A bill for an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 426, Series of 2007, as amended by Ordinance Number 335, Series of 2009, Ordinance Number 148, Series of 2010, Ordinance Number 11, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 191, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 258, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 630, Series of 2011, Ordinance Number 63, Series of 2013, Ordinance Number 73, Series of 2014, and Ordinance Number 376, Series of 2014 designating the project to be undertaken and funded with the proceeds of the Better Denver bonds. . (INFRASTRUCTURE & CULTURE) Reallocates funding for Better Denver Bond projects. The Committee approved filing this bill at its meeting on 11-19-14.
Please put on the floor for a vote. Certainly can. And Councilwoman Sassaman, would you please have 975 ordered published? Yes, I move that council bill nine 7975 be ordered published. Been moved in second hand comments from members of Council Councilwoman Fox. Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, I feel as if I'm in Groundhog Day. This is an issue that concerns a bond proposal that people voted on. I mean, you had voter approval to build new construction for the better whole. And when that did not come about, because the symphony could not come up with the 30 million they had pledged, it was not that I thought we should go ahead and build it. It was that I felt that if we made any changes, we should be asking the voters for approval. They approved a specific amount for a specific purpose, and at that point it was not feasible to go ahead with that specific amount or specific purpose. So some time ago we made some adjustments and the committee got together and they decided a bunch of new things to spend the money on. And indeed that passed by ordinance. But the vote but the voters were shut out of that process. We never went back to the voters. Okay. So there was still some money set aside for year that you're still isn't ready to be remodeled. But there is a rule that if you have if you've gone to the bond market and you have money in hand, that you need to spend it within three years. So guess what? Once again, we're we're putting up new projects on this so we can spend that money. I understand where they're coming from. They're in a bind. But it could have been solved, I believe, by going back to the voters and asking for a whole new type of project or simply not letting the bonds all together. So I will be voting against this most recent reordering of the bonds, noting that the taxpayers still aren't getting what they have approved. Thank you. Councilwoman fights Catwoman Ortega. I'd like to ask someone from city staff that is has been working on this if they could please come forward. I see Kent Rice coming forward. Kent, can you explain what this. This is the remaining money that was left from that year that was not transferred to other projects. What is it being proposed to be used for? Thanks for the question and I'll just affirm the history that Councilman Fox gave. The bulk of the money was redistributed at the beginning of 13. So now we're approaching the end of 14. There are $16.8 million remaining of the original 57 million. Some of the 60 million was spent on interim projects to support Bettcher. What we are proposing in conjunction with the Budget Office is to reserve $16.8 million for whatever is decided to be done with. BACHIR When our new executive leadership team makes that decision, which is probably going to be about a year. In the meantime, the $16.8 million will be used for two purposes either new construction or maintenance. And those were the two purposes that were outlined in the original bond initiative. And more than half of the money will be spent at the performing arts complex. Some of the money will be spent at Red Rocks, and a small amount of it will be spent at McNichols. So we are tackling projects at city owned venues that are in the portfolio of arts and venues management. All of these projects would likely be done in the next couple of years anyway. So we're using the bond money as defined legally that it can be used for projects that were on the list. What we're doing is refilling our capital fund account, which was another that was item nine, seven six on the docket tonight with the excess money that we have at the end of each year. So that's a I hope not to circular description, but essentially the 16.8 will be spent on new projects and maintenance projects in city owned venues that our agency manages, manages. And when we're ready to spend money for better or the arts complex, when the team is looking at that makes a decision, we'll have $16.8 million ready for that purpose. So can you tell me how much it's costing to go through that review process of the whole performing arts complex, including Becker Hall? I can't because we don't know yet, but we're issuing an RFP or an RFQ, so requests for qualifications, a request for proposal before the end of the year will have to engage a planning firm. And that's in the same way that the NDDC has engaged an outside planning firm to design what is going to happen up there . So I'm guessing. We have a certain amount of money set aside to go through that process. We have money set aside for it. I just don't know what the exact amount will be. I'm guessing it's between 100 and 200,000, but until the bids come in, we don't know. Okay. And that will not be that will not come out of any of these funds. The bond funds. That I had to look to my advisor here know, clarify that they won't. Okay. Will any of it be used on 1247 Tampa? None of it is slated for 1245 Tampa. Oh 45 okay. I think that's all the questions I have. Thank you. Can't get you into town, if I may say, introduce yourself. For the record, I apologize. I did not write the executive director for Arts and Venues and we manage the city owned venues here that I've been describing. Sorry for that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Ortega. Councilwoman Robb. Thank you, Mr. President. While I do appreciate the direction that Councilwoman Potts is coming from, it goes all the way back to the original 60 some million that was reallocated possibly early in this term. If I'm remembering the numbers, right. And at that time, the choice that the administration, a committee they set up and ultimately council made was to reallocate those funds. The other alternative, which I gave serious consideration to, was simply to allow that amount of money to go into future bonding capacity. And so at some point in the future, a mini bond or citywide bond. And I don't mean mini bond by small bonds, but a small bond list might have come forward. And I gave serious thought to that now. Or it could have just waited until the city had even more bonding capacity. And we could go back to the voters for a whole new list of projects. As Councilwoman Potts knows, it will be some time till we have significant bonding capacity in the city. Because of the length of the last bonds. I felt that people wouldn't get a chance to look at that amount right away. And if you put it towards one project and by the way, at the time I did have a pet project I was looking at which has since been funded in other ways. It would have been. Hard to get a citywide vote on one project because we always look, you know, how best can we serve the whole city, not one council district or one area? So ultimately, I decided that, yes, we should change the funds and impact cents in not only with better, but also probably you would say with the McNichols building where some of the funds were allocated with the Museum of Nature and Science, we have made different choices. So I think under the circumstances, we are doing the best with the situation that we did not anticipate happening in the first. In the first place. It's not a choice that we love making, but to the point of the voters. I'm wondering, Sean, if you or possibly David Broadwell, I don't know who the right person is, could talk about the requirements for changing projects in our bond ordinance when we pass it issuing new bonds. Sean Raab better never bond program. The Councilwoman is quite right as a backdrop, though, that the bond program is brought forward on ten separate occasions. Companion Ordinance Changes Projects Have the Council set up a 10% rule before they started the bond program, such that if a budget was reduced by 10% or was increased by 10%, then it was brought forward to this to this council for a vote. So that is the that is as projects get added and deleted. Similarly, we also bring those forward for council consideration. And then my point is we also cannot change the funds from category to category. If it's in a cultural area, it remains there. If it's in a parks area, remains there. Yes, well stated, Councilwoman. Indeed, there are the purpose there. Eight purposes within the bond program. We have looked at the the the the elegant solution that has been described tonight by Mr. Rice. And we have vetted the projects and they do conform with purpose to an eight and what we're trying to achieve with those. We've run those through bond counsel and they have agreed with them as well. So we think we're on good stead there. So whether it's technically or whether we're dealing in a matter of perception, what we're saying is very legally and in the way bond issues are laid out, we are within the voter intent. That is a true statement. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Ortega. I just wanted to ask, what is the deadline by which these dollars have to be expended? It's three years from the date of issuance and the majority of the bonds were issued in the fall of 13 and a smaller portion in the fall of Sort 14, which means all of it has to be expended no later than the fall of 17. But the challenge we've had is that the majority of the money has to be spent by the fall of 2016. So two years from now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Ortega. You know the comments or questions on nine, seven, five seen on Madam Secretary. Roll call at no carnage. Layman Lopez. Montero. I. Nevitt Ortega I. Rob Shepherd I. Susman Brooks Brown. II. Mr. President. I. Councilmembers Montero and Ortega. Your votes. Thank you, Madam Secretary, please. First of all, you announce the results. 11 eyes one day. 11 eyes one day. 975 has been ordered published. That should have been all the bills for intro. We have one bill for final consideration. 847. Councilwoman Monteiro, what would you like for us to do this? Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to call it out for comment. A comment. Go right ahead. Council Bill 847 is bill for an ordinance designating certain properties as being required for public use and authorizing use in acquisition through negotiations related to the properties needed for the Federal Boulevard Reconstruction Project. And it's between West Seventh Avenue and West Holden.