A resolution approving a proposed On-Call Program Management Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Parsons Transportation Group, Inc., for program management services of the City Park Golf Course Parks and Drainage Improvements Design/Build Project and the 39th Avenue/Park Hill Parks Drainage Improvements Design/Build Project. Approves a contract with Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. for $6 million and for three years for program management services of the City Park Golf Course parks and drainage improvements and the Park Hill parks and drainage improvements projects as part of the citywide Platte to Park Hill: Stormwater Systems project (201735100). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-28-17. The Committee approved filing this resolution at its meeting on 7-25-17. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, Councilman Espinoza called out this resolution at the Monday, August 7, 2017, Council meeting for a postponement to the next regularly scheduled meeting of Monday, August 14, 2017.
All right. Zero I's, 12 nays. Council Resolution 811 has been defeated. Madam Secretary, can you please put the next item on our screens? Councilman Espinosa, will you go ahead and put counseled Bill 819 on the floor. And move that council bill eight nine to be placed upon the floor for final consideration and do passed? It has been moved. I'm sorry, are we doing a 23 or eight, 1908 19. Next step of my jumping ahead here. Do. We should probably do the resolutions first. 823 823 2426. Yeah. They're out of order. All right. So do we need to do anything to take back the motion that Councilman Espinosa just did? I know. We can just move. We'll go back. Okay. All right. Go ahead, gentlemen. Those are also. Listed as bills, but their resolutions, correct? There are resolutions. Of move that resolutions 823, 24 and 20. 26 be placed upon final consideration? Well, no, that's you know. And do passing the buck. Is that what I'm. Adopted in a black. And be adopted in a. Black. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Questions or comments from members of council. Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. Much has been made over the past year or so regarding the connection or lack of a connection between the plot, the Park Hill Drainage Project and the proposed Central 70 highway reconstruction. Opponents to Central 70 are adamant the two are interrelated. Proponents say Central 70 can go on without it, and P2P is merely redundant. I've spent more than a little time over the past year or so researching the topic, and my conclusion is that not only are P2P and I-70 tightly interwoven, the city is far more than merely an interested party. We are a fully involved partner in facilitating the highway project that I believe will have long reaching negative effects on the communities, North Denver communities to which it passes. And I'd like to read a few things from the IGA that was run through this Council just a few weeks before a new majority of council members took office in 2015. I'm just going to read you some excerpts. Whereas the parties, meaning the city and the state, have determined that there are significant mutual benefits to be achieved by cooperating and working together on the I-70 East Project and related enhancements. Whereas, to the extent permitted by the NEPA process and applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations, it is the intent of the parties to set forth their understandings and goals with regard to their respective commitments for funding parts of the costs of the I-70 East Project. The parties believe the Twin Basin Drainage Project is a necessary and important drainage project with benefits for the state and the city respectively. If the Early Action Drainage Project was, which was part of P2P, if the Early Action Drainage Project segment from Pond seven to the South Platte River is not operational by December one, 2017, or the remainder of the EDP is not operational by September one, 2019, and this delays the I-70 East Project. The city workforce will enforce the liquidated damages provision and reimburse the state for actual additional costs to the I-70 East Project in the amount of liquidated damages from the city's contractor. The State believes the Twin Twin Basin drainage project will result in significant benefits for the I-70 East Project and will result in a redundant storm protection system for the I-70 East Project. As a result, the state will pay 40% of the cost of the project, estimated at 53.6 million, and the city will pay 60% of the cost estimated at 8.4 million. The city agrees that its ongoing drainage plans, policies and regulations will be developed with the goal of maintaining the functional capacity of the Twin Basin drainage project to handle the 100 year flood. If the final cost for the project for drainage elements exceeds $134 million, it is the agreement of the parties that any amount above 134 million will be funded 60% by the city and 40% by the state. Provided, however, that the state obligation for any amount in 53.6 million A shall not exceed an additional 6.9 million. And finally, see that I shall have the right to review all plans for the Twin Basin Drainage Project, including the Early Action Drainage Product Project. CDOT will provide comments focused on the functionality of the drainage plans. When plans for the EDP have achieved 30% design, the city shall submit the plans to see for review and comments. See that we'll have ten business days to review and comment. And the same is true for the 60% and 100% design period. I believe that Court could indeed have provided the needed redundancy for the I-70 project on their own dime, but I believe they've chosen not to do so because it's in their financial interest to partner with the city. I believe if they were going to provide their own redundancy, it would cost far more than their contribution to the city. And I believe that because I do not know see that to be intentionally benevolent folks that I guess they're figuring it's a heck of a good deal. And so a partnership with the city makes good sense to them. We continue to struggle to gain full participation from C++ in mitigating the construction effects on nearby homeowners. Where I have had a chance to vote on this idea, I would have suggested that the money we are gaining to help with the P2P project was not sufficient to facilitate the continued debasement of the neighborhoods that this oversize, misplaced and misguided boondoggle will pass through. That being said, Mr.. Mr. President, I will be voting no on these three bills tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Castro. Councilman Black. Thank you, Mr. President. When people ask me what is the most surprising thing about being on city council, I have said for the past two years that it's drainage. It's something I never thought about before. It was a city council member. But now everywhere I go, I see drainage basins and ditches that the city and urban drainage and government entities have built in order to protect our neighborhoods and our city from a serious rain event in 2013. We all remember the horrible floods that we had that destroyed a lot of communities and a lot of homes. I do support these projects. They will protect our city and our neighborhoods. There's been a lot of misinformation out there, and I just want to be clear on some things. Number one, the city park golf course is not going to be destroyed. It is going to be improved into a more beautiful and accessible course. Q Alumnus and Hall of Fame golfer Hale Irwin is designing it so that players of all abilities can play golf together. The new design will attract younger players, and it will be more inclusive. It will also incorporate facilities for the first tee program for children. The historic character of the golf course and views will be preserved. And of the 824 existing trees, 561 will be preserved and 660 760 new trees will be planted on the course or in the area with a net gain of almost 500 trees. We actually have our city forester here tonight who can answer more questions about the trees, but many of the trees that will be cut down are already stressed or damaged. They also will replace the tree canopy. So if you think of a large tree and the size of the canopy of the branches in the leaves, they'll replace that with as many smaller trees that will create that same area of canopy. Many of Denver's parks are already drainage areas to mitigate floods. Just this morning, I rode my bike around Bible Park, which is a drainage area. The other day I ran in Paul Cashman's district on the Harvard Gulch, which is a great plant path and it is a drainage area. Also in my district we have the Goldsmith Gulch that goes through Wallace Park, Rosamond Park and Bible Park, and it's a drainage area. Using parks and green spaces for drainage is a natural, smart way to mitigate a major flood. So with that said, I will be supporting these contracts. All right. Thanks, Councilwoman Black. Councilwoman Gilmore. Thank you, President Brooks. Protecting people and property from floodwaters is of the utmost importance. I know that we all agree on that. And I'd like to humbly share a little bit about my background so that you can put into context my next comments for close to 25 years. I worked within the field of natural resources. I started out at the Colorado Department of Natural Resources when Ken Salazar served as the executive director. I have also worked for Colorado State Parks and the Colorado Division of Wildlife, which is now merged into the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife. I began my career when the number of women and people of color within federal, state and city natural resource agencies were in the single digits. And sadly to say, we are, we still are. I have dedicated my entire adult life to educating people and advocating for responsible and science led management in regard to our precious natural resources . Prior to being elected to serve my community as a District 11 councilwoman, I was the executive director for Environmental Learning for Kids, a nonprofit organization. I started in far northeast Denver, which is dedicated to educating a diverse population of youth and their families in science, technology, engineering and math and natural resource issues. During my tenure with Elk, I researched, wrote and implemented many U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grants related to environmental justice and environmental education. I have supervised and directly implemented educational programs involving watersheds, water quality, including point and non-point source pollution, and monthly analysis of local creeks, including westerly and Sand Creek for page hardness, alkalinity and other environmental variables through the River Watch program, which is supported by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. First and. Foremost, this is a storm water management project. We must direct the flow of stormwater to detention ponds and the City Park golf course makes the most sense. City Park. Golf course. Is not a native. Ecosystem, a native ecosystem. In this geographic location, as the majority of Denver is a short grass prairie, it would be rolling fields of prairie grasslands with a historic Montclair creek meandering through the prairie landscape. This creek is where the rain and snow melt, which would go on its way to the South Platte River. The historic Montclair Creek riparian zone would move water through this landscape and slowly help the water filtrate through riparian vegetation, much like a sponge would work to clean our water naturally before it drains into our rivers and becomes the drinking water for folks downstream in northeast Colorado. Where my family lives in Brush, Colorado and on out to Nebraska. This design will help recreate the historic ecological representation of what was here, and it will consist of riparian areas and prairie uplands and will sustain cottonwoods, willows and other trees and vegetation that will create a wider diversity of wildlife habitat. The City Park Golf Course is a human created, over watered ecosystem, created to sustain the non-native turf and the trees that have been planted. The majority of trees that you see in a native prairie habitat would be cottonwoods growing along a creek because of their need for a reliable water source. We have an opportunity through this stormwater management project to create a more naturalized native landscape, which will highlight what was here historically, along with creating a more historic environment. The most recent email from Public Works shows that their team, along with the design team, have worked incredibly hard to not only mitigate the loss of trees, but to enhance the urban canopy with the addition of hundreds of trees. This landscape will be more sustainable and will consist of wetlands, areas that will filtrate stormwater drainage, which many times can contain oil, pesticides and fertilizers. Pretty much anything you put on your lawn or in your driveway or on the streets when it rains. We know the roads flood and all of that stormwater has to go somewhere. We will improve upon the non-native environment of the City Park Golf Course, and this is good, sound natural resource management. The bottom line is that along with properly implementing this stormwater management project, we should also stay focused on the public safety and safety of property regarding floodwaters that rise in this area because there is. Not currently. Proper stormwater infrastructure in place. I will be voting in favor of this stormwater management project. Thank you, President Brooks. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore, Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you, Mr. President. Pro tem. So I think it's important to go back and talk about the fact that we had not only an IGA between Denver and Seaport, but there was a proclamation that was brought forward on the preferred alternative that was approved by City Council before the supplemental draft of the Environmental Impact Statement was released . I did not support that at the time. I did not support the IGA nor the rate increase that was followed, which included a $300 million increase to the rate payers in Denver. I believe there is a need for drainage in the Cole neighborhood. The Montclair Basin was one of the twin basins. There is a separately funded effort or planning process that's underway right now for that particular basin. But I think it's also important to note that when this Twin Basin project, which is now called the PDP Plat to Park Hill Project, was brought forward. This was not in the wastewater five year plan. It was pushed to the front of the line. And, you know, clearly it was to look at how to coordinate the two projects. And I actually had advocated that the $40 million court originally was going to spend on drainage for I-70 should be utilized because the city started talking about trying to address the coal flooding problem. But the project went from $40 million to what I just mentioned, 300 million. And I'm not sure we've seen the end of the costs just yet. Now, eight short years ago, the Globeville neighborhood had been taken out of the flood plain because of work that the city had done to make changes to the river corridor. And those low income residents no longer had to purchase flood insurance. Now fast forward to seeing a lot of the new development that's going on in this area. Anything that is less than one acre does not have to do any on site storm drainage, that's runoff that goes into our sewer system and into the river. We now have a new 33rd outfall that was done as a result of the RTD projects for the A-line. So that's additional water going into the river. And then when you add all of the water from this particular project, that's even more water that now dumps into the Globeville landing outfall, which is a little park right behind the Pepsi-Cola plant. For anybody that's trying to develop in the Globeville neighborhood, they are now having to build four foot high. Detention, not detention, but four foot high foundations to protect their buildings from, you know, being from from being flooded. So when this project came forward, we learned that Globeville will now be called an inundation area. This is not they're not calling their back in the floodplain, but it's an inundation area that is now requiring anybody who comes to our community planning and development agency that wants to build in Globeville on the west side of the river . They have to have a four foot high foundation. My understanding is that residents will also be required to have to start getting flood insurance again until that problem is resolved. I had asked our public works department to address this problem for Globeville. Given the fact that this project was put to the front of the line, there was no reason we couldn't solve the other problem at the same time. That didn't happen. So we were told we want to wait for the Army Corps of Engineering study that's being done on the river. And we're looking at probably ten years before Globeville may see some relief to this problem. We're talking about a community that's being impacted with national Western, with I-70, with Brighton Boulevard improvements, with all the development going on in these neighborhoods. We're going to see Washington Street redone. There will be an Excel pipeline that will go down the Washington Street corridor. So we're talking about a lot of impact to just this small neighborhood alone. Yet we made no effort to try to figure out how to solve this problem. So for all of these reasons, I have not been on board. I do think there is an issue that needs to be resolved with drainage, but I am not supportive of these three bills being approved to move forward. Has nothing to do with well-qualified people who have been selected to do this project. I actually have friends that are part of the team. But those are the reasons why I will not be supporting these three bills tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. I. Look, I know we've had this topic in our chambers a few times, and. Of The Jetsons. Yeah. To those viewers at home. There was a weird noise that happens like this. The catcher don't know the Jetsons. So I this topic has been in front of us a few times and I have a very intimate relationship with with it. You know, back in the day and in 2003. I was one of the folks I went door to door with with the survey, knocking on doors, getting the community input . Kevin You know, you remember this? Yeah. I think Kevin wrote the story that I was quoted in. But I was a young guy, and we knock on every single door from Globeville all the way to Green Valley Ranch. Every single one of those. It took us about seven or eight months to do. And we got, you know, everybody along that I-70 corridor. And we got valuable input from folks who said, we don't want this highway in our neighborhood. You don't want the housing in our neighborhood. Right. But if we had the choice, right, we reroute it or bury it. Right. It's better than this thing that is just above our neighborhood. Separating, creating this, casting the shadows. So. So I get it. You know, ever since then, you know, I look, I went through the process, and I saw that it took almost a decade just to make a decision on something that was obvious, right? I mean, it is it is a big deal. But and, you know, a lot of the advocates then are no longer around, but a lot of the residents still feel very strongly about it. And when this proclamation came in front of us, I voted no. Because I still. I believed in a reroute. Now. It was very unfortunate that we didn't go that direction. I think it was a tremendous mistake historically from a state in the city to tend to not fight for the root. Now we have what's in front of us. And I look at this through another lens. And that is a lens of someone who has chaired the urban drainage and flood control front flood control district for two years. Now, I never thought that I that this would be exciting or fun. You are talking about hydrology, you know, drainage. But I learned a heck of a lot. And I chaired this for two for two years, and I chaired it through the floods that we had and in in Boulder County and and Longmont. And and realized that the infrastructure that had that they had that the lack there we had in Aurora and the eastern part of our metro area. And we were even hit harder than they were. But if you if you remember the pictures, their houses were they were the ones that took it. They're the ones that got the the the hard that they were the hardest hit, lost their property, lost their homes, lost some, lost their lives. That's what happens when you don't have the infrastructure in place. They weren't part of the FCD or they weren't part of the urban traditional flood control district. They decided not to opt into that a while back. So in looking at at this through that lens, it is absolutely critical that we have the infrastructure in place for those neighborhoods right now. Um. I find myself in a hard position because here I am thinking about my work. And as somebody who went door to door in my work as a councilman and our vote against the current plan and I vote against the proclamation. And I come to realize that. Even if you vote no on this, it's not going to it's not going to bring back the reroute. Voting no on those. On these bills will not magically bring back the out. And that is what the primary thing that the residents wanted was the reroute or it lowered. And you absolutely is is my absolute truth. That is right. And what I remember from that, all those doors, 8000 doors that we knocked on. Right. People who I sat in interviews for almost 45 minutes a piece. Those are the two things. If it's not rerouted, put it under. If there's no drainage. Let's say that this is all for the let's say, folks. All right. This is all just to support, you know, what's going to happen on I-70. All you're going to have is another bridge for another 100 years. And you know, I get it. I get that there's folks that don't live there, that stand in solidarity with folks that are concerned about the the the golf course and the impacts that it'll make to the golf course. I get it. I respect that. I respect the solidarity. But you don't have to live with another bridge over your head for a hundred, 400 years. The folks in Elyria, Swansea and Globeville do. And all those neighborhoods all the way up to like around Colorado. That's what they said. That was the the thing that stuck in my mind. And I have to tell this story over and over because I see a lot of new faces that that are in the room and new colleagues. And, you know, I make this decision not lightly, but just with that intimate knowledge. Another elevated option cannot exist there. Not on my watch. It is. The I-70 was a grand mistake a long time ago, and it still is a headache. But the killing, the drainage for it isn't going to bring back the reroute, guys. And I fear that killing the drainage only if it does go through. And if the you know, every all the stars lined up. Right. You're only building another elevated bridge. And that is the absolute last thing that should happen on that road. So I will be supporting the the three bills ahead of us. I didn't also support the delay. And because that is our right on council, that was something that was made clear to us a long time ago. And, and and we we should always have room for that dialog in that process. So thank you. Mr. President, it is about lives and property everywhere, right? Both in Elyria, in Swansea and Globeville with the immediate remediation and. And areas that would be impacted by flooding. So. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. Last week I was I joined Councilman Espinosa and others in supporting a delay in this final consideration of this contract, because I believe that we should always take the time any member of this council wants to take. Within the time we were allotted to look over these contracts, we get such precious little time as it is. And I hope that with Councilwoman Ortega, we can take a look at that as a group very soon, how we do contracts. I also wanted to thank Councilwoman Ortega for reminding everyone that this plot to Park Hill I always thought it should be Park Hill to because water flows downhill doesn't blow up at all. But I didn't get to name it that the project grew way too much, too fast. And as I said last week is by a significant factor larger than anything wastewater has ever done in a single bite. And it just gives me heartburn to have seen it grown from, I believe it was actually 134 million. When you combine seed out in the city to nearly 300 million without, without full and without enough engineering being done, without 30% design being done on every element that was going to be built, which I regard as normal process. And so I wish that it hadn't happened that way. I voted against a stormwater fee increase. Councilman Cashman reminded everybody how just two weeks before the seven new members were sworn in, I believe I was sitting out in the second row there and watched the council pass the IGA that that kind of locked us into this direction and I regret that. And but at this point, I think to use these contracts as a de facto substitute for the plaintiffs in the McFarland case to file and seek an injunction after we passed the contracts, I don't think the Council should act in the place of the plaintiff and and give a de facto injunction by killing these contracts. So I look forward to the trial in, I believe, two weeks. And I am reminded that despite and I mentioned this last week, despite the optimism of our staff, I'm reminded of the City Park Pavilion case where the Friends of City Park defeated the city's plan to convert the pavilion into parks headquarters. And how shocked everybody was at that. And I remember the headline show, I was a judge, I think Judge Flowers in district court who said that that was not an appropriate use of a city park land. So I look forward to the trial, but I just don't think that this council should substitute its judgment on these contracts by handing the plaintiffs in what, in essence, is an injunction that they have not yet sought themselves. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Flynn. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I just want to say thank you here to all the constituents who've reached out, engaged with me, sat down over coffee and had great conversations with me, were really smart, passionate people on both sides of this issue. I really appreciate that dialog. I spent my entire career prior to this working along the South Platte River. That's why my water bottle serves as PR for South Platte River on one side, and Greenway Foundation, the nonprofit dedicated to the river on the other side. I carry it not just on my water ball bottle, but in everything that I do. And it's Denver's river. I carry it in my heart. So I also take issue with the name of this, but not for the same reasons that Councilman Flynn took up. Because the Platte River is not Denver's River. The Platte River runs elsewhere. This is the South Platte River. And so we should stop calling it Plot to Park who should be South Platte when we were considering the fee increase to our stormwater to our stormwater fees. I met extensively with city and with the folks who I think the absolute world of at the urban drainage and flood control district. I dug in deeply into this, and there was one thing that was glaring for me after having those meetings. And that was that it is better for. The South Platte River to do this drainage project in conjunction with what is happening at I-70. I won't get up here and talk about it has gone past or whether I-70 redo is a good idea or not. What I know is that if we don't do this, we will once again be turning our back on the South Platte River. And we did that for a really long time and we destroyed the river. And it has taken since 1974 when the Greenway Foundation built the first park in the first trail. Imagine that a Denver with zero parks and zero trails along the South Platte River and the Cherry Creek. I can't imagine it in part because I wasn't alive in 1974, but also because it's not a city that I would want to live in. And we have been clawing our way back since 1974 and a hole that we dug and a vote against this drainage project does not stop the I-70 project. But what it does do is it will directly lead to dirtier water in the South Platte River because the I-70 project can continue on without this and they can put dirtier water in the river. And so for that reason, I am that I wanted to highlight why I will be supporting this tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Clark. Councilman. No, thank you, Mr. President. Even though, you know, I think this project has a relationship to us, I think the most important thing to me is, is the flood mitigation part of this this whole project aspect. You know, my background was hospital management for well over 30 years, for a long, long time. And I went through several floods with hospitals that I managed. And it was devastating. The amount of damage to buildings and all the residential areas around our hospitals was just incredible. So I just have the greatest respect for the flood mitigation part of this that's going to be helpful to all those residents in Cole and and all along that whole route of appear to be. So is this flood mitigation is extremely important to me. Also keep in mind this is I think it's like a over $300 million project, but it's only part of a $1.5 billion plan of mitigation for our city. This is like deferred maintenance. I mean, this stuff we need to be doing. This plan was developed a couple of years ago. So we've got to be respectful to what our city needs in terms of total flood mitigation. And I think that's extremely important. Now for my golfers head on and I'm an avid golfer and I played saved par golf course and it can be improved and needs to be improved. It has the most wonderful views of our city, but this is an opportunity to make it a better course. Hale Irwin on Colorado, a Buffalo golfer, again, is going to do an incredible job of redesigning that course and make it into something that's notable. Our golf course right now is not notable. It's a good public golf course, but it's not a great course. It could be something that could be much more important to our city and and to all the people who play golf like myself. But the most important thing is flood mitigation. We've got to we've got to implement this total $1.5 billion plan over time. And this is the first part of it. So I'll be supporting these tonight. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Councilman. New Councilwoman Sussman. Thank you, Mr. President. Thanks to. My colleagues for their comments. And thanks to all that wrote emails to us all. First of all, I'd like to. I also sat on the urban drainage and flood control district for four years, and like Councilman Black, I never knew that I'd really be interested in. Drainage and outfalls and. And all the vocabulary that I learned. Certainly. Learned a lot about this particular issue down in the lower Montclair Basin. Councilman Flynn, the reason why one would call it the South Platte to Park Hill is while water flows downhill, you always start a drainage project from the outfall from where the water is going. You don't start a project from where the water starts. So that's why I think since the engineers probably named it, they did South Platte to Park Hill. We have known on the urban drainage flood control desk. We have known about, of course, the lower Montclair Basin is the biggest flooding issue we have in the city of Denver . We have had it for years. We have on the on the EDF. We didn't know how we were ever going to really manage that flooding problem, a problem that we have there. The while the I-70 project is kind of related, it's because they were going to bury or put below ground part of their highway that. They were going to run into the Lower Montclair Basin issue and they were going to spend the money to help the drainage. On their little part. On their little part. And if we don't and instead they decided to do to partner with the UDC, UDC, FCD and with Denver and to use the dollars that they were going to use to give to the city to also work finally on the Lower Montclair Basin. I've really appreciated that. Comments that Councilman Lopez made that not voting for this doesn't mean the I-70 project goes away. I'd like to turn that around and say. Whether the I-70 project is built or not, the drainage problem is staying. If the I-70 project were rerouted, the drainage problem is going to stay. If the project goes through, the drainage problem is going to stay. If we stopped I-70 and made it a boulevard, the drainage problem stays. We have the drainage problem regardless of what I-70 is doing. And most important, and most importantly for my district, although this isn't related to the Lower Montclair Basin, I firmly believe we need to fix that basin and this is an opportunity. To do it. The large project that. Councilman knew referred to is going to help my district, which is in the Upper Montclair Basin. And I don't know if those those of you are aware, but not every two or three years we get a flood up in at 14th in Jersey and Jasmine and Carney, where we have cars floating down the street. I spent the summer of part, a night of the summer of 2013 with. With. The first responders. Saving people that were floating in their cars. If you can imagine down Jasmine. And 13th and. 14th. And the larger project. Is finally going to help us address the Upper Montclair Basin. But I will be supporting this tonight because. Of the serious. Need that our Lower Montclair Basin needs, whether or not I-70, we're going to be enlarged. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Sussman. Councilman Newt, you look, you didn't pop back in the just system. You're okay, Councilman Espinosa. Sorry. I feel like I should chime in since I called this out last week too. Specifically to ask the administration to consider essentially postponing and putting in a clause or something for tree protection. We did get a. I did. I did. So I just want to know that I did make an ask specifically. I said that I pointed out that the highest inundation levels north of City Park in a 100 year event as model and in that stormwater plan is 2 to 4 feet and that and because in so what I asked him is because of a known breach in the Platte River levee, there's a levee called the Globeville Levee that's on the on the Western Bank protects Globeville. There's a known breach in that. Because of that known breach, there are several hundred year events that can occur upstream from Globeville. Remember, the South Platte River runs south to north. The there are several hundred year events that can flood Globeville to an inundation level of 15 feet, and that can happen multiple ways. The only way you do this in the Lower Montclair Basin is through a hundred year event in the lower Montclair raising and the. So I asked the administration to help me understand how even in a $386 million commitment to urban drainage, an $863 million commitment to the National Western Center, and now a three $934 million go bond ask. So those doing the math, that's over $1,000,000,000. Closer to two. How We Didn't Address Globeville. And then I went on to proceed in in and I don't understand the rationale because that stormwater management plan that was referenced didn't include these solutions. As Debby Ortega had mentioned, it did include some solutions. But you don't need you don't need a 39th Avenue channel. You don't need City Park. You don't need them both. You need one. And either one of those solutions solves both basins because the waters today that go through City Park, they actually outfall at the Globeville Outfall Landing or the Globeville Landing outfall. But because we're now taking water from a different basin and cutting that off through the 39th Avenue Channel, we have to hold that water. Somewhere in order to. Preserve the 100 year capacity of that channel. Not for the park, but for CDOT. And so, you know, I appreciate my colleagues in council sort of bringing this up and bringing this to light the sort of sense of urgency and connecting it to the Platte Park Hill. Because the response to the council to date and publicly about why this was needed was because there was a sort of finite window in which you can do this work and deliver this thing and still keep golf course sort of viable because of the growing season. And when you have to plant and plant sod and plant trees and what have you. Well, guess what? That happens every year. So we haven't done this to City Park since its creation, and now we have to do it in this window. We can't wait till next year's window or the next year's window. Why? Why is because of somehow something we're not talking about, the administration is not talking about, but this counsel is very clear on it. It's because this is needed in order to preserve its capacity to use stormwater capture the stormwater capacity of the 39th Avenue Channel . Four sedan for the highway. And so I argued, you know, I pushed back. I got a. Response. It was no. I pushed back and said. You know, because I was asking. Why not just complete the design were 30% design involved? Because, again, this is not the administration is not talking about the connection here. So I just pushed and I said, why not complete the design work with the community, complete the course design, hire Hale Irwin to do a fantastic job on the future of City Park. Maybe we could do more tree preservation in the process, get that clubhouse nailed down in the interim while you're preparing to do this project next year and then hire Saunders capable contractor. Very, very good to do this work. The answer was. No. And it's because of. Like I said. What we're talking about here tonight. And so this was not about, you know, this is somehow going to kill I-70. It's not you know, and I don't think anybody who's really trying to fight for city park and the preservation of that asset is saying that this is this thing is going to kill I-70 because, no, they will then put in their stormwater detention that they are not getting from 39th Avenue Channel into their project. They'll have to. And guess what? They'll have stormwater mitigation and water quality requirements for that for that detention that they put in their 100 year thing. I can assure you that if a 100 year event hit City Park or the 39th Avenue Channel, the water quality measures go away because at that level of inundation, there's water just moving. The water quality measures are there for lower flows. And so the reality is, is that we could actually drain these flows that go through city park and inundate areas north of City Park, directly into the 39th Avenue Channel today. He helped, you know, actually solved the drainage problems per the master plan for both the the two basins with just the 39th Avenue Channel and some additional work. And then city park flows will go exactly where they always were going historically to Globeville, Alfa. Our global landing. We are. So it's sort of a. Fallacy that we have to do this per an IGA. The Twin Basin solution is still solved. It's just not solved to the degree that it would want us to. In order to do that, we're taking on this additional work and we're obligating merely, you know, a significant portion of the $400 million which you are getting through your stormwater fees, which you did not vote for, and not solving real flood issues in Globeville and in other neighborhoods citywide, because we have taken on this agreement to sort of leverage. So the thing is the right thing to do is for City Park is to say, no, let's complete the design and move on. But if you vote for this, you're basically saying, look, I am putting the priorities of CDOT over this asset of the people of Denver. That I will be joining my. Colleague, Councilwoman Cashman, in voting no. And that's it. Thanks. All right. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. I will go last to the cheering of the audience. I am. This is my district, and I represent this deal. And I got to say, from the very beginning, I was very frustrated with the administration for how they came talking to the community around this thing. It was it was not well done. It wasn't well communicated. And we had a lot of intense arguments and conversations about it and a lot of open meetings that were very frustrating. Since then, I feel like the administration really began to turn towards the community and reach out to the community and set up . We're talking about City Park here. I know we've talked about a lot of different things, but the city park folks, the North City Park, the city park west neighborhood and put together a stakeholder committee to begin working through the issues around this golf course and this drainage problem. And so let me let me start by saying when we talk about the the lower Montclair Basin. It's it's been said in ways but let me be very clear. It's the worst basin in the city. It is the worst base in any city. And in 2011, when I first got elected and we had a storm like we do in the summers and people's cars were floating down the street. Everybody remembers it then. Right? Got the emails. Councilman Brooks, you just got elected. What are you going to do about this? How will you address this? And I wasn't on the urban drainage, like many of the members here, and I started researching ways that cities do this. The most important work that a city can do is build infrastructure. It's this most important work, but it's stuff that no one wants to pay for and the public really doesn't understand or care about because we like the shiny things. And as I talk to my colleagues around the country. And we talk about different issue. When I tell them that we are having a community debate around drainage and paying for it in our city, they can't believe it. They cannot believe it because they can't find ways to pay for the real infrastructure needs of their city. I'm going to give you a number. 3000 homes. 3000 homes in my district, City Park, North City Park, Cole, Clayton, and into Elyria, Swansea. Will be protected because of this that is protecting my constituents. And so I will be supporting this. Obviously, this there's a lot of issues with the I-70. I live ten blocks away from I-70, and I get those concerns and many of the concerns from the group I actually agree with. Yes. This is this is an oppressive issue. But it's been interesting walking through the neighborhood, having these conversations through the last the last two months and hearing what they're saying. And I think actually, Councilman Lopez, he actually you know, he knocked on the doors back in the day. And a lot of people are saying some of the same things. Yes, I think the reroute would have been. What we want it. But we wanted this thing covered. We want it out the way. And there's a lot of miseducation from other individuals in the neighborhood about this project. I just had to show four homes in North City Park. The design of the new golf course because they believe it is going to be completely cement because they believe their golf course was being destroyed. So, you know, it's hard to have these conversations when we don't get a chance to bring everybody to the table. And this process was not perfect, but I think that we have is far from perfect. I think that we have ended in a good place. I really like the design. I like the team that we're working with. I like that. The architect. Who I see right there. And I forgot your name. But you're looking good today. I'm glad you're here. That that has worked on a large drainage project of this capacity in Palm Springs. Not for freeway. But the exact capacity. And it was incredible to ask them to send me all the information. Thank you for doing that. And he did. And so I will be supporting this and I thank everyone for the smart dialog that carried on today. But I'll be moving these bills forward. So, Madam Secretary, I just want to make sure it has been moved in second and we are moving to adopt resolutions 23, 24, 26, eight, 23, eight, 24 and 826. Is that correct, Madam Secretary? Yes, that's correct. All right, Madam Secretary, roll call. Black. Clark, I. Espinosa No. Flynn i. Gillmor, I. Her dad, Cashman. Can each I. LOPEZ All right. We are new Ortega? No. SUSSMAN Hi, Mr. President. I please. Because voting and US results. Ten ice. Three days. Two nights, three knees. 823, 28, 24. 826 have been adopted. All right. We are going to go back to I believe is 811, Madam Secretary. 819 819. I'm sorry, Councilman Espinosa, will you please put 819 on the floor?