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.
Yes. Sorry to find them again. Okay. And Councilwoman Gilmore. Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolutions 823, 824 and 826 be adopted in a block. All right. It has been moved in second it. Councilman Espinosa, your motion. I move that council resolutions mean I move that adoption of council resolutions 388 23, 824 and 826 be postponed to a date certain to Monday, August 28th. All right. It has been moved in second to comments by members of council. Councilman Espinosa, just asking my colleagues, I'm I think I'm probably the slowest one on council getting to sort of the comfort level here. A lot of input this weekend and some concerns that I have that that I developed over this weekend. I need some additional time. I'd like to actually work with the administration, if at all possible, to some sort of to amend these contracts or somehow put in some language that will actually allow us to not do any sort of reverse irreversible changes to the course. I mean, mainly the trees, the mature trees that are 100 years old and hard to replace before we have absolute confirmation that any appeals process and pending litigation on the question around the legality of this is resolved. I think it would be sort of you know, it would be it would be wrong for us in our position as stewards of everything in the city to sort of rely on the court process to stay and preserve trees that way when we actually fully are within our capability to just put it, codify it in an agreement, that we're not going to start grinding up certain amenities and assets until such time as we know it's it's perfectly legally in the clear. So I would rather I'd like some time to work with that because this is really literally coming to the. Administration right now because it's an idea that essentially I would. Vocalize a concern I vocalized in committee, but we obviously didn't have the votes there to postpone and get this clarified. But hopefully my members, my colleague, colleagues on on this. Dais. Will recognize at least a couple of times I mean, a couple of weeks, which will still allow this contract to be executed on time if it were to pass on 828 as is. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilman Espinosa, Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President. Since I've been in this seat, I've spoken consistently that I'm I'm not a fan of the Central 7570 project. And I've spoken consistently that I believe that this project, the Platt, the Park Hill project, is intimately related to I-70. So I had intended to call these out for a vote to have the opportunity to vote no, but I'm perfectly comfortable with the councilman's request for additional time. So I'll be in support of that. Thank you, Councilman Cashman. And Councilman. No. When asked Mr. Broadway a question, I figure give us a little history on the litigation on this issue up to date and and when the next trial will be and what the effect would be is postponing this. David Broadwell, Assistant City attorney. Councilman, we have attorneys in the room who are actually helping to handle the litigation. I would invite one of them to come to the podium and give you a quick update. Good. Thank you. Good evening, members of council. My name is Jessica Brody. I'm an assistant city attorney and I'm one of the attorneys working on the litigation as well as the contracting for this project. We will be going to trial in two weeks. It's scheduled for a four day trial. The city is ready and eager to get going with this case. So if we approve this tonight, what effect would that trial if we lose that trial, what effect will it have? Well, first of all, I'll say we feel very optimistic about our chances at trial having gone through many months of discovery, evaluating the plaintiff's claims. We think that the project that's being put forth for approval is entirely consistent with the Denver charter and the Denver zoning code. So I'll say that first in terms of what happens at trial. I mean, obviously, in the event that we're wrong, we'll have to see what the judge's decision is and determine what, if any, changes need to be made. But at this point, we're not anticipating any. Being a factor delaying this counsel, Espinosa suggests. Just to clear the air on this. I don't believe that's necessary in this case or helpful to the the process. The contract, like all of our contracts, has plenty of opportunities for the city to seek delays or termination if necessary. I will add that no onsite work on the course is anticipated for a few months yet, so certainly we'll know well in advance of that what the outcome of the case will be. So whether we delay or not won't have effect? Well, it will have effect on the project because the project is being very carefully timed in order to minimize the amount of golf season that's disrupted. If we delay the contract, then all that planning work gets delayed, which could have a significant impact on the schedule for the project. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. Thank you. Jessica, could you come back to the microphone? Sure. I think the motion was to or Councilman Espinosa's intent is to try to have the administration amend the contract so that actual physical work doesn't commence until the end of the appeals process. In your experience, the outcome of a trial, of course, doesn't. That only begins the appeals process. How long could that take in your experience? The appeals process can take months, two years, just depending on what the nature of the appeal is, what the court's docket looks like. So again, it at this point is pretty much speculation in terms of how long that would involve. But I would say in general, it's it's months, two years if you wait for every potential appeal to run. Mm hmm. Thank you, Mr. President. I had another question. And for Jen Hillhouse. Could you come up for a second? Go ahead, Councilman Flynn. Jennifer, I'm wondering what would be the impact of a delay in this contract to the project, if any? Good morning or evening. Members of Council Main. Jennifer Hillhouse I'm with Public Works and we have procurement. Steve Coggins My best answer that, but I get as he comes up, I can give you a little bit of indication if we delay this, this contract, as Jessica mentioned, we will lose an entire season of golf and our commitments that we've made to the public would be hindered. And so it's it could be a substantial impact to us. So we expect work on the site. If things went according to schedule right now, we expect that the work on the site would begin in November. That's what I recall. That's correct. Okay. That's all, Mr. President. Okay, Councilman Espinosa, I'm going to jump in. So I just want members of council and the public to know that Councilman Espinosa, with this motion, has exercised a rule beyond our rule of 3.7, which delays a council bill one week. And so this goes above and beyond. I'm not comfortable voting on that. We've been. This project has been talked about, worked on. Had a conversation with her last year. And all of us stay here to midnight for the water rates increase as well. And so I think Councilman Espinosa knows a lot about this project, actually, and is very well attuned to it. And we got many emails from residents saying we should wait for the ruling and for the judge to rule on this. Well, this is the legislative branch and we take on our legislative process as such. A judge can can issue a stay on any of these projects, and we will not be able to move forward. So we're going to go I am as a district representative who was knocking doors in our city park in Skyland last night, 7 p.m. talking about this issue. I feel comfortable moving forward with this, knowing that the judicial process is going to take its course. So, Councilman Espinosa, let me get to Ortega and then I'll pop back to you. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. The first one is Katzman Espinosa. Did you postpone to a date certain? Yes. What was that date? Well. It's 828, so August 28, two weeks. Okay. And to the city attorney, Jessica, if you don't mind, coming up, when does the 30 day clock expire on the contract? I believe that would be the last day to take action. The last day. So if we took action on that night, it would still be allowed to move forward. It would be within the 30 days. But again, it would cause delay to the contracting process and to the start of the project. How so? Well, probably the procurement team is best to answer that. But my understanding of the schedule is that we're hoping to issue a notice to proceed to the contractor. So again, they can start their preparatory work as soon as possible in order to take advantage of that November 1st onsite start date and minimize the disruption to the 2019 golf schedule. So if if the ordinance moved forward on the 28th. I don't understand how that affects the contracts schedule, the construction schedule. And so help me understand that. Sure. So, Councilman Ortega, this is a design build contract. So before they actually start any onsite work, the contractor will start preparations of the design of the project. So and you've been doing that all along. We've done preliminary design, but as this is a design build contract, there's still a lot of work for the contractor to do before they start any onsite work in November. Okay. I have no further questions. Thank you. Councilman Ortega. All right, Councilman Espinosa, back up. So I do want to clarify something, and I understand how this happened. I did. I was asking for two weeks. So that's actually August 21st, not August 28. But less my watch is wrong. And so I would like to change that, that request. I would like to change my motion to. To from August 28 to a date certain of August. 21st. With that said, I don't believe any concrete, any work that a contractor does between now and the executed contract, which we aren't required to act until 828, would be at risk. And up to them, it would be. Sort of wrong to assume that just with our vote, they start work because I mean, is. That true or should they wait until they have an. Executed contract before beginning work? We always advise contractors to wait until they have a signed contract. But if this action were to be approved tonight, we would hope to get to a sign contract as early as later this week or early next week. But this body has technically. Until 828 to act, correct? Yes. Yes, you do. So if we were to take our full allotted time that was anticipated by the contractor would not have been. Well, that's certainly your prerogative. But as far as the anticipated schedule, again, our hope is to get the design underway as soon as possible so that we don't cause delays on the back end of the project. Again, I would like to change this behavior. If you want a contract executed by eight seven, then you should start this contract 30 days. I mean, we should be seeing this 30 days. Ago and not, you know. Telling us that your entire schedule is contingent on us acting to meet three weeks ahead of when we're required legally to act. So I do have a question. What is the is it possible that a contract I mean, the contractor could proceed then during the appeals process and trees be removed. Well, at this point, yes, because no injunction has been sought by the plaintiffs in this case. Okay. So failing that and sort of putting it on the citizens who are making this case rather than on this body, who can actually compel the administration maybe. To. Put this language in the contract, what is the how do you resolve that situation if 100 year trees are removed? How do you replace those? Well, I think as you can anticipate, you can't put the trees back once they've been removed. So that is the core of my concern. And so then the last thing it's related to these this ballot, I mean, this this battery of contracts. How the Parsons contract actually is for both City Park and Park Hill. Those are two separate projects. It's sort of difficult for me to say, you know, one should be able to move forward while the other one sort of tries to resolve this issue. In my book. Why are the parsing contracts essentially linked and how do we you know, if City Park and Park Hill are two different things? Jamie Price. I'm with the Park Hill team. Councilman wanted to try address your last question and then also the question about the appeals process. We're somewhat fortunate in that the trial date is very close to when the A.B. date is for the contract, and we will know the result of that trial before physical work begins on site . After that, yes, there could be an appeals process. But at that point or now there's risk in every project. Right. And we're now weighing the risk of not moving forward with with that of moving forward. And there's going to be significant costs and delays and impacts quite a bit beyond the risk of moving forward. Based on what we know about the case and the strength of the cases. The City Attorney's Office has consulted us so wanted to clarify our impression of that somewhat unlikely event happening. The Parsons contract. Your second question. They are being retained to help with extension of staff services for construction management and project management, so they will need to be in place at about the same time as we engage with the contracting team, the design build team, the Saunders team to help with contract administration inspection, oversight of the project safety, all those things that go with the owner's role. So were the durations. So there's a contracting period. I mean, it's it's going to be a required amount of time to build this course. Does the duration of the construction change at all? Because, yes, there's a delay in the start. But the overall time it takes to complete the work is still the overall time it takes to complete the work, because they're doing it over the winters. As opposed to over the summer. It's doing both. But so, I mean, I'm I'm a little bit worried that you're you're you're addressing this concern by saying that there's risk, but moving forward with the contract, as is if there's a sort of. Of. Sort of confusion caused by the litigation or, you know, some sort of, you know, what you're relying on in predicting is is is monkey wrenches thrown into it. You will then be under contract and will have to amend those contracts. And that would cost money and delay the project. So why wouldn't it be prudent to actually just say, look, let's get let's continue the design because the design is not complete. That's work that has to be done and hold off on the construction with Saunders until such time as we have resolution. I mean that wouldn't that be the safe, most conservative way to go. Not necessarily. We have a design build team that's ready to work on a particular schedule at a particular cost. Again, changes to that will then cost money. Sorry. Changes to that particular. Schedule. Would then cost money. Councilman, let them. Let him finish what he said, and then you can respond. Go ahead. Yes, sir. I assume we're talking about both contracts now, both the Parsons contract and the Saunders design build contract. There's risks either way. The team believes that there's much greater risk to the city in terms of delays and cost overruns by delaying at this time with little benefit as we understand the status of the lawsuit as the city attorney's office has represented. Okay. All right. Well, thank you. I sort of beg to differ because it is a significant impact to the quality of life, to the environment. To lose mature trees, if, in fact, we do it. We end up being wrong. In this case, it is very. None of our lifetimes here will see those trees, any new trees get to the size that they are today. That is two generations from now. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Espinosa. By the way, there was a question before I'm going to go to Councilman Clark, because he has not said anything but the percentage of trees that would be saved on City Park. Yeah, we have an estimate on that. Just you want to just make sure I got that right. I believe what we said in committee was well over 70% of the trees will be saved, including the significant older growth trees on the perimeters that are valued so highly. There will be tree loss. We know that that tree loss will be some of the smaller trees or the trees that will be internal to be mitigated. Every tree will be mitigated to City Standard. And there's a there's an effort to preserve older trees on the perimeter. Just I just want to make sure you say that again. Okay. Very big effort, sir. Great. Thank you. Councilman Clark. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to jump in. This one's hard, obviously, because there are a lot of people who feel very passionately about this issue. I just wanted to jump in and say that I agree with Council President Brooks about our legislative process versus the judicial process. I also think that it is it makes me uncomfortable sitting up here that anyone who filed a lawsuit on anything that we do, we would just freeze and not take action on anything, because I think it opens the floodgates. Anybody can sue the city or anyone else for any reason at any time. And there is a process by which the judge could say, this just needs to stop. And I think that's the process to get that to stop. Otherwise, I don't think we should be delaying just because there's a lawsuit. All of that being said, I also want to clarify, because I don't think I'm buying the storyline that a two week delay when you know any one member of council. Councilman Espinosa, if this is not successful, can simply ask for one week. You can get a one week delay. And the statement was made that we will lose the entire season of golf and everything that we've promised our golf and our community over two weeks. When I would hope that this team has anticipated that someone up here at their discretion with no vote could delay for one week. So you're somewhere there's a magic number between seven and 14 where the whole world comes to an end. And I guess I'm not buying that either. So I just want to clarify again, I don't think we need to postpone and I back what Councilman Council President Brooks has said. But I do think for the record, we should clarify that this is really only seven days longer and still within the window of when council has its prerogative to approve this contract. And I would hope that our team, very smart people that you all are, have anticipated not losing an entire season up to the date at which we could take action. But certainly the difference between seven and 14 days. So can you clarify for me that that that you're you're really making the statement that that extra seven days will lose an entire season? So first of all, just to clarify. When we were speaking about the original DeLay requests, we thought we were addressing a three week delay as opposed to a two week delay. So just to clarify that, we certainly had anticipated that there could be a one week delay. We've included that in our schedule, but beyond that does jeopardize the contract. Still not 100% sold on that, but I don't smoke. Can I? Jamie, perhaps. Could I clarify? Once we get beyond one week delay, the contract is still whole and viable. We're going to complete. It just starts to impact a lot of things that are happening on the backend in terms of how quickly we can return this golf course back to the golfers and then those and I understand your your preference, but I would certainly hope for the citizens of Denver and for all of us that when a contract is brought in front of us, that we have until a certain date to approve, that the whole thing is not shattered for an entire year. DELAY If we if we don't vote on it, the first chance we get versus the 28th, I hope to all the city agencies out there that the way we're doing business is in anticipation of that last day. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. Okay. Councilman Flynn and Cashmere, are you still there? Okay. Councilman Flynn. Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, if I could have a point of personal privilege, I want to recognize the presence in the chamber of former Councilwoman Cathy Donohue, who served on this body from 1975, I think, until 1993, when she joined the Webb administration. And welcome you. She served as council president on at least one occasion that I can recall, at least three occasions that I now recall that she's raised three fingers. And so I just want to acknowledge her presence here. But on the point of the of this motion. I really don't like this this project. I voted against it last year when we had the wastewater fee. I think Councilman Espinosa and Councilman Cashman joined me. We were we were the only three votes against it. Councilwoman Ortega was absent that evening, but she would have been a no vote had she been here. We could have killed the project then if we really wanted if we really wanted to kill it. I thought it was much too big going by a factor, I think of ten or 12 times larger than anything wastewater had ever done before. I thought it should have been done more incrementally and with more planning already in place, but that was not the case. We were outvoted and the bonds have been issued. And I think our responsibility now as fiduciaries of the city and the taxpayers and the ratepayers into wastewater is to make sure it's done efficiently and at the most efficient cost, particularly. Mr. President, on the matter of the contracts themselves, they do contain the standard provisions that in the event the court would rule in favor of former Attorney General McFarland, who's the plaintiff in the case and whom I wish a lot of luck. I, I do know that the contracts contained both suspension provisions and termination provisions, specifically in the event that there's a court ruling against it. If there's an injunction, for example, and if the plaintiffs should move for an injunction, should we approve this contract tonight or in two weeks? The plaintiffs can take advantage of that. And I think that's as the. Mr. President, I think you've already hinted that it would be the proper avenue to do this. I really dislike that this is going forward in the manner it is. I wish that we had done it more incrementally and with more forethought a year ago, but that that wasn't the majority decision of the council at that time. And I believe my responsibility now is to make sure it's done right. And just to one other point, it is I know that in the public mind and the minds of a lot of folks, this is so intimately intertwined with the I-70 expansion. But the plain fact is that the I-70 project is not dependent on doing this drainage project. We are not doing this project in order to enable the I-70 project. The I-70 project can go ahead. If we didn't if we didn't even think about doing this and conversely, if there were no I-70 project, we could still be doing major drainage improvements in the Park Hill and the Montclair Basins, which are needed separately. What happened last year was the prior council locked us into an idea before the seven new members came on, locked us into an idea that says we will cost, share and take advantage of those efficiencies and do a project that we think will benefit the wastewater ratepayers in Park Hill and Montclair, as well as the as well as the CDOT beneficiaries, the public, the traveling public, the people who pay their faster fees and their gas taxes. So that's how they that's how they are married. But each of them is independent of each other. So with that, Mr. President, I would my principle that I like to act on is we should take as much time as we can take to to approve contracts. And I would I would not be opposed to a two week delay as well. Okay. I'm going to woo. Okay. We got some new ones in here. Let me, Councilwoman Sussman first and then I'll pop to you new and then for the councilman. You already have a chance to speak on this one. He spoke already. That's okay. Yeah, I wasn't really going to chime in, but I really like what Councilman Clark said a. You know. A one week delay still makes him a state councilman, Clark says, which is. We delay things just because we've had a lawsuit filed. I mean, whether we do it two weeks or one week, we're still responding. Oh, dear, there's a lawsuit. Let's delay. And as a legislative body, I just don't think that's a correct motion to take. And so either the vote for a two day, two week delay or a one week delay seem hollow and useless. And I it's interesting that we're talking about the bill tonight. Which is if we're going to delay, we should talk about it in another time, because I think the thing down on the bench is, are we going to delay or not? But delaying it doesn't change. The the fact of what of what's going to happen when we do have that debate. So and it's still whether it's one week or two. It still has the problem that Councilman Clark suggested that we can't delay things just because we're being sued. Thank you. Councilman, you. Just had a question on the attorney about Councilman Flynn's comments about the contract having a clauses there that if the ruling goes against the city, that there will be a. Opportunity to terminate the contract or suspend the contract. I'm going to invite my colleague John McGrath to come up because he is the lead on the contract. Strom McGrath Assistant City Attorney Yes, we have a standard set of general contract conditions for all construction contracts that the city enters into, and they have a number of rights that would enable the city to either suspend, cancel. And because we have those rights, we could also then sort of open a dialog with the project team to figure out exactly what the best path forward would be. And who would make that decision to cancel? So would the client public works and in consultation with the city attorney's office. Thank you. All right, Councilman Cashman. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah. With all due respect to my ex journalist brother, Councilman Flynn, there is opinion and evidence on the other side of the argument about whether Platt, the Park Hill and I-70 are connected. But the thing I just can't let go of is a one week delay. Delays your project a week, a two week delay delays two weeks, a three week delay, delays at three weeks. Maybe you're going through the winter. You have no idea what weather is going to do to this. And the reason I bring it up is a large part of the disapproval of this project is among the constituents that I talked to came from that insistence during the development of the project that this has nothing to do with I-70, when again, there's evidence on both sides, depending on how you interpret that. And to stand here and intimate that this the delay that Councilman Espinosa requests, regardless of how you feel about this project or his reasons for delaying this project to intimate that it's going to have some sort of major effect on your pride, on your project is disingenuous. It just is. So I don't think it's wise to take that tack in something that is this project is extremely important to the community. Again, depending on which side you're on, so let's argue on the merits of the project. And, you know, as far as it being shallow or not shallow to ask for a delay, I don't want to psychoanalyze any of my colleagues reasons for for asking for a delay. And so, as I said, I'm in support of this. All right. Councilwoman Ortega. Thank you. So as Councilman Flynn said, I was not here the night of the public hearing on the wastewater increase, which basically created the funding that allowed the project to move forward. And just to go back a little bit, some members on the council tonight were not here when this body was asked to vote on the original . So it started with both a proclamation and then later followed by an idea, an intergovernmental agreement between Denver and DOT that clearly tied the funding that Sea-Tac was going to spend for drainage on I-70 to the drainage project that Denver wanted to do on this area. And initially, you know, when when it came forward, it was a $40 million span CDOT was going to do. When the AG came forward, it was about 180 some million dollars. And then when we had the wastewater increase, it was $300 million. So the project scope just kept growing and growing and growing. Now, maybe it was the intent of folks from public works to always bring this forward as a, you know, a bigger scale project. But the problem I had was we did not have a public input process on any of the drainage projects before the decision was made that this city was going to move forward with the Twin Basin, which is what it was called initially and then later changed to the Platt to Park Hill project. So. You know, in these big projects, typically you have an EGIS, an environmental impact statement. And when you look at the cost of the funding that was spent on all of this. Folks will say we did that, but it was not called. And it's during that part of the process. And so, you know, people who are in the neighborhoods who have this these various aspects of drainage that are going into their communities feel like they had the project shoved down their throats, just to be blunt, because. The input came after the fact and the decision had already been made that the city was moving forward with the Twin Basin Project. The plot to Park Hill and the East Montclair Basins. So. I would have voted no. Then I plan to vote no tonight just because I think we don't do things backwards. It's important for us to follow procedures and to do them right in making sure that we do have genuine community input. And again, that's not what happened in this case. So I just want to ask, Jamie, were you clarify your role in the project? Are you are you a city employee? Are you a contractor to the project? And will you just explain what that role entails? Sure. Councilwoman Jamie Price. I'm with the Plat to Park Hill Project. I've been serving as the project director to the project for the past almost two years now. I am a contractor to the city. And the company I work for. I work with Matrix Design Group. Thank you. Okay. I want to focus this back on this delay. Councilman Espinosa, you have on the floor a 2828, so a three week delay. But you wanted to change that to a 21? Correct? That's correct. Can we. Councilwoman Gilmore, can we move to change this back to. Just the permission of the river in the second or the second year? Councilman Herndon. Councilman Turner, do you have permission to move it back a week? I did not second that. So this is flim flam. Councilman Flynn? Yes. Okay. All right. So just just again, Councilwoman Espinosa, Councilwoman Gilmore, it is Resolutions 23, 24, 26 be postponed to Monday, August 21st. All right. Thanks President Brooks I move the that the adoption of council resolutions 823 824 and 826 be postponed to Monday, August 21st. We have a first mover and a neo seconder. President Brooks. I should be the mover on that again. Okay. Yeah, it truly matters, but. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Councilman Espinosa, are we ready to vote on this? I do have one more question for city attorney. Okay. Um, so if you were asked to produce article A clause and for the on the contract to preserve to to preserve trees until. Until, you know, a certain date. Uh, could you have done that? Um, I think we essentially have those rights in the contract as it is today. The city is in control of the timing of all phases of the project. Would that make a little closer area? Geographic and City Attorney's Office. We have suspension rights and we have termination rights and we have other rights to have the program unfold in a way that suits your needs. So I think that with those rights, we can delay certain phases of the project on site if events suggest that, that would be prudent to do. I recognize that all of our contracts have the ability to amend and terminate. Pretty much standard boilerplate language that then we revise project specific. I'm asking if somebody had directed you to specifically address preservation of mature trees until such a time when we're free of litigation. Could you have produced such a language. And put it in this contract? Sure we could we could produce other clauses that that either are or aren't. And so, you know, of course. So to to close out that that was all I was asking for. This was not a whim. It was really to to to spend a couple of weeks making that ask of our city attorneys who are fully capable of doing this, the administration who is fully capable of incorporating this, because this is not I think Councilman Clark sort of explained a false equivalent that this would be something we could always do. We're talking about preserving an irreplaceable asset. These are trees that we cannot grow tomorrow. We cannot grow in 30 years. We cannot grow in 70 years. We need 100 years to produce these things. And so if we set a threshold and made a commitment, we could codify that in in in language. And I don't think that's far fetched idea for this council or the administration to to protect. I mean, those trees can then ultimately be removed once everything's a go. Yeah, it would be painful to work around, but it's we really shouldn't be marching until such time. And I recognize that the comments have made that we have the right to terminate, we have the right to amend, we have the right to do a whole bunch of things. But it's very clear in all the city statements that that desire to postpone or delay or keep these projects is independent, as has been stated previously for for a year. And as Councilman Flynn sort of reiterated, you know, if they're truly independent, then we should be able to say golf course, you stay on hold until we have clarification that we, in fact, can disturb that historic golf course. And that wouldn't be so wrong. So did you want to. I would just say that a no vote is to not allow a representative of this body to seek time to to at least make that ask. Okay. I think we want something from the legal team. Yeah. I just wanted to briefly address your concern about the tree preservation. We do believe we already have the language and the authority in the contract as written, in addition to the standard suspension and termination clauses. The city has the rights to approve all phases of the work. One of the requirements of the contract relates specifically to tree preservation and any tree removal and replacement plan would need to be approved by the city forester, among others. I think. Again, all of that is known. That's all very clear. What you're obviously obfuscating here is the fact that that tree removal plan basically says you remove this tree, you replace it with these. And and I'm saying that it is not the same to put three new trees in to replace one large mature tree. If you were telling me that it was only removing seven inch caliber trees, that would be one thing. But we know that they're more substantial trees than that, and those are the. Ones that are hard to produce. All right, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Just briefly, I appreciate as council president was saying, I don't think we should let a lawsuit dictate our timeline. And in the end, does it make a difference? No, but the principle of it, as legislators, we are moving this city forward and we should not start because of fear of litigation. And let's be real. If the judgment comes down in support of the city, there will be an appeals process. And will we be getting more chain letters saying that we should wait for the appeal to go through? I just don't believe that is something that we should do as a city. So I am comfortable moving forward with this and I would hope that our council members support it. But in the end, it, I don't think will make that significant of a difference. But for me, it's the principle that who dictates how we vote. It should not be based off of who chooses to sue the city. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Councilman Herndon, just to remind everyone we're not actually vote on the bill are now are voting on a delay to 821. It's been moved and seconded. Secretary Roll Call. Mr. President. Of all three of them or just one? Yes. Thank you for for pointing that out. This is all three of the bills. 823, eight, 24 and 826. Espinosa, I. Flynn I. Gilmore No. Herndon. No. In. Can each. No. Lopez. I knew. Ortega, I. SUSSMAN No. BLACK No. Clark. No. Mr. President. No, please, cause very nice results. Six, eight, seven, eight. Six, eight, seven. Nays. The postponement to Monday 821 fails. Councilman Espinosa. Thank you, Mr. President. Pursuant to Council Rule 3.7, I would like to postpone the adoption of Council Resolutions eight, 28, 23, eight, 24 and 826 to Monday, August 14th. And just as a reminder, that can happen again next week. By a different member of council. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. Now, under the rule, that can only be one discretionary lamictal i i just. I just. I just wanted to keep this thing going. Thank you for city attorney. I thought we were in new rules. Yeah. Thank you. City attorney David Broadwell. What will we do without you? Um, just. Just for folks. There are folks who are watching and who probably took that comment serious there. We are not able to do that next week. You can only do it one time and postpone it a week pursuant to Rule 3.7. Our jokes aside. Okay. Well all of their bills for introduction or order publish except for council bills. Eight, 12, eight, 13, eight, 14, 15, 16, eight, 17, 88, 18 and eight, 19. After recess this evening, there will be one hour courtesy combined courtesy public hearing on these bills. After the public hearing has concluded, Council will separately vote on each of these bill. We are now ready for the vote on resolutions and bills for final consideration. Council members remember that this is a consent or block vote and you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call it an item on a separate vote. Councilwoman Gilmore, where you put the resolutions for adoptions and the bills on final consideration for final passage on the floor. Yes, Mr. President, I move that resolutions be adopted and bills on final consideration be placed upon final consideration do pass and a block for the following items. 071607970806080707910793079507960808080107630780. All series of 2017. Excellent job. It's been moved and seconded. Madam Secretary. Raquel Black. Clerk Espinosa. But. I. But it's a black vote. Oh, sorry. Hi. Hi, Lynn. Okay, great. I gillmor I heard in Cashion. I. Can eat Lopez. I knew Ortega I. Susman, I. Mr. President. I. I. Please close. What was the voting or announce the results? 1313 ies The resolutions have been adopted and the bills have been placed on final consideration and do pass. We recognize former Councilwoman Cathy Donahue here. Thank you for being here. There are some other former councilwoman in the place to Councilman Elder Debra Wedgeworth, former district eight, and also the president, also former Councilwoman Harvey Haynes, who still in here. Okay. Got the council. Yes. We also Councilman and. Councilman Sanders is the mayor. This is anybody else here? Councilman Sanders is in the back. He's down. The staff is a coup to town. It's a good idea. Oh, my goodness. And look. Alyssa McKenzie. Can you. Okay. And Councilwoman Mackenzie, thank you for being here. This is five I think we have a yeah, a quorum. A former council speaker. Wow. Did I miss anything else? All right. Okay. Tonight, there will be a required public hearing on Council Bill 728, providing an extension of approximately ten months of an existing moratorium on the