A bill for an ordinance designating certain property as being required for public use and authorizing use and acquisition thereof by negotiation or through condemnation proceedings of fee simple, easement and other interests, including any rights and interests related or appurtenant to properties as needed for the Platte to Park Hill Stormwater Systems Project. Grants the authority to acquire through negotiated purchase or condemnation any property interest as needed for the construction of a detention area as part of the Platte to Park Hill 39th Avenue Greenway Stormwater Systems project including easement interests, access rights, improvements, buildings, fixtures, licenses, contract rights, permits, and other appurtenances located at 4141 East 35th Avenue in Council District 8. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 12-5-17.
All right. All right. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to 1396. And Councilman Flynn, I want you to put this on the floor as well. I'm sorry. Councilman Cashman, please put us on the floor. Thank you, Mr. President. I move that council bill 1396 be ordered published. All right. It has been moved and seconded. Councilman Flynn, your comments. Several. Mr. President, thank you. First of all, as we discussed at committee, I wanted to request a one hour courtesy hearing on this council bill, which is the Land Acquisition Ordinance. I related to the plant to Park Hill Project in the Park Hill Golf Course and seeing as how it's related to 1395, I don't know what you're as president. I don't know what your direction might be or what your decision might be, but it might be possible to do them combined and allow people to, since they're related projects, to entertain comments on both of them. I think that's an excellent suggestion. That's why I made it make only excellent suggestions. Calm down, calm down, Councilman land until I know this is the last this is the last one or 17. Madam Secretary, will you will you please put these together for one combined public hearing? Yes, Mr. President. All right. And Councilman Flynn, do you want to offer an amendment? Yes. In relation to the land acquisition ordinance. I wanted to I wanted to propose an amendment. And some of you might not think this is the most excellent suggestion, but I hope that you duly consider it in reading the draft of the ordinance. It struck me as being somewhat different than the impressions that we got out of Finance Committee in that several weeks back. A month or more ago, the administration gave up on the on the notion of acquiring the Park Hill golf course, 75 acres and then lease purchase the remaining 75 because of some complications and many complicated issues that arose because of the ownership and the conservation easement. And just so many questions with the concessionaire that runs the golf course. So the administration decided to to procure the property needed for the drainage project through a system of permanent easements where the where the the detention would be and then temporary construction easements of up to 90 acres. And and that passed unanimously out of the committee. And when I read the draft ordinance, it contains a language that's pretty boilerplate and probably necessary, but I think needs to be clarified. And that is that if the administration is not going to acquire in fee simple title the actual full ownership rights of the golf course, only the easements, the the ordinance as it's written gives the administration the authority nevertheless to go ahead and acquire at least up to 90 acres in fee title, which is not what we intended, not what the administration intends to be frank, but in the interest of transparency and in the interest of of being very, very open and transparent about what is a truly probably one of the more controversial projects going on in our city right now. I think we should I think I would like to offer this amendment that clarifies that any acquisition of fee interest fee title interest is only for those portions that are that come up in relation to the acquisition of the easements and not the full 90 acres. And so I if you would entertain the motion now, I'd like to make them put on the floor. Okay. Thank you. I moved to a man accountable 17 Dash 1396 in the following particulars on page two, Line 40, insert the following new sentence. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City Council does not hereby authorize the Mayor or his duly appointed representatives to acquire the entire property in fee. Simple title from any third party, not including interest currently owned by the city, provided that authority is hereby given to acquire lesser portions of the property in fee. Simple title as may be necessary or desirable to provide for the project. Thank you. All right. It's been moved and seconded now. Comments by members of Council on the Amendment. Councilman Sussman. Thank you very much. Mr. President, I would like to have somebody from the administration come and speak to this because it's the first that I've heard of it. And so I'm not I'm not sure whether what effects this might have on their ability to go forward with this project. Are you and Councilman Sussman, are you asking for the legal team that's working around this? Sure. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Councilwoman, I'm John McGrath with the City Attorney's Office. Mm hmm. So this request came up recently and is. Something that is not typical in a land acquisition ordinance to be seeking to acquire rights lesser than for title. It is correct that we currently anticipate a need for permanent and temporary easements on the property. But this is this particular piece of property has a fairly complicated history and the ownership structure. And so we felt that it was the prudent course to include kind of a full slate of potential acquisition interests to protect the city. Because as we currently sit here today, we don't know the particular boundaries of the property we may be acquiring. We know we have committed to it being less than 90. Acres in total. It could be significantly less. We have not designed the project beyond just a very preliminary design and we have not done an appraisal of the properties. So there are a lot of unknowns. We also have not examined title to the property, so we don't know here today what we might encounter when this process unfolds. And so it would be our preference. And what is included. In the original draft of the agreement was. Fee title and any lesser interest, which is very. Typical for a land acquisition ordinance. In the city. So that's the reason it was drafted that way. And again, I agree with Councilman Flynn that. Sitting here today, we anticipate it being interest in the nature of an easement permanent and temporary, but we don't want to impose that limitation on ourselves, only to find six or seven months from now that we don't have all of the rights we need to be able to deliver the site to our design build team and have to go back to Council for additional rights that could introduce a risk of delay and potential damages to the city if if it unfolds in that way. Damages in what way? I mean, liability damages. Damages for delay under our contract with SEMA. And there are other potential damages for see that is expecting us to deliver pieces of this infrastructure at certain times. And so the city has made commitments there to deliver this. Program according to that schedule. So this kind of amendment you've never seen before when you're trying to do this sort of acquisition, is this an unusual amendment that is being asked for? It's my opinion that this would be an unusual amendment. To our regular process. And unusual limitation on the. Scope of. Rights that we would typically seek to to have as we go into the process of negotiating for an acquisition. Okay. Thank you very much. I think I have only heard about this as I was walking to my chair this evening, and I think it bears a lot more discussion and thought by the committee or someone before I would be able to vote on this. So thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Sussman. Councilman Castro. Thank you, Mr. President, sir. So if we end up with the feed, simple option, we don't take ownership of that land. When we're done with the project for to create the the drainage element. What happens to the title to that land as it would then stay with the city? Because as I understand it, we need to return the course to Regulation 18 hole golf course to protect the conservation easement, correct? Correct. And so the answer to your question depends on what type of interest we acquire. If we acquire as anticipated easements, then the remaining interest would remain with Clayton. And if it was a temporary easement after the duration of our temporary easement expires, full title would revert to Clayton. As to the permanent easement, we would have permanent rights there and Clayton would retain the underlying rights. But what happens to the conservation easement. Unless something else happens to impact the conservation easement which is currently actually incorporated into the agency agreement? But assuming nothing changes from the status quo today, the agency agreement and the use restrictions would continue in place throughout the project. Regardless of whether we took fee title or some lesser interest. So the intention remains to return the golf course to playable condition, which is what's needed to protect that easement. Is that correct? Correct. Don't want to get too far into the weeds, but is there any scenario by which we lose control over the conservation easement? If we in what you're talking about. We believe not. It will depend on our ability to return the golf course to a playable 18 hole golf course. And we've taken. Steps throughout the process. To ensure that we have that ability based upon design, etc., and as we move forward, will continue to ensure that we have that ability and the budget in dollars to. Deliver it. Thank you. And the last question I have is so we're facing a deadline set out implode imposed deadline in the IJA? Correct. Yes. Okay. And if we missed that deadline, what penalties do we face? I believe the penalties under the current C9 agreement are $5,000 a day. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you, Councilman Katherine. Councilwoman Ortega believe is next. Thank you. I'd like to ask you to come back. I have two questions for you. The first one, going back to the six penalties, I thought those were specific in terms of timelines were tied to having the Globeville landing outfall in place by certain deadlines, that it wasn't as much tied to the Park Hill golf course acquisition and improvements that are needed there, because we're not going to even begin to get to the improvements until some time, I'm assuming, in 2018 or so. So correct me if I'm wrong there. I believe that there are more than one deadline that are set forth in that agreement, but it's been a while. Since I've. Reviewed it, and so I would have to get back to you. But my understanding is there are dates into 2019 and potentially beyond for certain elements of the program. But acquiring what we need for the. Drainage that needs to be done at that far northeast corner of the Park Hill golf course. I guess I'm struggling with the fact that we had identified somewhere in the ballpark of 20 acres when this overall project was brought to us back, what, two and a half years ago. So I don't understand how it is that we now need 90 acres. That doesn't make sense to me. We should be looking at what we actually need. And I'm just questioning whether this is, you know, kind of getting back and tying us into the conversation about the acquisition of the golf course from Clinton Land Trust. And this is just the first phase of that. So, you know, I mean, in the interest of transparency, it's why I asked for the budget of the overall project of all four of these to ensure that, you know, because if we're buying 90 acres versus 20 acres, doesn't that put our budget out of kilter? I mean, so I appreciate the fact that Councilman Espinosa has postponed that other one for a week so we could try to get that budget information. But help me understand whether or not we actually received the information on the title when we did the conservation easement back in the 2000. Did we not get that? How would that have been have changed since then? Well, stats and I want to change on a daily basis. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I wanted to let you know that Steinberg is right behind you, too, as well, because I know you guys are probably yeah, you guys are a team. But but certainly there was a title there was a title examination that happened back in the year 2000. And there have been examinations that have happened since then. The city doesn't control the day to day happenings on that course it's that's those rights are owned by Clayton and so what might have happened to title between 2000 and today is unknown. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. And and Jeff, I saw you want to jump in there? Is there anything that you wanted to say to that exchange? Before I go to Councilman Herndon. If there's further clarification, I'm happy to give it. If the answer satisfactory, then. Okay. Great. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Herndon. Thank you, Mr. President. I'm just going to point out that this census bill for introduction. We're going to have the opportunity to hear from. The public and go through questions and comments in two weeks. So I felt as if it was a little redundant to kind of dove into that now. But I was just going to speak on the amendment that Councilman Flynn offered. I walked up here and I see this sheet of paper on my desk without having any understanding behind it or any conversations with Councilman Flynn. So this is not. Something that I'm comfortable doing right now. I certainly think there are unintended consequences when we try to get involved in the weeds. And so I would hope that my colleagues. Would vote down the amendment so when we could have the opportunity to hear a little bit more of the reasons behind it on second. Reading next year. Thank you, President. All right. Next year. That is correct. All right. Councilman Herndon, Councilman Flynn, I'm going to skip you and get to some of the folks who have not gotten a go yet. Councilman Espinosa, have you gone yet? No. Okay. Councilman Espinosa. So to me, it seems pretty self-evident that the per the intent behind the the amendment was to continue to keep council somewhere somewhat engaged in the process of land, take down acquisition over in the golf course the Park Hill golf course in. So I a why would you ever want to remove council when council is asking for that? I don't understand it because we're that much closer to the constituents that we all serve. I would I would like you to confirm what I was shown in the briefing, though. I was presented a a layout that shows a restoration of a fully regulation compliant 18 hole golf course. Is that true? That is true. Okay. So I want it on record that we can in fact accommodate the storm water needs that we're attempting to put in and restore a fully regulation compliant 18 hole golf course. That's correct. Okay. So then what is the delay? How many hell how long does it take for a bill to be filing for you guys to file something for council consideration and it of approved. I'm not sure. What type of bill are you referring to? A land acquisition ordinance bill or. Correct. So the process from the decision to acquire a real estate interest. No, I'm not talking about the decision to acquire. Once you finally decided announcement. Just when the sky's right here. I mean, it's got I don't know if you can just real quick so I don't not interested in the process. I want to know exactly once you decide to go to council. When we how long does it take from the time you file to us taking action? Well, a lot of that depends on the action. Sky Stuart Mayor's office. A lot of that depends on the actions you take. If everything goes on a normal course of action, it take five weeks. Five weeks? Well, we could do it in as fast as two weeks. Is that not correct? Or three? That would assume filing things out of order and taking actions that are not the normal process. Okay. But when you say up to five weeks, you're including the entire 30 day or. No. No, I'm not. It's seven week or an eight week delay. Correct. So my point is, is that I actually have a ton of confidence in the team that is working on this. Both yourselves, Jeff's office and every and public works that they're looking at this very comprehensively and have a very stout understanding, especially at the seam a contract goes through . I think there's also ample time for everyone to proceed with design and recognize any sort of concerns about land use issues. The process that you would have to undertake to acquire land and to do all that, most of that would occur regardless of whether you actually filed something for council or not. That is the same process. Legal process that you have to do to acquire land doesn't change just because you have to go to council. The only difference that results from this amendment is that it does come to council. And yes, does that create a pocket of uncertainty because council then could in fact deny the request? Yes, but I think that I think that you either have a I have the confidence that you're either making that decision and you won't come to that point where council would be in a situation where they wouldn't approve it. And so I don't think there's any real risk because we're ultimately all on the same team here regarding stormwater needs and open space needs. So, Councilman, the risk would come back to this if there had to be a new filing of a land acquisition ordinance. It would start the entire process over again in terms of providing notifications of intent to the operator or the owner of the golf course. It would entail acquiring a new appraisal. And generally speaking, from the point that a land acquisition is put into place until the complete acquisition process is completed is 12 months. So if there were a delay and let's say it was three, five, six months into the process when design was further along and there was an anticipated outcome of what exactly was needed, in addition to a determination of how was to be taken, if we had to go back and file land acquisition ordinance, we'd have to start the entire process over again. And it would add between a six and nine month delay to the construction of this aspect of the project. So just the thing that I struggle with in your response is this is this sort of concerns that are being addressed by such an amendment are in fact, in part due to the original land acquisition deal that was being struck with with Clayton regarding the entirety of the property. And at that time at Safe House, I asked you specifically if if you had seen the if you had either performed, had an appraisal performed or seen the appraisal that Clayton had done. And you confirmed in that meeting that you had not and you did not. And so this is sort. Of not conducted an. Appraisal, right? So it's difficult for me that you would be willing to move forward on that deal and then now here say that it would be it would be prohibitive for us to put in this thing, because you'd have to go through that entire process to to acquire land. My expectation is that you would be doing that on any land that we're looking to acquire. And so I now I'm even more in of the opinion that we should be we should be putting this in here so that we actually go through the full vetting process on whether or not we should take down additional land as it comes up in this situation. So, you know, I just it is a very complicated bit of moving parts. And so I'm glad that we're actually postponing it for a public hearing till next year. Thanks. Mr. President, can I offer a clarification? You got not a comment or question just to clarify some of the discussion. Okay. Very quickly. Thank you. Two people. My amendment includes the provision provided that the authority is hereby given to acquire lesser portions of the property in fee, simple as may be necessary or desirable to provide for the project. So a lot of the answers that are being offered here about having to start all over are not entirely accurate. And I'm afraid that the answers are kind of poisoning the intent of my. Okay, my amendment. Thank you. Well, let's make sure we get to all the members of council and you can go back and clarify that. Councilwoman Black, you're up. Thank you. A lot of my questions were just answered. So thank you. For those of you who came up to the microphone. Like others have said, I'd really like to have a full discussion about that. I don't feel comfortable with that, really delving into any unintended consequences that might be associated with this so we can learn more about it the next few weeks. That would be my preference. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. Unfortunately, we are in the weeds, so I'm just going to stay there for a moment. John, I'm going to ask you so if I understand the premise of Councilman Flynn's amendment. The premise is he's trying to protect against the city, purchasing the entire property, exceeding what is needed for the drainage project. I don't read the ordinance as me allowing for that as written, so I just want to go to section three of the ordinance. Do you have it in front of you? No, but I'm familiar with that. Okay. So it says that they they determine that the interest in the property is required for the following public uses and purposes to construct, locate. And it's all about the drainage projects. So I just want to clarify under that language of the section three of this bill. Could the city legally acquire anything beyond what's needed for that section three anyway? Not under that language of the ordinance? No. Okay. And then I just want to ask Kirsten. I don't know if you have the language in front of you, whether you concur or if you haven't had time to review it. That's an understandable answer as well. But just do you concur that Section three operates as a limitation on what the city can buy? Excuse me. So in talking with Mr. McGrath and I have to defer to him on this, that that section was added specifically to address that concern. But my understanding from also speaking with Councilman Flynn is he just wanted to make it more transparent and clear. So I have to defer to Mr. McGrath on this. So, yeah, and I apologize. I try to use a light touch when I when I'm thinking with my lawyer brain because I don't practice law in the same way that you do. But I think this is one of those areas that when you're writing policy and you're writing something like you're regulating the public, I think it's okay to sometimes dumb down the language and try to make it even doubly clear for the public to understand what you're doing, even if you're legally covered with the language that you have that's drafted by a lawyer. I don't feel that way about contracts. Right. So here's the thing. And this is this is why. So if we somehow fail to pass this amendment or there is some problem, the fact that we had done so might make someone interpret this agreement more broadly than it was written. Right? So you can actually change the interpretation of other sections of the agreement once you start tinkering with the language. And so I just I believe that the current language currently limits the city. And so I don't think it's a good practice to dumb down language. And I don't mean that as a pejorative. I just meant putting it in plainer words. Right. To just be clear, I don't mean that as a pejorative term, but I just that is that in my mind is not good, you know, contractual writing that if the ordinance has already limited my repeating it in different language only creates the potential for more confusion and a potential for a court or someone down the road. And clearly, we do have challenges floating around in this environment, so I don't want there to be any confusion. So I'm going to go on the record and say this current bill, as written, already completely prohibits the city from buying any land that isn't needed for drainage period. And so I stand by that language. I assert it in there. You know, in the record, the attorneys have now asserted it on the record, which makes the amendment risky and creating confusion. That's that's my so I think I share Councilman Flynn's good intentions and his intent, but I fear the unintended consequences of duplicating, but with different words, something that's already covered under the way. The whole agreement is structured. So I will be voting no on that basis tonight, but I understand the good intentions. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Kenney. Each new passes. Flynn, you're up. Okay. Thank you. I thought I thought Councilman New was in. There are some other unintended consequences. And one of them is. And first of all, I apologize to all my colleagues I wasn't able to reach yet. But when I. I saw I was reading this on Friday night, we had some weekend email exchanges and the amendment was actually only drafted at about 3:00 or 330 this afternoon. And I didn't have a chance to talk to everybody, but I was told that if we were going to act on the amendment, it would be better to act on it tonight. Because if we were to adopt an amendment on final, it would cause us to have to do republication and delay it by yet another week, which had its own consequences. That's the reason I was pushing it tonight, and for no other reason I would gladly take it on. On January 2nd, after the public hearing, if it were more clear that we wouldn't have to republish it and take it up again a week later. The unintended consequence that I'm trying to avoid is that we told the public a couple of weeks back or a couple of maybe a month and a half ago that we were not going to buy the Park Hill golf course. And in this ordinance, it allows us to buy up to 90 acres as long as it's needed for the drainage project. That was always true, but we were told in committee that we were going to do this by permanent easement and buy temporary construction easement and not by purchasing . But we still, nevertheless, in the amendment, leave in the provision that we may acquire by fee. Simple if that is the necessary way of acquiring the land for the smaller pieces and parcels, lesser portions if they are needed to provide for the project. So I believe that it is that the objections that were noted by the folks who say they're going to vote no is addressed right in that last that last clause of the amendment, Mr. President. So I would ask for support for this in order to keep faith with what the public has been understanding that we were not going to buy the Park Hill golf course at this point. We were just going to get easements. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Flynn. The amendment is on the floor right now. We're going to vote on the amendment. Or what? Would you like us to vote on the amendment? Okay, great. Council members, given the debate we are voting. It has been moved in second it. Madam Secretary. Raquel. Flynn I. Gilmore No. Herndon No. Cashman I don't know. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Sussman No. Black No. Clark No. Espinosa. All right. Mr. President. No. Please close the voting. Announce the results. People haven't voted. Yep. We have another vote. Hanging fire. Couple voting power. Okay. Great. 67 days. Okay. 67 days. The amendment fails. Let's pull up 1396. We are. But this is actually going on to the floor for a publication. A publication? So do we need to. Madam Secretary, do we need a vote on this? We can vote on the motion that was put on the floor by Cashman and Herndon. Okay, great. So voting on the on the floor here at Home Secretary, roll call. Flynn No. Gillmor, I. Herndon, I. Cashman No can. Lopez No. New Ortega. Sussman I black Clark? Espinosa No. Mr. President. I please close the voting. Announce the results. Eight eyes, five nays. All right, ayes. Five nays. 1396 moves on and will be at a public hearing on the second. All right. I think this is this concludes all the items I need to be called out. All of the items for introduction have been ordered published, were now ready for the block vote on resolutions and bills on final consideration. Council members remember this is a consent or block vote or you will need to vote. Otherwise this is your last chance to call out an item for a separate vote. Councilman Cashman, will you please put the resolutions for adoption on the bills for final consideration on final passage on the floor? Yes, I move that the following resolutions be adopted and bills be published and placed upon final consideration and do pass, including all series of 2017. 1141. 1371. 1381. 1386. 1387. 1388. 1361 1362, 1363, 1374, 1375, 1377, 1378, 1391, 1392, 13, 93, 13, 98, 1399, 14, 1814, 2014, 51, 1166, 1277, 1298, 1352, 1376, 1379 1380 1385 1406 1407 1424 1401 1397 1340 1365 1366 1333 1335 1269 1350 1351 feel like I'm in training to be a council secretary here. I'll see you in 2017. Yes, sir. Madam Secretary, you try and take your job. You can have. It's been moved into China. Please tell me you did not get that. You did not get that. It's been moved. And second man Secretary Roll call black. All right. CLERK All right. Espinosa. Flynn All right. Gilmore I. Herndon. Cashman. I can each. Lopez. I knew Ortega. Susman. Hi, Mr. President. I please call of voting. And as a result. 3939. Resolutions have been adopted and bills have been placed upon final consideration and do pass tonight. There will be a required public hearing in council about 12 to intensity zoning classification at 3944 North High Street in Cole. And there will be a one hour courtesy public hearing regarding minority and women owned business enterprises and small business enterprise legislation . Anyone wishing to speak on any of these matters must see the council secretary, receiver, speaker, card and fill it out and return to her during the recess of council. Madam Secretary, 10 minutes. 15.