A bill for an ordinance approving a proposed Standard Food and Beverage Concession Space Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Host CTI DEN FB STA, LLC concerning a concession at Denver International Airport. (BUSINESS, WORKFORCE & SUSTAINABILITY) Approves a seven-year concession agreement with Host CTI DEN FB STA, LLC (doing business as Starbucks (inline) at DIA) for a monthly guarantee of $20,880.08 (PLANE-201414720-00). The last reguarly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 8-18-14. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 7-16-14.
Lebanon is one. A country of five. 74 has been ordered published. I'm sorry, can you t of the last two and it's 563 and 564 caught out by myself. We can do both of those in a block and this these two bills and I have a question I'm just giving a preface these two bills we had a robust conversation on last week in regards to this particular contract coming to the airport. And I started it off with a question to the airport about the diversity percent that we hit. So I will start that question off again. If anyone from the airport wants to come up and answer this question, what is the current active participation rate for this, either one of these two contracts? So see several airport people, whoever wants to come up and answer that one. Mr. President, Neil Maxfield, acting. Director of concessions for Denver International Airport. Can you say your. Question, please? Sure. So the question I led off with last week was what was the AC DB participation rate for both of these contracts? So the same question for this week as well. The goal for participation said for both these contracts was 40%. And the actual participation rate is. Currently 20% with a good faith effort of the remaining 20%. Okay. So that being the case, I like to call out 563 and 564 for a vote. Councilman Lopez, who would you mind putting both of those on the floor for a block? In a block? Yes, Mr. President. I move that both council bills 564 and five, 63, 12 and 14 be placed upon final consideration and do pass and block. All right. It's been moved in, second in. And I will just start off I won't repeat a lot of what I said last week. I just feel as if this opportunity is something we shouldn't pass up on. Participation rate is something we hold. I hold personally that we should achieve our goals when we have the opportunity. Seven year contract is a very long time and we should make every opportunity to achieve that goal. And I was I was under the impression and hopeful that we would be able to hit 40 over the course of this week. I know conversations were occurred, but it appears that that wasn't necessarily the case. So I will be voting against this contract. So those are my comments, Councilwoman Canete. Thank you, Mr. President. I guess I have a question for Mr. Maxfield. Have you considered withdrawing this request and bringing it back to us after further discussions have been had? Why are we still voting if there's something that's not yet final? I think there and we can ask Mr. Martinez to come up and talk about the disputed position, but we go through an evaluation of the DSP, who goes through evaluation, activity, goals and every contract. This one was also evaluated. The goal was 40%. It was it got to a 20% rate and then was given in good faith efforts for the rest of it. Accord in accordance with dispose rules that that is okay. That's in compliance with the federal regulations. And so we move the bill forward. There are considerate, there are continued conversations happening between the concessionaires and their partners and they're here in the audience today and they can talk a little bit about those continue conversations, but they will continue just like the SBO does, to continue to get to that 40% goal over the next few weeks and months. I don't. Mr. President, I don't believe you answered my question. If conversations are continuing, why not withdraw the bill and bring it back to us when those conversations are complete? Is there why are you bringing it forward if the conversations are continuing? Why not wait three weeks and bring it back to us and say we're done? We know exactly what we've been able to accomplish and then bring it to us then. It's an interesting question. The the contract is in compliance with the process that we have in place. It was certified to a level of 20% participation and a good faith estimate. I understand that that's difficult for a council, men and women on the panel, but it is it is in compliance with the procedures that we currently have and we bring it forward just like any other contract for consideration. Okay. Out on my questions, but I would like to make a comment, which is that I'll listen to the debate again tonight, as I did last week. But when you tell me that there are good faith efforts and conversations that are still occurring, what it tells me is that the conversation isn't over. And regardless of whether it's checked every box in the form, that you may have a different answer in three weeks. And I'd like to see the final answer. So I'm likely to vote against this tonight. And, you know, I would rather not have done that. I would rather see the best last and final approach that this airport and this contractor could come to. So I will again listen to the debate. But it appears that we we may not have complete information. And I would refer to my comments from last week, which is that I get the idea that you have some concessionaires that are franchises and may have different arrangements. We should be thinking about that perhaps when we set goals, but once a goal is set, it is not an acceptable policy for the city. For us to expect some contractors to meet that goal and not bring them to this council for not meeting that goal or not until they meet that goal. And to allow others who happen to be affiliated with national multi-national franchises to come forward with goals. So I really do think that that is an inconsistency that doesn't work and it's not a good message for our locally owned businesses or our independent businesses without that kind of franchise relationship. So. So I will likely be voting no tonight. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Lopez. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me just start by saying that I think Erin Morales did a very good job keeping me up to date, minute by minute of what was going on. I know we have some concerns. I know he I just wanted to let you know. Erin's, you did a good job. I know you're trying to count my vote. He was. And he, you know, really kept me informed about what was going on. Unfortunately, this is a this is an old song that keeps playing and playing playing. I was hopeful that they would meet 40% and there should not be an exception just because you're a corporation or you're a big boy, especially if you're Starbucks. I think we've had enough discussion throughout the years, seven years that I've been in council member. I think the first controversial or one of the first controversial things in what I was a part of in council was the ECB activity program. Right. And folks who were being left out of the program, folks that were being given the Thanksgiving table after Thanksgiving dinner, the child's table at Thanksgiving. And these are folks who are local businesses. These are local entrepreneurs. I don't think we should have two separate standard. Depending on where you're from, depending on who you represent, period. The rules are the rules. Just because you're a big boy doesn't mean that you can make your own rules or get an exemption. I think that it should come as a no question or a surprise that there's concern about the ECB Academy program. Just fix it. Let's just get right with the program. For seven years, we've said it's problematic. For seven years, we've heard concessionaires say, hey, something's not right here. I've set up plenty of tables where that's the case. Just fix it. Let's get right with the program. Does it matter who's coming to the table? Doesn't matter what job you're going to get next. You're serving the city and county of Denver, and that's what we expect. Those are values that we've set. We went through a whole program about contracting and minority with minorities, women, disadvantaged businesses. Guess what? There's a disparity. We spent a whole bunch of money to find out the obvious. Let's just implement the policy and require everybody to follow those rules. So I would like to vote yes on this, but I think that we need to send that message, and I think we need to stick to the plan. That's that's the will of the people of Denver. That program has value. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Lopez. Councilman Neville. Thank you, Mr. President. We are, I guess, kind of reprising some of the conversation from last week. But I do I mean, okay, we're we're going over well-trodden ground. But I do have to repeat, in deference to my colleague, the AC DB program at the airport as a federal program, goals are set by the federal government, and we are exceeding them. We are exceeding those goals. Our program is exceeding those goals. So when DIA comes to us with a contract that isn't meeting the particular goals set for that particular contract, but asserts and Debo asserts that a good faith effort was made and that continuing conversations will be made to reach that goal. We have a program that is exceeding the goals. I think they've earned a certain amount of trust. If that program were not exceeding the goals, I think we would be having a different conversation, I think would be entirely in the right to begin micro-managing their setting and achieving goals on particular contracts. But because the program itself is successful, I think they've earned a certain amount of latitude in making these choices. Now, when contractors come forward and they've actually exceeded the the the goal participation for ZBB, we're not wringing our hands about that. That's not, you know, a variation of the mean. Some will exceed. Some will fall short. But the program itself will be successful. And I think we are doing a disservice to this program that is successful by calling it into question and suggesting that because this contract isn't right on the money, that there's something profoundly wrong with the program. There's also one additional point I want to make, and that is that the CDB program on the federal program is very clear in that what we are to do is to set goals. If we set requirements, if we set quotas, we are in trouble. And what I'm hearing up here on this dias is we set those goals. And by God, if you don't meet those goals, you're not going to get the contract. That starts to sound like a requirement to me. And if we run that contract after contract, that becomes a quota. I don't want to go down that road. If the airport were falling short, if our program were falling short, I think we would be entirely in the right to be micromanaging contract by contract. But the program is successful. It's exceeding the goals set by the federal government. They've already said continuing conversations are being had to try to up the participation on this particular contract, given their performance so far. I'm confident that this will turn out well and that we will continue to have a program that exceeds our goals. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Brooks. Okay. I was in here last week and I apologize, but I want to try and shed a little light on this. So technology is a business in five points, and they are owned by African-Americans and they have two other joint ventures at DIA. And and, you know, I want to call up Sheila as well, or your lawyer, if you want to come up and respond to a couple of questions. But they are in the process right now of developing 4 to 5 properties in the five points. And when they took on this role, they said, you know what? There's a lot going on. We've got a lot of development opportunities, so maybe we should go down to 20%. But they are not the not the prime they did. And so when there was an issue with that on council, they said they would go back up to 40% to to answer Councilwoman Canning's question and let me know, Vicki, if I'm wrong on this one. We are held by law. You have to hold them to that 40% regardless, regardless of, you know, what we say in here and what we believe. But you're you have to hold them to that 40%. Actually, it's like Councilman. Never. Explained it's a goal. And so the. Federal regs read that they must. Either meet their goal. At the full percentage or make a. Good faith effort to meet the goal. So we in essence, they are held to 40% by showing us what participation they have and how the rest of it garnered a good. Faith effort, how that's justified. They have to provide extensive documentation for the remaining percentage. Of the goal. They're getting the 20%. Participation, but they have shown us why they couldn't meet at the time. Be good. The Fogel okay and can I get a representative from CTA to to come. You guys can both come. And I want to give you the opportunity to respond to, I guess, some of the questions and some of the issues. Why? Why was it 20%? Are you are you are are you under the belief that you can meet the 40% goal that was stated? But first of all, I want to say I'm Sheila King, civil technology. This is Ronald Gomez. Ron Gomez with host HMS Host. All right. So can I turn it over to Ron? Yeah. We can hear from him, but I want to hear from you, too. I want to hear from civil technologies as well. But can you state the question again? Yeah, I just that the 20% goal that that was that you originally went down to. Mm hmm. Why did you feel like you had to go down 20%? And why now are you at 40? And do you feel comfortable with that 40% goal that you will meet that goal? Well, I will we iterate what you said. We're doing a lot of development in the neighborhood. We are using the whole experience to to do the restaurants, things like that in the neighborhood. I also feel that the 40% I've been hearing from everybody, 40% is what it should be. It was set. And so I'm just trying to say, let's do it. Let's just do what needs to be done and move forward. So, yes, to answer your question. Yes, I'm ready. Okay. Thank you. Can I. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I'm just a vice president host. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch. Okay. That would be an apology to all lawyers. Oh. I oversee the national program for host. Our program has 115 partners like Sheila King. It generates a $350 million a year. I'm not the reigning expert on the DB program, but I'm getting close to the dangerous water you tread in when you set a goal and just achieve the goal at all costs. Someone use the word quota. That's kind of a dirty word. But you do invite you invite criticism from the federal government when you do these joint ventures, they have to comply not just in an equity investment. It's not just profit and loss. There's management control. There's decisions. There's control over the contract that have to be shared in proportion to the ownership. We have joint ventures all over the country. We have joint ventures with 40% participation. We have joint ventures with 45% participation. It's achievable. There are instances where it's difficult. The city of Denver, the Small Business Office, watches the program very closely. I commend them for that. We have submitted joint venture proposals at much lower levels and they've rejected it because you can't get to the management control that the federal regulations mandate. This isn't self-serving. There are people that want to blow this program up. There's a group called the Pacific Legal Foundation who is looking for airports that are overstepping the intent of the law so they can bring suit. They've done it. They're out there and they're watching. So SBO is to be commended for being the guardian of the program, how the 40% goal was set, I don't know. It's a difficult goal to achieve on to kiosk and coffee shops. If it was a gigantic casual dining restaurant and you could split responsibilities front of house, back of house. There's ways you could do it. It's very difficult to do a compliant joint venture that will not invite criticism from federal auditors. So in good faith, we looked at that as well as civil tech's financial situation at the time. We want to partner with them because there are that they don't they're not just in it to make a buck. They're trying to learn the redeveloping and underdeveloped neighborhood in the city and they're going to bring it back to life . And they needed the expertize that we could bring to them. And we're teaching them the business. We're teaching them how bartending works, how restaurants work, how coffee shops work, how the employees behave when you're not watching. These are all things that they hadn't learned yet in their careers, and we're very proud of the program we've put together at Host because we do better. We can and we will. In this instance, the 40% appropriately put together was difficult to hit. We can get to it, but it's going to take a little bit of time. And if that's the mandate of the council, will, of course, do it. But just understand be careful what you invite when you go down these paths. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Councilwoman Ortega. I'll try not to repeat everything I said last week, but what I would like to know is how do you plan to meet that 40% goal? We were told last week that perhaps with suppliers we would attempt to see the 20% increase. So I'd like to know how, because I'm not sure that that gets us there because your purchases will vary from month to month. And I've been told by operators of airports as well as concessionaires that in order to meet goals with suppliers, we need to have close to 100% of the suppliers for any of the concessions where we're going to allow that flexibility for them to meet goals with suppliers. So I'd like to hear how you plan to do that. Sure. 40% via supply chain is impossible. It's flat out impossible that in a food and beverage environment, in a food and beverage environment, your goods and services are probably about 25, maybe 30% of your contract. If you went to 100%, you couldn't get there. This would be achieved through equity ownership and management participation. As civil tech brings a manager into the business and the manager gets up to speed and can be given a broader range of responsibilities. It would be that route that we would take to get to the 40%, but it would be through equity ownership and managed and cooperative management of the facility goods and services in a tightly controlled brand like a Starbucks where you buy the beans, the cups, the napkins, everything comes from from them. It's it's it's really a difficult. Can you achieve some? Sure. But you're talking fractions of a percent, maybe one or 2%. It has to come through equity, ownership and participation. And we're prepared to do that. And in equity ownership and participation is with this particular partner that you have or are you looking to bring in other partners. Know their economic situation has has improved their projects moving forward and getting funded their street side project is getting funded so they have the ability to raise the funds to participate on the equity side. So we're perfectly content to do that. But to try to have three people running one operation, I mean, that's imagine trying to run your household that way. It's it's very it's difficult enough with a mother and father arguing. And if you brought in a third party, it would be tough. So it's you have to have a rational business model. We're all in this to serve the customer, but we're all in this, too, to to run a good, profitable operation. And too many chiefs would spoil the coffee. So I just want to add, thank you for your comments that you've actually made. The case that I've been raising about why suppliers is not the way to go in trying to meet goals on these projects. I know that we have had other concessionaires who have come through and when they are awarded a bid and I know this is a little different because it's under the premium value program, but when the goals are set, they should be applied across the board consistently, whether it's a new bid or it's a renewal of a current contract under the PVC program. But those folks who go through the bid process are told that they have to commit to meet that goal, and that's very clearly stated to them. So, you know, their understanding is if we don't meet this goal, we don't get this contract. And and generally they're not brought forward until those goals are met. So this sort of gets back to the question that Councilwoman Kimmich asked. Why why not continue the conversation to ensure that goals are met? And I heard you loud and clear about the fact that there are people out there, there have been people out there trying to undermine any goal program that cities have had. We've had the city has been sued on occasions in the past, which has changed the laws and the rules of how these programs operate. But I think if we're setting the rules for one group, they need to be consistently applied because we can't change them as we go along . It creates too much of an unlevel playing field for those who are complying with every single tee that's been crossed and I that's been dotted on the contracts that they've signed. And when it appears as though we're allowing a different standard for corporate franchises who want to be in our airport, that doesn't feel right for the local people who are also having to put out huge capital investment for, you know, rebranding the space and all of that. And so I'm not comfortable moving this forward tonight, and I don't hear that there's a desire or an interest to hold it up to allow this to be worked out. And I don't know where the votes are on it, but that's where I'm at. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Okay, Councilwoman, can each. I defer to my colleague, Councilman Lopez, who is a believer ahead of me. Oh, in a way. I didn't mean to speak. Your name is not on the comic at the moment. No, it's on my screen, but. Okay. I did not have it on my iPod. Great company. Thanks. I apologize for thinking out loud during this debate, but that's what I'm doing. Because every time I hear something, I'm learning and I'm processing. But I think that one thing I want to be really clear about is I have no interest in. Causing a situation that might lose this partnership. One of the things I don't want is only large TVs that are really easy to walk in with a ton of capital to be able to do these kinds of partnerships. And so, you know, the fact what I don't want to do is reject this concession contract and and then have this, you know, concessionaire say, well, let's just find someone who can walk in and easily do 40% and then lose an opportunity for a company that is just getting started and really does have a great reputation in the Five Points community and deserves this opportunity. So it's really difficult to try to anticipate what the unintended consequences might be of actions that we might take here on the dais tonight. I guess I, I kind of asked about it, but let me be even more pointed. I mean, as a council member in this body, I could make a motion to delay this vote until a date certain. And with the vote of my colleagues, that could occur if if we had their support. Is it the desire of the civil technologies? Would additional time be meaningful in changing this conversation, I guess is the question. And and that will I guess I would like to know from you whether or not three weeks additional time might change the conversation in terms of the commitment versus the. We're going to try to start here and get there. Thank you for the consideration. I think at this particular moment, I've had a lot of discussion and a lot of time to think about it. I'd like to go on and go with the 40% and we will work it out with host and how it all works out and and move forward. Yeah. Let me ask the mayor. Mr. President. The office of DSP. So what what needs to happen if they were to make this decision, if the parties were to get to this decision, how does it become official in terms of what the airport reports to us? So today they've said to us the commitment is 20% and X, Y, Z. So what has to happen for the airport to be able to say to us, well, the commitment is now 40. What are the processes or procedures. What we would need to see? Chris Martinez The Business Small Business Opportunity Office. Councilman Kenny Councilwoman Kenny's. What we would need to see is a new joint venture and how that 40% is being made up, where the capital is coming from and what will be the management or whatever types of agreement participation they will have in that 40%. We will have to see all that in a joint venture, a legal write up before we can have. We would have to review it and then make a decision to either to approve or not approve. As Mr. Gonzales said earlier, we have just approved some before. So we need to see of the the whole joint venture in its entirety to make that case for it. That's what we did on the 20%. Thank you, Mr. President. If you'll indulge me one more question, please, which is host the representative from host, if you would like to respond without deciding now on the floor of a public meeting what you will or won't do. How much time would you need to be able to enter such an agreement as has been described? If if you were to go that route, what would be the time to. Within a three week window we can redraft a joint venture agreement. We've already talked with civil tech today and over the weekend, and we've moved this as fast as we can. What I wouldn't do is stand in front of you and say, I can do something that we can't. Within three weeks, we can certainly have the joint venture redrafted and submitted to the SBA for approval. And as long as I don't want to speak for Miss Padilla or Mr. Martinez, but as long as they can take a look at it fairly quickly and get back to us. I mean, I think we can certainly have this done in that three week window and have that in front of you and get to our 40% joint venture. Okay. With that in mind, I'm just I it's up to you, Mr. President. I'm ready to make a motion to delay consideration of this item to the date certain of August 25th. But I see we have other colleagues who have chimed in to speak, and so I can hold that motion, if you prefer that I do so , or I can make it now and second it. But then the discussion would be on the motions. Point of order. Right? Councilwoman Kennedy I and Kevin Moran, I to our attorneys were saying their hands. I want to get I believe that the. Motion has already been made in segment. Well. So if you're looking to change something, you'd have to have a substitute motion and with an agreement by the second. Okay. Correct. So if there was a motion to postpone, there would need to be a move and a second. And I was going to first ask if Councilwoman Robb wanted to make her comments and. Before we got to that, unless Councilman Kenny said. We have I believe Councilman Robert also has a relevant point of order to my motion. So, yes, I just wanted to point out that 30 day review period ends on 18 and eight, 25 is a week after that. So I think it would require that this bill be killed and there be a substitute in. But someone needs to speak to that because I'm not an attorney. I believe there's a holdover provision in the agreement, so I don't think we have to kill it at this point in time. But that's why we have to go back and look at the at the provision just to double check that one. Write to me on the question council mirror. I will go to Councilman Ortega and then we'll we'll. So I have two questions. The first one is for Delia. What does this do to this space? Are both of these currently Starbucks locations? So it doesn't really change anything right now if we delay the schedule. You are correct, Councilman Ortega? That's correct. And basically, this would have to be a new a new contract to be filed anyway. So if council voted it down tonight, you would be bringing back a whole new agreement with the 40%. Correct. And if we could do that within that three week time frame, that may be the better way to go. Otherwise, what we're doing is just delaying this. That would be replaced with another bill anyway. So. Councilman or Councilman Ortega, just to verify your comment. I believe what will happen is we will have to read to look at the new joint venture present to present it to us at a 40% verify that if it was acceptable and then we would change the goal or the contract would then be written up with a 40% participation goal rather than a new contract. So that would be a new contract brought to council. I don't know the disease process. I just know what our process that would be is to with what. Changes what we're approving. That's correct. But in the contract you're approving today with the 20% goal does not preclude us from increasing the goal. Should we come up with the new joint venture agreement and a new level of participation? We can always increase that participation from them and and count it towards their goal as well. But the goal is at 20%. That is correct. As we're being asked to approve is 20%. If we want 40%, then you should file a new ordinance. All right. We're going to we're going to make sure we get everyone's questions out. And then I saw the attorneys huddling. So maybe they'll have an answer about the 30 day window. And I'll come back to that. But let's first go through council members Nevett and then fourth. And if there are any more questions, we'll address the the idea for a possible motion Councilman. Thank you, Mr. President. I as you know, I hate cutting off debate, so I'm just going to continue putting myself at the bottom of the list. But once everyone has had their say, I want to call the question. I don't I don't understand. I mean, we have we have a prime concessionaire who has clearly indicated an eagerness to work with a new ECD concessionaire and expand their role in the business. We have an airport whose program is exceeding the goals. We have an Office of Small Business Opportunity that's clearly committed to upping active participation. I'm left scratching my head why we would not approve this contract to move forward in the full knowledge that everybody is pulling on the same rope in the same direction to increase the ECD participation in this joint venture. So I'm just going to keep putting myself at the bottom of the list once everyone's had their say. I'm going to call the question. Okay. So you're not right now, Councilman Nevitt? Correct. Okay. Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. I think Councilman Merritt just said things beautifully. I just have one question, though, along that line for our department, Chris, maybe you're the person. Is this the first time that a contract has been rewritten with the goals? I mean, are we are we encountering something that has never, ever happened before? And if I if I believe your your question is, is this the first time that if it was rejected and a new contract is written with the new go? No, no. Is it after the contract is signed and then we raise the goal? No. I mean, we have a contract in front of us that was agreed to by everybody and seemed to be okay. And then we had questions on the floor, which is going to be asking us to essentially redo a business agreement. And I'm just trying to is this the only company that has ever had difficulty in reaching its original goals so that they were adjusted in a contract? To my knowledge, I believe is the only one like that. The way you're describing it. Okay. So this this really is the first time this has ever happened. This is ground setting precedent. Yeah, that is correct, to my knowledge. We have had contracts come before us, before council, before approved. And then we were we had the goal increased over time after the fact. I mean, at the gold participation I'm sorry, participation increased after the fact, but this isn't now. So what is. It? If, for instance, as and when we have concessionaires out there today and an opportunity arises where they could bring in more participation, they can bring in more participation, and we will we verify that participation and we will count that towards the participation for that particular concept that has happened in the past. Okay. I'm not asking my question. Well, but. I think what you're asking is, has there ever been an instance where a goal was set and the concessionaire couldn't make it? Yeah. Yes. And the contract went forward. Is that is that your question? Well, never, ever been one. I mean, this one has been rewritten to adjust to those realities. I'm gathering and I'm just wondering, is I mean, is this the first time in the whole world that's ever happened? Can I just ask a clarifying question? I know you're back then, but. Councilman Ortega, let's let's see if they do have an answer from Councilwoman Fox. Let me see if I can do this other way. Conferring with the Wikipedia on this has been in with the CDB program since its inception at the IAEA. We have had contracts come before council and approved and then after they began their work, we have been able to increase participation and not have to redo the contract because they are meeting their current goal. At the same time, we have had contracts come before council with they go and the goal not achieved or not being met at the time presented to council. But they completed the good faith effort which by law the federal rules say if they complete the modified good faith, the good faith effort , we cannot deny them the contract based solely on them not achieving the goal. If they accomplish and met the good faith effort standards. Thank you. That's really I think that's my unease about all this. I seem to feel that we're going down a road that is very uncomfortable to me, and I would very much like to just go ahead and let them work with the good faith. It's very rare that I ever agree with anything the federal government says, but gee, they're happy. Why can't we be? Thank you, Councilwoman Fox. Councilman Brown. Thank you, Mr. President. And I would say to my colleagues, if you don't like the federal law and then run for Congress and change it. I like the federal law in this case, which is pretty damn rare, but I do in this case. Sheila Right. Sheila, when you were standing there at the podium, you probably don't know it, but you look me in the eye and I believe what you say. That's all I need. I'm ready to vote on this. And don't forget, we have an obligation not just to serve the city and county of Denver, but to me, more importantly, to serve the 50 million people who come through that airport every year and they want your product. I wish we had ten more Starbucks out there. The two combined bring in a half a million dollars a year to take half a million dollars. We need more, not less. We need to pass this contract tonight. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilman Brown. We are back to Councilman Brooks. Yeah, I just I wanted to make sure that we got this clear. You know, we talked about the three week delay, and everyone said they could do it. But the the the the entity that we are trying to increase, the entity that we are trying to to empower said we're ready to do it tonight. And I just wanted to make that clear that this business is ready to do it tonight. And so and I'd hope that that we can move forward with this. There are obviously some issues and I don't think it's with a be a CBD program, but I think it's premium value. But that's another whole nother conversation. There's some bigger issues that we need to start looking at as a council, and I don't think we need to hold small businesses who have a track record of over 20 years in the Five Points and throughout Denver and then the nation accountable for what's a larger problem and reality. Thank you. Thank you. Councilman Brooks, before we go to councilman now, but I will just chime in real quickly and I appreciate the colleagues robust dialog on this. And I'm a huge fan of civil technologies. I know that I met with them last week. I met with them today. And I have got to meet the house today and I support what they do as well, which is I just find of of very interest that the companies that say they struggle to meet our requirements are the larger companies with huge, large economies of scale and the ability to connect with different entities that smaller businesses can't do that. And when I hear that is a challenge, I just I just find that very hard to digest when we have those requirements to smaller organizations, and yet they are able to achieve those results. So by me voting against this contract in no way means that I am against civil technology. I know the great work that they do. I'm a huge fan of those, but I just believe that in order to achieve those goals that the AI continues to set and be very successful, we need to have the scrutiny and if we continue to make those exceptions every time it becomes the norm because it's just a goal then. So it's not something that I have to achieve. It should be hard, but the reward from achieving those goals benefits everyone. And though I certainly hope that we can find a way to do that, and that is the reason that I will be voting against that. So I believe, Councilman Nevett, you were the last person to chime in, but it may not be any other question, so it might be time to vote. But if you want to, councilman, never. Do you have anything to add? I was going to call the question, but if it's unnecessary, we can just proceed to the vote. Well, it looks like we have no other questions or comments from members of council. So this is Catwoman Sheppard. Thank you. I'm a little confused. There's been discussion about a motion to extend to a date certain. What happened to that discussion. Councilwoman? Those were discussions. No motions were put out. So currently we have 563 and 564 on final consideration and do pass for a block. So but I thought I understood Councilwoman Keech saying that she would let the conversation continue and then revisit that. Is that what I understood or am I am I not hearing? Right. So I will let. Councilwoman, can you speak? Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Councilwoman Sheppard, my my colleague, Councilwoman Robb, in her wisdom and experience notice that dates of the the 30 day period expiring before the date that I was going to postpone this to that according to the charter gives the administration some authority to move forward with things without our actions. So unfortunately I don't think my my motion would make a lot of sense or would work in the way that I intended. So that's why I didn't make it because just again, consulting with some of the procedural motions and little date limitations. So I'm prepared to vote. Thank you. Thank you. Right. Do we have any other questions or comments? I can open that you're still on there. But did you? You were good. Okay, just remind everyone, this is 563 and 564 on a block for final consideration and do pass. Madam Secretary, roll call. Brooks Brown. Hi, Fats. I can eat. Lemon. Hi, Lopez. No. Levitt. Hi, Ortega. No. Rob Shepherd? No. Sussman. I can eat. No. Mr. President. No. Councilwoman Ortega, you're voting five. Sorry. Manchester. Manchester, close to voting, announced the results of two. By just checking. Seven eyes, five knees. Geminis and five May five, 63 and 564. You are placed upon final consideration and you pass. Well, those were the last ones that are called out. So we are now ready for the block votes. All other bills for introduction are ordered published. Councilman Lopez, will you please put the resolutions on the floor for adoption? Yes, Mr. President, I move that council resolution. Oh, wait a second. Yeah. Council resolution 584602603 585 591 and 601 to be adopted. Also, 2014.