A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Intergovernmental Agreement between the City and County of Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation, the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvement and I-70 transportation enhancements. (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Approves an intergovernmental agreement with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the High Performance Transportation Enterprise and the Bridge Enterprise regarding Montclair and Park Hill basin drainage improvements and I-70 transportation enhancements; the estimated total costs of $134 million for the drainage project will be shared by the City and CDOT, 60% and 40% respectively; the City's contribution to the transportation project will be $37 million (201522456). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review date is on 7-20 -15. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 6-3-15.
All right. It has been moved in, second in. And now, Councilman Monteiro, we need a motion to amend. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 381 be amended in the following following particulars on page one line 17 Strike City Clerk's filing number 2015-0265 and insert City Clerk's filing number 20150265. Dash a thank you comment on the amendment. Councilwoman Montero Thank. You, Mr. President. The purpose of the amendment is to include technical changes requested by the Colorado Department of Transportation. The mayor's office reports that there are no changes to the financial commitments or project details as presented in committee, and the Colorado Department of Transportation and the City of Denver remain committed to creating a partnership that is mutually beneficial and keeps the community in mind. This amendment would allow for the substitution of the new contract with a new filing number. These changes would, number one clarify language at the Brighton Boulevard box. Culvert could be used for both city surface drainage needs and as an alternative connection point for the I-70 residual drainage pipe. This will enable us to build a drainage pipe in Brighton Boulevard prior to paving currently scheduled for 2017. Let me go back 2016 2017, thus limiting future paving impacts. Number two adds boilerplate language required for all state contracts with vendors per the request of the state comptroller's office. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Any comments on the amendment? Councilmembers Ortega or Fox? Yes. Go right ahead. I want to specifically address the box culvert because I'm not sure this is just a minor amendment because if you look at the actual agreement, number one, Denver is. The language is changed so that now we would pay up to 2.5 million. Actually, the state would pay up to 2.5 million towards the box culvert. And in the previous language that was the total cost. And so I want to know, number one, if the cost has changed in the estimates, because that language sort of changes the way that that it reads. So I don't know who wants to speak to that. Mr. President. Point of order. Could someone also reference it's a you know, it's a multi page contract. What section? The language change that you were referring to. Councilwoman Ortega. So we follow along. Yeah, it's. Let's see. I believe it's for me to find the actual page here. I think Sky. Council. Creatures on page three. It's in section one, the 2% drainage project, an early action drainage project in that Section A and I can hand you a red line if that. Helps you so I can read the way it read before in the way it reads now. So you have that clarification. Go ahead. Ahead. Just trying to start at the beginning of the sentence the two base and drainage project including the. Remaining. The EDP is the. East at the Early Action Drainage Project. Sorry I lost my my place here. Kathleen Kennedy. Did you find the spot? As long as. I do. It. Kathleen Kennedy dissatisfied. I want to go ahead. We can go ahead and get your questions answered, Councilman Ortega. So whoever. Okay, so I'm not sure who's addressing that, but what I'm what I'm trying to clarify is what is the cost now? Has the cost change? Because the language is basically saying now that the state will pay up to that amount. And that raises the question about whether or not the cost of the box culvert has changed. High Council president and council. I'm Leslie Thomas. I'm the city engineer, and the cost estimate has not changed. And the city attorney here, the attorneys are here, but the new language does not read up to it. Says that the state will pay the city 2.5 million. Okay. It must have been the language that I was reading before, because as as I read it, it was not clear that we were changing that verbiage. Says the city. The city will pay 2.5 million toward the construction of Brighton Boulevard box culvert. And before the language said that the cost was 2.5 million. So. If you read the the lines above it, it says the estimated cost was 14.9 million. For the Brighton Boulevard box culvert estimated to cost 2.5 million. So you're saying that that amount from the state is exactly the same and we're anticipating the cost of the box culvert to be. The 14.9 million. Looks like it's the residual drainage pipe, not the box culvert. So that's. That's where I'm confused here. And I just wanted to make sure I clearly understood what the cost of the box culvert part of this project is. In terms I think I'm sorry, Sean Sullivan with the city attorney's office. I think Miss Thomas addressed the cost being two and a half million. The language of the agreement went from the state shall pay the city two and a half million for the Brighton Boulevard box culvert on or before September 15 to the city will pay the city to one and a half million toward the construction of the Brighton Boulevard box culvert. It's it doesn't. The state. Excuse me. The state shall pay. So. So that doesn't change anything. And it didn't change the intent of the of the paragraph. Or the cost. Okay. That's the only clarification I had on this related to the amendment. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. Any other comments on the amendments? Yeah. See? No seeing none. Madam Secretary, roll call voting on the amendment. Montero I nevett i. Ortega I Rob Shepherd. Susman High. Brooks Brown high. Thoughts I can each layman i. Lopez, i. Ortega. I voted already I got. Mr. President. All right, now, Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 3939 as Council Bill 381 has been amended now. Councilmember Taylor, we need a motion to order published as amended. Do we need to do that before we actually discuss the bill? Okay. I move that council bill three 8381 be ordered published as amended. Is then moved in second and now councilwoman fights Europe. Thank you, Mr. President. It's for the people at home. This is an intergovernmental agreement between the city and various aspects of the state, especially the Colorado Department of Transportation, concerning I-70 improvements and drainage. This is not an issue that goes to the voters like the other two. Just to clarify. I am. I'm bringing this out in order to raise some concerns. And first of all, I'm to say what I what I don't believe we have any disagreement on. I-70 needs improvements. The area has drainage problems. And Gretchen, the staff all of the staff has worked very hard on this. Let me talk about the transportation side of my problem, though. And before I go into this, I want to clarify that in my past history in the legislature, my first at least six years were spent specializing in transportation issues and transportation funding. I chaired the Transportation Committee for two terms, and so I have some very strong feelings about what is proper public policy and what is not proper public policy. For me, the expansion of an existing interstate, a freeway is inappropriate to be handled through Lexus lanes. And so from from my perspective, I raised that issue with Colorado's Transportation Department. And when they asked for public comments, nobody is really talking about whether there's another way to fund these improvements. Everybody's just assuming we're going to do everything by doing expansions, whether it's to Boulder or whether it's I-70. We're going to do it through Lexus lines, and I don't happen to see it that way. And I'm speaking as a person who has voted for gas tax increases more than once. I believe there is a public policy involved here. And for 20 years, people have just simply taking a walk on that public policy. We need to have a discussion of how we're going to fund public infrastructure, not just use this kind of approach. Moreover, in toll roads, I carried legislation on toll roads very supportive of the A470 may be the only council person that has the express toll rfi the new transponder on my car. I use it. I pay for it. I'm happy to do so. It was going from point A to point B. A road was built and we got a connection that would not have otherwise been able to be there. I am just appalled to see that this that the Lexus lane is not getting more of a discussion and tolling this additional expansion. I do not support it at all. Secondly, the drainage. I have had only one comment from a constituent out in southwest Denver as a civil engineer who had done work on on transit projects before . And the comment was that if we lower the highway because of the drainage issues, we are about to enter the biggest debacle that we ever could have. That stuck with me. Now, I know that there's been a newer drainage plan, a much more expensive drainage plan suggested that may solve the problem. I'm a person who has a lot of skepticism. I really like engineers. I don't always believe that when they say this is going to solve the problem, it will solve the problem. So I don't know if that's going to happen, but I do know that for a drainage problem that is costing as much as this one is that to have urban drainage pay, only 9.5 million, they just told me today is just insane. Why would you have urban drainage contribute so little? To a huge drainage issue. Now, when you separate out, let's go to money. When you separate out money, there's a $1.56 million of city money. Going into this. 76 million of it is basically enhancements we've asked for. 37 million of the enhancements are on the transportation side. I really hope that the new council members understand this. They are going to be paying starting in 2022. $2.68 million from the city annually for 30 years. There is no source identified for this money. Moreover, if we don't, the state is given authority to notify the rating agencies if the council fails and it's right there in the agreement that we're going to be voting on. Now on the drainage side, 39,000,000 million of enhancements. That's not even the the big drainage project they added. 39 million are for connectivity and park like features. That is going to require along with that other bigger portion increases in the wastewater fees. I'm not going to be sitting here to vote for the wastewater fees. The people that are going to be either going to be voting them up or voting them down are not all here. Some are. Some aren't. So. My bottom line is that even though I do want in on improvements in this area and I am willing to look to other solutions, I don't believe this is the issue that this council ought to be deciding because I can't follow through on the annual payments that are required, and I also can't guarantee that the wastewater fees are going to be increased. I would be very interested in delaying this until the next council comes on. They can get up to speed very quickly on this issue, but I am not going to sit here and have them tell me she made me do it. I have to increase your wastewater fees because that stupid council that was sitting here before made me do it. I'm not going to do it. So I'm going to be voting no on this. And I would love it if the future council would have to deal with this issue. Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilwoman Ortega. Mr. President, I want to request a public hearing on this. And you and I talked about when that would be most appropriate. Looking at the calendar of so many other public hearings, we have scheduled both for next week as well as for July the sixth. So my request would be to do that on the 13th. I know that would be the last night that this council would be seated for some members, but I don't believe we have time on the calendar to do it. On either of those two nights, unless we plan to be here till wee wee hours of the morning, which we're probably going to be anyway, given the large number of public hearings that have been scheduled. So the request is for a public hearing, but I guess I would need to move to postpone final action with a public hearing to the 13th of July. So that is correct, Councilman. But we will first need to vote as it currently on the floor to be published as amended. So once we have that vote, assuming that vote is successful, then you will make a motion to delay final consideration. Until we just published as amended. We just approved the amendment and now we have it on the floor, published as amended. So can we vote on this? Then we will have the conversation about your courtesy public hearing, and you will make the motion, and. Then we will. I have a number of questions. I don't know if we have time to go through that tonight. It's also part of why I think we need a public hearing. I think the drainage project is absolutely needed for the Park Hill Basin and for the Montclair Basin. They will provide tremendous benefit to these neighborhoods Globeville, Swansea, Elyria, which get flooded like the last two weeks that we've had really bad rain. These neighborhoods have borne the brunt of a lot of that drainage in the highway project, I think is one that we've been dealing with for ten years. And I've got a number of questions related to the costs and concern that we have taken the drainage project and added everything else as part of the I-70 project into it. It doesn't really speak to the mitigation issues. You know, one could argue that the benefit from the drainage is is going to provide benefit to these neighborhoods. But there are issues like the impact to the residents that are within 500 feet of the highway. That in the mayor's letter that he wrote to Don Hood from CEDA in October 31st, 2014, one of the things that he did ask for and it's something the neighbors were asking for, was to have windows and doors replaced because during the construction there's going to be a lot of airborne contaminants that are in those soils of heavy metals from the Asarco globe plant. And so the health of the neighborhood should be number one in terms of ensuring that the children who go to school, it's once a year, which will continue to stay there during the five years of construction, as well as the families who live within that 500 feet. That will not be whose properties will not be taken and will continue to reside within, you know, a close proximity to the highway and be exposed to heavy metals. In the A meeting that we had last week with CDOT, they did indicate that one of the things they were looking at was purchasing portable air conditioners for the interior of residences. But that doesn't deal with the window indoors and the concern of of dust coming into their homes. So there are some of those concerns that have not been clarified because we won't see those details until we get the final environmental impact statement. And so we're dealing with some of these issues in a vacuum without knowing exactly how those concerns will be mitigated that. Impact neighborhoods that are covered by NEPA under Title six, which means, you know, they're a protected class and we need to make sure that those issues are clearly being addressed, but yet we don't have that information in front of us. I've got very specific questions that I'd like to go through. I know that we've got other people signed up that want to ask some questions, so I don't know if your pleasure is that I go through them and then you defer back to. How ever you feel. Councilwoman, if you want to go, we can certainly bring you back in the queue. Okay. Well, let me start with a couple of them first and then I'll defer to my colleagues. And then if they don't address the questions, then I'm more than happy to come back. So the first issue is under the early action. Drainage project and the two basin drainage project. Councilwoman Fox talked about some of the cost, but. What's not clear, for example, about the box cover is who owns that at the end of the day? Can can one of you speak to whether or not that box cover is owned by the city or why? And then who's responsible for maintaining it? This is the 2.5 million that I was asking about earlier. Mr. President, City Council. I'm Tony DeVito. I'm the I-70 project director. Question on the box. We are working together with the city. Let me clarify that the city's design levels on Brighton Boulevard redevelopment has not reached a point. To fully understand the amount of drainage that's going to be associated. We know that there'll be shared drainage in that and as we move forward, that is one of the items that is identified for further negotiation as we negotiate a maintenance agreement. That's one of the line items in the contract. So does that mean then that we'll see a different agreement in the future? As with many agreements between the city and the state on different levels of maintenance, with snowplows and other city street ordinances that we utilize with we we negotiate. And a lot of times the mutual maintenance plans. So is that an agreement that will come back before city council? Leslie, I'm looking at you. I think as usual and Sean can jump here depending on what the terms are, we will follow whatever the terms are according to the council rules. So if there is money changing hands or other items that would require that, it would definitely come back to city council. We don't know what those terms will be at this point. So if it's required, we will certainly be here and happy to be here. And is the funding available for the design for Brighton Boulevard? Yes, ma'am. And what is that amount? We have $26.8 million available already as stated in the agreement. And then the remaining 42.2 of the early drainage action early action drainage project will be provided by CDOT as we spend money over the next several years. Per the agreement. So this part of Brighton, is it closer to the Coliseum? Or are you talking about the money that has been earmarked for the Brighton Boulevard corridor? This part of the Brighton Boulevard box covered is between 44th and about the property line of Pepsi, which is right around. We call it 41st ish. That's where you'll find it. All right. And then on the $80 million that the city will be spending, which is basically the. 2.68 million per year that we would be obligated to pay for the next 30 years. The 39 million, that's for the park like amenities. That's not part of the 80 million, correct? I'll defer to Gretchen. Good evening. The council president on his way out. Members of council. My name's Gretchen Haller. I'm the city's deputy CFO. And I'd like to thank Councilman Fox for acknowledgment of the team that's been working on this, but it's both the city and see that in partnership. Just to clarify on your question, the 2.68 annual payment that's anticipated to last for 30 years is actually on the transportation side of the improvements. That's the 37 million in project cost. That's the financing that 80 million for the city share. That's a 60% share of $134 million total drainage portion of the to base and drainage project that would be paid through the city's wastewater fund. Those would be wastewater ratepayer eligible project costs. And then you're correct, there's an additional 39 million to take that drainage project and turn it into the amenity that's anticipated for the community that adds the park, like features the connectivity that would not be funded through the wastewater fund. That would be if you were to think about the ratepayer costs being the conveyance of water, the movement and storage and water quality cleaning of water. These features would be the park bench that sits next to the open channel, the trail that allows bike and pad connectivity to allow that to become a greater amenity for the community. So that cannot be paid for with wastewater funds. No, that's. Not. Where will that 39 million come from? We will be talking so similar to the wastewater conversation where we will be the budget office will be bringing forward a rate increase regardless of this project for consideration. As part of the 2016 budget process, we will be looking to fund that $39 million as part of the 2016 budget process. But that's not part of the rate increase from wastewater. No, that will come from somewhere else. Correct. In the city. Not wastewater. Correct. And just to clarify for folks at home, because there are several funding parts of this project, there is a portion of this that's the 37 million for transportation related. Denver requested elements to enhance that project. There is the wastewater portion of the drainage project that comes from the Wastewater Enterprise Fund. And then there's the 39 million that is a piece of the wastewater project that is not funded through the wastewater fund. Do you have any idea what the fee increase will need to look like for the increase in wastewater fees to cover these costs or to be able to do other projects? Because we're going to use the lion's share of wastewater dollars for this project. Yes. So the Budget Management Office has been working with a financial analyst over the past several months. They were not on this timeline. They were bringing this rate increase forward anyway. The last rate increase, as you recall, was in 2011. It's been four years. So we need to bring forward a rate increase to accomplish a couple of things. One is to make sure that we have a fully funded and viable capital citywide capital program for the fund. The second is to build a water quality program for the city. That is actually a requirement from the state to help us keep our EMS for permits. We are in a ten year window and John Sullivan can speak to this on the legal side if needed. But we're in a ten year window of that. I think we're on year four. So we need to take some serious action to provide improved citywide water quality as our water flows to the to the plant. It does happen that the drainage project in front of you is one great big water quality project in our most serious and impacted basin for water quality. It's an enormous basin. And so what we are funding as a part of the rate increase, this project fits nicely into and you will see that regardless. So are we not doing a 2.6 annual increase from wastewater? No, that amount is on the transportation side and that is the amount that. Are I'm just talking about annual cost increases to the taxpayer from wastewater. Is that not something that we see on a on an annual basis? So we don't have the ratepayer increase for you today. We are anticipating to bring that as part of the 2016 budget discussion. We will begin conversations with you on that near mid to end of July. So that can be part of the September budget hearings. The only 2.6 number for today is on the transportation side, and that's the financed improvements and that payment would begin in 2022. And that allows us to leverage CDOT essentially to construct those transportation improvements. And the city does not participate in those payments until they're fully constructed. I will defer to my colleagues. I know you have other folks in the queue, so I will wait. And if you could put me towards the back, if my questions get asked, I will scratch them off my list. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I am looking at this bill, and I'm recalling our long Kent City Council committee meeting in which we discussed all of this, which we, you know, had the opportunity to really delve into the issue, ask questions, and then move this on to the rest of the council. Now, what I what I take back from it, yes, there's a lot of different intricacies, but what I take back from it is putting on my role as the chair of urban drainage and flood control. And Black is probably this is the basin, the drainage basin that is our biggest threat to the city and county of Denver , to people and property. And if we don't do anything about it, we're going to have ten times worse than what happened to Boulder and Aurora in this area with the ongoing construction, with the you know, I wasn't at first and very supportive of building this expanding the highway through this neighborhood. I was a big proponent of the reroute that's long gone and discussion. Now we're looking at drainage. We have to be able to get this done. We have to be able to move water out of this basin into the Platte River so we can do everything we need to do, but also protect lives and property, the most basic form of government in this area, and keep people safe and keep Denver out of a flood zone. So I you know, I really want to just express my support for it. I don't have any more questions. A lot of my questions were answered in committee. But I do want to see this move forward. And I'll hopefully I'm curious to what my other colleagues feel as well, too. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to just clarify two pieces, which is about the portions of this project that are necessary regardless of I-70, and then some questions about timeline. So I might just ask the timeline question first. One of the constituent questions that I've received that I think is really important in terms of respect for the legal process that we are in with the IRS, is what happens in this agreement if if the record of decision is not to proceed with the I-70 project. And so I think Sean Sullivan had answered this question for me, if I might ask him to share that answer. Sean Sullivan, the city attorney's office. The agreement provides that if the if there if the record decision isn't completed and doesn't come forth with the Lord, cover a partial underground solution, then it would be terminal at the mutual agreement of the parties. So it forces us back to the table to talk about what we need to do in next steps. Great. Thank you. Now, I don't want to be naive. Right? The agreement says that if the record of decision comes forward by December of 2016, then the agreement can be terminated. But we're planning to start construction in January of 2016. And so that detail has not escaped me that we're starting construction a year before the deadline for record of decision. So I really want to understand and this may not this may be you, Sean, or it may be someone from the project team. What it is that we'll be doing in year one and how it is how much of that portion of work that's happening in year one would be necessary regardless from or separate from the I-70 project, because I think it's a really important question my constituents have asked, which is, are we spending money on a project that's not yet approved before it's approved, or are we spending money that would be helpful for that project but would be needed regardless of it? And I really want to have you talk about that first year of construction. I didn't see in the exhibits a clear verbal description of what the Early Action Project was. There's a map. It's very difficult to read, so and neither could I find it in the PowerPoint. So I think if you can verbally describe what's happening in year one and exactly what it does for Denver, I would be most appreciative. And I'm going to defer to an engineer three great. Things. Thank you for your question and clarification opportunity to clarify the early action drainage project that is critical and we have agreed to have in place by December 1st of 2017. Yes. They're all nodding. It goes from the South Platte River up through the coliseum that we just talked about, up through the Pepsi parking lot and into Brighton Boulevard. And then if you can imagine what we were talking about with Councilwoman Ortega earlier, that's that 41st ish place. And then it goes within Brighton Boulevard over to about the entrance to the Coliseum or 44th is right where you get on the highway. That is the piece that we will need to be working diligently on within that timeframe between now and the end of 2016, I believe is what's referenced. That is the piece that is the very bottom of the basin. So think of it like the back, that plug to the back through the drain to the bathtub and the bigger of a drain that we have, the more capacity we have to pull the water out of the city. So while it would be bigger than if it was only funded by our wastewater rates, which are to provide a five year system, which is about an inch of rain an hour, as opposed to 2.6 inches per rain of rain in an hour. But it is always good to have more capacity at the bottom of the basin. So that's where we would like to see it. Thank you, Mr. President, if I may follow up. So I want to clarify then. Sorry I dropped my pen. I want to clarify then that. So we are taking input from CDOT with regard to I-70 with the design of this project. But if I-70 is never built. The project in the first year would still benefit drainage in the region, whether we go to a different I-70 replacement bridge solution, whether it. Nothing happens and we just wait for it to fall down. Whatever it is. The drainage project that we're doing in that first year before we know definitively is one that has a function for Denver's drainage. Yes, absolutely. So that's, I think, really very important. And then the other piece I wanted to clarify is in terms of the GMs for permit, you mentioned that the state has water quality. So one thing we're dealing with here is flood control. Does this first early action portion also have a quality portion to it that is contributing to the state or is that later phases? The majority of it would be later on because you're capturing so much in the basin and would have a place to store it. We are working with urban drainage and flood control and Parks Department to see what can be done in the first phase. Okay. Excellent. Thank you very much. So I'm just going to make my comment briefly since that question for me was really important. I do I shared in committee my question about the timing of this agreement being early. And I do continue to have that concern that it is early. But I believe in the benefit to our taxpayers of starting a process to be prepared and knowing that the benefits are going to accrue to the city and to homeowners and to businesses in this area, regardless of what happens with the project is really important. If that were not the case, I probably could not vote for this agreement today because it is early before the record of decision is definitive. But we have a transportation agency that has an RFP out for someone to build this project so that they're prepared. And if we are able to use our dollars wisely and leverage urban drainage and flood control dollars, then I believe that it is prudent to do that, to have those benefits accrue to leverage those dollars, and not without any risk accepting the risk that should this project not go forward, we would then need to, you know, figure out a way to, you know, everyone would have to pay their way and we would have to pay out of continuing the project further. So, so that's a risk, but it's one that I'm willing to accept given the benefits of the first year project. And really that's the period of time that we're talking about is one year. So with that, I will be supporting the agreement tonight. Thanks. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Brooks. You know, Mr. President, I think a lot of my comments, Councilman, can each touch on Psalm and Lopez as well. I think, you know, at times we get in the technicalities of an agreement and we forget the reality. And the reality is this is the worst basin in the city where two basins in the city combined. The reality is, while it might be nice to wait, there's residents and businesses who are fed up about the constant flooding that comes in their neighborhoods and businesses. The reality is that if Boulder's rainstorm and in Longmont would have been over this area, we would have had $300 million of development to replace. Houses businesses I 70. And so you know, we're talking about Katrina like issues here and I know that everyone sees that it is an issue. But I think. There's not enough urgency and there's not enough acknowledgment that the city is trying to put together a plan that many businesses, many I know I have for the last four years have been looking for opportunities for us to combine projects to get this done. And so, you know, I just wanted to say that and be on the record for saying that as someone who lives in the area, who witnesses the flooding constantly. And I know that there are some issues within the contract that are good questions and we need to talk about. I just thought we were doing that for the last two weeks with the staff in committee special meetings, and obviously we need to continue to do that. But my my I would I would be wrong if I didn't sit up here and talk about the seriousness of this issue and state my my constituents concern that this project is not moving fast enough. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, Councilwoman Laney, I. Just want to clarify one thing. That when they started the. East Line and they decided, well, how are we going to build it? They said we are going to build this, which goes right through that basin at a five year flood level. That would. Mean. That even in a regular rainstorm in Denver, if it was a heavy rainstorm, that the east light rail would flood. They would bring busses in and you would take people out to go wherever they're. Going to go. So I raised. Really a huge, huge objection to that as a result of what. Is being proposed this evening. That piece of light rail will be in the 100 year flood plain will be protected and that bright light rail line will be able to run. Almost. Always. Not by now, I promise you. Always, but almost always. It was if I've done nothing well in my in my 12 years, that was the best thing I did. So I certainly will vote for this. Thank you, Councilwoman Lemon. Councilwoman Ortega. You're back. Thank you. I'm sorry to be in the weeds with this, but I've been involved with this I-70 project, and since. Since I got reelected and actually before when I left council, we were at the beginning of the year for this project. And a lot of the focus right now on this inter-governmental agreement is on the drainage. Some of it is on the transportation. And I think it's important for taxpayers to know what we're committing to. I don't dispute the need for this drainage project. I've seen the area flooded and know what the need is for these communities that bear the brunt of of where that water flows to from these two basins where it's needed. But I wanted to ask a question about the liquidated damages. And, Sean, if you wouldn't mind, coming up to the microphone under this section. Basically, it would obligate us to pay five. Thousand dollars a day for the project being late if it's not done by the deadline spelled out, which is September one, 2019. But I didn't see anything in there that would address circumstances like the kind of weather we've had the last two weeks. Any act of God that might occur, and it seems that there should be some wiggle room and it doesn't look like there's any wiggle room in that language. So can you help me understand if if we don't have it delivered by that date, that we'd have to start paying 5000 a day, regardless of whatever kind of weather conditions exist? Yes, Kels. Well, I hope her partners would be reasonable in those circumstances. But in any case, if you look at paragraph 24 of the agreement, there's a force majeure clause which requires or disallows the collection of damages in a situation that's an act of God or that kind of thing. Okay. Thank you. That that's helpful clarification. Gretchen, can you talk about how many properties are going to need be needed for the drainage project? And does the funding that we're approving include any of those takings that we will have to purchase as a result of the court order that we will utilize? Well, I may be as good as anyone answering this on the budget side. Yes, there is budget included in the total project cost that contemplates some land that will be necessary for the city to acquire to accomplish the project. As far as which properties would be impacted, that is not known at this time due to the stage of design that we're in. But it will be accompanied and this is really a public works question, but with a robust public process on as we move through design phases. Okay. And one last question for Leslie. Can you give us an idea what the the width of that drainage channel is anticipated to be? Yes, but I have to get out my map and maybe my glasses, so just hang. So while you're doing that, I just wanted to let my colleagues know that I had a request for an amendment that would have addressed trying to keep truck traffic out of the neighborhood and trying to tie that to this agreement. We talked with David Broadwell today, learned that these agreements are considered contracts and council does not have jurisdiction to amend contracts. So that's why that amendment is not was not brought forth. So just want to clarify that. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you. So in your exhibit, it does refer to how much water is being carried in the drainage channel. So without providing you had your hydraulics lessened, it will depend upon the slope and several other things. So you can think about somewhere between 150 to 250 feet, just depending upon the circumstances. And what's the average width of a street? An average width of the street. Typical downtown streets are 80 foot right of ways and 48 feet. Flow line to flow line or curb to curb is a typical downtown street is what you would see here. Okay. So what would you equate that to? About half a block. Half a block wide. Maybe if you're on the skinny side of a block by Denver, blocks are around 300 by 600. So, yes, if you're on the thin side of the block. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. President, I. Any additional questions that I have? I will continue to direct them to staff. I've been ongoing meeting with them, had a meeting with manager, I guess it's executive director now, Courtney Hoh on Friday to address some of these additional questions. I would like to request a public hearing. So let me do that in the form of a motion. Well, Councilman, first we have to vote EIS and then we will write that. Then that issue will be addressed. Okay. All right, Council. Councilman Monteiro, you're up. Thank you. Since it feels like we're having a public hearing. I want to get on the record a couple of questions. What? What I. We did a proclamation back in April. The city council voted on it. And we talked about things that we would like to be included as the city team is looking at the is looking at the negotiation. And generally they had to do with drainage, air quality fumes, emissions, noise, traffic counts, displacement of residents, connectivity, quality of place, jobs and education for residents. And specifically, some of the things that we had talked with you about was the and I know this has nothing to do with the AG in front of us , but I have to bring it up since so many other things have been put out there. But so I would like for someone to tell me with the compensation or whatever in a position during this negotiation to talk about narrowing the footprint of the highway and what that answer is. Also the the railroad tracks at 47th and York Street, which is no secret to any of you because I'm always talking about this stuff and then also the truck reroute. So if you can answer those and then tell me, tell the public, for the record, whoever the most appropriate people are. Is this the last bite of the apple or tonight? Are we specifically talking about the transportation and drainage issue as it relates to this agreement? So who wants to go first? I'll try. And then Tony and Gretchen, maybe you will help me. So your first question was about the highway full width highway footprint. And so what I would like to share with you is that we have had a group of technical experts from both CEDA and Denver, FH, W.A. and the consultant teams taking a look at what is the reasonable type of recommendations that could be made to see that and the number of feet that they recommended that could be narrowed or taken out of shoulders and things is eight feet. Yes. And so that is a recommendation that C will carry forward to FAA and Tony can speak more about that when that time is appropriate. The City Council. Mr. President, again, Tony DeVito would see that. I want to emphasize that this agreement, while it codifies a lot of the working process that we've had over the last couple of years, in no way does this stop the commitments and the mitigation that we are working towards. On the environmental side, the NEPA process working through the next year and getting to a record, a decision, the record a decision is the binding contract with the Federal Highway Administration that mandates the commitments that the D.O.T. will deliver. And so in no way does this agreement modify, minimize, do anything to that effort as we move forward. And so with regard to the air construction dust. Air quality noise, noise, walls, everything else that we are working through will continue in the normal process. All this does is it identifies a path forward for some of the agreements of the transportation and drainage issues that we have come to terms on. So I'll do the specifics then. So on 47th in York, which we all know is a very tricky intersection of the railroads and the corridor for children to go back and forth to school between Elyria and Swansea, we worked diligently with Seedat to see if there was a way that this could be included at this time and what was determined because of some of the land that was needed, as well as some public process in order to understand whether going over or under and other things that would really could be impacts to the neighborhood needed to be looked at. And so it is not in this agreement, but it is a study funded that we funded last year, I believe through and DCC and will be as we move forward looking at those kinds of changes to that intersection to see what can be done. And I apologize. I don't remember the last part of my truck. Reroute. Oh, truck reroute. Can you talk about truck free routes? Once again, we've had numerous conversations about the different truck movements during construction. We have had very viable conversations about being sure that there's certain areas that when we're putting together a procurement documents that will be very sensitive towards idling the types of equipment staging. And so we have come to some agreements on some of those because it is interstate and does invoke interstate commerce. We have to be very cautious about restrictions, but we can encourage routing, especially during construction, especially for the through the long haul haulers that are utilizing the interstate. And we've had some conversations on that and those conversations can continue. If you have something specific I can try to answer. I just have a question for David. David Broadwell. So Mr. David always talked about the obligation in terms of interstate. And so I wanted to just ask you at what point, even though I know we don't have anything definitive, would a city ordinance be in place regarding truck rerouting? David Brock, also associate attorney. I'm really not prepared to answer that question because I'm just not close enough to the project details to do that. I would prefer that perhaps someone else in the team has a sense for when that might happen. Questions coming up to the podium. It's not an issue that we've discussed, but we can certainly look into it and see. I think Mr. De Vito was making the point that we've got interstate commerce issues, so we're going to have to look into those kinds of issues. Well, I would request that you do. That's a huge issue for the neighborhood, and it's been outlined in the health impact assessment. So I don't want it to be ignored. So if you would do that, appreciate it. Yes. And I'm certain some of those things are going to be addressed through the NEPA process as well. So. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Councilman Monteiro Castro McKinney. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to chime in. I appreciate Councilwoman Taylor. I'm sorry. Montero's questions in particular, the question about, you know, later negotiation, because I can see that as a good thing, that this is not the last bite of the apple. But my concern is that we on the transportation side of this agreement, we're committing $37 million. And what I don't what I am concerned about is that that is our leverage. And I am concerned that when we have asks to finish these other pieces, whether it's employment opportunities for the community, which the federal government is opening the doors for in ways that see that should take advantage of for this project, for example, or other mitigations that we are not in a position. And I'm just saying this on the record. Well, you know, Director DeVito is here and our commissioner is here. I don't want to hear that. We don't have any consideration to offer for those things because, you know, we've given you the money up front. And so it is critical that when we come to the table to finish all of these other pieces that are really important, that CDOT looks back at the consideration in this agreement and takes that into account when considering the other pieces that we may yet need to come to agreement on. And and I'm really serious about that, because there will be other contracts and other agreements and other approvals required, including the annual appropriation process, which this agreement is subject to. And, you know, budgets with amounts in that amount. I mean, I would say to this council and future councils that it's critical that we continue to negotiate for these remaining items and that our commitment of this $37 million upfront does not, by any way, forgo our ability to ask and demand and negotiate for other things that this community needs in mitigation for this project. So I'm very hopeful and encouraging that that will happen. But I just I want it to be known that that if it's not if the moment is passed on, the $37 million, this council has an annual appropriation where we can follow up to make sure that that negotiation continues in good faith. So little, little heads up. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm still voting for it, but with that stern warning. Thanks. Thank you, guys. Okay, so just remind my colleagues what we have before us right now is 381, which is to be published as amended. See no other comments. Madam Secretary. And after this vote, we will deal with the conversation of the currency, one currency public hearing. So that will be the next issue. Madam Secretary, Roll Call. Montero High. Nevitt Ortega. Abstain. Rob Shepherd. Past Susman by Brooks Brown. I thought no can teach the layman. Lopez. Hi. Ortega. She states. Okay. Shepard Epstein. Mr. President, I. I'm secretary. Please positively announce the results. Nice one. Nay, two abstentions. Anais. One, nay. Two, two abstentions. Three, two, one has been published as amended. Okay. So there is a request for a one hour courtesy public hearing on July 13. Just to give the viewers a little bit of background, typical requests for one hour courtesy public hearings are done at the discretion of the council president, and it's usually followed the next week. The one caveat for this time is that it will be because the request is to delay final consideration. That will require a vote of council. So what we're going to do, Councilwoman Ortega, what I need from you is a motion to postpone final consideration to Monday, July 13th. Then we will have comments and we will vote on the motion to delay final consideration and have a one hour cursory public hearing on July 13th. Okay. Let me just be very clear and specific that if the motion fails, I want to request a one hour public hearing for next week when this bill comes back. If there are not enough votes for the postponement. Certainly it can be next week or another date certain if another council member chooses to do that. You're absolutely right, Councilman. So I move that council. Bill 381. Be ordered published as amended with. So we haven't done that yet. Right? So we've done that. So it's just move for final consideration. So I move that final consideration on Council Bill 381 be postponed until July 13th, 2015. With a one hour curfew, but. One hour workers, a public hearing. Okay, second. So we need you. That technology will catch up with us, Madam Secretary. Councilman Ortega, you can go ahead and begin your comments if you have any. I think, you know, I think this just warrants the opportunity for the public to come and ask questions. We're obligating a large amount of money towards both the transportation side and the drainage side of this project. I absolutely believe in the need for the drainage. I wish these two would have been separated so that we could have dealt with them separately. But I just think that there's so much here that we're committing to. And as Councilwoman Canete said, we are basically giving up all of our leverage upfront without ensuring that the kinds of things that need to be addressed. And, you know, there have been ongoing negotiations back and forth between Denver and Seaport on many of these details. There hasn't been a public meeting with the neighborhood in a while for them to be privy to what a lot of these negotiations have included. And I'm concerned that this is part of the NEPA process. It's part of the Title six process, ensuring that the residents are involved in in these kinds of decisions that are being made. And so I think it's important for the public to have an opportunity to come and share their comments, concerns with us. The agreement is up on our system for anybody who wants to take a look at those details and be able to come and express those concerns. I've talked to a number of residents that live in the neighborhood who had concerns about where all the mitigation is related to the truck traffic that we talked about, related to the air quality impacts and what is in fact, going to be done with the homes of people who live within 500 feet. As I shared earlier, all the air quality studies we've looked at really indicate that anybody that is within that 500 feet are subject to greater health effects and especially for small children. And so I'm concerned about how we're going to deal with that, not having had not having been privy to seeing the details that are going to be in the final year. So I would just respectfully request that my colleagues support this postponement to allow us to have this one hour courtesy public hearing on a night that we're not already overloaded with other public hearings. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Ortega, Catwoman fans. Thank you, Mr. President. Had Councilman Ortega pushed this out to the next council, chosen a much later time? I may have been very supportive. We're still dealing, though, with the fact that a group, even on the 13th, who is not responsible for the 2.68 million annual payment for 30 years, who is not responsible for raising wastewater fees and who is not looking in the next budget for the 39 million for connectivity and park like feature funding? We have we haven't gone out to the people who actually will be doing that and giving them a chance to hear from the public. So I am not going to be supporting this motion. It's not that hearing from the public is wrong. I really believe that in a case like this it would be very appropriate, but not at that time. Thank you, Councilman Fox. Councilman Brown, Councilwoman Monteiro said you can go before her. So you're up. Thank you, madam. Thank you, Mr. President. You got to stick around here a little longer. Yeah, well, as we all know, the the final meeting of this council when seven of us will be leaving. Thank you for withholding your applause. We've been trying for the last couple of months to avoid a public hearing on our last night, and that's why we cowboy it up and decided to have a meeting. On a night that we usually don't meet. And that's the 4th of July holiday. So we will be meeting on July the six in order to avoid a public hearing on our last night. So this does completely the opposite. Here we are again. But the public hearing proposed for our last night adamantly against that. I'm not against the public hearing, but not repeat, not on Monday, July the 13th. Thank you, Councilman Brown. Councilwoman Monteiro. Thank you, Mr. President. I will be opposing the public hearing for July 13th. I think that I think that the city team and Seerat are prepared to come back and answer more questions. I want to tell you that I feel that you have done an excellent job tonight. Having said that, honoring Councilman Ortega's request, I think it is a good idea to take some time for the public to weigh in. But I will be opposing it because I am not in favor of July 13th. I think that having a special meeting on the evening of July 6th is appropriate. I took the time today to talk with Brad Buchanan, who all of you know is the head of planning and the other the other zoning, the other text amendment, public hearings that are coming up on the six relate to the Highland neighborhood. And we have worked very long and hard for two, two and a half years to work on these text overlays. And I completely believe the neighborhood is organized. They're always vocal and opinionated, which is that's just how we roll in North Denver. But I do believe that we can accommodate the request for a public hearing, not on the 13th, but on July six. So I would ask my colleagues to consider having it on July 6th. Thank you, Councilwoman Monteiro. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you. Council President. And, you know, I count eight. Public hearings. For July six. Two were on national western, which. Is. Very important. And just the staff reports alone are going to go on. You know, I'm paid to work either. Night, so. I would be fine with with either time. Although I have to say Councilman Fox has been somewhat convincing to me and this is. Just first reading. I'm open to a public hearing. I'll probably support the 13th. Thank you, Councilmember. I just. Madam Secretary, just wanted me to make sure that it will be five public hearings on the six, because some of them are combined. So there'll be five on July six, correct, Madam Secretary? Great. Oh, Councilwoman Sheperd, you're. If I understand correctly, a public hearing on the 13th would be a one hour courtesy public hearing, correct? Correct. And then, I mean, I think it's entirely reasonable to have a one hour public hearing on the 13th in order for these issues to be aired. Thank you, Councilwoman Shepherd. Anybody else for the motion to postpone final consideration and have a one hour cursory public hearing on Monday, July 13th. Scene on Madam Secretary, Raquel Ortega. Hi, Rob. I Shepherd. I Susman. No. Brooks Brown. No. No. Can each layman. Pass? Lopez No. Monteiro No. Nevitt No. Lehman No. Mr. President. No. Catwoman. Lemon, need your. Sorry. Madam Secretary, please positively announce the results. Four eyes, nine nays. For eyes nine. The motion to postpone final consideration have a one hour cursory public hearing on July 13th has failed. Councilwoman Ortega, you're up. Okay, so let's try for July 6th. I move that council bill 381 be postponed with a one hour courtesy public hearing to July six, 2015. Wait for technology catch up. It has been moved and seconded. Do we Catwoman or take a Catwoman fight? A question. And this is maybe a rhetorical question that could just be and nodded. Is there anyone on this council who would be interested in delaying this for the new council? I'm getting the feeling that new council members would not necessarily be opposed to that. I became. And I would think that you might even want to pick enough time to get them up to speed a little bit so that it would be probably the end of August. Or if that can't. Even be chiming in. Go right ahead, sir. Well, we haven't had a chance to have the conversation between US attorneys, but you all are familiar with the charter rule that says if there's no action by counsel within 30 days of submission, then the the the matter can simply be executed that charter rules for a reason. And so we need to have a conversation about where the whether this is even feasible depending upon what the day would be. So so I don't see a lot of nodding going on, but I just wanted to alert you to the fact that you might kick into that issue if if you were to delay it and delay July. I withdraw that little rhetorical question. Thank you. Councilman Fox. Councilman or take it that you have more or are you just chiming in here? Councilman Lopez, you're up. Thank you, Mr. President. With all due respect to Councilman and take I know your questions are very valid and I know there are some answers that she needs. You know, I like I said, I, I do believe we have a council process. We had a long committee meeting. We had questions at that time. We had the opportunity for public to chamber. I mean, we could have had the opportunity for public to chime in. I think I don't know. I think we had it was I think we had a speakers list, but I haven't had any emails about this. It hasn't been on my ticker as something that was controversial. As a matter of fact, I thought maybe we'd spend a little time on this. We've now spent probably 2 hours on this particular issue. I don't I'm not a fan of doing committee work on the floor. And I think it's had it's process. It's you know, staff has done their job in making sure that every single one of us had the opportunity to be briefed, had questions asked. Again, I'm not I'm not challenging the questions posed by my colleague, Councilman Ortega, but I just think that we run that 30 day deadline and we run, not lose. I'm not putting this on. I mean, just fizzling it out. And like I mentioned before, there's a lot at stake with this particular bill in terms of drainage. And that's why I, I mean, I'm not a fan of postponing it any longer. All right. Thank you, Councilman Lopez, Councilman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to clarify that my support for the bill is separate from the fact that I believe the public has a right to weigh in when when they've requested it, because the portion of this contract that deals with the transportation improvements. If it were only a drainage agreement, I would consider it much more cut and dry. But it does include the $37 million for transportation improvements. And unfortunately, we don't have council, we do not, as a matter of policy, have comment on contracts in committee. So there was not an opportunity for the public to comment in committee. It's always the discretion of a chair upon request to add it, but it's not required. And so so in good conscience, I have to give, you know, give this a yes vote. Although I having a courtesy public hearing at the end of five required public hearings, I don't know really meets the standard of a good I don't know the quality and what we put the public through in waiting to speak. So with that caveat that I recognize that I voted for the first motion which failed. So as a as a second time around. But I did just want to clarify that it's the transportation portion of this that I think makes it valid for public input. So thank. You. Thank you. Councilwoman Canete, any other comments? We have the motion before us for final consideration to be postponed in a one hour courtesy public hearing happen on Monday, July 6th. Scene nine. Madam Secretary, I believe Councilman Ortega is comments are good. I don't know why. It's okay. Madam Secretary. Raquel Ortega. Hi. Rob. I shepherd i susman. Brooks Brown. I fats. No. Can eat lemon. Lopez, monteiro. Nevitt. Hi. Mr. President, I. Madam Secretary, please close the voting. And as a result, 12 eyes. One name is one day. Final consideration for 381 is postponed to Monday, July six, and we will have a one hour courtesy public hearing. All right. We are halfway there. The next one. Madam Secretary, 376 caught out by Councilmembers Fox and Lopez. Councilman, did you want this called out for a vote? I do. Councilman Lopez, you just had a comment. What I you. I'll defer to Councilman Fox for comments because I think I'm going to follow up with them. Perfect. Councilwoman Ortega, could you please order 376 published?