A resolution approving a proposed Fourth Amendment To Sublease Agreement between the City and County of Denver and DP Media Network, LLC for additional office space and improvements at 101 West Colfax Avenue. Amends a lease agreement with DP Media Network, LLC by adding $9,876,705.71 for a new total of $41,566,052.40 to lease an additional 25,193 square feet of office space on the 11th floor of the Denver Post building at 101 West Colfax Avenue for needed City office space. No change to contract duration (FINAN-201952609). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 2-24-20. Councilmember Black approved filing this item on 1-30-20.
consideration. Items have been called out and under pending. No names have been called out. I miss anything. All right. Madam Secretary, will you please put the first item on our screens? Councilmember Flynn, will you please put resolution one two on the floor? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution 20 dash one to be adopted. Thank you. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments on Resolution 108. Councilman Sawyer. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a number of questions about this. If I can talk to someone. Thank you. So this is obviously a pretty important contract because you guys have brought it back to us after we voted it down. So I guess I've got a lot of questions around kind of the specifics of it, starting with, you know, this $9 million lease. Does this $9 million lease for city office space fit with Denver's stated priorities of providing more affordable housing and more funding for our shelter system? Good evening. Brendan Hanlin, the city's chief financial officer. I'm here joined by Jeff Steinberg and Lisa Lumley, who's we're going to answer questions tonight to address that, I believe it is, in that we are looking for space for city employees to staff our host organization. You might remember from our budget process that was an organization that we formed. There were components of our housing team that were spread across multiple organizations. One of the goals that we have here in using our space more efficiently over time is to be able to find a place for that team as a priority over over the next couple of years. Also, we are we are trying to find sufficient space for our climate team. That was also another major priority by both the administration city council, along with other city staff across multiple other agencies, thinking public works, transportation, mobility, parks and recreation, CPD. All of those agencies have space constraints within our downtown facilities. It isn't just about the web necessarily. It's about multiple facilities downtown. Okay, so have we considered staff opportunities to work remotely and things like that? We have. And it's it's a policy that's been adopted. Agency by agency, depending on the type of work that each employee does. It also is dependent on the technology as well that we have to deploy to our employees. One of the challenges we've had recently is that due to security concerns, we've been beginning to restrict access for VPN to work from your home computer. So we have to make sure that we have sufficient technology to deploy to our employees that is city owned, that has our security profile on it. While it is an option, it isn't something that is extremely prevalent right now across the city. Okay. And. What sorts of steps, I guess, are we taking to decentralize office space needs? Are we? And I guess second part of that question. Are we doing things to utilize cheaper space outside of the central business district? That's an excellent question. We get this push pull constantly about being in the downtown core versus distributed throughout the city. Some of you well, some of you are probably aware, but I've been with the city since the Webb building was established, and the goal there was actually bringing people downtown to one place, and that was benefit to our employees, but it was also a benefit to our customers. So that way we weren't making our customers drive to multiple leased spaces across the city. So we have chosen to have a presence in downtown, both for efficiency and effectiveness of city staff, but also our customer experience. To the extent that it is within the mission or suits the mission of an agency to to have a space that's outside of the core, I think that's an option. But to date, we have chosen to be approximate to one another. So that way we're not passing our customers off across the city. Okay. And according to so according to Denver Business Journal, the average lease rate in the central business district is 3625 per square foot. Do we consider this lease competitive now and then? What about in the long term? I'm going to ask Jeff Steinberg to come up and talk about the rate itself and the negotiation. Okay, great. Thanks. I am Jeff Steinberg. I'm director of real estate for the city. And can you Denver. The rate that you quoted that the Denver Business Journal suggested is $36 a foot for average includes all buildings. So buildings are classified by quality A, B and C, so it blends all of those buildings in the CBD and comes up at that rate. The building that we're proposing to lease is a building and the rate that we're paying is $32 a foot. So even in the blended scenario, it's still 15% below that number that the Denver Business Journal is quoting as average rate for CBD. Okay. So what about in the event of an economic downturn? Right. So one of the things that we have within this building is that this will be the fourth lease. This is an amendment to the lease, but there are four separate dates as to when leases roll. So we have the opportunity as those leases come up for renewal, to not renew them and consolidate either within that space or in other buildings if the economy is such that there's vacancy. Okay. Mr. President, is it okay if I ask a couple of more questions or would you like me to get back in line if there are other? You just have a couple more. Really? Just one more. Go for it. Okay. So clearly, because you guys have brought this back, this is this is important. Why this building? Why this lease? So I would say first it is approximate to the other facilities that we have downtown. It already has the profile of our technology systems in it and it also makes our partnership with agencies between the two buildings easier versus having to find space outside of the approximate area of the web and other buildings. So I know we get really focused on the web building, but we also have the permit center. We have this facility, we have the 303 West Colfax facility and two more facilities down down the corridor for our our city campus, if you will. So the approximate spacing of our facilities, as well as the ability to keep our employees and our customers in one geographic location is really important. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilmember or Councilmember Hines. Thank you, Mr. President. May I start with Director Steinberg? Sure. A couple of real estate questions. Hello. Hi. So the last time we had this as a topic of conversation, there was a conversation about 2855 Tremont. I think there was a statement that that that is less than 25% occupied. Is that correct? It is not correct. The occupancy in that building is, as we sit today, is 61% divided in two different floors. And a portion of the space on the first floor is being held out for potential expansion of DMV type operations, as we have a DMV on that floor. So 61% occupied, as is the the space that you've reserved for potential expansion for the DMV office. That is not part of that 61%, is that correct? That is correct. There's approximately three or 4000 square feet on the second floor that is vacant. Okay. Thank you. Let's see another real estate question. Are there any tenants in this building that are not city agencies that are not related to city agencies? In this building being the post building. No, as in the city. And I'm sorry, this building is in the city and county building. I'm going to let Lisa answer that question. Thank you. Good evening. Lisa Lumley, assistant director of real estate. Councilman, there is one lease in here that is month to month right now, and it was actually brought forward by city council last year and it is for the Colorado Legal Services. So they are here at the request of city council. They are month to month because we recognized from the very beginning we had very limited space in this building as we're addressing all of the other city needs and court needs. And so working with council again, they have moved already twice in this building. They know that there is going to probably be a finite time that they can stay here. We may try and help them if we have other space, but otherwise that's the only one. Everything else is related to either the city or to the courts. Okay. So we had someone signed up for public comment tonight, Miss Maureen Welch. Her topic was office space at City Hall. Her particular statement, she wasn't here. So she she didn't say anything at all. But. But she has mentioned previously that there is a state office of Guardianship that is located behind our process desk, which is affiliated with the state of Colorado, not with the city and county of Denver. Are you familiar with that organization? Not necessarily the office, but I can certainly follow up with you on that. But what I would say is we still are required as a city and county to provide space for the state, for the district courts. And so if that is related to that use, that is probably what she's referring to. But I can confirm that tomorrow for you. Okay. Will you also confirm she has claimed that that space is provided at no cost? I don't know if that is the case or not, but but, you know, obviously, she isn't here and we don't have the answer in front of us. But. But that if it's related to the state, there would not be a cost. But let me confirm and get back to you tomorrow, if I may. Okay. Thank you. And then I do have. All right. I thought I had one other question, but I don't know where it is, so. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilmember Hines. Councilmember CdeBaca. Thank you, Mr. President. Couple of questions here for Lisa. Has the contract that we're. Looking at today. Changed from the original proposal a couple of weeks ago? No. Is there a new real estate masterplan. Since the. Last time we reviewed the last. Contract? No. The master plans that we have mentioned and that I believe you saw on your packets are still either the completed ones or the ones that were budgeted for 2020 that we're moving forward with. So there's no new master plan in works. Is there a new piece of. Information that was not available. A couple of weeks ago when we voted on the first. Contract? I would say the slight text that you received with all of that information would be the new information that was provided that I don't know that you all had as a complete package at that vote. And the 60%. That use or 61% of space being used, that 2855 treatment. Is that are you including the space that is not that the remodel is not complete on. Yes. All of these different spaces on the first floor that I know that you're aware of, one is being held for motor vehicle, the other one is being held right now as we are evaluating our safety and our continuity of operations plans. So I know it by its acronym. That is a long term safety and that is something that is being held and has been earmarked for about a year now for that. So according. To who at at DMV, this is actually. Two different things. So one is more a finance space issue and then DMV, as we are looking at our DMV system citywide, that is where there have been different conversations about using that space for. I won't get into the details here. We can talk. But yes. So it would be working with the DMV team, the leadership team. So half of the building on. The first floor is empty. Half of the building on the second floor is empty. And the whole third floor is empty. That doesn't feel like 61% being utilized and in fact, that's anyways. Beyond that, I feel like bringing this contract through a direct file was a little disingenuous. Can you explain why it was a direct file versus coming and explaining the need to reintroduce it to us in committee? Councilwoman. I believe that we thought the timing was of the essence at $32 per square foot. We believe that the lease for the post building is very competitive and we are concerned that there is a possibility that it could go back out into the market and we would lose that opportunity. So that's why we acted so expeditiously. So Mr. Steinberg mentioned that we could get out of the other contracts, of which total. Over 40 million. Correct? I'd have to confirm. I don't remember off the top of my head. So he mentioned being able to not have to renew those other leases, but there's nothing in this lease that would allow us to break this lease in the event of an economic downturn. Is that correct? So I believe what Mr. Steinberg was referencing was that as the leases expired, so they came to term, not that they would be preemptively. Lease this. Lease. We would have to wait until it came to term. It wouldn't be canceled in the middle of the term. So the other ones that were started earlier would expire before it. So there would be the opportunity to time our needs on multiple floors as they came due. And so that was a question or concern that was brought up in committee the first time before we voted on it. And there was. Was there any effort to change that contract to make sure that we could get out of it? I don't believe that we have modified the contract at all at this point in time. So this feels like a flagrant disregard for many of the concerns. That were raised by council. Members in committee. And when we voted last time and it feels like more investment in private entities rather than building our capacity internally, which is incredibly problematic. And that master plan that we asked for is not sufficient. And wasn't sufficient. At the time that we asked for it. And so I'm encouraging my colleagues to again vote no on something we voted no on last time. That has not changed in any form or fashion. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Black. Thank you, Mr. President. As the chair of the Finance and Governance Committee and after talking with President Clark, I agreed to direct file the bill. And just for the reasons that you said, Brendan, is that there's a sense of urgency because the landlord is. Putting the property back on the market. So I understand why we wanted to move this forward. I don't know how many of my fellow council members have been to the web building lately, but it's very, very crowded and people are literally on top of each other. There are cubicle spaces designed for one or two people and there are four or more people there and there's boxes everywhere and we're really in need for more space. Brendan You can correct my figures here, but it's my understanding we're somewhere in the budget that council approved the 2020 budget. We approved between two and 300 new staff and we don't have any place for those people to sit and do their work. Those were total positions, Councilwoman. That includes uniforms. I think the number that is impacted in the downtown core is is a lower figure than that. But we are trying to accommodate across the city through each of the budget process we've gone through this year, but also the previous years when we've been growing by a couple of hundred employees, each of those given years. And it's my understanding that then the new employees for the climate office and for host are on top of that. And then we're also in a great need for people who are going to. Work on. Our almost $1,000,000,000 of construction work related to the Elevate Denver Bond. And those people also need someplace to do their work. We need project employees, whether their FTE is or contract employees and spaces for them. We've been considering other options where they find their own leased space, so that way we could support the needs of our city employees. But that is that is correct. A number of those offices like host like the climate office, have existing people in existing office space, but they're moving out of one department into their new standalone space. And we need to provide those teams with the opportunity to have their own dedicated space for their operations. Okay. And then just one final point that I'd like you to address. So there's been some misinformation out there in the public that, first of all, when you read the bill on the agenda, it's adding, you know, $9 million, but that's over time. So that the the annual dollar amount is far less than that. And that this is also an expenditure that this council approved when we approved the 2020 budget. So in addition to approving new staff, we also did improve this amount in that budget. Is that. Correct? That's correct. It was actually presented in the Department of Finance presentation that the annual amount needed to support this lease was presented then. And you are correct that the 9 million figure is for the term of the agreement. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Black. Councilmember Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. BRENNAN If you can just stay there for a minute. First, I want to thank you for this document, which is information I've been requesting, which is some of the info on our various properties in the city and sort of where we're going with. Our space needs. As as we deal with bond projects and deal with ebbs and flows in our economy, we've seen times when we've expanded and had to shrink. And one of my concerns is going into long term commitments that carry us into the future. And in all, in total, I've got two different figures and I want to clarify which one is correct. I've got 41 million is the all in cost for the four leases. And then I've got another figure of 45,141,072. Which which one of those is correct? Councilwoman, that is the is that the remaining amount of trust for the remaining term of the current leases, not including the 11th floor? I'm sorry. The second one includes the after hours and costs for HBC. My team is in and creating that. That is. Correct. So. So as we use any of these spaces extra hours, then the potential is it could cost more than the 41 million. All in among the four leases as opposed to the 45 million. Councilwoman, specifically, the after hours was added 311 is over there. And so they do have extended hours. And so that is why on weekends and etc. that we we have that it's it's in there. If it's used, can, can it go beyond the 45 million? No, no. So that's that's a cap. Correct. Regardless of whether we use the. I don't know. They're conference center space that sometimes we've used for recruitments for people that's not included. Okay, so that's a separate cost. It's not a cost. It's built in as part. We have it. We can use it a certain number of times a year as a tenant in the building. Okay. Got it. I want to shift over to the wastewater property because we are going to be incurring costs to renovate that building. And I have not been given any information on what that is going to cost us. And then in the meantime, we've got a lease at the Dr. COG building for a percentage of those employees. So the information I've got shows a different number of people. At waste water versus a smaller number of people that are being housed at Dr. Corgan That includes folks from a different agency. So I'm not sure how to address sort of that discrepancy. I know over time there will be more people put back in to the wastewater building, but I'm trying to understand what those costs are. I know we're paying $18 a square foot for the Dr. COG building. I'm not clear how much of that space were we're occupying. Jeff, do you want to speak to that agreement? Yes. So the the wastewater building in one of the slides points out how many occupied workstations there are in the building as a whole, and that is pre their risk deck. So the intention of leasing the space in the Dr. COG building was to get a number of those folks out of the wastewater building and keep them through the duration of the stack in the Dr. COG space, the Subleased space, and then have the stack and people that remain within wastewater to be shifted within the building as completion of the stack is done. And that will accommodate the growth in the number of folks that they have a need for, which is 39 at the end of the stack in a allow for not moving people multiple times outside of the building, just within it. And just the one group that moved out stays over a Dr. COG. So how much are we spending for the renovation at wastewater? I don't know the answer to that question. I got to have some figures. I mean, if we've already, you know, done the lease at Dr. COG and we're moving people from there, we should have that. Councilwoman, I'm pretty sure it was a number that was identified in the 2020 budget. I don't recall it and it would be inaccurate if I. Remember asking that during the budget and I didn't get that figure then either. And part of the reason I'm asking is because we're we're spending the money to lease the Dr. COG building. And I don't remember how many years we're looking at for that. Is it? It expires in February of next year. Okay. So so like a couple of years total in that space. And then we're spending the money to renovate the wastewater building. And at the end of the day, we get 39 additional seats. Correct, as well as deferred maintenance on our wastewater facility. We conducted a facility condition assessment across all of our city owned properties and it rated some of the lowest numbers in terms of the deferred maintenance that need to be conducted on that facility and that is funded by the wastewater fund. Okay. All right. So I was just trying to understand that that that's helpful information. Councilman, just to just interrupt. Just was told that the range is 8 to $10 million from the wastewater fund to fund the renovation of that building. And how old is that building? I think it's 1990s. I can get you the date. I know it predates the web building, but I. Know. I wasn't here when it was built. But I will get you that date. Okay. Just want to make sure I didn't have one more question. So you and I talked about as we are seeing large scale developments coming into the city. And you recall when we did Stapleton, which was a massive development, we were able to extract certain kinds of improvements that we wanted to see that would not only serve the Stapleton community, but serve the city's needs as well. We got eight acres for affordable housing, a fire station location, a number of school locations as we see 500 acres of new development coming in. Is this something that the city is thinking about talking about in terms of some of the other needs? We talked about Loretta Heitz as a potential site where we don't have a lot of city services in that far southwest quadrant where we may be able to secure, I don't know, some land for some of our needs or have them construct buildings for some of our needs. Is that something that has been part of the big picture city discussions? I think it's something that it could be considered. I think we've started out focused on our wastewater facilities, our park facilities, streets, so some more of our kind of tangible community assets. We've not focused as much in the past on an office space, if you will. Now, we have built in, I think, of Stapleton Rec Centers, Park maintenance facilities and whatnot. So I think there are opportunities there for maybe building ESC type facilities based on geographic location. So I think there's a possibility. Okay. I have no further questions right now. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Catsimatidis. Thank you, Mr. President. Brendan or Lisa, if you can remind me who is in queue for stacking that is necessary for the space that that's being requested. So we have technology services that, if this is approved, would be the first group to move in a larger block. We have funding for it in the 2020 budget to work on their space. Next in line after that, within web building, we would have to take a look. We're trying to focus on the key agencies that have the greatest need right now, which would be technology, Dottie and CPD. And. Oh, yeah. Yeah, yeah. And that is our challenges trying to the impacts with other agencies. So there are smaller pockets. It just depends on how many we can flow and we've got to backfill at the same time. Okay. Thank you. Anything else, Councilmember? Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Cannick. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just this is a sublease. And so my question is, is there anything in the lease prohibiting us from sublease. I hear the concern about what happens if there is a downturn and there was a downturn and some of these tenants left, whether it was a downturn globally or to their business . But so what are the, you know, mechanisms we could use if we needed to sublease? Is that allowed? It is allowed. It requires the owner's consent. The owner in this case being the master lessor, that it would be allowable. Okay. So so there is a potential way if we suddenly didn't need the staff to build the bond, if we didn't need the staff for housing homelessness, which I am skeptical that that would occur. But if we suddenly, you know, needed to downsize by hundreds of employees, there are options we could exercise under this lease to downsize our space. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilman presentable. Thank you, Mr. President. So I have a couple questions, and you three can figure out who best to answer. So we're talking about a nine year lease. And I think a lot of us have apprehension about spending money on a lease, which I understand. But the space is needed. But given that, can you talk to me about what happens after nine years? So as we're spending this money. So my question is, we're spending money on a lease now for nine years. Where? In my head, I'm thinking we could be buying a building or we could be building a building. So talk to me about how what our plan is to get us out of this so that in five years from now, you're not sitting here saying, oh, never mind. Now we have to extend this another another five, nine years. Our goal and a number of you brought it up with me when we were talking, was making sure that we demonstrate the most efficient application of our space possible. So our first best option is allowing us to move folks out of of the Web. Let's refresh and gain more space from that facility and then move people back. Now, I will say it won't solve the totality of the problem, especially if we continue to grow in this at this pace with our employees. But that's going to be based on budget available dollar. So these challenges are going to are going to persist. But I think that we've built in enough flexibility to address this over a multiyear program. But some of it is the unknown condition as to how many more employees we're going to try to fit in our downtown core that have to reside down here adjacent to our current locations. So thank you. So I have one other question. Often times when we're at committee, we ask agencies to come back and report back to us on a plan. So housing and homelessness, they're going to come back and report back to us. And in my personal opinion, I don't feel like we regularly get updates on what our real estate plan is. And I think that's what's led to this conversation. I'm going to assume these are Amanda's words. So can we have a guarantee from this administration that six months or a year from now, but we will will like at least once a year, real estate will come back, not with you. And when there's an ask, but be proactive and say, here's our plan moving forward, you approved this lease last year. Here's our plan, what we're going to do with these employees. And it's really hard for us to remember what we ask at budget hearing. So can we just have a commitment from the administration that you guys will proactively come back with us, to us, instead of just asking us for something, but giving us information? So knowledge is power? Absolutely. I think I've learned a lot from this transaction and the process and and the amount of work that the team puts in. But we need to do a better job sharing it on a routine basis, and I'm absolutely committed to that. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilmember Councilmember Gilmore. Thank you, President Clarke. Brendan. I know that there's been some questions from my colleagues, you know, if there's an economic downturn, the cost per square foot. And in my experience working with you for the last four and a half years, you're uber conservative. It gives you great angst in spending any sort of money, which is awesome. Thank you. What we want to have happen. So could you explain to us what are those criteria that you really look at in your financial model modeling to say, yes, Jeff and your team go forward and negotiate this? If you could back us up a little bit and explain what you go through, your thought process. It's it's a good question. So, you know, this is one element of the totality of the budget. And I think what I was trying to represent earlier is that we have a number of positions being added. I think, to Councilwoman Sandoval's point, we need to do a better job kind of socializing the planning process that happens inside of finance and across our departments. So I rely on my real estate team to make sure that they go out and they get the most competitively priced lease in this situation, but also continuously look for different options that that are available to us because it isn't a one size fits all. Some options in real estate are presented to us and some we go and find and it just depends on the need. And I know that there was a question about how does this reflect our other priorities? We continuously look for other real estate opportunities to meet those other priorities across the year. That's why we've processed supplementals to purchase the Crossroads facility, for example. It doesn't preclude us to, to, to, to have those in year accommodations for other things that we weren't aware of at the time. And that's. Kind of what our contingencies for, and we try to be conservative to make sure that we have enough financial capacity to , to to relatively plan for the immediate future, but then enough flexibility so that when an opportunity presents itself, we have the financial capacity to pursue it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Councilmember Hines, did that question that escaped you come back? Yes. Thank you. And and more so. The I've heard conflicting comments about the real estate master plan. What I heard the in your response to Councilwoman Sandoval's question that you will put one together. For some reason I thought you were going to put one together before we came here today. Was that not the case? So, Councilman, we have a series of individual plans, a plan for housing. We have a plan for downtown facilities. We have a plan for our public and other public infrastructure. And when I talked about with the team was let's let's be transparent and bundle all of those together. Each year, the budget is a collection of agency budgets that totals up into a master plan for the agency spend for the following year. What I want to do is try to work towards having that kind of plan available to you all in a more transparent fashion. I don't know that we've released that publicly in the past, so our goal was to bundle all of that together and then give you a line of sight as to all of the demands across all of those individual plans, understanding that we have to come back and have conversations as to how do they balance and reconcile, because that changes over time. Okay. We were given two PowerPoint documents today. Unfortunately, I was unable to review those. And the the email said that it was as a result of issues with the PowerPoint presentation we received last Wednesday. What were those documents? So we apologize inside of the PowerPoint that that answered some of the questions around plans and priorities. And how does what does a stack and how does how does this process work? We included two links, one for parcels across the city, which had been used as part of our affordable housing conversation from late last year. And the second was all of the city owned physical buildings as well because we got some questions about I won't we don't have a master list as to what are our total number of parcels. Unfortunately, when we sent out that document, we sent it from our security or our individual shared file that you all don't have security for. So we sent out those two documents. So that way you had the master list of all property, all parcels, as well as all buildings. And is that the binder that Councilman Ortega lifted up and no different document. Okay. That is the plan of plans, if you will. That is the that is the not. The master. Plan. Not the master plan is the culmination of all of the plans that are built out. But I will say this. We in the administration rely on all of you and the community to inform what those priorities are across each of those planning documents. So the whole. One of the things or one of the concerns that you had about using other facilities and specifically about using this facility was about VPN access and making sure that where, you know, our service security is intact. $9.8 million could purchase a lot of I.T. technology. I'm curious as to what the you know, the thought process was, you know, that this was the right answer and not encouraging. Telework, as you know, is to go back to the earlier question, just because telework could help the planet, it could reduce commuting traffic and whatnot. So to be clear, this, while we're talking about $9 million, it is over a ten year period of time. So we're just talking about the annual increment. We are still pursuing those options. I know we're looking at that in finance, but we have to have the systems and technology in place to make sure that we have given employees the ability to do that. I think we're still committed to it, but our demands for staffing are now, and we want to make sure that our space limitations don't result in our inability to fill and hire folks and then get these programs executed because we will still need to bring people in, train them, and then allow them to work independently. Okay. I have one other line of questions for you. And it's based on our our last conversation. I want to thank you, actually. So after we considered this a couple of weeks ago, you set up an appointment and you came to our office and and you said, you know, how can we learn? So I want to I want to thank you for for for doing that, for reaching out. I mentioned something about what, you know, as a as an MBA in finance, working in finance. I mentioned something about a CFO whose job as CFO whose job is to set expectations and work to those expectations. Is that would. You I recall that part of the conversation. And would you agree to that just in general? It's the. Well, I guess that's that's more in a private corporation, not necessarily in a government entity. So I would draw that question, but. That's that's the end of my question. So thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. That was the last question. So thank you very much. And I will just end with we as a body pushed for priorities. We approved the budget for those priorities. And then the city goes out and hires the people to deliver on those priorities. And we do need to provide space for them to do that work. I believe that this contract does that. Joseph does just that at a very competitive rate. It also consolidates our work and services in the core of minimizing carbon emissions by minimizing travel across the city by employees called in to interdepartmental departmental meetings and working together . Given the climate crisis we're facing, I don't think that that should be undervalued or overlooked. I do think that Councilmember Hines made some good points about looking at further options to reduce trip times. But this is a space that is easily accessible by bus, by transit, by bike, and on foot and by consolidating. We reduced the waste of time, resources and the impact on the environment. After the last vote, I did ask the administration to get with members who had voiced questions and had concerns and attempt to address them and then to quickly get this contract back in front of the full body. I want to thank Councilwoman Black for filing this bill to do just that. And I want to thank the administration for all of your work to answer questions and concerns for the members who had them the first time around. I appreciate you giving us a second crack at this tonight. So I do think that this is necessary and it's critical for us to be able to deliver on the priorities that we have been pushing and have been setting and the services that we have promised our residents. And I would ask members for a yes vote this evening. Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. I see tobacco. Heck, no. Flynn. No. Gilmore. I. Herndon. I had. No. Cashmere. I can eat Ortega now. Sandoval, I. Sawyer, I. Torres, i. Mr. President. I. Madam Secretary, please close voting. Announce the results. For his nine eyes. Nine eyes, four days. Resolution 108 has been adopted. Madam Secretary, if you'll please put the next item on our screens. And Councilmember Flynn, please put Council Bill 71 on the floor.