A bill for an ordinance to rescind and reappropriate in the Capital Improvement program and make an appropriation from capital improvement fund contingency. (GOVERNMENT & FINANCE) Rescinds and reappropriates $1,423,932 in unused capital improvement funds from the 2014 Capital Improvement Program budget and appropriates $250,000 from capital improvement fund contingency for the Housing & Urban Development (HUD) Choice Planning Local Match. The Committee approved filing this bill by consent on 3-6-14.
All right. Thank you very much. Councilwoman Layman, will you read the motions this evening? I will. Will you please put Council Bill 145 on the floor? I move that council. Be 14, dash 145, be put on final consideration and do pass. Thank you. It has been moved in. Seconded comments. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Madam President. First, I want to thank Skye Stewart for providing us additional information on this. This is a rescission and appropriation of funding. And I also want to thank Parks and Recreation for providing additional information on this as well. This is so my concern is about one particular aspect of this, which is the bio retention for the Hinsdale Park site. And I also want to thank Councilwoman Lehman for taking time to talk with me about this issue as well. And part of my reason for bringing this out is if you all remember when the land swap on this property came up, I asked lots of questions and I brought some of the materials from those questions that I asked related to the drainage. So there were two issues related to drainage on this property. One was that the city of Denver made a commitment to spend $3.4 million to take an open channel and to pipe that. And that was not part of the costs of the land swap. And then the other issue was there was a retention pond on the site that was utilized for drainage that comes off of Havana Street. And in looking at this particular project for this bio retention area, which I understand would be an amenity for young people, particularly the children that will go to that school. Also, from my conversations with Parks and Recreation, it could be utilized by any other youth group. And I think that is a really positive thing that could happen for the for young people and for the citizens of our city. My issue is with the cost and the fact that this bio retention was not discussed as part of the additional cost of doing this project at that site. And I ask questions about the the retention pond that was on site that was going to be impacted as a result of the school going in there. And in going through this process. I remember asking questions about whether or not the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was going to have to sign off on things because that retention pond was going to be affected as a result of this project moving forward. And. I just I have heartburn with Denver spending an additional $400,000. And so DPS will contribute 203,000 and the city of Denver will spend $406,500 to make this retention fund happen. And I understand that it is in part a regional retention where others can, I guess, get credits towards contributing towards this plan. I don't really understand exactly how that works. I know that initially the site that was being looked at to be the retention, the regional retention pond was at Heron Pond or in that general vicinity. And for some reason that site just didn't work. I'm assuming maybe it had something to do with some of the contamination from Asarco that's in those soils. But my heartburn is with the cost and the fact that when this project came forward, it was never part of the original big picture that we were asked to vote on. And so unfortunately, that means I have to vote in a way that would impact the other projects that are part of this package. But I have heartburn voting in support of putting more money into something that we already spent 4.3. $4 million on to to address drainage. And to be asked to spend another $400,000. I just don't think it makes sense. It should have been part of the big picture at the time that this project was brought forward. So for those reasons, I will not be voting for this bill tonight. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Madam President. Since Councilwoman Shepard pulled this out last week, I have gone through some of the same process as Councilwoman Ortega looking at this, because, like Councilwoman Ortega, I had not supported the swap out there, although I admit that was a really difficult decision that all of us faced. And I was concerned about the additional costs. But what is key to me, because we are always investing in our parks at some level. And if it has been determined that DPS in the city are working together on this, what was crucial to me in the cost was that DPS was bearing its fair share and we were bearing our fair share. I would like in and I'm really comfortable with it if it's all on Denver land, and that's a question I've been asking. So I'd like to ask Scott Gilmore to come up to the microphone and talk about the land and how these dollars are different from just the degree that the detention pond and the stormwater project that Councilwoman Ortega referred to it, 3.4 million. Thank you, Counsel and Rob, Mr. Gilmore. So I brought I brought the map of the area so I could show you guys. Exactly. It's popping up. So when we transferred the land and you see if I can make it a little smaller for you guys. That's good. And I think he's going to bring around a picture. So if you can look at the image, this area, this is Cherry Creek. This area over here is a banner on the right side of the picture up there. The right side is Havana, and down at the bottom is Geraghty, all the way at the bottom. So right now, the way the land is situated, everything toward the top of the picture, on the on the top side of the red is actually parkland. And so the red is actually part of the land that was transferred to DPS for the school site. That will be where the detention, the bio retention area is built. And and that is actually where the the outdoor education amphitheater that the kids could utilize and, you know, nonprofits and and just people can go down and enjoy being by the creek and sit down and enjoy the red areas where DPS actually they own that at this park at this time. Once this area is built and this is all done, they will actually transfer this land back to us and we won't have to pay for it. So we're actually going to get a half an acre back. The reason we're doing that is because I know Parks and Rec is going to be committed to making sure that this area is managed properly, that the plants are taken care, that the area is growing well, and that we we care for this area as part of this will actually become part of Hensel Park. All the land on the upper part of the the map is now part of designated Hensel Park. This will actually added an additional half acre to that park. So this will be theme park parts land. Scott, I didn't let you get to how, how this cast is different from the other. But while we're on the land, is there an IMO you or some guarantee that DPS is willing to transfer that land to us? We haven't done a MRU yet, but we've been we've been talking to them and they actually want to transfer the land to us because they know we'll take care of it at least this half acre, because if they don't transfer it to us, they'll be responsible for caring for this. And well, I mean, it's part of the park park part of the bio retention area. So it makes more sense for us just to go ahead and take over management of the whole area. One other thing I wanted to show you. There's a little on the toward the bottom of the map. There's a little rectangular box right on the edge of the bio retention pond that is actually underground vault. That is something that Parks and Rec actually asked public works and DPS that we want at this underground vault. It's a very progressive type thing, but there should have been a four bay. They had a four bay plan to put be put in here, four bays just catch trash. And so it would have just been catching a lot of trash and it would have been a nightmare to maintain and just keep clean. And so what we did was actually have them put into the plan underground vault, which is a big part of the cost of making this work. Right. So I think that was a big thing that Parks and Rec actually requested and that we've got them to buy off on. So. Okay. So if I have this right, DPS is of contributing 200,000 plus a little bit to the project, about a third of the cost plus they're contributing half an acre. We're doing the maintenance. I do wish that were spelled out. But can you also address the difference what we're getting in addition to the bio retention or we have another picture and on disk and you might as well show the public. There you go. So what what we're getting traditionally, what what would have happened in a in a bio retention area or detention pond? As you just dig it out, you make sure it just drains out or it seeps out or drops into the creek. We really want it somewhere where people could get down to the river and actually do scientific exploration. Getting kids down there with microscopes and getting them down there with, you know, with bug catching nets and actually exploring the river. You could do so many interesting things along this river, along Cherry Creek. You could talk about history. You can talk about gold panning that was done on these creeks. You can do science, scientific stuff about riparian zones and all the wildlife that uses these corridors. So we wanted to build an area that worked really well for. For school groups and nonprofits to be able to get down in there and just really do some hands on learning. So that's what you're seeing in this picture that actually represent us, represents a school group down there right on the creek in this outdoor education area . So. Okay, Madam President, that that's the end of my questions. I will just comment that I gave this a lot of thought. It's a good project. I think it's going to be a real addition to the area. But like Councilwoman Ortega, I really want the public to know what we're doing here. Like no screens over this. So when I saw it pop up in it, it sort of missed my radar. I wanted to be sure we talked about it tonight. I also wanted to be sure we talked about it because in an ideal world, and I know we all know through city processes that they don't all follow in the order we would like sometimes. But in the ideal world, we would have a commitment from DPS on the transfer of this land, on their commitment to actually do environmental education if we're building and maintaining this. So but I think just by having that public discussion, that commitment now is on record. And I know Councilwoman Layman won't let up on it. Thank you, Councilwoman. Right, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Madam President. I think most of my questions have been answered. But, Mr. Gilmore, if you can answer just one more. So for me, I did end up supporting this project, but it was a very close call and I had a very hard time because of my concerns about the habitat impact. When you shrink a space, you just necessarily impact its integrity as habitat in a urban environment, particularly where there's so many threats. And so one of the things that I had asked questions about was the investment in other habitat enhancements. So if we're going to shrink the space, what do we do to increase the integrity of what's remaining? And so we talked a lot about plantings and restoration of native plants, etc., which I have been told I believe is actually still separately being funded. This is not intended to satisfy that commitment that is still coming and that is still a commitment of the cities in terms of the remaining habitat. Is that right? Yes. So the the dollars our request is for the bio retention area that will include all the plantations and all the revegetation around the bio retention area in the park where we actually were clearing some areas and there was some degraded property. We actually are in the process of right now treating some of the non noxious weeds that were there. We're actually going to start scraping some of the areas and and revegetated that is on the plan and we'll be doing that this spring. And with the weather the way it's been, it's been it should go really well. Great. Thank you. And I guess then I just want to just close the loop on this by saying it's my understanding that this investment, you know, we see in this picture the really beautiful steps, you know, for for poor people to learn. But there are, in fact, habitat improvements related to this investment in terms of the water, in terms of the plants and in terms of wildlife and or the enjoyment of, you know, those who want to experience a more natural setting. This is not simply just education space. There's actual biological investment occurring here. That's a great point, Councilwoman. This actually the pond could have just been dug out and it could have seeped just straight into the creek pretty quickly or they could have just ran the pipe to the creek. This actually is improving water quality and it will really help in the long run having that underground vault, that trash will not end up in Cherry Creek. So I think this is a good project for the city, for DPS, for the city, and for just the residents that will be walking along this creek and actually can walk down and get by the river and just enjoy a nice place to sit. Well, thank you. That's the end of my questions. And so I just I share with my colleagues the desire that our arrangements be contractually put to paper and that DPS is similarly are contractually put to paper. But I consider this a positive that above and beyond the investment that you all committed to when I voted for the project, that this is additional improvements to the biological habitat. And for that, I think it's actually a good thing. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kennish. Councilwoman Lehman. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to thank Scott for all the time and all the support and really doing a fine job of answering questions from council from. My constituents, sometimes from the teachers at DPS. He was just in and did an incredible job for this project and he deserves much. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Lyman. And then I just want to say that I'm very excited about this project. And for southeast Denver as well as the city, I think it adds anything to an incredible outdoor education opportunity for everyone. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Leah and Councilwoman Shepherd. Thank you, Madam President, I, I was the one that did pull this out last week for questions. And I'm so glad that, you know, everyone else did, too, and that we got a lot of good information. And I do appreciate all that. I had a long talk with Scott and Laureate Laura today in my office just about our capital improvement program, the funding for it, the sources for it, and sort of how much, if you will, gets allocated across the city and across the districts for various projects throughout the year. And I did not vote for the Central Park land swap. But I will admit when the when Scott talked to me today about this amenity that will be created not just for the student education, but, you know, looking at it in the context of the river and presuming that the eventual product looks like this lovely conceptual image , you know, I think it's a great amenity for all users of the trail. And in the summer I bike quite frequently through Confluence Park, and there's that one step area on the west side of the Confluence, and it's full with people sitting there enjoying the river. So I do think, you know, that the the disbursement of 400,000, you know, for this project is money well spent. But what came up for me was more of an understanding about was how our capital improvement program works. And I learned that, you know, we only get 50 million annually across the city to address everything, especially in public works and parks that needs to be maintained and or added to. And I just doing a little quick math in my head and thinking about the fact that we have just over 600,000 residents and that works out to about $83 per capita annually for all of these various capital maintenance and potential additional projects, both in public works in our parks and then moving further. There's about 8 to 10 million annually that sort of filters down, if you will, at the district level to the various council people who can advocate for specific projects in their district that that may be addressed, you know, quickly or may be put in the queue for a longer term addressing of needs in the longer term. And what that boils down to is about $17 per capita annually. That is discretionary at the city council district level. So my reason for bringing all this up, and I'm sure that some of you out there are wondering where I'm going with out with all this is the fact that $1.4 million is a lot of money, if you think about it, at the district level. So that's and a large percentage of that $1.4 million is actually going to match funding for planning for the North Denver Cornerstone Collaborative. So while I think it's important absolutely to leverage those funds as much as possible, that means less in the pot left over that gets distributed to the rest of the city for all of the various projects that we have to do. We are an old city with a tremendous amount of aging infrastructure. And as I sit here and I think about this and every time I ask for a ten or $20,000 improvement in a park or something, you know, it gets on a list and it doesn't get addressed until two or three years out. And it's I find it difficult and challenging to be responsive to the needs of my constituents when we're dealing with such, you know, great demands, such aging infrastructure, which is quite visible. So this is all a very long way of saying that I'm very concerned about this. And it's something that I want to let my colleagues know that I'd like to talk about at our upcoming city council budget retreat, because I just don't feel the you know, certainly the way that this is being allocated on an annual basis is enough to address the maintenance and all of the deferred maintenance that has happened during the recession over the last several years. So, you know, and then saving it all up for these large bond requests every ten years leads to more additional deferred maintenance. And I just find that we're getting farther and farther behind the eight ball. And that's what my concern is. That's why I started this discussion in the first place. So I will be voting yes for this tonight. But I am asking for a bigger conversation about this issue and about how. Take better care of our capital investments, because I think that they can greatly enhance the quality of life for our residents. And if they're not being properly taken care of, I think that really chips away at our quality of life. So thank you very much for listening to my abstract conversation. I will be voting yes for the bill, but I do. I'm asking for a bigger conversation. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Shepherd. Pertinent to that, I said on the urban drainage flood control district with my colleagues, Councilwoman Lyman and and Councilman Lopez, who's the chair of that group. And I was just asking him, had we seen this camp, detention pond, retention pond remain? I always think flood control. But a bio retention pond is something very different. So but I'm wondering if urban drainage, is it also going to help out in the maintenance of this as they do? Because, of course, it is going to provide a little bit maybe cleaner, healthier water for sharing. So that we make. A case for that. We could try. But we're we're committed to making sure that we maintain it and take care of the parks. Okay. So they wouldn't they don't have any responsibility towards us. We're holding them to the ones we can. All right. So. All right. Thank you. I was just checking on that. All right. Looks like all the questions and comments are finished. I guess it's time for a roll call on come on, Council 145. Or take a bow. Rob Shepherd Brooks Hi Brown. I thought I heard two. I can reach Laming. Hi, Lopez. Hi, Monteiro. I never I Madam President. Hi, Mr. Secretary. Close the voting announce the results. 12 eyes when they. Go eyes one nay counts Bill 145 does pass. Okay, that is all of the ones that were called out. So I think we're ready for the block votes count from Lehman. Would you let me first say that all other bills for introduction are ordered, published and Councilwoman Lehman, would you please put the resolutions on the floor for