major basins. It's a very technical definition, but essentially the ones in your right hand, those are our priority focus basins that have a very undersized backbone drainage system. The Montclair Drainage System is served by a 120 inch line that was built in the 1930s. But what I want the public to know is that that let's see, on a highway crosses one, two, three, three basins, and then it's merged with another basin here, the Montclair the upper the lower Montclair Basin, which it doesn't actually touch. And that would be mitigating those 100 year flood waters as they impacted I-70, regardless of whether we put a new channel in or not. And so this level of the area that you have colored on different maps is the primary area that is impacted would actually already be that's already downstream of those primary areas are already downstream of I-70. So I-70 mitigation that would associate the I-70 widening would actually already benefit those communities with or without Denver investment. Is that correct? And we probably have to let's see. That doesn't have an obligation to collect the water and protect the neighborhoods to the north there. But right now, that water goes underneath I-70. This water would go into I-70. And they there's there's an opportunity for them to collect the water on the south side and just dump it on to the north side at the same levels that there exists today. So so. The problem is. Getting to the north would still be 2 to 3 feet of flooding to the north even after set up with their system. That's pure speculation on my part. Well, but one of the reasons I it's because I've been told time and time again about leveraging CDOT money. So it's sort of weird that that has nothing to do with this project if they're throwing money at it. So but when we're leveraging the CDOT money, the reason is, is I've been told in different by different people that there's a solution that CDOT has, but it involves 30 foot walls and it's just atrocious and all this stuff. But when I talk to see that they have a sketch about how they're going to route through a conduit through the lowest point and daylight out into the Platte River, all these flood waters down Clyde Street below grade. And somehow that has the natural fall. I'll have to believe them, because the real problem is, is no one's done that analysis, even them themselves haven't done that analysis. So where do these 30 foot walls come from, this sort of boogieman of of water quality ponds? Where did that come from? I mean, is there a design or is there not a design that see that has to capture their water requirement, 100 year flood requirements? I believe, yes. I can't speak for them, but they do have a design underway. I believe it's part of their year and you can get those documents. I would just say to your point earlier is that the water doesn't really care who the who owns the land. It falls and it collects and it drains into ponds. And so there's there's property damage and potential upstream of the basin in the entire basin. And so that's why that's why this objective analysis of where the highest priority need is shows Montclair as the highest priority. And and the number of red stars, if you see on there, are documented significant flooding locations, and there's the majority of them in Montclair. So it's really. Don't get me wrong, I am I am 100% for 100 $383 million investment into our Enterprise Fund for storm water and sewer infrastructure. But I question whether the majority of that money should be focused on these things. When your own stormwater master plan, which I don't have here, but it's in my office, has projects associated with that that are not of this scope that actually solve this problem. And then when you have the the gift of I-70, which is going to be below that grade or below grade, having to mitigate this water themselves and doing this as part of that that that we could actually leverage that as a solution to help us with basically everything north of of I-70 where this water would flow. But for some reason, we decided to take it upon ourselves to put in this 39th Avenue channel to to divert it to the Globeville outfall, which is in a different basin. Well, meanwhile, there are. How many basins here? One, I probably do the better part of 30 or 40 basins that flow into the Platte River north of Globeville. That in fact, there's a 100 year event in any one of those 40 basins. We now know through the study that urban drainage is done, will flood in, inundate all of Globeville. Seems like that should be a priority. When you have 40 chances in a 100 year event impacting the neighborhood versus the one. So when I. I still would love to see that priority list that you guys had before you had this, because you sound like you had one. So where that showed me how all those other basins and in that 2016, 2014 master plan laid out. But I am concerned about the fact that there is no design and we're putting money at this, because I've been told, too, that the solutions put forward for City Park in the Upper Montclair, I mean, the Lower Montclair Basin. There was a solution there to use the soccer fields, which I think meant the softball fields. But that won't work because it's it's uphill. I don't know how we don't how we propose solutions that are uphill, but it's not. It worries me about the fact that we don't have designs going forward. So I did have, let's see, three be I mean, questions of the base and maps. We talked about 1 billion versus 1.5 billion. So when this was presented at committee, it was talked about as a $1 billion master plan. Maybe that was 2014 numbers. How did it get from 1 billion to 1.5 billion? Is it because the scope at this basin is now increased from about a 60 some odd $80 million solution to a $206 million solution? Just to see if I can answer that, I guess we do our master plan updates every five years so that in 2009 there was adopted by City Council. And I believe the total value of all those projects was one point to $1.1 billion. And then we did it in 2014. New projects got added in like the Globeville study that Councilman Ortega talked about. So $80 million in needs there. And so between those kind of newer projects that we were identified using the latest tools and technology and more so the just construction cost inflation in general, that's why we're at 1.5 and we're chipping away slowly at it. But I would honestly expect that in 2019, when we do our new master plan, the cost would be 1.5, if not more. I bet it will. And that's a concern now, right. Which is we're going from $101 in average fee a few years ago to pushing 500 in about five years, an average fee to capture this project and some others rather than a whole bunch of others. And what we should expect by the time we do this again, that the cost of that $1.1 billion master plan is going to be much higher than $1.1 billion. So this is a game that we can't afford to waste money on when we have so many needs citywide. And so it concerns me that we're going to obligate ourselves and go from a a a low average cost to a better than average cost with the need to go much, much higher. Because, as you know, to put $383 million is just a fraction of 1.5 billion. And if that's where the need is, we should be prioritizing our projects accordingly, but not justifying it sort of after the fact. Just just one point of clarification is that I think, you know, with that $383 million, it's a it's a balance. There's there's big needs there. Small needs. There's there's just single intersections that flood. And then there's whole kind of streets and kind of multiple blocks that flood. So what we try to do with our program in those buckets I talked about is do focus on the big projects in those highest priority basins, but also save chunks and big chunks of money for water quality for our general store manual to address those local problems citywide. So it's but if you look at the inundation, usually I have those inundation maps, the areas that this 39th Avenue channel is protecting our largely surface parking lots and not neighborhoods. You know, and so where is that? I question the prioritization. I guess, in our preliminary analysis, looking at the whole Montclair Basin, there's over 2000 structures that are endangered. It's just rough estimate about $487 million in potential damages during a major flooding obfuscate. I'm talking specifically a 39th Avenue channel, because there's no doubt that capturing water at City Park one way or the other would have tremendous impact between City Park and 39th. It's what that 39th Avenue Channel is doing, the Platt to Park Hill Port portion there. That is the concern because it is really clearing out water from that would be dealt with at I-70 46th Avenue and doing it at 39th Avenue at our cost as opposed to see Dot's cost. And why should we do that when we're actually now diverting that money that could be better spent on a whole host of those small projects which you agree have impact for those intersections on a more regular basis. I mean, we have a lot of 505 year and 20 year floods before the probability is there more so than a 100 year event. And so we could do a lot for the city, the people of this city, on a more routine basis, because I think we all put in an all hands on deck when when a major event comes. It's just what we do as people. And so while we wouldn't want that to happen, we're prepared to deal with that. And if you even look at those inundation maps, it is not for a long period of time. That's just the way Denver is. You know, the accounts of floods and at least it's not the. I that you have down in in Houston so the four so that we talked about the 30 foot wall. So I just. It's just unfortunate because I still today I'm getting information that is somewhat contradictory and it doesn't it it it's sort of I it concerns me that we're supporting things with with language after the fact when I've consistently asked for things that show me that lead to this path going forward. I mean, there was an idea that was rushed through, you know, a prior council. It's not lost on me that there are only five sitting members of this council that voted to support that the rest or were either in opposition or knew. And I wish that if this doesn't go through, that you recognize that we all support stormwater and sewer improvements and infrastructure, but that we work on a program that makes sense for the city, the entire city, because the entire city bears the burden of this. That's more comment than anything else. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Herndon. Leslie, can I. Have you come up to the mike? I have a question. So looking at Google Maps where you see the Globeville Landing Park and, you know, I'm looking for another structure where it would be appropriate to have an outfall to provide drainage into the South Platte. And the closest that I can find to the Globeville Landing Park is Riverside Cemetery, where they're conversations about creating some new outfall or something that that would address. Clearly, the stormwater needs to move towards the river. And the the drainage to the north. And we've looked at it with the National Western Stock Show and all of that. The global landing outfall is really the natural place for this water to go. On the south side of I-70 to the north, there actually is a couple of outfalls laid out when I believe is along Rear Street and I guess I would have to look to my team. They would be identified in the stormwater master plan to facilitate the drainage in that area. Okay. Thank you. President Herndon. I have a couple comments. I will be quick. So I actually serve on the board of directors for Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. And, you know, thank you, Paul, for your simple explanation of really what urban flood, urban drainage and flood control does. You know, you're dealing with the hydrology. How much water, how deep is it going to get it moving off of our streets and to ensure public safety? You know, the Army Corps of Engineers, they deal with hydraulics, what to do with the water. I highly respect the engineers and Paul and his team and the consultants with urban drainage and flood control district. They deal all throughout the state. They confer with, you know, folks on a national level of how best to address this. And as a fellow science professional, I respect that. And your team, you know, the 39th Avenue or Cole Channel has been brought up as a negative. And I just like to provide a little bit of context around a naturalized channel for my colleagues. And Paul is going to get a laugh out of this because even before I was elected as a montebello resident and addressed, you know, advocate for the community, I have always complained about the Montebello channels, and so I'll talk about those in just a little bit. But the whole channel is basically proposed to be a natural or naturalized stream corridor. It's going to be one mile long, approximately ten feet deep and 100 feet wide in the whole neighborhood, a naturalized stream corridor channel becomes in. Councilman Clark has got to love this because, you know, we taught environmental, education and science, both of us. And so this is what you talk about when you're teaching children and urban folks about how best to work with the natural environment and geography and and and, you know, wildlife and how we are only visitors a lot of times. And so, you know, this is going to be this one mile long cold channel or 39th Avenue Channel is going to be a source of wildlife habitat. It's going to become an outdoor recreation amenity for neighbors to get out into a natural setting, riding bikes, running along, seeing, you know, foxes, raccoons, nesting songbirds in an urban context neighborhood in Montebello, where my family lives, we have eight miles of channels. They are not naturalized, eight miles of cement channels. They're ugly, they collect trash. They have to be dredged because plants come up through the concrete. There is no opportunity for folks in my community to recreate along these channels and to use them. And, you know, my home was built in the early nineties in the Gateway Division of Montebello. We hated the detention ponds. We thought they were ugly. They were just a source of kind of collections for storm water. And when you really start to educate folks about that, this becomes a collection point for a wetlands within an urban corridor. So you were creating wildlife habitat, green habitat for the community in detention ponds. A half mile from my home, I have four huge detention ponds. Montebello never floods. We have not flooded in Belo. It all flows through the community into the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. And so looking at this as creating native open space in an urban core, aquatic vegetation filters out pollution pollutants. Oil, fertilizers, pesticides, anything that runs off of. You know, Non-Porous surfaces, a wetlands, a detention pond, an open channel. It filters out all of those toxins, cattails, aquatic vegetation. Nature at her best does it. And then that water flows in to the south, the South Platte, and it's cleaner. And so I just want to provide that context for a and that I have been caught in the flooding that happens in this basin with my two young children in the car. And you are trying to get around flooding the water and get anywhere you can to get to higher land. And at certain points you're like, okay, well, I'm going to take the baby out of the car. See, I'm going to walk with my toddler and abandon my car and try to get to higher ground. And so that personal, terrifying experience because coming from downtown, trying to get to Montebello and it taking 4 hours to get home , you know, we deserve better for our residents and we need to invest in infrastructure. I'm the first to say I've got two kids in college. I don't like a fee increase. But when we're talking about protecting our residents lives, if there was something catastrophic, you know, I think I think that we have to weigh where we're going to put our dollars and what we're going to do. And I don't want to sit up here and make a decision that in, you know, ten years, 15 years, 20 years, people die because of a decision that I had a part in or did or didn't do. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Now, are we questions? Comments combined? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. It's been an hour. Yes. Pardon me, sir. Yes, sir. We're still there. Thank you. Okay, let's see. Leslie, if I can ask you a question, too. I just want to get clarity. Right now we're moving towards a 30 per the consultants are moving towards the 30% design of the plot, the Park Hill project, correct? Yes. They're beginning design. That's correct. Okay. Well, so we're early in the design. So the the budget increases that we've talked about have been more general about Labor's more expensive materials and more expensive. The scope has been broadened. So when, when we get designed, the price of the project is either going to go up or down. Right. Well, where is the the intent of the number that was placed in this rate structure? The intent was to cover the maximum we thought it could be. And you're right, it can go up and down. But we really are intending that this would be the cap. Okay. So if it goes up. I'm checking with my express. Yeah. So you what you're saying is you threw in a whole bunch of fudge factors to try to envision as high a number as possible. My concern being if the price is going to go up from there, you know, other projects are on my list of this 383 wouldn't get funded. So what you're saying is could happen, but you really don't think it's going up from here. So it may go down then. Yes, we could get more out of this. 383 is what you're saying? Yes. Okay. Why? My understanding of the involvement of urban drainage in this project is their only involvement is in the Globeville landing outfall and that they're not involved in the design of the Coal Channel, and they're not involved in the design of the detention on City Park Golf Course or any of that. Is that correct? At this point, urban drainage holds the contract for the design for the Globeville landing outfall. We would expect, because they are our advisors and are the experts in that in the region on how drainage should work, that they will remain our partners and advisors on the rest of the project. But we would expect that the city would hold the contracts. That differs from what urban drainage staff tells me. Is that different, Paul? Do you want to come in? Thank you. Paul Heinemann, urban drainage. As it stands right now, denver is doing the contracts through the plat to park. However, Leslie is right. We are there sitting with Denver staff helping advise and go through those projects. Right now it's in the in the early planning stages, but as we get further along will definitely be a part of that process. Is there a contractual arrangement with the district for this? Right now we do not have one, but I'm sure in the future there's the definite possibility that there would. Be one whose staff was very clear with me that the only involvement at present was with the 33rd Street outfall in the Globeville Landing outfall. That is correct right now. Thank you. That is the only thing we have. Thank you, Paul. Okay. And my. Line of that question is I was one wondering why urban drainage in a project of this scope is not more involved. Along with Councilwoman Gilmore, I'm on the Urban Drainage Board and I'm very sold on their expertize on the model, the nonpolitical model with which they operate. And I'm concerned that there's not a greater contractual connection. I would hope that changes. And while he's walking up, I also want to acknowledge Mr. Heineman, Hyman's 31 years with the district that unfortunately for a great many people is about to come to an end. So he can go out and spend some time in the in the outdoors with his family and grandkids. So I'll recognize that right now. Yes. Well, thank you for those comments, Councilman Cashman and Councilwoman Gilmore. I appreciate those very much. We we will see you had. Some comments now. I've lost. Well, I was just saying that I was concerned. Oh, when when when when the staff told me there was not a greater relationship to this project. Yeah, I can talk about that. Obviously we have limited staff on which we can work on projects with. And what we do is we each year send out a request to the local governments, city and county, Denver being one of them on what projects they would like us to partner with and what. And then we are able to partner with a certain number. And when we do partner, usually we have some amount of money in it with this project and going forward and Denver already being very well invested in it and has very capable staff in doing this portion of the project. The outfall project is what we were kind of already started with and got going with. But since this is moving at the pace it is, is right now, we do not have the staff to to fully help administer that entire project. But in the future, there's as the staff has said, there's many other projects that will be coming up as well as the future of the. Park, the Platte Project. So we will be involved in that as well. But it's really each year we reevaluate what our what our staff can handle and what the local government needs are at that point. And the needs of the staff for Denver right now at this point is to get this thing, you know, really under control right now. And we just don't have the staff to to help them right now. Great. Thanks for that clarification, Mr. Bartlett. And please. I heard something wrong either this afternoon when we spoke or this evening. I asked this afternoon about the Globeville situation as far as trying to get an idea on a timeline and so on. And what I heard you say, which I had no idea because I had no idea of scope and what would be done, etc.. And tonight I heard something about 80 million bucks that I thought was related to Globeville. Now, if you could clarify now there are two two concerns in Globeville. One is river spilling. Right. And that's what what urban drainage is studying to figure out how much water and the court is studying to figure out what do we do right. And then there's also the local inundation areas. Mm hmm. And that's more of a localized, localized issue where we don't have adequate storm drainage systems to get that water from the top of the hill to the bottom of the hill right next to Tor Junction drainage. Exactly. And so the Utah Junction and Globeville, portions of the masterplan, identify $80 million worth of improvements that need to be done to handle that localized. And when we were speaking this afternoon, I thought maybe I was mistaken. I thought you were talking about what specifically we want to do on the South Platte. Okay. Well, we're still studying that. And toward the end of the year, we'll begin to have some really good ideas what that might look like. So great. So since this is a comment as well, I am. Absolutely. That's all I have. Thank you, Miss Bartley. Thank you very much. I share a lot of my colleagues comments. I mean, they have absolutely no doubt we need to raise an enormous amount of money to improve our stormwater infrastructure in the city, especially in the Montclair Basin. I mean, you have a very large basin with no drainage system, but by and large, I mean, I think there is some piping going on along the way. But basically we don't have a gulch like Harvard Culture where Gulch or any of the other areas. And I have no question we need to raise a ton of money. My discussions with the city, with the administration have been and this applies to drainage and it applies to our streets and applies to our sidewalks. We need to raise a lot of money. And the bad news for our residents is you're the only place we have to go to our residents and our businesses to find this money. And we need that. We're going to need it along the way. And as I said, I'm convinced we need to to build something in the Montclair Basin. I believe that the plant, the Park Hill Project specifically is conceived at this time in this scope to add storm water protection for I-70 along the way is an important spine for a greater system. I believe that to be true. I believe the scope of the I-70 project is extreme and I think the routing is ill conceived. That is a broader discussion that we're not going to go into right now. But what I have, what I can't ignore, and it is very much related, is that the. She Dot's reaction to the homeowners adjacent to the I-70 project is insufficient. The mitigation that they're proposing for homeowners along the I-70 corridor is insufficient. I'm aware that my colleague, Councilwoman Ortega, her office, is working diligently to try to fill a gap that she refuses to honor there. The tunnel, the part covering I-70, the tunnel that's being created is intentionally designed just short enough that they don't need to put a fan system in it to ventilate the the emissions. So Denver's going to need to spend additional money on air quality, monitoring the mitigation for the nearby homeowners. It should include vapor intrusion protection. It should include new doors, new windows, insulation, a much more extreme package. See, that's proposing to portable one or two portable air conditioning units and some interior storm windows. I had city staff tell me today we are working hard to make up that difference, to work with other groups, to make up that difference. I don't think we should be doing that. We as counsel are left with very few. Avenues for those of us who are unhappy with the way that project is unfolding to express that displeasure from me, this is one of those opportunities. I have spent a great deal of time becoming familiar with this project. For me, my complaints are not with the engineering of this project. I am not an engineer. I have done my best to understand this project, but my complaints are not with the engineering of this project there, with the connection to a related project. And my understanding is if we don't build a plot to Park Hill, I-70 will build its own system. They will need to do some additional work that they won't have to do. If we do build a plot to Park Hill. So with that in mind, I won't be. I'm not happy with this because I look forward to approving some sort of a fee increase to so we can move forward with this tremendous need that we have in the city. But I can't do it on this particular bill. So thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. Councilman Flynn, I'm going to hop over you and come to you, and I'll come back to you at the end. Councilman Brookshire up. Thank you, Mr. President. And thanks, council count. Councilman Flynn around the bringing up the question on 30% design. I think that's an important question and I am actually see here, I'm going to bring you know, Leslie, why don't you come on up to answer this question. This has already been touched on the 30% design piece. But I just want to make it 100% clear. And since we're in the. Comment slash questions. I'll do the remakes myself and just say. Bar? None. Every neighborhood has always as come to us before you get to 30% design. That is, I can't find a neighbor who won't say that. So, you know, I think that's important for all of us up here, too. I know I pushed that in Q2 of this year, said, let's go to the neighbors before we get there. And so we're there with a lot of hiccups. So I just want to say that a disclaimer, but 30% design, we approve say we approve this rate, this stormwater increase. I want you to to answer with specificity your limits of what you can use of that increase. Meaning can you go above say say that, you know, the budget goes crazy? Can you go above what is allotted what we approve in front of council tonight? Well, George, I need your help on this one. He's asking if we can go above what we've approved tonight. As far as I understand. And George will come up and fix me when I'm wrong. But my understanding is, is that there will be rates that are generated by your approval of this proposal. Those rates will be money from those rates will be appropriated through the annual budget for capital projects. And so those will be set up through our annual program over the next three years or excuse me, six years as those rates come in. And then we will as our teams, design teams and construction teams, planning teams will design and construct to those budgets that are approved by council through the annual appropriation. If additional dollars are needed, it will go through those processes for council to appropriate on an annual basis. Is that correct? So in short, there is flexibility for you all to overshoot the budget. And if you do overshoot the budget, you have to come back to city council or anything above what? What amount? 500,000. I mean, what what are we talking. We will need to appropriate every year these rates that are that we are we're discussing now have not been appropriated yet. So that will be to you to appropriate those budgets. Any contract that is over $500,000 will come to you for approval. So there's a couple of different ways for council to interact with us on that. Yeah. Do you want to charge. It on it? George Delaney The other thing to keep in mind is this plan calls for debt financing of the P2 plant to Park Hill project. As your council staff or your council has advised you, you will have to approve that bond and that indebtedness through another ordinance that will come down the line whenever we're ready to do that. So that will at least sets the limit. And I guess if we needed to change the amount at that time, we would be changing the amount. Here's here's the concern. And I think it's a valid one that we don't want to give a blank check to a project that is already it's a large project. I live in the area. I know that it's needed and I have emails from last year. It was the second quarter of last year during the rain to prove it. But my question is, I think it's a valid question of how do we know that we're not? You know, what's what's the assurances this council has with the assurances the public have that we won't exceed the limit? Yeah. And as Leslie had said earlier this evening, we were instructed to look at a project and put in every cost that could be thought of. To be honest with you, and that's how we got to the upper range of $298 million. Our goal is to wait to bring in a project that would be less than that amount of money. So it's, you know, you build it to the highest level and then you have the value engineering. We value engineer projects every day to bring them back within budget as as possible as much as you possibly can. So that's our plan on this project. But we will be coming back to you. We come to you every year with an appropriation for projects. You appropriate dollars for us, allowing us to spend those those dollars. If we need more money, we have to come back to you for supplemental. We've done that in the past. In this case, we will need an appropriation for the project and approval to borrow the money. So there are some check points along the way. We'll we'll be bringing these numbers back to you. And hopefully, you know, our plan is to stay within that range. All right. So, you know, I think when we if this goes on to second reading or whatnot, you know, I'm going to come back to this just just to provide a little bit more hard line. If we if I'm hearing you say if we see 290 million, you know, we don't want to do that, but we'll have to come back to you. But a little bit more harder line just so we don't leave that door open. Rope. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Let me let me call Bruce up here real quick. Bruce, if you go to that map, this has been brought up time and time again about Globeville. And I don't think we are linking the two maps. So the map that shows the secondary protection under make that shown to the public secondary protection under 39th Street. Primary protection above 39th open channel. And you. We need you to pull we need to pull it up on that. I don't think I don't think we have that map. Is that the map you refer to that has the it's kind of the purple above the channel and the yellow. Primary protection, secondary protection. Right. And so I don't know if is it we can still speak to that not having the map. Just for clarification. Yeah, this is the water quality one. Yeah, we we need the thousand 14. Yeah. Let's see if you have it here. No, that's not it. I have it on my computer. But, yeah, not everybody can see this. Yeah. Yep. So I hate I hate that the public can't see it. But this is this is an important map that shows the protection areas. Once the detention area is put in and City Park, the open channel is put in along along 39th Avenue and into the along 39th Avenue. And the yellow area is the secondary protection, which looks like it's it's mostly, you know, coal a little bit of. Clayton a little bit north city park Whittier and above that is what we now refer to as Rhino used to be referred to as five points, and above that is Globeville or Swansea. So here's what I can understand. We keep talking about Globeville not receiving any protection, and I think it's clear that south of I-70, along Global AMI Landing Park, along the South Platte, there is an area where I think Peter Bart line described it as leakage or whatever you want to say comes in to that area. Right. But above just below I-70 and just below I-70, all of Globeville is in that primary protection, all of Elyria and Swansea is in that primary protection. So am I reading that wrong? I think there's a clarification that's needed. You heard it again. Globeville is on the west side of the river. Yeah. And so it's actually not in this purple primary protection in Globeville. The confusion exists because Globeville neighborhood is on the west side of the river. But the major outfall for the Montclair Basin is called the Globeville Landing Outfall because it goes through Globeville Landing Park. Okay, so we're. Talking about we're talking about homes. So so let's talk about homes and statistical neighborhood neighborhoods. What is protected. So protected in my mind is Cole, Clayton, Skyland, Whittier, Elyria. Secondary protection in the purple area is in my am I missing it north it's kind of the two colors north of 39th is their primary flood protection where the channel is going to collect those significant offsite flows before they have a chance to go further north on at the railroad tracks and all that stuff. So you have Elyria in there. You have Swansea in there and you have a you don't have, you have a portion. Of Globeville in there. According to my statistical neighborhood map that I go off of, I don't I think Globeville needs. Is a break. Where does that break? What does that break. Is that the. That's the plat. At the plat. Right. That's. So. So homes just east of the Platte. Businesses just east of the Platte are all protected. Everything on the west is not protected. And on the west side, right this the flats of Park Hill, it's a it's a, you know, protects the businesses, residents, homes, whatever. On the east side of the Montclair Basin. Okay, great. Um, the the last. The last deal. Leslie, let me. Let me bring you up over time. And Councilman Flynn touched on this. If we don't pass this tonight. What happens. And, you know, I just I just need a staff person to to clarify what he said. Does I-70 still build there? Storm drainage? I-70 will move forward at its own pace. It's not reliant upon this action for city council I seventies it's own project. So whether whether you all choose the folks that are impacted our our storm drain master plan if this doesn't move forward now I 72 switch or around. Okay and is there a penalty that we would have to pay for the idea. We would have to go back through and take a look at what if no action is taken on the rates? We would have to look at our existing. Fund of balance and take a look at what we could do or we would have to go back with them and let them know that we could what we could or couldn't perform based on the cash that we had and then make those arrangements with them, you know, as the chips would fall. And just lastly, what is the. I understand the way my math is, 45% of this storm water increase is, you know, this project that is getting the most attention, Platts of Park Hill. What happens and how many? What is the number of projects that are around the city that will not be funded? You know, I wish I could express that to you, but this plan is put together as we've all done all of this work. So we would basically have to go back to the drawing board and look at the amount of cash available and see what projects, if any, could be moved forward. It would be a complete redo of our plan. George, do you have another thought about that? No, that's right. I think the one thing to keep in mind again, George, Tony, you've heard a lot of testimony and discussion today. Keep in mind that the upper and lower Montclair Basins are the number one highest risk flooding basin in the entire metropolitan area. Whether you build where we build plant to Park Hill or not, you're going to build something in this basin. Our master plan. Maybe it doesn't have this specific project in it, but our master plan says we need to invest almost $600 million in these two basins to mitigate the flooding risk. And so whether you build this project, you build another project, whether I-70 gets built the way they plan, whether it doesn't get built the way they plan this project, something will be built in this basin to mitigate the flooding because you can't allow these, what, 2000 structures or something that somebody said, you know, you know, to flood . And the other thing to keep in mind about this, one of the reasons and somebody mentioned, well, if this is your priority basin, why aren't you spending all your money there? It's because we're asking every every property owner in Denver to pay into this fee. And we have other areas in the city that flood, and we know we have other areas in the city that flood. So we are trying to fund projects, and that's what this map shows. Well, you can't see it, but the map that we had handed out, we're trying to fund projects throughout the city because we're asking everybody in the city to pay for this, for this, for these these rate increases. And so, yes, this is our priority basin. Yes, we have to do projects in this area. It's our highest risk. But we have other risks, too. And so we're trying to be trying to be appropriate stewards of the cities and the rate payers money and spread the projects around the city because we have other areas that have problems as well. Thank you, George. Mr. President. Thank you. You know, I'm not going to make any conclusory remarks right now. I do I do believe that we need to move to the second reading and have a public courtesy, public hearing that Councilman Ortega has put forward. And so I will be supporting that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks. Councilman Kasich. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a few questions and I'll do my comments. I think this is probably best answered by George, but you can defer if it's not the right person. So you're going to come up. Thanks. Can you share the general age of our sanitary sewer system? Sanitary? Sure. Sanitary system is approximately averages 60 years of age. Six zero. 66, zero years of age. We have 1475 miles of sanitary sewer in the system that we're responsible for maintaining. Thank you. And can you give us similar what's the general age of our storm infrastructure? Storm is newer. Storm average is about 40 years of age and we have about 750 linear miles of storm drainage pipes and channels. Got it. And even if none of our storm system were old, if none of it were inadequate, if it let's just imagine that it covered everything. We had a great number of concrete pipes and underground things. Would we still be facing legal or other demands to change or improve the way we did storm? Are we under any, you know, pressures that are influencing this package today? Right. Yeah, we would be. I think in terms of our development and what we require of our developers, how far they have to be out of points in an event inundation or in flood floodplain issues. The other thing is to keep in mind storm also takes care of our water quality. And regardless of what we do with our storm system itself, we have to in order to keep dumping. Water into the Platte River. We have to buy the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and they give us a permit every year and they're going to renew or hopefully they're going to consider renewing our permit this summer . There are certain kinds of levels of E.coli that have to be met with in the Platte River and other requirements. That's part of our storm system. So we would be modifying our storm system to, if nothing else, to to extend it throughout the city to take care of the areas that flood, but also to improve the storm system we now have, because it is not the quality of the water we're putting in the river needs to be improved. Okay. Thank you very much. That's helpful. So next question. And this is not scientific, but we have a number of neighboring cities around us Parker Castle, Rock, Westminster. How would you generally compare the size, the age, the complexity of our system in Denver to some of those surrounding cities? Our system is probably older because our city's been around longer. We've been developing longer. But what's interesting is our average sanitary and storm rate that our people pay is about $340 per year. The average in the metropolitan area is $426 per year. So even though our system is older and it needs probably more updating and more infrastructure improvement, we have been able to keep our rates below the metropolitan average by, what, nearly $80 a year. And even with this rate increase, which is basically for sanitary and storm, it's about $24. Then we'll go from 320 to 340 and the average is still for 26 and assuming they don't change. So we're trying to keep things. We're trying to do as much as we can without increasing costs, you know, to our to our ratepayers as much as possible. So we're investing less than a typical city that's newer and less complex in our system. Right. Next question is probably for Leslie. Again, you can defer if it's the wrong one. And I'm just going to ask you to not going to like these questions, but I'm gonna ask you to just try to be blunt and not political and not couch it. I would just. So there you go. So imagine that CDOT is coming to a community to build a big transportation project that's not controversial and they're going to spend a ton of money. Do they ask the local community for a contribution towards that project? Typically. You answer that? Go ahead. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's fine. Yeah. Since we do projects all over. The answer would be no, they don't. And for highway projects. For highway projects? No, they do not come to the LOC unless it's a you know, for. I'm speaking strictly from the dry from the drainage standpoint. Yeah. No, and I'm not talking about drainage, actually. This is really important. This is really important, actually. Okay. So thank you for jumping in, Paul, because I totally appreciate your effort. I, I was it was funny because your answer wasn't what I expected either, because I've done transportation for about ten years now. So when I see that it's building a big road and and it's going to, you know, improve traffic congestion, whatever it's going to do to see that, tend to ask the local community for some contribution to large projects. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. That's what I thought the answer was. Let me give you an example, Councilman, to ask us, what did we do with T Rex? Big project. Big highway project. Right. In T-Rex, we had an idea with RTD and let's see, we we the city contributed $15 million in hard cash match. We provided all the right of way we contributed donated to right of way to build the road and to build the railway and all that. We waived all permit fees just so no different really than a lot of what they're asking us to do with I-70. So and that was, what, 15 years ago? Ten or 15 years ago. So, yes, the answer is they always ask, in fact, if they build their own detention system and they build these holes and, you know, and the walls or whatever, they will come to the city of Denver and say, we built these detention ponds to protect our road. You have to maintain them because the law says the state builds them and the local municipality maintains them. So we'll have to maintain these drainage vaults that we don't want to have built, be honest with you, but would have to maintain them anyway. So yes, they asked us for a lot of money. Okay. And I just think that's really important because I think what my goal with these questions is to unravel some of the confusion about how we ended up here. So just, you know, my goal is not to, you know, put anyone on the spot. It's to unravel confusion. So so we can assume that Seedat asked Denver for a contribution to this project. So we could have, for example, contributed a significant amount of cash, or we could have contributed something like underpass or an overpass or an exit lane or something like that. Is that correct? So, Leslie, can you help me just in the bluntest clearest terms, simple terms, explain why we chose to offer this as our contribution. We we did it because we want we want to protect the city and have a say. I'm sorry, folks. She asked me for the blunt answer, and I'm giving it to you. We are public works. I am the city engineer. And the more that we can protect the city and create a city that we want to live in. You all just had a fabulous discussion about how Denver is and how we all love Denver. We love Denver, too. We live here. We live here, too. And we want this project to be built in a way that solves our problems, not creates problems, like George said, that we have to take care of. So I just want to say it back to you even more bluntly. So given the choice between $20 million of cash or an overpass or an exit lane that we saw no value in, we offered something that we needed anyway. Yes, that's. This. I mean, I'm just going to just start my comments with this observation, which is we have so many smart people in this city on this project and it's killing us because, you know, we don't have someone who can tell a very clear and simple story and that we we got to own this as a city. We have not done a very good job of telling this story clearly. And so so I want to thank the residents, I think, who have pushed us with the questions that you've asked to understand what we're doing and why. I want to thank all of my colleagues because I think you all have educated us so much on the details, but I just want us to actually slow down and help explain this in, again, simpler terms. If you put aside the controversy, we are I think there is so much technicality in this controversy, in this conversation because of the controversy, and it's not helping the residents. Councilman, you mentioned when he says his residents just don't understand, it's because who could possibly, you know. Yes, locals protected east of the river, but not left. It's it is. We are missing. We're missing the forest for the trees. So here's the forest. As I have come to understand it, half of this package, half of it is for sanitary sewer. It's for crumbling pipes. It's for keeping human waste. Yeah, it's true. There's $23 on the average bill, and more than $11. $11 of the 23 is for sanitary sewer. It's for poop people. I mean, I'm not I mean, let's this is the thing. We're getting so technical. We have a city with 700,000 people and we all go to the bathroom. And our sanitary sewer is the one difference between us and drinking water and as an illness. And the way you mean think about Denver's founding in 1880, right? The South Platte River was the bathroom. The one difference between now and then is the sanitary sewer system. So I just want to take that piece off. I've not gotten emails and I've not gotten calls telling me that people don't believe in our sanitary sewer. So half this package has not been controversial. And I just we got a name that we got a name. What have this package represents? So we got the other half, the package, the controversy, side storm sewer. We have been chronically underfunding this infrastructure. I you know, I have a lot of respect for our governor and our he was our former mayor, but he told a story to the residents of Denver during his time that you could just do it all with less. You didn't need people. You didn't need more budget. You could just cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. And a number of us took office with libraries closed three days a week without hiring an officer for five years and not having funded some of this infrastructure. It wasn't a it wasn't really a true story because the true story is when you start funding that stuff, you get behind and it hurts your city and it hurts your future. So we've chronically underfunded the infrastructure. We want to do it better. Councilwoman Gilmore was very eloquent in describing water quality, a concrete pipe that dumps a bunch of water that has runoff from parking lots and dogs and all those things directly into the river isn't safe. So we want to do it better. We want to slow it down, and we want to improve the quality before it goes in. I actually don't think that's that controversial. There are a lot of questions about the the coal portion of the channel, and those are really valid questions. But I haven't heard anyone say that it's best to just take the dirtiest water possible and dump it in the most concentrated form into the river. So. So quality is a portion of this package doing things better, replacing things that don't do a good job now. So that's not controversial. Then you've got the pieces that are about improvements and expansions. And Councilman Flynn, you asked a great question about approving a package without everything being known. So here's a piece of my experience on this council. When I was first elected, there was an approved stormwater plan and it had a set number of projects on it. And the staff came to me and said, Listen, we told you these are the projects we're going to do. They're really good projects, but guess what? Fast track is going in. And we have three or four stations that now we have an immediate need to change priorities because if we don't, we're going to miss an opportunity to do a grade separation and a train is going to go through a flooding area, or we're going to miss an opportunity to leverage $20 million of somebody else's construction with less of our money to get it out. And we changed the plan and we changed it for a really good, valid reason. And if we had promised and said in stone, Hey, these are the projects we're going to do and we can never deviate, we'd be in big trouble. I sit on the Denver Regional Council of Governments and again, it's an analogy, but hang with me, if you will. We have this, you know, fiscally constrained transportation plan where every city puts its top priorities on it. And it's it's a 20 year plan. And every single year we make changes to that plan because communities themselves acknowledge a change. Maybe a big employer left, maybe a transit project came online. Who knows? But that kind of evolution is really important. And if it were if there were no safeguard, I would share your same concern about having nope, no concrete list, but there is a safeguard and that's the annual budget process. That list gets refined each year, and if this council feels like the right priorities aren't getting on it, then we have that power. So. So as I peel through the pieces of this package, half of it non-controversial, it's sanitary sewer portion of it for quality, right. Not that controversial portion of it to catch up on, chronically underinvested still below the regional average. Even with this increase, we will still be below the regional average. So then what do we have left? We have the controversy of the Platt debacle, and so I cannot eliminate the controversy around I-70. I think the concerns that have been raised and the the desire to imagine a different course of action is is so I get it viscerally. I wish that $850 million of the funding for that was not tied to replacement of the deficient bridge. And we could imagine using it for a different purpose, but we can't. That's the project that's going through within a year and regardless of this project. See, I was going to ask for something from us. I would rather get credit for something we need anyway for that project than to simply give them cash to put into something else that we didn't need or didn't care about. So leveraging and getting a better outcome. Is this perfect? No. I think every question my colleagues have asked about the secondary protection, I think there's a ways to go yet on that project. But I also see other gates coming on how to get there. And so for me, I'm with Michael, my colleague, Councilman Brooks, in believing that this deserves a chance to go to the next reading, to continue to clarify the questions that have been asked. And I think, you know, I think we will hopefully learn as a city that if we can talk about this as what it really is , which is it's a package to do sanitary sewer, to catch up on chronically underfunded infrastructure and to get credit for something we wanted to do anyway for a big pain in the ass project that's really controversial and politically unpopular, and no one wants to say it, but that's what we're doing. I can I mean, I just want to be honest. And I think that the more direct and the more plainspoken we can be about this, I think the easier it will be for our residents to then give us valuable feedback. Do not want me doing sanitary sewer. Really? All right. Do you not want do you want me dumping dirty water into the river from concrete channels only? Really. Let's talk about all of those pieces and then we'll continue to advocate and work on the I-70 piece. It's not done. Councilman Cashman's point. Right. Looking for every chance to continue that conversation and I share that. So so I think we move this forward. We hear from residents and I hope we do a better job in the future of this project and in the future of telling the big picture without getting so lost in the weeds and avoiding controversy. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman Kenney. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a question that I would like one of the attorneys I don't know who best to answer, but I think Councilman Flynn and Councilman Brooks both brought up good points from different angles. And so I'm asking reading through the bill what we are actually passing here versus what we are talking about. So could one of the attorneys point me to and reading through the bill, I don't see anywhere in the bill what we are actually voting on, where this says a peep about what projects it will fund. Is that in there in a missing it? Jessica Brody, Denver City Attorney's Office. You're correct. There's no specified lists in the bill. The bill is about the rates. So the discussion that we're having about projects is to give everyone here, members of the public, a sense of where that money goes and how it's used. But what we're what we're approving through this action is, is the rates themselves. So at its very core, what we are voting on is the increase of rates that would allow us to leverage funding debt issuance, to enter into contracts for projects to do work. But it is not specific at all in anything that we are going to be voting on today or on second reading. What projects those are? Yes. That's correct. We're not in approval of specific projects. And and then and I don't know if you want to answer this question or if you want to kick this off now at a public workshop. But any any spending of that money on any project would have to either through a contract that's over $500,000, an appropriate appropriation of funds through the budget process, any debt issuance, all of that we would get to vote on when it happens. That's correct. So everything that is project related, if there's someone sitting up here who hates a certain piece or project of this, we will have a chance to vote no on that project. Is that correct? Yes. You'll have more bites of those apples. Okay. So I think that, you know, for me, we have a huge infrastructure need. I don't think I haven't heard anybody up here at least dispute that. And I've even heard people who I think are leaning towards or are going to vote no. So that is specifically acknowledged. And that's all my questions. You don't have to. You can. Thank you very much. Acknowledge that, in fact, that this amount of money, however we end up slicing it up, is never going to cover the entire need of what we have. And as councilwoman can each brought up, this is we're talking about poop water in old pipes that is dripping into our stormwater and leading to elevated levels of E.coli in the South Platte River. We are we're talking about all kinds of infrastructure needs that we can continue. And I think that it's good and it's it's it's a good part of the process that we continue to have a debate, that we continue to pressure staff on behalf of the people that we represent, that we as a body continue to have conversations about what the right projects are, what the priority of projects are, that staff continues to prioritize that. But at the end of the day, and I guess I'm just talking a little bit to my man, Councilman Cashman, who I think the world of that there are votes to say no in in opposition of things that I don't disagree with you on certain projects and what Scott is not doing and not bringing to the table. I guess where I diverge is that this is where we this is where we get the money to do all of the good things and all of the necessary things. And then we continue to fight the fight on what projects it funds. But I think we're getting caught up in every little detail of the project. And there are people up here who've said, and what I want, I don't want to write a blank check. I want to know exactly what this is going to fund. But that's not our process. That's not what we're voting on. There is no bill that would come forward that would say these are the exact projects that will be funded by this, because what we are voting on is changing the ordinance on the fee, the money that will be generated. That's what we're voting on here. And then any of those projects that require more than $500,000 or require any appropriation, any thing in the budget or any debt issuance, we then vote on that that bill for that project. And so for me, there is such a desperate need on so many fronts for this money. This is ambitious. This is a big bite towards getting that done. And I, I think it's what we need to do. I think that people can't think that this is the end, that we take this bite and all of our infrastructure needs go away. And all of a sudden we're not putting poop water into the South Platte River. That's still going to be happening after this. We're still going to have huge infrastructure needs. We're still going to have areas that are at threat when the last hundred year flood hit Denver. 1965 most devastating natural disaster in Denver history that led to the building of Chatfield Reservoir, Bear Creek Reservoir and Cherry Creek Reservoir. Massive infrastructure projects because people lived through what it's like to experience a 100 year event to protect our citizens and before they have to live through that devastation, it's going to take a massive investment. I think that we need to continue the conversation about what is strategically best and what if this is tied to other projects that we don't like and how do we best advocate for the best end in all of those projects? It doesn't change the fact that this is just the first bite at what we need to do. We have to do from an infrastructure standpoint on storm and sewer water in our city. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clarke. All right. We got three left and all of these people have spoken before. So, Councilman Flynn, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Clarke. I can't disagree with anything you say about the need or anything that Councilwoman Kennish or any of the other members said about the need. I acknowledge the need, but before I raise people's fees to pay for those needs, I need to know what I'm buying. I don't oppose doing something about the flooding problems that I personally witnessed. I was I was working at the newspaper the day that firefighter Robert Crump was sucked into the drainage inlet on Colorado Boulevard and died saving a woman's life from a flood. So I know the need. I just need to know what we're building before I raise people's fees to pay for it, as opposed to raising fees now and just creating a pool of money. I know that Councilman Cashman and he's well known as the young idealist. On the council. So he he foresees a possibility that. You know, that maybe the cost could come in in less than than what we are estimating now. And among all the projects. I've covered and worked. On. There was only one that came in at less, and that was one that was in my dreams. So Brendan. Can I ask you a question? And this is only to get your face time on Channel eight because no one's called you up yet. But I had asked and this is real brief, I had asked at the committee meeting. Is there a way that we can work into the fee structure? A credit for any homeowner who takes advantage of the new rain barrel law and stops dumping from serious stops, dumping 110 gallons of water into our gutters. I would that would also promote the expansion of the rainwater program. Is that something that you've looked at yet? So I don't see it in the ordinance. Good evening. Brendan Hanlon, the city's chief financial officer. We don't have a plan for that at this point in time. I believe that the that the infrastructure is too new to be planning around that. In conversations with public works, we would have to figure out. Exactly how to calculate a. Credit based on how much is essentially retained on site and then where does it go. So I think that's going to be a little bit more work as that matures. It would go on my wife's vegetable garden most likely. Do you think it could come back on the 13th when there's a courtesy hearing and maybe take a high. Level view of how that might work? We could try to look into it. I don't know, but I will ask. I don't know that it's possible, to be honest with you. Okay. Well, that's my answer there. We're using. But this is by far like by a factor of five times. The largest bond issue that wastewater is considered. We've done a 30 and a 2450, and here we're talking about $236 million in bonds for this and for other projects. And remember, on the T reg project, when Governor Owens did the trans bonds, it ended up dedicating about half of the future annual federal gas tax revenue strictly to debt service. I'm a little concerned about going this deeply into debt and tying up annual revenues for debt service, which can't build anything other than what we've already built on Platte to Park Hill. What would be the impact on this rate structure? And I asked this question in committee if we took out the plat to Park Hills scope except for what was in the IGA. So Councilman, I believe you're just looking through my questions here. So remember when I was in council committee, I was describing a situation where the average increase over that five year period of time is 10.6%. That's the average if you total up the three elevens in the 2/10. So 4.3% of that increase over that five year period of time relates to the debt issuance for the whole $236 million. So that would have to be modified, reduced in some way, shape or form. We'd have to rerun cash balances to figure out exactly what would have to true up in that situation. But if you simply just do the math of if that debt issuance was not in the numbers, it would be 4.3% that would not be attributable to the rates. Now, you might come back and say. There might be more cash projects that you would want to do, but that would be a different calculation that would need to be. Adjusted now. Finally, in the Ciudad IGA they see that the state agreed to pay additional other than the 40% of 140 million for the two basin drainage project. But only up to a certain amount, which I think would have capped the whole thing at about about 151 million total city and state. She agreed to pay another 6.9 million on top of their. Do we have a is there a measure in the IGA that that has see that contributing any more? Then that to this project? I don't know that I have the answer to that question. No, I don't believe so. That is what the crowd is answering. Okay. I don't like that either. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Actually, I'm Georgians. Just not the current IGA. I mean, it limits them. One of the things I want to point out to Brandon said, because you said something that pique speak my mind. The Storm and Sanitary Fund generates about $130 million a year. Now the payment on $250 million of bonded indebtedness, which would be the current 50 plus, the new 200 would be 232. Right. Would be around $20 million. So roughly 15% of the fund would be committed to debt payments. So it's not like we're mortgaging whether you can buy a house as long as it's only a third of your income. This would be about 15% of the system's income will be pledged in debt payments. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. The only other thing I would say before we vote is that I don't like the notion of paying for something before I know what I'm buying. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Espinosa. Up. Yeah, I think, Councilman Clark, I don't have to directly respond to that simply because to just take this on a literal face value is is completely ridiculous to me. It's what we do with our zoning, which is, oh, there's no project going here. You know, it's just a rezoning, but in fact, has real world impact. We know we're going to do something with this money. We, as council should, in fact, know what we're doing before we appropriate. I mean, this is a fee increase. It's not going to anybody but us. So to do our job on behalf of the public, we should have a very good idea about what our goals are, even if they change, because we have the latitude to do that. But we should know before we do that. Otherwise, why did we have any of this? Why didn't they just come up and say, we need $400 for stormwater and sewer? This is far less than the $1.5 billion that we need, but this is the most important. We're done. You know, we have to have this conversation. We have to know what we're buying. And we can't just default to the literal what we're actually what the bill is. I get that. But that also that latitude actually allows them to go well over 198, allows them to reduce the the stormwater, I mean, the sanitary projects . And that's actually what I want to get to with Councilwoman Kenney. You know, we we've I've heard you guys mentioned the age of this project. I mean, the age of our sanitary system. That is not unusual to have a very old sanitary system in a city. There are cities with older sanitary systems. The age itself does not mean that it is a failing system. And I just have to I don't have to go any further back than looking at the budget records for the prior years. You know, this breakdown cap last year was 17 million for stormwater, $1.8 million for sanitary. The year before was it was a banner year. $21 million for stormwater, $4 million for sanitary. But the year before that, $18 million for stormwater cap. $685,000 for sanitary. So it's the priority has been on stormwater and it will continue to be on the stormwater. And just because we have an aging sanitary system does not mean that it is a failing sanitary system. These are good systems put on by put in by good people a long time ago with forward thinking cities. So there are problems that need to be addressed. And we're going to do that. But it's it's it's too easy to use that argument that it's an old system and that it's half the money. It is not half the money. It is $8 million going forward versus $20 million going forward. And and it's only that portion that is not the 206 that is going to PDP. You know, it's the balance of the, what, 383 that we're then dividing that way. And so maybe I'm wrong with my math, but it's something like that. George, but there's nothing wrong with that. Before we clear the record about going forward and I want you to, because that's important, even though we don't need to know that for this bill, the past the past records on the CFP is right from Brandon. So go ahead and tell me how this money is going to be spent going forward. Two things with the sanitary system and we please keep these things in mind. Yes, it's an aging system that you're right. It doesn't mean that the system is falling apart. But we lined the pipe, 2 million linear feet of pipe, sewer pipe, sanitary sewer pipe every year to prevent that from happening. And we need to continue to do that. The years when it was less I can't speak to that. I don't know why that was the U.S. but that's one of the reasons, one of the things we want to do. The other thing to keep in mind for Sanitary and Council of Women can mention it is we have more people now and I have more we have more people flushing and showering and doing laundry and all that. We have our our effluent is treated by the Metropolitan Reclamation District. They, they, they treat the sewage. They then send us a bill. Depends on how much you send them. What's in the, in the water, that sort of thing. That rate is going up about 8% per year. So I don't want to lose sight of the fact that in part of the sanitary rate, in addition to the pipes which we could debate, you know, the condition of the pipes. But in addition to that, we also have the metropolitan rates, which are increasing on average about 8% a year. So so that system brings in a considerable amount of revenue precisely because it's designed to sort of take care of itself to some degree. So then to Georgia, actually, you should stay out there because I want to know how many congestion rate total toll lanes were put in T rex. Zero. Zero how many free public lanes were added with t rex. Drive at every day? I'd say two or four. Yes, I mean, yes. And then four. Was the light rail there prior to T Rex was that the light rail prior to T Rex? No. So that's again, I don't want to have to blur this reality, which is, yeah, we made similar concessions, but we were getting a lot as a city and as a public. We got free, free drivable lanes for everybody without having to pay tolls. This is a PDP, I mean a3p project that is going to be privatizing the two new lanes that are going in each direction. Meanwhile, we're only getting three new lanes, the same three lanes we already have today. So the congestion for everybody else is the same. And the light rail, sorry, the commuter rail is in it didn't need this. It doesn't need us. It's done. So, you know, it's just it is not apples and apples when we're talking if we start to extrapolate the, the the leveraging of I-70 and comparing it to t rex t rex completely different agreement and in an end result and impact. And I didn't mean to put or to to portray that it's the same thing. I was answering the question. This. T rex asked from a does see don't always ask locals for money and the answer is. Yes, yes. And and so that's why I was glad. But then when we were trying to simplify it for in terms of for the public to understand, we were trying to then sort of equate the two. And I want the public to understand that I said that the giveaways and concessions that were made for T Rex are in smiles different than these giveaways to to see that for I-70 we got more lanes, we got free lanes and we got a light rail in the process. So we got to move a lot of commuters in this thing, not just create two toll links in each direction while perpetuating a problem that has long existed in those communities. So. Let's see this little of others. So yeah. And I wanted to say to this. Yeah, this the 288 potential million dollars that this project is going to. We're not talking about stopping other projects. Well, there was some comment about stopping other projects or stopping projects. This this amount of money you heard me said, I don't mind making an investment in infrastructure, but this project diverted to this location will in fact, keep many of those other little stars that are known significant flooding locations from being addressed when we could probably capture a lot of those. And so the last thing Councilman Brooks had that map. And I want to speak to that. So I had held it up for you guys. I don't know if you could see it. And I don't know if I can bring it back up, but here it is. So this is the map, right? Which shows the yellow area and the purple area. And so that big that big gray line right here. Oh, I can't draw unless I'm using this thing. Apparently, this gray line is A 70 and so C that needs to address all the water that comes in this way. And so if we put this big channel right here, it does that. That's why that purple area is like that. But if we don't do that, CDOT will still stop all that water right there because it's going right into their ditch and they have a design for that and they have a plan for that. And so we're doing this huge investment to solve that problem, which really isn't you know, there are multiple solutions to that. Apparently I'm wrong. Leslie So explain to me what we're doing right? I mean, you reacted to me as I'm saying something false. I guess I answered that when I answered Councilwoman Nature's question. They do have a drainage plan in there. Yeah, it will give us. Holes in the ground that George will have to maintain. And it doesn't fit the land planning that we did with all the neighborhoods, Globeville area and Swansea. And so and there is, as Bruce said, no guarantee that they won't protect their investment by putting a street across and running the water across the street and back into Swansea. Elyria. So you did say that I-70 will create problems. So what are those problems? Because I asked you, Don, for their designs. They don't have any designs. They're relying that on their their contractor, their concessionaire to complete that work. That's a design build project. Well, what I'm referring to is what we've all reviewed in the office, the drainage alignment. And that's already in that's in the courts. I mean, there's there's there's contention over that. I mean, we still haven't had a letter of record, so we're relying on something that doesn't exist. So I guess what I'm reacting to is that by being able to invest this in this project, we are able to do the project we want to do to solve the problems that we have. So now let's talk about. Problems that will happen. We have. So this is this one right here is the 50 year study model. I have the 25 to 10 for this area. And so I'll stick with the 50. This is what that channel does. Okay. I don't know if you can see this. I'll I'll have to switch back and forth. But so right here, this is the this is the lower Montclair Basin and the other one. So these two. Virtual surface stream. These flows flow up to 39th Avenue and yeah, they flood some parking lots up there north of 39, south of I-70, to a fairly healthy level of inundation , a foot and a half to three feet in a 50 year event. But so after we do this channel. This area right here, you see all the color area. That's the inundation stops, stops cold. And this this is true in the ten year model. The 25 year model in the 50 and 100 year model stops cold. And that's the flow that that sea that needs to capture and divert. And that's what you know, that's what we're doing to benefit those these parking these surface lots. You know, when we have real inundation in wholesale neighborhoods, again, that's the before you saw what the after is. And so this is this was and so why I'm bringing that up is because go back to that purple map that I showed you with the line. Again, the difference is whether we start that protection here or we start that protection at I-70 and see that has that in there program that has it in I-70, it crosses one, two, three, three drainage basins that are either in the red or the orange and doesn't divert water into during this mission that already is in the red. And so this is a level of understanding that we don't get to it. COUNSEL Maybe my colleagues all understand it at this level, but going back to what Jennifer was saying when I got first approached with this and briefed, I got I got these maps and got told that this was going to benefit. That area, and I had to go back and point to the fact that there was no benefit there. So then I got that yellow and purple map that Alvis brought up, and it had a whole huge yellow area down here, including that area. And I had to point out that once again, that area is not being protected. And then we got that last version that we just presented, which starts to carve around that. And so I don't know what went on in those 90 group meetings, but if it went anything like what it got presented to council about that same time, I don't know how you would expect us to understand it at this level. Well, the one and I just to point out the one reason that yellow and one reason this project is more expensive than the original idea is because we changed the scope. And remember, one of the big changes of scope was the big detention area and the City Park Golf Course. The detention area in City Park Golf course creates that yellow area. Now, it doesn't it's not a primary, as you said. We agree with that. It's a secondary. But that that detention pond and City Park golf course holds the water and creates a secondary reduction. Now, what does that mean? So in a 25 year storm or 25 year storm, which is typically what we get around here, it cuts the flow of water by almost 50% through that neighborhood. Now, a 100 year flood. No, I mean 100 year flood to maybe it cuts it to 15 to 20%, but it does for a normal storm. And so I think that's the one that's the one addition. You know, so if if the old projects started, the channel went north. The new project starts at City Park Golf Course and goes north and those in between benefit from it. Yeah. And so that's the thing is I don't know. I mean, I'm sure there are hydraulic engineers and and and and civil engineers in those communities. But it's after 22 years of working in the field of architecture, this was hard for me to ascertain, especially once you compare these maps to those maps, to the tracks in the master plan and how they're oriented and they're all jacked up. It's difficult. And and then you hear the reports, you read the reports and the concerns about a whole host of other things. And then the read the yes. And there's a lot going on here. And I don't feel like my questions have gotten answered. I don't feel like I feel like tonight we're getting sort of the straight story with the exception of pretending this has nothing to do with I-70. So. So am I. You know, once again, I think that you guys wouldn't take that long to re reconsider. I mean, to come up with how this how this budget I mean, this fee increase could could change. And I think you have ample time, given the status of I-70, to actually postpone this portion, carve this portion out and come back to us while I'm still in council. Because if I don't if we don't if we kick this till the actual I-70 thing gets resolved and constructed, then my new colleague is going to be you know, there might be a new council here. And what I for I bet happens then is that it gets told that we had already approved that and that this was this was already agreed to because I had that happen to me here. And so I'm not I'm not I'm not buying it. I'm not buying at all. So things. Council angry Councilman Espinosa. Councilwoman Ortega. Yep. Have two brief items. The first one is I'm not sure who from public works should come up and speak to the EPA study that talks about water quality. And in that report, it also has a recommendation. You heard councilman when asked a question about a credit for rain barrel, but there was a specific recommendation for development that are providing their own onsite detention. And I've asked this question and I just want to hear again how the issue of credits for development that are providing their own onsite detention and I'm not talking about 100% credit, but it's for credit of the water that is being kept off, you know, from running off the site. I mean, there will be runoff from the streets, from the curbs, the gutters, the rooftops. But the anticipation is some of that would be captured onsite. So help me understand how that is being addressed as a credit for those developments as it's as it was recommended in the EPA's study. Councilman George Delaney. Again, I'm not sure. We have not addressed it to be straightened out. I appreciate that. One of the concerns is, I guess, and I'll just give you my perspective on it are our needs in this area are so great that even though you, the developer, are retaining the training on your site or water quality treatment on your site, I still have bigger, bigger issues. So before I start giving you a discount for what you do, I need your rate. Be honest with you. To pay for the others, they're not doing that. And so right now, it's sort of like an all or a total citywide kind of effort. But but but but I do remember seeing your question about that, and we did not consider that as part of this rate adjustment. Okay. Go ahead. So just to clarify, the current requirement to detain and treat On-Site, which applies to. Areas. Of disturbance over a certain size, is to address the incremental impact of that new development. It doesn't address the many existing needs that are identified in our master plan. It's just to account for the new incremental impact of that development. Okay. My last question is for Brendan. BRENNAN One of my questions I will always ask when we're looking at large public finance projects is about our debt capacity. So, you know, I look at the big picture of the city, including some of our enterprise funds like DIA. So we've got outstanding debt on Idea Hotel. We're talking about roughly $300 million for the Great Hall National Western Center. We just did 800 million. I don't know what the DCP anticipation would be or if that's sought out to be something that's tied into a bond issue or a separate public private partnership. But I'm assuming there would be some expectation there's city funding into it. Are there other big projects? And then my last question is. If we have some major emergency, do we have the capacity to handle dealing with an emergency bond issue to take care of some major emergency, or are we getting close to our debt capacity? So again, Brendan Hanlin The CS Chief Financial Officer So just to clarify, I think you've hit a number of the big projects that we've been discussing. Off the top of my head, I don't know that I could rattle off a number of others, but I think the important part of the projects that you've listed off is that there are different funding sources that support the debt issuances that were allocated for those. So National Western was a revenue revenue bond transaction and we dedicated specific revenues towards that DIA Enterprise Fund for those projects supports that and the revenues from that Enterprise Fund support that project. The wastewater fund has its own revenue streams. Our debt profile for that fund is supported by its own revenues. I would say that in terms of a large emergency, you've probably heard me profess to this. That is why I argue for no no less than 15% fund balance for the city and county of Denver. Now, I think part of that, though, depends on the nature of the event that you're describing. If it was a large wastewater event, we would have to have that conversation around what is the wastewater fund's capacity for a large event. I don't know what large event that you're describing could be, but it would take a multitude of different funding sources for the city and county of Denver to respond to a variety of different events. And then just the last piece is about the impact to our bond rating. I mean, they look at the big picture of our our fiscal stability. Right. And so. So right now, the wastewater fund is rated by two agencies that is triple-A rated. So that is the highest level rating for those two agencies. We believe that this rate increase will support the debt issuance, which will maintain the coverage ratios required to maintain that triple-A bond rating. Thank you. Sure. Thank you. I also want to take any other questions or comments on three or six. The only thing that I will add is just one clarification. In the last council, we actually save money quite frequently on our bond projects. And I remember this council had a debate on what to do with allocation. So, Councilman Flynn, you were not dreaming. That was a reality. Madam Secretary, roll call on 306. Black eye, Brooks. Clark by. Espinosa No. Flynn No. Gilmore I. Cashman Can each new. I'm going to I'm going to vote. But I just want to know I reserve I want to hear the public hearing it. Public needs to be able to speak about this issue at that second reading. And there's no guarantee of vote. Yes, then. Oh. Ortega. I'm casting my vote in the same way because I think it is important that the public have the opportunity to be here and for their voice to be heard. At the public hearing on June 13th. I. Sussman, I. Mr. President. Hi, Councilwoman Ortega. Still waiting. Got it. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. Announce the result. Nine-Nine's three days nine-nine's three days three of six has been ordered published, so second hearing would be on June six. However, council members are not going to be here because we won't have a quorum. But in the event that something happens that we have all council members here, let's tie a bow on this and we need Councilwoman Ortega, your motion to postpone second reading to the 13th. Mr. President, I move that second reading on Council Bill 306 be postponed until Monday, June 13, 2016. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Any comments? Just want to clarify that. That does include the one our courtesy public hearing is correct. And we went to the voting screen. So I just looked up to see if anyone has a comment. Nope. No imam's sector. You can go back for a roll call postponement. Second Reading to Monday, June 13th, 2006. Madam Secretary, as soon as we get a move, Councilwoman Ortega on the screen and then a second will move, then second. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Hi, Brooks. Hi. Clark. Hi, Espinosa. Hi, Flynn. Hi, Gilmore, I Cashman. Hi. Can I knew Ortega. I assessment. Mr. President. Hi. Magic trick. We thought voting our results. 1212. I'd find a consideration on three or six has been postponed to Monday, June 13, 2016. All right, we've got one more bill, one final Councilman Brooks. 323, 324, 325. What would you like for us to do with these? Let me gather myself. Mr. President, I would like to postpone final consideration of these three companion bills at the close of the public hearing this evening, scheduled after the recess. Council Bill 322 Regarding the addition of 2561 Street Project and the creation of 2561 Street Tax Increment Area.